You may have noticed a little change to the blog. We purchased the houseeller.com domain and are now publishing there. It's a little thing, but getting here wasn't as easy as it should have been.
When we made the decision to purchase the domain name, I looked at a couple options to purchase it. I decided to buy it through Blogger/Google because they set everything up for me. I like easy, and that seemed the way to go since the cost was pretty much the same no matter how we did it.
It wasn't that easy. I guess partly it's my fault. I was using my iPad (Have you met my iPad? His name is Helo.) so I blithely walked through the purchase steps on it. Turns out Google Checkout, which is how you purchase through Google, didn't like using a mobile device. Unlike just about every other service on the web, it distinguishes between devices. And it wanted me to have a Google Checkout account on my computer first. Which I could then link to Helo.
So I thought I made my purchase. I even got a confirmation email. Then the fun came. The next day, I couldn't get in to view my purchase (I think I did once and saw something that said cancelled, but I couldn't get back to it). I followed the link in the email to link my mobile purchase to my computer. And kept getting errors that it couldn't find the information.
I somehow ended up creating a new Google Checkout account, not linked to Helo, and couldn't find a way to link them after the fact. Google Help was no help. Apparently, if you have an actual problem, you are out of luck. All the Help articles were basic instructions on how to set things up initially - actually more of a FAQ than Help.
Have you ever tried to contact Google about a problem? You can't. You can fill out their form once you dig through layers of unhelpful help, but you get an autoresponse that they can't address each individual problem, but have you checked out Help? (Yes, I did. That's why I tried to email my problem.) There is no chat help, no phone number. You can try the message boards and see if someone somewhere might have had this same issue and found a solution. But you can't actually get help from Google.
After verifying that the domain wasn't properly set up, I tried to purchase it again, but it wasn't available. Well crap. Time to leave this for the day and cool off.
Wednesday rolls around (I tried my original purchase Monday night). houseeller.com was still not set up. I had given up on looking at anything through Google Checkout since that was useless. I tried to purchase the domain name again, this time from the computer.... and it went through! When I got my confirmation email, I didn't hold out much hope. But then I got a second email with links to setting up administrator accounts! And this morning Blogger had magically migrated the blog over to the new domain.
Lesson learned: Google doesn't like mobile devices.
So, I welcome everyone to the new houseeller.com. Same blog, just with our custom domain. It only took 3 days to get here, but we made it.
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
What if... a world with no stock market
Imagine a world where there is no stock market. Where companies answer to their stakeholders (employees, clients) rather than investors. Would that make a positive difference? I don't know (I am very far from an expert) but it's a question I'd like an answer to.
There are nuances to the stock market, so maybe what I'm really asking is about publicly traded companies. The reason I ask is because it seems that those publicly traded companies are answerable first to their stockholders, even at the expense of the company's best interests. Future gains are less important than a big dividend now (or at least that's the impression I get).
A small portion of the population keeps getting richer (CEOs, investors) while the workers keep getting shafted. I keep hearing that companies aren't hiring - not because they can't afford more workers but because they can make more profits for their stockholders by overworking their current employees. (I'd argue that this will eventually backfire since people burn out. They leave and/or they work less efficiently. So the company spends more training new employees. Which they think are expendable. Then they question why they aren't making more - when no one can afford to buy their products because no one has any money!)
I've been in a job where I was most definitely overworked. As people left, my department became me. Doing what 4 people had done before. Granted, I found ways to make processes run more efficiently (I had to), but it was still too much. I had a little breakdown just before I left (oh the relief when I walked out and realized I didn't need to down Tums continuously to get through the day!). And they had to hire 2 people to replace me.
Now, I bring all this up because I'd like to point out that they ended up paying salaries and benefits for 2 people anyway (after a short time of paying me exorbitant overtime), but there was also a toll on my health, which meant I used more health insurance. Yes, I paid more in co-pays, but overall, that helped raise insurance rates for everyone. (When more peope get sick, insurance companies raise rates. They don't generally lower them.)
People started leaving that company, abandoning ship so to speak, as working conditions worsened. New people were hired who didn't have as much experience, who needed a lot of training, who took time to learn. Clients weren't happy when everyone they talked to had to ask someone else for help and couldn't just get the job done. Can you see the snowball effect? This wasn't a public company, but I can imagine what any investors would have thought as they watched numbers fall.
Ok, so maybe this isn't a great case study for my question since this wasn't a public company and it shows how any company can make bad decisions. I just think using stock price as a benchmark is a bad idea. It magnifies the problems in bad management and puts undue emphasis on a metric that is kind of meaningless. Having to make profits to pay dividends to investors rather than making a profit to reinvest in the company seems foolish. (Ok, yes, you can do both. But it seems from where I'm sitting that sometimes those in charge forget that the employees are a part of the company. A company is only as good as its employees. Investing in human capital (which sounds awful) is just as important as investing in equipment.)
Anyway, I know there are no simple solutions, but this was just a thought exercise and a bit of a gripe that I wanted to put out there.
There are nuances to the stock market, so maybe what I'm really asking is about publicly traded companies. The reason I ask is because it seems that those publicly traded companies are answerable first to their stockholders, even at the expense of the company's best interests. Future gains are less important than a big dividend now (or at least that's the impression I get).
A small portion of the population keeps getting richer (CEOs, investors) while the workers keep getting shafted. I keep hearing that companies aren't hiring - not because they can't afford more workers but because they can make more profits for their stockholders by overworking their current employees. (I'd argue that this will eventually backfire since people burn out. They leave and/or they work less efficiently. So the company spends more training new employees. Which they think are expendable. Then they question why they aren't making more - when no one can afford to buy their products because no one has any money!)
I've been in a job where I was most definitely overworked. As people left, my department became me. Doing what 4 people had done before. Granted, I found ways to make processes run more efficiently (I had to), but it was still too much. I had a little breakdown just before I left (oh the relief when I walked out and realized I didn't need to down Tums continuously to get through the day!). And they had to hire 2 people to replace me.
Now, I bring all this up because I'd like to point out that they ended up paying salaries and benefits for 2 people anyway (after a short time of paying me exorbitant overtime), but there was also a toll on my health, which meant I used more health insurance. Yes, I paid more in co-pays, but overall, that helped raise insurance rates for everyone. (When more peope get sick, insurance companies raise rates. They don't generally lower them.)
People started leaving that company, abandoning ship so to speak, as working conditions worsened. New people were hired who didn't have as much experience, who needed a lot of training, who took time to learn. Clients weren't happy when everyone they talked to had to ask someone else for help and couldn't just get the job done. Can you see the snowball effect? This wasn't a public company, but I can imagine what any investors would have thought as they watched numbers fall.
Ok, so maybe this isn't a great case study for my question since this wasn't a public company and it shows how any company can make bad decisions. I just think using stock price as a benchmark is a bad idea. It magnifies the problems in bad management and puts undue emphasis on a metric that is kind of meaningless. Having to make profits to pay dividends to investors rather than making a profit to reinvest in the company seems foolish. (Ok, yes, you can do both. But it seems from where I'm sitting that sometimes those in charge forget that the employees are a part of the company. A company is only as good as its employees. Investing in human capital (which sounds awful) is just as important as investing in equipment.)
Anyway, I know there are no simple solutions, but this was just a thought exercise and a bit of a gripe that I wanted to put out there.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Jury duty
I'm in the local jury pool for August. First let me be clear: I don't mind having jury duty. It'll be kind of interesting to see that side of the system.
