I was listening to the radio a bit ago and heard a commercial for a bank "...blah blah blah Bank and Trust blah blah blah..."
I thought How is it that the phrase Bank and Trust still exists in the English language? Didn't "Banks" and "Trust" part ways several decades ago??
Showing posts with label Rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rant. Show all posts
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Lord Vader Makes a Prediction
During a recent interview with Politico, former Vice-President Dick Cheney predicted that "terrorists are highly likely to attempt a nuclear or biological attack on United States in coming years," and that such an attack would likely be successful unless President Obama keeps in place the 'protections' set in place by the Bush administration, such as the Patriot Act, and 'enhanced interrogation techniques.'
Given a long enough timeline, this prediction is bound to come true, regardless of the 'protections' we have. Is it worth giving up our basic liberties for a modicum of feeling safer? If and when this attack occurs, will we as a society realize that giving up these liberties didn't truly protect us and roll back the restrictions on our rights, or will we become even more afraid and give up more of our freedom? I think we all know the answer.
Furthermore, Cheney's statement is incredibly self-serving. There's no way that we can prove that the Patriot Act and interrogation prevented another attack, and he's got to somehow justify the acts of the Bush administration's choices. Sorry, Mr. Cheney, your words have fallen on deaf ears... just as our demands to roll back these draconian 'safeguards' fell on the deaf ears of your office. I, for one, would rather be free than safe.
Given a long enough timeline, this prediction is bound to come true, regardless of the 'protections' we have. Is it worth giving up our basic liberties for a modicum of feeling safer? If and when this attack occurs, will we as a society realize that giving up these liberties didn't truly protect us and roll back the restrictions on our rights, or will we become even more afraid and give up more of our freedom? I think we all know the answer.
Furthermore, Cheney's statement is incredibly self-serving. There's no way that we can prove that the Patriot Act and interrogation prevented another attack, and he's got to somehow justify the acts of the Bush administration's choices. Sorry, Mr. Cheney, your words have fallen on deaf ears... just as our demands to roll back these draconian 'safeguards' fell on the deaf ears of your office. I, for one, would rather be free than safe.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
You Know You're Old When...
-Your parents call early to wish you a Happy New Year, because they'll be in bed long before midnight. Funny thing is, you're glad they called, because you'll be in bed before midnight as well.
-You know that you've had many fun, exciting New Years Eve parties, but you can't recall any of them. (Of course that could be a result of alcohol, not old age.)
-You ceased staying up to ring in the new year yourself. Now, you do it because you're supervising your children.
-But you give up anyway and go to bed early. After all, they'll scream if something goes wrong.
-Silly string is no longer a fun toy, it's a nuisance that smells like ass and takes too much work to clean up.
-Tinsel is no longer a wonderful decoration, it's a bitch to clean up off of the floors.
-You don't really wish your friends and co-workers Happy New Year, because you realize that January 1 is an arbitrary day.
-You know that you've had many fun, exciting New Years Eve parties, but you can't recall any of them. (Of course that could be a result of alcohol, not old age.)
-You ceased staying up to ring in the new year yourself. Now, you do it because you're supervising your children.
-But you give up anyway and go to bed early. After all, they'll scream if something goes wrong.
-Silly string is no longer a fun toy, it's a nuisance that smells like ass and takes too much work to clean up.
-Tinsel is no longer a wonderful decoration, it's a bitch to clean up off of the floors.
-You don't really wish your friends and co-workers Happy New Year, because you realize that January 1 is an arbitrary day.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Lazy Bastard Kids
The family had a snow day today. Mrs. Evan and I got up to make sure the kids didn't have school, and to decide whether or not we'd go to work. When we found out it was a snow day, we let the kids sleep in.
I went out to see if the roads were passable for us. They were passable, but hazardous enough that staying home was the wiser option. When the kids finally got up, we made them a big breakfast and Mrs. Evan declared the roads clean enough for her to go in to work.
I stayed home and kept the kids entertained, shoveled the driveway and sidewalk, did dishes and other chores. After a couple of hours of playing Rock Band 2, I realized that breakfast wasn't agreeing with me. It ended up coming out of both ends simultaneously. (Thank God I had a trash can in the bathroom!)
Feeling wrung out, a nap was in order. I slept for about 30 minutes while one kid continued playing Rock Band 2 and the other read. I woke up with a still-sore throat, and saw that Mr. Snowplow had been by and filled the end of my driveway with street snow. I asked the kids to shovel that snow.