But there are a few ways it really frustrates me.
I'm a planner. I like to have a plan, even if it ends up being thrown out the window. I like the illusion of control a plan gives me.
I can't plan anything this month. Nothing. I have a whole month of limbo, just waiting for my number to be called. I don't know until the night before if I have to go in the next day. Yep, I call each evening at 7 to find out if 13 hours later, at 8 a.m., I have to be at the courthouse. So far I haven't. There has only been one day where jurors have been called.
So 7 p.m. I call. Then I call Chris's mom to let her know. Because I'm lucky I have a mother-in-law who is available on short notice to watch the kids. Finding emergency child care would not be fun. I would hate to have to pay for the privilege of serving on a jury. (The token amount they pay certainly wouldn't cover daycare or a babysitter.)
Here I am left hanging each day for a month. What ever happened to being on call for a week? A week would be easier to work around.
And the worst part is that my day is tied to someone else doing their job. Last night I called the jury message line to find out if my number had been called. The message hadn't been updated. So I called every half hour until 11. And called again when the alarm went off at 7:30 this morning. Luckily there were no jurors required today, but it was a stressful night, all because someone forgot to update the message.
I sure would hate to be held responsible for not appearing because I didn't know I was supposed to. Yep, I have no control over my life this month. And that sucks.
But there are a few ways it really frustrates me.
I'm a planner. I like to have a plan, even if it ends up being thrown out the window. I like the illusion of control a plan gives me.
I can't plan anything this month. Nothing. I have a whole month of limbo, just waiting for my number to be called. I don't know until the night before if I have to go in the next day. Yep, I call each evening at 7 to find out if 13 hours later, at 8 a.m., I have to be at the courthouse. So far I haven't. There has only been one day where jurors have been called.
So 7 p.m. I call. Then I call Chris's mom to let her know. Because I'm lucky I have a mother-in-law who is available on short notice to watch the kids. Finding emergency child care would not be fun. I would hate to have to pay for the privilege of serving on a jury. (The token amount they pay certainly wouldn't cover daycare or a babysitter.)
Here I am left hanging each day for a month. What ever happened to being on call for a week? A week would be easier to work around.
And the worst part is that my day is tied to someone else doing their job. Last night I called the jury message line to find out if my number had been called. The message hadn't been updated. So I called every half hour until 11. And called again when the alarm went off at 7:30 this morning. Luckily there were no jurors required today, but it was a stressful night, all because someone forgot to update the message.
I sure would hate to be held responsible for not appearing because I didn't know I was supposed to. Yep, I have no control over my life this month. And that sucks.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Best poster ever
Yesterday I saw a poster shared on Facebook. The furthest I've been able to track it down is to a post on Asking for Consent is Sexy. It is the best sexual assault prevention poster I have ever seen. (I would love to give appropriate credit, so if anyone knows who created this, let me know.)
I think from the number of people who are responding so positively that others agree with me that it is about time this poster was created.
Every time I have heard about sexual assault prevention tips, it has been about what a woman can do to make herself less of a target and how to fend off an attacker. It's been about making the potential victim feel unsafe and powerless because they are female.
Yes, women aren't the only victims, but they are the majority and the ones who are told that it is their fault if they do get assaulted. They are told that if they dress too sexy, they deserve it. If they drink, they deserve it.
Finally, someone looked at true prevention: stop the perpetrators! If a woman dresses sexily, she doesn't deserve to be assaulted. She isn't "asking for it". Even if she is looking for sex, she's looking for consensual sex, not rape.
There have been several high profile cases recently that have been all about victim blaming and it pisses me off. Here are a bunch of people who seem to be saying that women need to be protected from themselves because they 1) dressed sluttily, 2) were drinking, 3) did something else that made them a willing target. I'm sorry, but in these cases it is the MEN who need to be protected from themselves and their misogynistic, paternalistic selves and their sense of entitlement.
We live in a society that generally objects to certain countries requiring women to cover themselves from head to toe. The rationalization on that, which seems to go beyond religious requirements from my limited understanding, seems to be that men are incapable of controlling themselves if they so much as see the tiniest bit of a woman's skin.
Seriously? If a man can't control himself, it is NOT the woman's fault. So let's stop blaming women. And let's start teaching actual prevention tips like number 10: "Don't assault people."
A woman, or any person, should be able to walk home in the dark, even dressed in what some would consider provocative clothing, and not have to worry. A woman, or any person, should be able to have a drink at a party or a beer in a bar and not have to worry. A woman, or any person, should feel safe in their own home.
This is what I love about this poster; it puts the responsibility for preventing assaults on the people who have the most ability to stop them: the potential perpetrators.
I think from the number of people who are responding so positively that others agree with me that it is about time this poster was created.
Every time I have heard about sexual assault prevention tips, it has been about what a woman can do to make herself less of a target and how to fend off an attacker. It's been about making the potential victim feel unsafe and powerless because they are female.
Yes, women aren't the only victims, but they are the majority and the ones who are told that it is their fault if they do get assaulted. They are told that if they dress too sexy, they deserve it. If they drink, they deserve it.
Finally, someone looked at true prevention: stop the perpetrators! If a woman dresses sexily, she doesn't deserve to be assaulted. She isn't "asking for it". Even if she is looking for sex, she's looking for consensual sex, not rape.
There have been several high profile cases recently that have been all about victim blaming and it pisses me off. Here are a bunch of people who seem to be saying that women need to be protected from themselves because they 1) dressed sluttily, 2) were drinking, 3) did something else that made them a willing target. I'm sorry, but in these cases it is the MEN who need to be protected from themselves and their misogynistic, paternalistic selves and their sense of entitlement.
We live in a society that generally objects to certain countries requiring women to cover themselves from head to toe. The rationalization on that, which seems to go beyond religious requirements from my limited understanding, seems to be that men are incapable of controlling themselves if they so much as see the tiniest bit of a woman's skin.
Seriously? If a man can't control himself, it is NOT the woman's fault. So let's stop blaming women. And let's start teaching actual prevention tips like number 10: "Don't assault people."
A woman, or any person, should be able to walk home in the dark, even dressed in what some would consider provocative clothing, and not have to worry. A woman, or any person, should be able to have a drink at a party or a beer in a bar and not have to worry. A woman, or any person, should feel safe in their own home.
This is what I love about this poster; it puts the responsibility for preventing assaults on the people who have the most ability to stop them: the potential perpetrators.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Fact checking
People who know me are probably well aware that I am angry about the recently passed and now signed Indiana law defunding Planned Parenthood. I am angry because I think it is an assault on women's healthcare.
I know a number of women who have relied or still do rely on Planned Parenthood for family planning, pap smears, mammograms, and all the other services they provide. There are a lot of people on Medicaid who will now not be able to receive that care. All because a group of people wants to make it as hard as possible to get an abortion and people apparently don't care that abortion is a tiny portion of the services Planned Parenthood provides.
I have heard a couple of comments that I would like to address. And I intend to cite my sources rather than just throw information out there since there is misleading information everywhere.
"I don't want my tax dollars paying for abortions."
Good. They don't. They are prevented from paying for abortions, other than the 3 stipulated exceptions of the Hyde Amendment, by federal law. In fact, several states, including Indiana, also have laws on the books prohibiting tax money from paying for abortion services.
Under Medicaid, family planning services, not including abortion, must be covered. Read the very long, very tedious, Title XIX, section 1902 of the Social Security Act, to learn more about the operation of state Medicaid plans.
And speaking of Medicaid funding, yes, the state could lose federal funding for Medicaid by enacting the law. See Title XIX, section 1904 of the Social Security Act.
"Planned Parenthood is just an abortion provider."
I beg to differ, but the majority of services provided by Planned Parenthood are not abortions. The Planned Parenthood of Indiana 2010 Annual Report has a very easy to read chart detailing the services provided in the state and demographic information on their clients (page 9). Really, out of over 244,000 patient visits and over 85,000 patients, that they performed 5,580 abortions is really a small percentage. Yes, 5,580 is a large number and I for one would like that number to be smaller. But approximately 2.25% of patient visits...
There's even a nifty website called FactCheck.org which has answered both of these questions on a national scale.
So here's my gripe.
The 97+% of non-abortion services that Planned Parenthood provides are going to not be funded in Indiana. So the over 386,000 contraceptives that were dispensed might not be this year. Which in all likelihood will lead to more unplanned pregnancies. Which will lead to 1) more abortions or 2) a drain on welfare dollars since a lot of those mothers likely use Planned Parenthood because they are unable to afford other healthcare, don't have insurance other than Medicaid, and are thus living below 250% of the federal poverty rate (if you read Title XIX, section 1902, you would know that is the income requirement), thus meaning that they likely receive some sort of assistance.
And all those women who can't afford Pap tests and mammograms, and all the men and women who don't get STD tests, will not get the preventive care they need. When the potential cancers are found, they will be much more costly and harder to treat.
So not funding Planned Parenthood, rather than saving Indiana residents tax money, could very well cost us more. And cause larger problems. And if you think other providers will be easy to find or not be overwhelmed, well, maybe you should read this.
I know a number of women who have relied or still do rely on Planned Parenthood for family planning, pap smears, mammograms, and all the other services they provide. There are a lot of people on Medicaid who will now not be able to receive that care. All because a group of people wants to make it as hard as possible to get an abortion and people apparently don't care that abortion is a tiny portion of the services Planned Parenthood provides.
I have heard a couple of comments that I would like to address. And I intend to cite my sources rather than just throw information out there since there is misleading information everywhere.
"I don't want my tax dollars paying for abortions."
Good. They don't. They are prevented from paying for abortions, other than the 3 stipulated exceptions of the Hyde Amendment, by federal law. In fact, several states, including Indiana, also have laws on the books prohibiting tax money from paying for abortion services.
Under Medicaid, family planning services, not including abortion, must be covered. Read the very long, very tedious, Title XIX, section 1902 of the Social Security Act, to learn more about the operation of state Medicaid plans.
And speaking of Medicaid funding, yes, the state could lose federal funding for Medicaid by enacting the law. See Title XIX, section 1904 of the Social Security Act.
"Planned Parenthood is just an abortion provider."
I beg to differ, but the majority of services provided by Planned Parenthood are not abortions. The Planned Parenthood of Indiana 2010 Annual Report has a very easy to read chart detailing the services provided in the state and demographic information on their clients (page 9). Really, out of over 244,000 patient visits and over 85,000 patients, that they performed 5,580 abortions is really a small percentage. Yes, 5,580 is a large number and I for one would like that number to be smaller. But approximately 2.25% of patient visits...
There's even a nifty website called FactCheck.org which has answered both of these questions on a national scale.
So here's my gripe.
The 97+% of non-abortion services that Planned Parenthood provides are going to not be funded in Indiana. So the over 386,000 contraceptives that were dispensed might not be this year. Which in all likelihood will lead to more unplanned pregnancies. Which will lead to 1) more abortions or 2) a drain on welfare dollars since a lot of those mothers likely use Planned Parenthood because they are unable to afford other healthcare, don't have insurance other than Medicaid, and are thus living below 250% of the federal poverty rate (if you read Title XIX, section 1902, you would know that is the income requirement), thus meaning that they likely receive some sort of assistance.
And all those women who can't afford Pap tests and mammograms, and all the men and women who don't get STD tests, will not get the preventive care they need. When the potential cancers are found, they will be much more costly and harder to treat.
So not funding Planned Parenthood, rather than saving Indiana residents tax money, could very well cost us more. And cause larger problems. And if you think other providers will be easy to find or not be overwhelmed, well, maybe you should read this.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Sad state of government affairs
A lot has been happening politically lately. I have strong feelings about a few things and would like to try to get my thoughts in order.
First, the House recently voted to strip Planned Parenthood of federal funding. The sponsor of the bill doesn't like abortion. Fine. But Planned Parenthood is prevented from using their federal funding to pay for abortions anyway. The funding that has been cut covers a lot of preventive care including birth control that would prevent those unwanted pregnancies that end up being aborted. Um, aren't we trying to reduce the number of abortions? Because making affordable access to birth control more difficult actually does the opposite. Someone is harming a lot of people for a personal vendetta. Much of what federal funding to Planned Parenthood covers are mammograms and other screenings. We'll all end up paying more for expensive treatments for diseases that could have been caught earlier. Because, don't fool yourself, we all share the costs in the long run.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Republicans have also been trying to redefine 'rape'. They don't want women to be paid fairly (by blocking the Paycheck Fairness Act). All the blog posts about how the GOP hates women? There's something there.
And don't forget that the Equal Rights Amendment has still not passed. It sits 3 states shy of ratification before it becomes part of the Constitution. And without it, as Justice Scalia recently remarked, every right women presume to have, with the lone exception of being able to vote, is really just a privilege granted because no one has challenged any in court. With the current trend of legislation coming from the GOP, it's only a matter of time before they try to take away every right we think we have. We REALLY need the ERA to pass once and for all. (It is expected that it will be reintroduced in Congress in March. Contact your Senators and Representative and let them know you support it.)
Frankly, I don't understand how so many women support some of these Republican politicians. It certainly isn't in their best interest. I'm all for fiscal restraint. But those who tout themselves the loudest as wanting to cut the budget also seem to be those who do the opposite - either by wanting to cut taxes or by increasing spending on defense or a pet project. Republicans often claim to want small government, but they really don't, not when they want to make government more intrusive into personal lives. If you really want to cut government, stay out of people's bedrooms.
And don't get me started on all the folks on the 'religious right' who thump their Bibles, insisting we all follow their idea of morality because 'this is a Christian nation' (it's not, but that's another discussion). These same politicians and religious leaders often are the ones caught with their pants down, supporting mistresses, paying for prostitutes, denouncing gays while having gay love affairs.
I'm tired of the hypocrisy. I'm tired of the rich getting richer and protecting each other while making it increasingly harder for the rest of us to get anywhere. Part of the purpose of government is to protect the weakest, providing services so people, our fellow citizens, have food to eat and shelter over their heads. The tiny amount in the budget spent on some of these social service programs is a drop in the bucket compared to some of the programs Republicans refuse to trim, including defense. Yep, can't cut funding for a new plane that is not needed, but we can unfund a lot of programs that actually do some good.
I really could go on and on. This is by no means an endorsement for Democrats. I don't like much of what they do either. I just wish some of our elected representatives could grow up, get off the playground, and actually do something rather than just fight along party lines. But until the electorate decides they want smart people to represent them, that probably won't happen.