"I'm too busy reading, daddy," replied the younger Evlet.
"My legs are too sore from playing Rock Band, daddy. Will you give me a massage," asked the other?
It's a good thing I'm not sick with something like pneumonia. I can picture it now...
(Wheezing on my deathbed) "Kids, will you get me a drink of water?"
"Not now dad, I'm too busy reading," the younger one would answer.
"My lungs are too sore from breathing, daddy. Will you run a vaporizer for me," the older one would ask?
I went out to see if the roads were passable for us. They were passable, but hazardous enough that staying home was the wiser option. When the kids finally got up, we made them a big breakfast and Mrs. Evan declared the roads clean enough for her to go in to work.
I stayed home and kept the kids entertained, shoveled the driveway and sidewalk, did dishes and other chores. After a couple of hours of playing Rock Band 2, I realized that breakfast wasn't agreeing with me. It ended up coming out of both ends simultaneously. (Thank God I had a trash can in the bathroom!)
Feeling wrung out, a nap was in order. I slept for about 30 minutes while one kid continued playing Rock Band 2 and the other read. I woke up with a still-sore throat, and saw that Mr. Snowplow had been by and filled the end of my driveway with street snow. I asked the kids to shovel that snow.
"I'm too busy reading, daddy," replied the younger Evlet.
"My legs are too sore from playing Rock Band, daddy. Will you give me a massage," asked the other?
It's a good thing I'm not sick with something like pneumonia. I can picture it now...
(Wheezing on my deathbed) "Kids, will you get me a drink of water?"
"Not now dad, I'm too busy reading," the younger one would answer.
"My lungs are too sore from breathing, daddy. Will you run a vaporizer for me," the older one would ask?
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Rebates Suck
According to this article at MSN's Money Central, one of the rebate processing companies is filing Chapter 11 bankruptcy. I, for one, am happy to see the failure of anything rebate-related... well, anything except when people fail to get their rebate checks.
In case you haven't yet inferred this, I hate rebates. I despise them. The depth of my anger toward rebates burns with the intensity of a thousand suns. Rebates are nothing more than a scheme designed to get the consumer to pay more up-font based on the premise that they will get some of that money back later on. Screw that! Give me the best price you can up front.
The rebate is nothing more than a scam designed to bilk the consumer for a few more dollars. The producer can semi-legitimately claim that they have the lowest price, all the while knowing that many customers won't bother to fill out the rebate slips. And for the people who do ask for their rebate? Well, the producer still gets to keep their money for a while... when millions of people purchase a product, that's tens of millions of dollars the company gets to keep, which lets them earn interest on our money.
The long and the short of it is that rebates are a scam. They suck. And when I see a rebate, I think "sleazy vendor" and avoid them. The only way I go with a rebate is if I happen to be purchasing that exact product anyway. And if that happens, I'm damned sure processing the rebate. Otherwise, I avoid rebates and the manufacturers who rely on them. I recommend that you do the same.
In case you haven't yet inferred this, I hate rebates. I despise them. The depth of my anger toward rebates burns with the intensity of a thousand suns. Rebates are nothing more than a scheme designed to get the consumer to pay more up-font based on the premise that they will get some of that money back later on. Screw that! Give me the best price you can up front.
The rebate is nothing more than a scam designed to bilk the consumer for a few more dollars. The producer can semi-legitimately claim that they have the lowest price, all the while knowing that many customers won't bother to fill out the rebate slips. And for the people who do ask for their rebate? Well, the producer still gets to keep their money for a while... when millions of people purchase a product, that's tens of millions of dollars the company gets to keep, which lets them earn interest on our money.
The long and the short of it is that rebates are a scam. They suck. And when I see a rebate, I think "sleazy vendor" and avoid them. The only way I go with a rebate is if I happen to be purchasing that exact product anyway. And if that happens, I'm damned sure processing the rebate. Otherwise, I avoid rebates and the manufacturers who rely on them. I recommend that you do the same.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Let's Talk Bailout
According to this article on Yahoo, Dick Cheney said "It's Herbert Hoover time" if the government fails to bail out the auto industry. That guy would know... he served in the Hoover administration. (Note to kids everywhere: That's a joke, don't quote me for your next Government paper.)
With that said, I'd like to look at this bailout from a different perspective. Look, we just handed the government a $700 Billion blank check. My understanding is that they can spend this money any way they see fit. Instead of coming to the taxpayers for more money, I say use part of the $700 Billion to help the automakers. Here's why...