First, the House recently voted to strip Planned Parenthood of federal funding. The sponsor of the bill doesn't like abortion. Fine. But Planned Parenthood is prevented from using their federal funding to pay for abortions anyway. The funding that has been cut covers a lot of preventive care including birth control that would prevent those unwanted pregnancies that end up being aborted. Um, aren't we trying to reduce the number of abortions? Because making affordable access to birth control more difficult actually does the opposite. Someone is harming a lot of people for a personal vendetta. Much of what federal funding to Planned Parenthood covers are mammograms and other screenings. We'll all end up paying more for expensive treatments for diseases that could have been caught earlier. Because, don't fool yourself, we all share the costs in the long run.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Republicans have also been trying to redefine 'rape'. They don't want women to be paid fairly (by blocking the Paycheck Fairness Act). All the blog posts about how the GOP hates women? There's something there.
And don't forget that the Equal Rights Amendment has still not passed. It sits 3 states shy of ratification before it becomes part of the Constitution. And without it, as Justice Scalia recently remarked, every right women presume to have, with the lone exception of being able to vote, is really just a privilege granted because no one has challenged any in court. With the current trend of legislation coming from the GOP, it's only a matter of time before they try to take away every right we think we have. We REALLY need the ERA to pass once and for all. (It is expected that it will be reintroduced in Congress in March. Contact your Senators and Representative and let them know you support it.)
Frankly, I don't understand how so many women support some of these Republican politicians. It certainly isn't in their best interest. I'm all for fiscal restraint. But those who tout themselves the loudest as wanting to cut the budget also seem to be those who do the opposite - either by wanting to cut taxes or by increasing spending on defense or a pet project. Republicans often claim to want small government, but they really don't, not when they want to make government more intrusive into personal lives. If you really want to cut government, stay out of people's bedrooms.
And don't get me started on all the folks on the 'religious right' who thump their Bibles, insisting we all follow their idea of morality because 'this is a Christian nation' (it's not, but that's another discussion). These same politicians and religious leaders often are the ones caught with their pants down, supporting mistresses, paying for prostitutes, denouncing gays while having gay love affairs.
I'm tired of the hypocrisy. I'm tired of the rich getting richer and protecting each other while making it increasingly harder for the rest of us to get anywhere. Part of the purpose of government is to protect the weakest, providing services so people, our fellow citizens, have food to eat and shelter over their heads. The tiny amount in the budget spent on some of these social service programs is a drop in the bucket compared to some of the programs Republicans refuse to trim, including defense. Yep, can't cut funding for a new plane that is not needed, but we can unfund a lot of programs that actually do some good.
I really could go on and on. This is by no means an endorsement for Democrats. I don't like much of what they do either. I just wish some of our elected representatives could grow up, get off the playground, and actually do something rather than just fight along party lines. But until the electorate decides they want smart people to represent them, that probably won't happen.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Losing community (or, what's wrong with Meetup's redesign)
Meetup.com made some changes to their design recently. The vast majority of feedback I have seen has been negative - just about everyone hates it. I don't think the negative response is just because things change. I really think it is because the changes are bad.
- First, the front page of each group is now a list of upcoming meetups in a HUGE font. Scrolling waaaay down, past the next five meetups, you can find recent activity (message board discussions, new members). The old format had a column with recent activity and a column featuring the next meetup and listing the next few and last few.
- Why is the new format bad? In my opinion, firstly, it is ugly. Secondly, I find this method of displaying upcoming meetups unwieldy and not very useful. Thirdly, it is too easy to miss recent activity with it buried waaaay at the bottom of the page. Just to highlight, in the Hoosier Mamas, I am not planning to attend any of the next 5 meetups. Displaying all that information front and center is useless to me.
- Let's talk about the calendar. I'm sure some of my web designing friends can comment intelligently on this and even cite reputable information, but here is my aggravation. Once I navigate away from the front page, to find the calendar of events, I click a link in the left-hand column. If I want to navigate to any other pages I frequent (message boards, photos), I click on links at the TOP of the page. Why? Why are the menus split? This is not user-friendly. I think it is poor design. Either put them all on the left or all on the top. (Thankfully they have reverted to displaying 2 months on the calendar view after complaints about a single month view.
- RSVP's are not as useful as they used to be. We used to have the option of responding 'maybe', a very useful option when your group is full of moms with young children. The organizers used to have the ability to decide if a meetup could have only 'yes' or 'no' responses or if 'maybe' is viable. Now, Meetup has taken that flexibility away.
- Also in RSVP's, once a meetup with a limited number of spaces is full, the only option appears to be the waitlist. If I don't plan to attend a full meetup, I have to put myself on the waitlist and then update to no. I no longer have the option of choosing either waitlist or no from the beginning. Why? Why would they take that away? I don't want to receive update emails about a meetup I'm not going to. I also like to see a clean calendar (yes, I'm a little OCD that way) so I hate seeing meetups I haven't responded to. I WANT to say no. Now I have to trick the system to do so.
- A final part of the redesign I don't like and which has caused problems: automatically including a Google map of the location with each meetup. At first blush, that seems like a great idea. Until you realize that sometimes Google maps is wrong. I know of several addresses which don't display correctly on Google maps but do on Mapquest. Forcing what may be incorrect information right onto the front page is problematic. Better to make that an option.
It seems as if TPTB assume every group functions the same way and that just isn't the case. I'm sure the logic behind some of the changes is that this site is called Meetup and the meetups should be the prominent feature. But a large part of our group (and I would guess many groups) is the sense of community. We are losing that by forcing it to be all about the physical gatherings at the expense of discussions and welcoming new members to the fold.
Besides making for an ugly and less useful site, the redesign actually takes something vital away. They have broken something that didn't need fixing. And from the responses I've seen on the forums, they have no desire to listen to complaints, even though one of the top requests is to have the option for a group to use either the new or old format. Is Meetup becoming the next Facebook in regards to poor customer relations? Seems that way.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Driving in snow
So I've been driving in snow for 20 years. I realized this recently while watching people who obviously haven't been driving in snow that long do dumb things.
Living in a college town, there are a lot of people from all over the country and the world who come here. Many have never seen snow before. Some come from places that shut down if it snows. Yes, some come from snowier places than Chicago, but it doesn't take many inexperienced drivers to cause problems.
First, ice is the great equalizer. It doesn't care what you are driving, whether or not you have 4WD or AWD, ABS, traction control.... If you hit ice, you will likely slide. Knowing what to do is the key. And trying to drive such that you have as much control as possible is a must.
So, a few rules for driving in snow.
First, turn on your headlights! Headlights serve TWO purposes: so you can see and also so you can be SEEN. Using your headlights means oncoming traffic can see you better. They also mean cars behind you can see your taillights, which are not on if you have daytime running lights, without you needing to brake. Being visible is important; it gives you and other drivers (don't forget those other drivers!) more time to react. If you don't believe me, pay attention next time it is raining or snowing to which cars you can easily see. It'll be the ones with headlights.
Second, don't drive like the streets are dry. They aren't. They will be slick. Being conscious of the conditions is crucial. Sometimes a little caution is necessary, sometimes a lot. How many times have you seen 4WD SUVs in ditches on the side of the road? As the car commercial (can't remember which brand) says, safety features are not a substitute for safe driving practices.
So what are some safe driving practices? Don't tailgate. Keep a larger following distance than you normally would. Leave plenty of time to brake and accelerate slowly. Take it easy. It's better to be late than dead. Pay attention to other traffic. Use your signals both to turn and to change lanes. You may know where you're going, but no one else does.
If you do skid, steer into the skid. Now, this never made sense to me until I figured out what it means. Steer in the direction you want the car to go, but do it gently. Once you regain traction, you don't want to overcorrect and end up skidding the other way!
If your car is light, you may want to put bags of sand or litter in the trunk over the rear tires to help keep traction. If you get stuck, you can always pour the sand or litter on the road under your wheels.
If you don't have experience on snow, find an empty parking lot and drive around. Do some donuts until you learn how to control a skid.
If you can, make sure you have good tires and fresh brakes. Balding tires with no traction are exactly what you don't want on a slick road.
Okay, I'll step off my soapbox now. But please be safe.
Living in a college town, there are a lot of people from all over the country and the world who come here. Many have never seen snow before. Some come from places that shut down if it snows. Yes, some come from snowier places than Chicago, but it doesn't take many inexperienced drivers to cause problems.
First, ice is the great equalizer. It doesn't care what you are driving, whether or not you have 4WD or AWD, ABS, traction control.... If you hit ice, you will likely slide. Knowing what to do is the key. And trying to drive such that you have as much control as possible is a must.
So, a few rules for driving in snow.
First, turn on your headlights! Headlights serve TWO purposes: so you can see and also so you can be SEEN. Using your headlights means oncoming traffic can see you better. They also mean cars behind you can see your taillights, which are not on if you have daytime running lights, without you needing to brake. Being visible is important; it gives you and other drivers (don't forget those other drivers!) more time to react. If you don't believe me, pay attention next time it is raining or snowing to which cars you can easily see. It'll be the ones with headlights.
Second, don't drive like the streets are dry. They aren't. They will be slick. Being conscious of the conditions is crucial. Sometimes a little caution is necessary, sometimes a lot. How many times have you seen 4WD SUVs in ditches on the side of the road? As the car commercial (can't remember which brand) says, safety features are not a substitute for safe driving practices.
So what are some safe driving practices? Don't tailgate. Keep a larger following distance than you normally would. Leave plenty of time to brake and accelerate slowly. Take it easy. It's better to be late than dead. Pay attention to other traffic. Use your signals both to turn and to change lanes. You may know where you're going, but no one else does.
If you do skid, steer into the skid. Now, this never made sense to me until I figured out what it means. Steer in the direction you want the car to go, but do it gently. Once you regain traction, you don't want to overcorrect and end up skidding the other way!
If your car is light, you may want to put bags of sand or litter in the trunk over the rear tires to help keep traction. If you get stuck, you can always pour the sand or litter on the road under your wheels.
If you don't have experience on snow, find an empty parking lot and drive around. Do some donuts until you learn how to control a skid.
If you can, make sure you have good tires and fresh brakes. Balding tires with no traction are exactly what you don't want on a slick road.
Okay, I'll step off my soapbox now. But please be safe.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Just say so
So here is the update:
A representative from HAND called back and apologized for the misunderstanding. Apparently all the slots filled up before I called in to join the program, but instead of just telling me that, the person I talked to tried to see if we qualified for another program. And didn't explain that, leading me to believe we were in the Beat the Meter Blitz.
I have had time to calm down to write that statement without being too rude. Here's my take:
A lot of the problem, actually all the problem, could have been avoided if they had just told me up front that all the slots were taken. They could even offer to see if we qualified for the other program, but I already knew we didn't and even mentioned that to the person I talked to originally. I would have liked to hear the words "we should have told you upfront all the slots were filled." Period.
I can't change things now. We're not going to get a free energy assessment. It was already too late by the time I finally got through around 9 o'clock since they filled all the slots by about 8:30 on the day I called according to what I was told today. Please just admit that. It's that simple.
I'll give a free clue to anyone wondering how NOT to anger customers. Don't lead people to believe you will give them something when you can't.
A representative from HAND called back and apologized for the misunderstanding. Apparently all the slots filled up before I called in to join the program, but instead of just telling me that, the person I talked to tried to see if we qualified for another program. And didn't explain that, leading me to believe we were in the Beat the Meter Blitz.
I have had time to calm down to write that statement without being too rude. Here's my take:
A lot of the problem, actually all the problem, could have been avoided if they had just told me up front that all the slots were taken. They could even offer to see if we qualified for the other program, but I already knew we didn't and even mentioned that to the person I talked to originally. I would have liked to hear the words "we should have told you upfront all the slots were filled." Period.
I can't change things now. We're not going to get a free energy assessment. It was already too late by the time I finally got through around 9 o'clock since they filled all the slots by about 8:30 on the day I called according to what I was told today. Please just admit that. It's that simple.
I'll give a free clue to anyone wondering how NOT to anger customers. Don't lead people to believe you will give them something when you can't.
The problem of being middle class
The big problem of being middle class, as far as I can see, is that you earn too much to qualify for assistance but not enough to really make headway.
I just did a little research on the definition of middle class and it's pretty complicated. Part of the problem is that a high income in one area is barely scraping by in another. But I think J. D. Foster has a pretty good way of defining income class: the top 20% are rich, the bottom 20% are poor and the middle 60% are middle class, which is household incomes of around $25000-$100000. Yep, that pretty much include just about everyone I know.
What started all this? Last week I called the City of Bloomington Housing and Neighborhood Development Department (HAND) because they, in association with other organizations, were offering free home energy assessments as part of a Beat the Meter Blitz. Since I called so early, I assumed I had a place in the program.
Until today when I received a call from South Central Community Action Program to see if we qualified for their free program (we don't) because a question the person who took my information asked was misleading. Fine, we make too much so I needed to call HAND and try to get back on their list. But their list is full.
Now, I left a message with the person coordinating the program because I am NOT HAPPY about this. The reason we are apparently falling through the cracks, unless I get a phone call later today with positive news, is because I was asked what our monthly income was.
I told the woman I wasn't sure, but she had me guesstimate. So I guessed and told her that was approximately our TAKE HOME PAY. There is a big difference between net and gross income and I could have told her our annual gross income was too high. Actually, I did tell her we make too much to qualify for a free assessment and that was why I was so happy about this opportunity.
So now, because of a poorly worded question, it looks like we are getting screwed out of something we should have been able to get based on my applying in time.
Thanks, city worker. Want to pay for the $300+ assessment we're apparently not going to get for free? I thought not. I certainly don't have a spare $300.
I will update if we manage to squeak into the program, but right now it looks doubtful.
I just did a little research on the definition of middle class and it's pretty complicated. Part of the problem is that a high income in one area is barely scraping by in another. But I think J. D. Foster has a pretty good way of defining income class: the top 20% are rich, the bottom 20% are poor and the middle 60% are middle class, which is household incomes of around $25000-$100000. Yep, that pretty much include just about everyone I know.
What started all this? Last week I called the City of Bloomington Housing and Neighborhood Development Department (HAND) because they, in association with other organizations, were offering free home energy assessments as part of a Beat the Meter Blitz. Since I called so early, I assumed I had a place in the program.
Until today when I received a call from South Central Community Action Program to see if we qualified for their free program (we don't) because a question the person who took my information asked was misleading. Fine, we make too much so I needed to call HAND and try to get back on their list. But their list is full.
Now, I left a message with the person coordinating the program because I am NOT HAPPY about this. The reason we are apparently falling through the cracks, unless I get a phone call later today with positive news, is because I was asked what our monthly income was.
I told the woman I wasn't sure, but she had me guesstimate. So I guessed and told her that was approximately our TAKE HOME PAY. There is a big difference between net and gross income and I could have told her our annual gross income was too high. Actually, I did tell her we make too much to qualify for a free assessment and that was why I was so happy about this opportunity.
So now, because of a poorly worded question, it looks like we are getting screwed out of something we should have been able to get based on my applying in time.