Let's start by looking at this in manageable numbers, and by using an analogy. Things were tough at the House of Evan this year. I talked to friends, neighbors and family, and managed to convince them to scrape up $700 to help me out. They lent me this money knowing that doing so would cause them hardship, and that they'd likely never see the money again. I promptly spent $350 of it on bills, but still have $350 in the bank.
Suddenly, the battery in my car died and I found out that it would cost me somewhere between $15 and $25 to buy a battery charger, so I went back to my friends, neighbors and family and asked for more money. Aren't those people justified in questioning my fiscal responsibility? I mean, come on, I've still got $350 left. Why am I coming to them for more money? And since my car is old and unreliable, aren't they understandably curious why I'm sinking another $15 to $25 into that piece of junk? And my answer? Oh, that. I want to save that money for something else.
Yes, in this case I was the government, and the friends, neighbors and family were the American taxpayers. As a taxpayer, I don't understand why the government is coming to me for more money, when they've still got half of that $700 billion. Bush, in his infinite stupidity, doesn't want to spend that money on the auto industry. Well, part of being in charge is making tough choices and doing stuff that you'd rather not do. Mr. Bush, it's time to do something you'd rather not do... quit asking me for more money, and use part of that $350 Billion that you have left. I, for one, am tired of paying to clean up the mess that you and your fat-cat friends on Wall Street made in the first place. I'm through struggling to make ends meet while you laugh your way to the bank.
With that said, I'd like to look at this bailout from a different perspective. Look, we just handed the government a $700 Billion blank check. My understanding is that they can spend this money any way they see fit. Instead of coming to the taxpayers for more money, I say use part of the $700 Billion to help the automakers. Here's why...
Let's start by looking at this in manageable numbers, and by using an analogy. Things were tough at the House of Evan this year. I talked to friends, neighbors and family, and managed to convince them to scrape up $700 to help me out. They lent me this money knowing that doing so would cause them hardship, and that they'd likely never see the money again. I promptly spent $350 of it on bills, but still have $350 in the bank.
Suddenly, the battery in my car died and I found out that it would cost me somewhere between $15 and $25 to buy a battery charger, so I went back to my friends, neighbors and family and asked for more money. Aren't those people justified in questioning my fiscal responsibility? I mean, come on, I've still got $350 left. Why am I coming to them for more money? And since my car is old and unreliable, aren't they understandably curious why I'm sinking another $15 to $25 into that piece of junk? And my answer? Oh, that. I want to save that money for something else.
Yes, in this case I was the government, and the friends, neighbors and family were the American taxpayers. As a taxpayer, I don't understand why the government is coming to me for more money, when they've still got half of that $700 billion. Bush, in his infinite stupidity, doesn't want to spend that money on the auto industry. Well, part of being in charge is making tough choices and doing stuff that you'd rather not do. Mr. Bush, it's time to do something you'd rather not do... quit asking me for more money, and use part of that $350 Billion that you have left. I, for one, am tired of paying to clean up the mess that you and your fat-cat friends on Wall Street made in the first place. I'm through struggling to make ends meet while you laugh your way to the bank.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Sloppy Reporting
According to this AP article, more people in the U.S. are getting away with murder. Color me skeptical, but their numbers don't indicate that more individuals are killing others and not being caught. The raw data says that there are more unsolved murders. This doesn't truly say that more people are getting away with murder, because it's equally possible -- and equally likely --that we have the same number of killers, who are harvesting more victims.
Just an observation about the sloppiness of the article.
Just an observation about the sloppiness of the article.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Acceptable Loss
I was reading an internet article today about Bush's presidency, where he said that flawed Iraq intelligence was his biggest regret during his time in office. It's interesting that his biggest regret is something that he can technically pin on others. Silly me, I thought that a regret was personal. That certainly says a lot about our infamous leader. But I'm digressing.
The article also says that 4200 troops have died since we invaded Iraq in 2003. I'm going to take a shit-load of flack for this, but I'm going to call this acceptable loss. Hey, when we went to war five years ago, the overwhelming majority of Americans had swallowed the Kool-Aid that Bush's administration offered. We were somehow convinced that it would be a splendid little war, with a quick victory and little loss of life. We were half right... the loss of life has been quite low indeed.