Thanks, city worker. Want to pay for the $300+ assessment we're apparently not going to get for free? I thought not. I certainly don't have a spare $300.
I will update if we manage to squeak into the program, but right now it looks doubtful.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Time to speak up
I am by nature a peace maker and dislike confrontations. Time after time, I have run into people who felt compelled to proselytize and try to convert me to their way of thinking... and I've held my tongue and not argued back because I didn't want to offend them. A while back I decided that if they had no problem offending me, I should just speak my mind.
I still tend to not jump into political and religious debates because they tend to degrade into mindless vitriol and don't end up changing anyone's ideas. But the time to remain quiet has come to an end.
You would have to be living under a rock lately to not be aware of the controversy regarding the so-called 'Ground Zero mosque'. Before I begin, Keith Olbermann, someone I have never watched before, had some excellent comments on the issue which pretty much put the argument in perspective. Please take the time to click through and watch.
I am very disappointed in the number of people who object to putting a community center, which happens to have a hall for worship, in a neighborhood, at a location which was vacant, just because it is near 'Ground Zero' and is for Muslims. No, disappointed doesn't cover it. I am sickened.
First off, '2 blocks away' is misleading. It is not within sight of the 'hallowed ground' and is further from it than several other religious houses. It is actually about 4 blocks of walking away.
Second, along with all the American Christians killed when the World Trade Center was destroyed were many people from many other countries and many other faiths, including Muslims (both American and foreign). If this is sacred, hallowed ground for those killed, then all the religions represented should be able to have a faith center nearby.
To blame all of any one religion for the actions of a few is a terrible, bigoted reaction. Just as some Muslims are terrorists, so are some Christians. Need I point out that the KKK has Christian roots. Many people convicted of acts of terror claim to be following God's will in what they do, regardless of their religious preference. Christians have done a lot of bad things in the name of God.
One of the principles this nation was founded on is freedom of religion. The First Amendment to the Constitution states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is not negotiable. And before anyone starts shouting about this being a Christian nation, please remember that the founding documents were written in such a way as to not favor one religion over another. Our Founding Fathers did that on purpose. They were really smart. Many were also not Christian as the Religious Right would have you believe. Some interesting reading is available on the topic (yes, from both perspectives). A lot of evidence exists that many were more in the line of Deists than subscribed to any particular religion.
I have a question for anyone who thinks 2 blocks is too close. What perimeter is acceptable? 5 blocks? Outside the city of New York? The borders of the US? Really, think about that question. If you really believe the borders of the US, please go find a Christian nation to live in and leave this one to those of us willing to tolerate others and truly exist within a democracy. By the way, part of the principle of democracy is for the government to protect the rights of minorities from the oppression of the majority.
I was raised in the Catholic church but I have increasingly run further and further away from any church because of the hypocrisy and bigotry often on display. In my observation, those who proclaim themselves 'good' at whatever religion they practice are often the worst. If you are truly a 'good Christian', please act as one. Turn the other cheek. Learn tolerance. Offer kindness to a stranger, even if they are of a different faith than you. Really read the words of Jesus. He was a pretty neat guy with a lot of good things to say.
And while we are on the topic of religion, if the Jews should have the Holy Land and Israel back, then we should all be packing our bags and giving the entire western hemisphere back to the native peoples who lived here before Europeans 'discovered' it. I am not siding against Israel. I am just not choosing to blindly support her. If all lands that had ever been conquered were given back to the people who were there first, we'd have some big political problems on our hands. So that's not a good argument. That's the conundrum of that particular problem: both sides (Israel and Palestine) have some in both the good and bad columns.
I still tend to not jump into political and religious debates because they tend to degrade into mindless vitriol and don't end up changing anyone's ideas. But the time to remain quiet has come to an end.
You would have to be living under a rock lately to not be aware of the controversy regarding the so-called 'Ground Zero mosque'. Before I begin, Keith Olbermann, someone I have never watched before, had some excellent comments on the issue which pretty much put the argument in perspective. Please take the time to click through and watch.
I am very disappointed in the number of people who object to putting a community center, which happens to have a hall for worship, in a neighborhood, at a location which was vacant, just because it is near 'Ground Zero' and is for Muslims. No, disappointed doesn't cover it. I am sickened.
First off, '2 blocks away' is misleading. It is not within sight of the 'hallowed ground' and is further from it than several other religious houses. It is actually about 4 blocks of walking away.
Second, along with all the American Christians killed when the World Trade Center was destroyed were many people from many other countries and many other faiths, including Muslims (both American and foreign). If this is sacred, hallowed ground for those killed, then all the religions represented should be able to have a faith center nearby.
To blame all of any one religion for the actions of a few is a terrible, bigoted reaction. Just as some Muslims are terrorists, so are some Christians. Need I point out that the KKK has Christian roots. Many people convicted of acts of terror claim to be following God's will in what they do, regardless of their religious preference. Christians have done a lot of bad things in the name of God.
One of the principles this nation was founded on is freedom of religion. The First Amendment to the Constitution states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is not negotiable. And before anyone starts shouting about this being a Christian nation, please remember that the founding documents were written in such a way as to not favor one religion over another. Our Founding Fathers did that on purpose. They were really smart. Many were also not Christian as the Religious Right would have you believe. Some interesting reading is available on the topic (yes, from both perspectives). A lot of evidence exists that many were more in the line of Deists than subscribed to any particular religion.
I have a question for anyone who thinks 2 blocks is too close. What perimeter is acceptable? 5 blocks? Outside the city of New York? The borders of the US? Really, think about that question. If you really believe the borders of the US, please go find a Christian nation to live in and leave this one to those of us willing to tolerate others and truly exist within a democracy. By the way, part of the principle of democracy is for the government to protect the rights of minorities from the oppression of the majority.
I was raised in the Catholic church but I have increasingly run further and further away from any church because of the hypocrisy and bigotry often on display. In my observation, those who proclaim themselves 'good' at whatever religion they practice are often the worst. If you are truly a 'good Christian', please act as one. Turn the other cheek. Learn tolerance. Offer kindness to a stranger, even if they are of a different faith than you. Really read the words of Jesus. He was a pretty neat guy with a lot of good things to say.
And while we are on the topic of religion, if the Jews should have the Holy Land and Israel back, then we should all be packing our bags and giving the entire western hemisphere back to the native peoples who lived here before Europeans 'discovered' it. I am not siding against Israel. I am just not choosing to blindly support her. If all lands that had ever been conquered were given back to the people who were there first, we'd have some big political problems on our hands. So that's not a good argument. That's the conundrum of that particular problem: both sides (Israel and Palestine) have some in both the good and bad columns.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Just my opinion
Ok, a few things I just don't get:
Politicians get elected on a platform of spending money on schools, educating children, children are our future, invest in education, school reform, etc, etc, etc. As soon as they are in office, they cut school funding. For an interesting study on the topic of education spending and future savings (prisons, crime prevention) read this. Spending on education reduces crime, meaning less spending on prisons, plus generally leads to less spending on welfare.
The military complains that it is tough to recruit, yet they manufacture reasons to keep people out with policies like Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which have no bearing on a person's ability to perform the job.
I'm reading the current issue of National Geographic, the cover story of which is about the FLDS. Now, I don't agree with plural marriage and certainly don't understand why someone would do it (I don't share well, that way), but why the witch hunts? It seems as long as something is between consenting adults, can we stay out of people's bedrooms? And let me just state for the record that I get the objections and court cases in regards to teenage girls being forced to marry middle-aged men. There are already laws about that without getting into whether she's a first wife or a fifth wife. And cases where someone marries multiple times where the spouses don't know? That's not consenting.
In conjunction with the above, why do some heterosexual couples feel their marriages are somehow threatened or lessened by people unlike them getting married? But I've already covered this topic recently, so I'll let my previous post speak for itself.
Politicians get elected on a platform of spending money on schools, educating children, children are our future, invest in education, school reform, etc, etc, etc. As soon as they are in office, they cut school funding. For an interesting study on the topic of education spending and future savings (prisons, crime prevention) read this. Spending on education reduces crime, meaning less spending on prisons, plus generally leads to less spending on welfare.
The military complains that it is tough to recruit, yet they manufacture reasons to keep people out with policies like Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which have no bearing on a person's ability to perform the job.
I'm reading the current issue of National Geographic, the cover story of which is about the FLDS. Now, I don't agree with plural marriage and certainly don't understand why someone would do it (I don't share well, that way), but why the witch hunts? It seems as long as something is between consenting adults, can we stay out of people's bedrooms? And let me just state for the record that I get the objections and court cases in regards to teenage girls being forced to marry middle-aged men. There are already laws about that without getting into whether she's a first wife or a fifth wife. And cases where someone marries multiple times where the spouses don't know? That's not consenting.
In conjunction with the above, why do some heterosexual couples feel their marriages are somehow threatened or lessened by people unlike them getting married? But I've already covered this topic recently, so I'll let my previous post speak for itself.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Businesses and websites
This is something that drives me crazy. In this day and age, why do so many businesses not have a webpage? Even a static page with basic information seems to be an essential part of doing business these days. Yet so many companies don't bother.
Putting your own information out means you have control over it. For example, Applacres doesn't have a webpage, but you can find some basic info on other sites about apple picking locations. That doesn't mean the info (hours, produce, etc) is up to date.
Putting a webpage up can help bring in business. When I am looking for a service or product, I am more likely to do a web search (yes, usually Google) rather than pick up a phone book. Also, by searching online, I can get more wide-ranging results. I can also find information late at night when I have time. If I'm limited to calling and asking for information, it's not necessarily going to happen, because I can't always make a call between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Listing basic information, even if details require a phone call, can help weed out options. A real example here is the lack of online information about preschools in Bloomington. Moms either have to look through a phone book and call each one or give up. That page of basic info could tell me, before wasting my time and the school personnel's, whether it is a good fit. If it's too expensive, has bad hours, has a religious program or not, etc. I lucked out, but I know so many moms who are frustrated at not being able to do basic research before picking up the phone.
I'm sure there are lots of other good points. One final thought is to keep the information updated. Tonight I went looking for a local farm that participates in CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) where we could buy a share of local, seasonal produce. One that pops up on search is Musgrave Orchard.... but the data dates to the 2006 growing season. Does this mean they just haven't updated or that they no longer do it? Either way, they really should update their page. (I sent an email but got a garbage auto-reply, so unless I get another response later, I'll assume they don't do it anymore.)
Putting your own information out means you have control over it. For example, Applacres doesn't have a webpage, but you can find some basic info on other sites about apple picking locations. That doesn't mean the info (hours, produce, etc) is up to date.
Putting a webpage up can help bring in business. When I am looking for a service or product, I am more likely to do a web search (yes, usually Google) rather than pick up a phone book. Also, by searching online, I can get more wide-ranging results. I can also find information late at night when I have time. If I'm limited to calling and asking for information, it's not necessarily going to happen, because I can't always make a call between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Listing basic information, even if details require a phone call, can help weed out options. A real example here is the lack of online information about preschools in Bloomington. Moms either have to look through a phone book and call each one or give up. That page of basic info could tell me, before wasting my time and the school personnel's, whether it is a good fit. If it's too expensive, has bad hours, has a religious program or not, etc. I lucked out, but I know so many moms who are frustrated at not being able to do basic research before picking up the phone.
I'm sure there are lots of other good points. One final thought is to keep the information updated. Tonight I went looking for a local farm that participates in CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) where we could buy a share of local, seasonal produce. One that pops up on search is Musgrave Orchard.... but the data dates to the 2006 growing season. Does this mean they just haven't updated or that they no longer do it? Either way, they really should update their page. (I sent an email but got a garbage auto-reply, so unless I get another response later, I'll assume they don't do it anymore.)
Monday, December 7, 2009
Buy her jewelry? That's love?
Along with the holidays, the jewelry store commercials have gone into overdrive. They drive me nuts!
Every jewelry store advertises that the gift she wants is jewelry. And she won't love him unless he finds the perfect, expensive piece. Because jewelry equals love.
Argh! Is this offensive to anyone else?
I'm not a jewelry girl, but still, here goes:
Jewelry is cold.
Jewelry is usually impersonal.
Jewelry is not thoughtful - it's a cop-out.
I'd rather have something that took thought. Even if it's just a book I'd enjoy or something that reminded Chris of me. Things that are practical are ok - I'm a practical person and stuff that makes my life easier is thoughtful to me.
It's all about knowing the woman and finding what makes her happy. But the jewelry stores aren't going to say that. They want to sell... jewelry! Not much of a rant, but I'm too tired to expound on why these commercials bug me so much.
Every jewelry store advertises that the gift she wants is jewelry. And she won't love him unless he finds the perfect, expensive piece. Because jewelry equals love.
Argh! Is this offensive to anyone else?
I'm not a jewelry girl, but still, here goes:
Jewelry is cold.
Jewelry is usually impersonal.
Jewelry is not thoughtful - it's a cop-out.
I'd rather have something that took thought. Even if it's just a book I'd enjoy or something that reminded Chris of me. Things that are practical are ok - I'm a practical person and stuff that makes my life easier is thoughtful to me.
It's all about knowing the woman and finding what makes her happy. But the jewelry stores aren't going to say that. They want to sell... jewelry! Not much of a rant, but I'm too tired to expound on why these commercials bug me so much.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Scent overload
Has anyone else noticed that it is almost impossible to buy anything these days without some sort of scent? When did we get to this obsession with perfumed everything? Even soap doesn't smell clean enough and has to have a 'fresh' scent! I like the smell of soap.
Barring bad b.o., what is wrong with people smelling like people? Smell is one of our strongest memory senses, yet it is almost useless these days. Would you recognize your significant other's scent? It should be appealing. Who decided 'male' (or 'female' for that matter) was a bad smell?
Why is it that you can't walk into a store without perfume assaulting you from all sides? There have been stores I've had to walk out of because the perfume is so overwhelming. And I have some allergies, which means I can't breathe in them.
At RAIN: A Tribute to the Beatles, a woman got out some hand sanitizer in the row in front of us. My throat closed up a bit and my sinuses stuffed up because her hand sanitizer had to have a pretty floral scent. I would hate to be more allergic to scents, like a former co-worker, and have to leave an expensive show because someone was inconsiderate.
Yes, there are icky smells, but we are losing the smells of so many interesting things. It's hard to enjoy the aroma of a good meal when it is being drowned out by scented candles and the perfume on the diner at the next table. At least we don't have to worry about the malodorous stench of cigarette smoke.
Barring bad b.o., what is wrong with people smelling like people? Smell is one of our strongest memory senses, yet it is almost useless these days. Would you recognize your significant other's scent? It should be appealing. Who decided 'male' (or 'female' for that matter) was a bad smell?