As I write this, please let me once again reiterate that I was against going in to Iraq from the beginning... though it was primarily for strategic reasons. Opening a second front in a war has never worked historically... and going into Iraq was doing exactly that. My decision was correct, but I admit that I didn't arrive at that decision in the same manner as most objectors.
Anyway, back to my point. When it comes to the use of force, I am a pragmatist. Being a pacifist is great in theory, but in the real world it is an unrealistic view. And since the use of force is a distinct possibility, it stands to reason that there must be a loss of life. At some point, that loss becomes unacceptable, and we take our ball and go home. Up to that point though, the loss of life, while tragic, is a fact of life. That's called acceptable loss. To put this in perspective, the U.S. lost well over 6,000 men on D-Day. 58,000 Americans died during the Vietnam war. I'm not trying to minimize the loss of life in Iraq, I'm simply trying to explain that the loss of life is significantly lower. In fact, I'd say it's an acceptable loss.
The article also says that 4200 troops have died since we invaded Iraq in 2003. I'm going to take a shit-load of flack for this, but I'm going to call this acceptable loss. Hey, when we went to war five years ago, the overwhelming majority of Americans had swallowed the Kool-Aid that Bush's administration offered. We were somehow convinced that it would be a splendid little war, with a quick victory and little loss of life. We were half right... the loss of life has been quite low indeed.
As I write this, please let me once again reiterate that I was against going in to Iraq from the beginning... though it was primarily for strategic reasons. Opening a second front in a war has never worked historically... and going into Iraq was doing exactly that. My decision was correct, but I admit that I didn't arrive at that decision in the same manner as most objectors.
Anyway, back to my point. When it comes to the use of force, I am a pragmatist. Being a pacifist is great in theory, but in the real world it is an unrealistic view. And since the use of force is a distinct possibility, it stands to reason that there must be a loss of life. At some point, that loss becomes unacceptable, and we take our ball and go home. Up to that point though, the loss of life, while tragic, is a fact of life. That's called acceptable loss. To put this in perspective, the U.S. lost well over 6,000 men on D-Day. 58,000 Americans died during the Vietnam war. I'm not trying to minimize the loss of life in Iraq, I'm simply trying to explain that the loss of life is significantly lower. In fact, I'd say it's an acceptable loss.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Call Me Nero
Based on my last couple of posts, you've probably noticed that I'm paying attention to what's going on in the world around me. Bush is finally on his way out, meaning that one way or another things are going to change. Okay, I really don't believe that. I think that Democrats and Republicans are cut from the same cloth... they're just different sides of the same itchy, chafing piece of burlap.
While this happens, the global economy is collapsing before our eyes. Trillions of dollars (a sum of money I really can't put my little brain around) have evaporated... literally disappeared. My own retirement fund has lost 1/3 of its value in the last year. The press is calling this the worst crisis since the Great Depression, and I can't disagree with them.
With all of this happening around me, I have occasionally seen myself start to worry about the future... wondering how I'm going to get through this... how my wife will get through this... how it will impact my kids. I witness Wall Street's nosedive and think that each additional day of declines is another year or two that I'll have to work... a sacrifice I will have to make but can't quantify, because it's in the future. It would be easy to work myself into hysteria.
But I'm not going to do that. I have enough. I have enough for today. I have a wonderful wife, awesome kids, great friends and a kick-ass life. I can plan for tomorrow... for a decade from now, but I can't account for every contingency. And the more I try, the less I can enjoy today.
Besides, the money that's evaporating never really existed anyway. It's not real currency, it's money on paper. This type of currency doesn't really exist until you cash out. Furthermore, it's time to bring things back into perspective. We, as a country, haven't really suffered since WWII. During the Great Depression and WWII, we had to band together and do without in order to survive. Since then, yeah, a few have suffered, but for the most part we've lived a cush life. The baby boomers don't know what it's like to scrimp and save. They're selfish, which is a huge reason that our biggest problems -- such as Social Security -- have been put off and put off.
Now it's time to pay the piper. And I'm ready. That's right. I acknowledge that I haven't suffered. Life's been good to me so far, but I'm smart enough to know that things can't continue this way without the shit hitting the fan. The longer we put things off, the more shit... the bigger the fan... and the bigger the splatter. I say bring it on now. Unlike the Baby Boomers, who are unable or unwilling to deal with crisis, I am ready, willing and able to tackle our problems head-on, so my kids don't have to.
So, while our economy goes up in flames, I'm not going to scream and run in fear; I'm going to say "Pass the marshmallows."