Why is it that you can't walk into a store without perfume assaulting you from all sides? There have been stores I've had to walk out of because the perfume is so overwhelming. And I have some allergies, which means I can't breathe in them.
At RAIN: A Tribute to the Beatles, a woman got out some hand sanitizer in the row in front of us. My throat closed up a bit and my sinuses stuffed up because her hand sanitizer had to have a pretty floral scent. I would hate to be more allergic to scents, like a former co-worker, and have to leave an expensive show because someone was inconsiderate.
Yes, there are icky smells, but we are losing the smells of so many interesting things. It's hard to enjoy the aroma of a good meal when it is being drowned out by scented candles and the perfume on the diner at the next table. At least we don't have to worry about the malodorous stench of cigarette smoke.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Fireworks
Ok, so Chris and I have both griped on Twitter/Facebook about fireworks. I just have to say that the legislators obviously don't have young kids because they would not have allowed fireworks until 11 p.m. any day of the year otherwise. My kids are in bed by 9! Loud fireworks are not conducive to sllep, although they have luckily slept through them. The fireworks are amazingly loud even with the windows closed.
While I appreciate that pyros have a right to set off their fireworks, the rest of us have a right to a peaceful night's sleep. Part of the problem is that we are now in the eastern time zone, so it isn't dark enough until nearly 10. I'm not sure why fireworks don't fall under noise ordinances, but non-stationary noises are allowed until 11 p.m. Stationary noise is restricted starting at 9 p.m.
So where do fireworks fall? I can only hope that they stop now that people have had a chance to use them since the 4th was rainy. Our neighborhood email was hopping with complaints and comments today, leaving one of the fireworks users feeling bad. I hope tactful diplomacy will ease the tension and help everyone remember that we are all neighbors.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Letter to those who wait
As I mentioned yesterday, I'm in two moms groups. Here's my gripe, which would offend many if said at our social, but really needs airing.
"This group will only work if we all take ownership and make it work. The calendar is pretty empty because you don't put anything on it. The same 4 or 5 people regularly schedule events, but can't do everything. Don't complain that there isn't anything to do but not pull your own weight. We are all busy and understand that sometimes things happen, but you still have to participate.
"Every time we have a meeting to discuss how to make this group better, people offer suggestions, but then expect someone else to do all the work. It doesn't work that way. Some people like to plan their whole month in advance and others don't know what they will do from day to day, but there is room for both to be on the calendar.
"So, if you want the group to continue, take a coordinator position or at least try to schedule the activity/quarter that you agreed to when you signed up. The more activities on the calendar, the more to choose from and the more likely we will all find something we want to do at a time we can do it."
Now that I have theoretically offended all but the handful of people who have put a lot of effort into the group, I'll go quietly sit in my corner and think about the family activities I plan to schedule in the next few months.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
US history for $500
I've been slowly reading a book for the last couple of months (only about 100 pages left!) that is really very interesting and I highly recommend it - A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn. It is history from the masses, the disenfranchised, not the popular history taught in schools. It also doesn't waste time. I have learned more recent history (post-WWI) in this book than in any history class I ever took (damn Puritans!)
Anyway, as I read this book, I get more and more incensed that nothing changes. The people in power stay in power; the power rests with big corporations and the rich and that will never change at the rate things have gone. I hope they do, but I'm not holding my breath.
So here are a few things to get off my chest:
1) Cutting taxes for the rich and corporations has NEVER, I repeat, NEVER, helped and will not stimulate the economy. In fact, tax cuts to the top tend to have the opposite effect. To the bloody Senators and Representatives who have been complaining that the Obama stimulus plan doesn't have enough or any tax cuts for the rich and big business, 'cuz that'll trickle down, you are all delusional! It DOES NOT WORK! We've been trying trickle down for decades and all that has happened is the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.
2) Historically, every Congress has passed laws to help business and hurt people. So much for We the People. Congress doesn't represent the people. Politicians are too concerned with getting reelected to actually help people. They help business. Even all the laws passed to ostensibly protect workers' rights, civil rights, etc, were written in many cases to protect business and are also not worth anything if they are not enforced. Please explain to your daughters, sisters, mothers, etc, why they make less than men for the same work (and are doubly cursed if black, while black men don't fare much better). I've actually found evidence at a former job that a man hired to a lower level position was being paid more than I was - after I had worked there 3 years and he was a new hire. He was fired for incompetence while I had to be replaced by 2 people. The Lilly Ledbetter Act is a good start, but we shouldn't have to sue for companies to do things fairly.
3) The US has historically done a poor job of backing foreign governments. We have tended to back abusive tyrannies over the popular revolution that would have actually established a more democratic or at last less brutal government in many, many cases, for the simple expedient that it was better for business interests. Who cares about our supposed mission to bring democracy to the world? If Big Business will suffer slightly less profits, we need to intervene and destroy other countries. And we often get it really, really wrong, installing or supporting a brutal dictator that then turns against us and causes more problems down the line.
4) Seriously, what is the difference between Republicans and Democrats? Once they are elected, the only way to tell them apart is by the little R or D after their name and before their state. This is why I refuse to affiliate with a party. The Republicans of small government actually like to spend just as much as the Democrats, only they cut taxes so the deficit runs up. They also get more involved in way too much social legislation - so much for small government! The Democrats spend just as much on military/defense as the Republicans, have just as much culpability in whatever (cuts to programs, tax cuts to the rich, etc) historically.
5) Seriously, there are parts of some of the 21 of 25 chapters I've read so far that ring eerily of current and recent events. It is really scary that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Really, read this book.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
AT&T drops the ball and Comcast gets some more $$
Meg pretty much summed this up earlier, but I should toss in my $0.02 worth as I talked with the tech a bit more than she did.
Basically, we're steamed at AT&T for telling us we are eligible for U-Verse when they never actually came around to test signal strength at our pole. So, 6 man hours (they were both male) and two truck rolls later, we don't have U-Verse. Saving money and manpower aside, it would be better customer service if they didn't get our hopes up, only to be dashed after half a day of wondering.
I know that there are several more neighbors in our neighborhood who would like the U-Verse service, but they're even further down the line than we are. Solutions? The best solution would be for AT&T to run new, heavier gauge line from the head end to the poles/homes. We currently have 26 gauge line on the poles with a U-Verse linear limit of about 4000'. If they went down to 24 or 22 gauge line we could get up to about 6000' and AT&T could rope in more customers.
So, we're back to square one: analog landline phone service, DSL internet service, Comcast limited basic cable. Calling Comcast to get up to expanded basic results in more channels than we had, but still costs more than the U200 package from U-Verse and offers fewer channels and no DVR.
Really, we'd dump Comcast in a heartbeat if AT&T would only get their act together.
Ranting
Companies I am not happy with right now:
1) Comcast. Rate on limited basic service went up $3 for 4 fewer stations. After wrangling with AT&T (see below), we ended up upgrading to regular basic service for a bunch more, but at least we'll have some stations like Sci-Fi and Disney. Going digital? Not worth the extra expense for what we would get. 2nd rate hike in 1 year since they took over this area from Insight.
2) AT&T. They told us we could get U-verse, which was a great deal and would solve some of our internet problems as well. After 4 hours of the techs working to set us up and checking the lines? We're 3 poles short. They got my hopes up then dashed them away.
Satellite is not a great option for us due to our southern neighbors' large trees. Yeah, more than one cable company exists, but only one in the area. I didn't choose Comcast; I was given Comcast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)