While this happens, the global economy is collapsing before our eyes. Trillions of dollars (a sum of money I really can't put my little brain around) have evaporated... literally disappeared. My own retirement fund has lost 1/3 of its value in the last year. The press is calling this the worst crisis since the Great Depression, and I can't disagree with them.
With all of this happening around me, I have occasionally seen myself start to worry about the future... wondering how I'm going to get through this... how my wife will get through this... how it will impact my kids. I witness Wall Street's nosedive and think that each additional day of declines is another year or two that I'll have to work... a sacrifice I will have to make but can't quantify, because it's in the future. It would be easy to work myself into hysteria.
But I'm not going to do that. I have enough. I have enough for today. I have a wonderful wife, awesome kids, great friends and a kick-ass life. I can plan for tomorrow... for a decade from now, but I can't account for every contingency. And the more I try, the less I can enjoy today.
Besides, the money that's evaporating never really existed anyway. It's not real currency, it's money on paper. This type of currency doesn't really exist until you cash out. Furthermore, it's time to bring things back into perspective. We, as a country, haven't really suffered since WWII. During the Great Depression and WWII, we had to band together and do without in order to survive. Since then, yeah, a few have suffered, but for the most part we've lived a cush life. The baby boomers don't know what it's like to scrimp and save. They're selfish, which is a huge reason that our biggest problems -- such as Social Security -- have been put off and put off.
Now it's time to pay the piper. And I'm ready. That's right. I acknowledge that I haven't suffered. Life's been good to me so far, but I'm smart enough to know that things can't continue this way without the shit hitting the fan. The longer we put things off, the more shit... the bigger the fan... and the bigger the splatter. I say bring it on now. Unlike the Baby Boomers, who are unable or unwilling to deal with crisis, I am ready, willing and able to tackle our problems head-on, so my kids don't have to.
So, while our economy goes up in flames, I'm not going to scream and run in fear; I'm going to say "Pass the marshmallows."
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Sometimes My Ex Still Amazes Me
... and not in a good way. Just when I've adjusted to her stupid shit, she pulls another idiotic stunt, and I'm stunned all over again.
When we split up, we decided that we'd alternate taking care of the kids' birthday parties. On odd years, I would throw the older kid's party and she'd do the younger one's celebration. On even years, we'd switch. I'm still uneasy doing these parties, if only because she's there, but hey, it's not about me... it's about the kids.
Last weekend we threw the younger kid's party. It's the ex's turn to take care of the older one... and it's a biggie, because the big 'un is turning sweet 16. Last month, my daughter and the ex started talking about the sweet 16 party, and my kid was understandably excited about the milestone birthday.
Fast forward to a couple of days ago. My wife and I found out -- from the kid -- that there would be no sweet 16 party. Apparently, the ex is once again strapped for money and she told the kid that there would be no party as a result.
In order to understand the full implications of this, I should recap...
Roughly a year ago, the ex was pulled over for driving a car with an expired registration. During this stop, the cop discovered that she not only had an expired registration, but she stole the registration sticker from another car (but wasn't smart enough to steal another one when that sticker expired), that she had no insurance, that she was driving with a suspended license, and that there was a warrant out for her arrest.
Her car was impounded as a result of this arrest. She was unable to pay to get it out of impound, so it was sold at a police auction, and she got some heavy fines which she also didn't pay.
A month or two later, she was evicted from her apartment for not paying her rent, and she moved in with some friends. The friends live in a teeny little house built in the 1930's and have two kids of their own. The ex lives in a single room and when the kids stay with her, all three of them are in a single room about the size of your average bedroom.
Because of the living arrangements, my wife and I asked to keep the kids more often. After all, when they're with the ex, they're all three stuck in a single small room. When they're here, they've got their own space, they can still catch the bus to school in the mornings, they've got ready access to their friends, and so forth. In a moment of sanity, the ex agreed to our request. This agreement was all under the table, so there was no change in child support. Yes, my wife and I are the full-time parents, the ex is a weekend mom, and I'm still paying child support for this privilege.
So, to sum it up... the ex has no car payment, no car insurance to buy, no gas to buy, less food to buy, and no rent because she's staying with the friends rent-free, and there's no reduction in her income. She should have more money than she know how to spend.
A couple of months back, she got her license back. This is not because she paid off her fines, but because she petitioned the court, and was approved for a repayment plan. She got a car, but it was given to her. She's now paying for gas, but there's still no car payment, and still no rent. She should still be bring in more money than she has to spend.
She's known about our daughter's sweet 16 for -- well, for 16 years! She's had about ten months to squirrel a little bit away each month for the party. Hell, she should have known approximately how much the party would cost when they made the initial plans for the party. But now, less than a month away from her sweet 16, mom has told our daughter that there will be no party. My wife found out about this two days ago. I talked about it to the kid last night.
I told her that I didn't think she should have to give up her sweet 16 because of her mom. I said that I'd take care of it.
Yep... sometimes my ex still amazes me with her stupid shit. But what surprises me more is the fact that I'm still shocked at the stupid shit my ex pulls.
When we split up, we decided that we'd alternate taking care of the kids' birthday parties. On odd years, I would throw the older kid's party and she'd do the younger one's celebration. On even years, we'd switch. I'm still uneasy doing these parties, if only because she's there, but hey, it's not about me... it's about the kids.
Last weekend we threw the younger kid's party. It's the ex's turn to take care of the older one... and it's a biggie, because the big 'un is turning sweet 16. Last month, my daughter and the ex started talking about the sweet 16 party, and my kid was understandably excited about the milestone birthday.
Fast forward to a couple of days ago. My wife and I found out -- from the kid -- that there would be no sweet 16 party. Apparently, the ex is once again strapped for money and she told the kid that there would be no party as a result.
In order to understand the full implications of this, I should recap...
Roughly a year ago, the ex was pulled over for driving a car with an expired registration. During this stop, the cop discovered that she not only had an expired registration, but she stole the registration sticker from another car (but wasn't smart enough to steal another one when that sticker expired), that she had no insurance, that she was driving with a suspended license, and that there was a warrant out for her arrest.
Her car was impounded as a result of this arrest. She was unable to pay to get it out of impound, so it was sold at a police auction, and she got some heavy fines which she also didn't pay.
A month or two later, she was evicted from her apartment for not paying her rent, and she moved in with some friends. The friends live in a teeny little house built in the 1930's and have two kids of their own. The ex lives in a single room and when the kids stay with her, all three of them are in a single room about the size of your average bedroom.
Because of the living arrangements, my wife and I asked to keep the kids more often. After all, when they're with the ex, they're all three stuck in a single small room. When they're here, they've got their own space, they can still catch the bus to school in the mornings, they've got ready access to their friends, and so forth. In a moment of sanity, the ex agreed to our request. This agreement was all under the table, so there was no change in child support. Yes, my wife and I are the full-time parents, the ex is a weekend mom, and I'm still paying child support for this privilege.
So, to sum it up... the ex has no car payment, no car insurance to buy, no gas to buy, less food to buy, and no rent because she's staying with the friends rent-free, and there's no reduction in her income. She should have more money than she know how to spend.
A couple of months back, she got her license back. This is not because she paid off her fines, but because she petitioned the court, and was approved for a repayment plan. She got a car, but it was given to her. She's now paying for gas, but there's still no car payment, and still no rent. She should still be bring in more money than she has to spend.
She's known about our daughter's sweet 16 for -- well, for 16 years! She's had about ten months to squirrel a little bit away each month for the party. Hell, she should have known approximately how much the party would cost when they made the initial plans for the party. But now, less than a month away from her sweet 16, mom has told our daughter that there will be no party. My wife found out about this two days ago. I talked about it to the kid last night.
I told her that I didn't think she should have to give up her sweet 16 because of her mom. I said that I'd take care of it.
Yep... sometimes my ex still amazes me with her stupid shit. But what surprises me more is the fact that I'm still shocked at the stupid shit my ex pulls.
Monday, August 25, 2008
The Mechanics of a Death Row Appeal
Over the last week or so, I've been reading about this guy on death row who thinks he shouldn't be executed. The headline of his story is that he's too fat to be executed. A little more reading relays that he's a changed man who is remorseful to the point of self-loathing, that he was beaten as a child, and that he was an alcoholic.
On the flip side of the coin, prosecutors say that he's never demonstrated remorse, and attempted to escape death row in 2005 with a homemade ladder of rolled-up magazines and sheets.
My take on the whole deal: Please don't kill me. I'm too fat to die humanely. By the way, I was beaten as a child, and I was an alcoholic.
Man, talk about the last pleadings of a condemned man. He was able to rape and kill two college chicks, but he seems to think that he shouldn't feel a few minutes of discomfort? Look, I'm torn about the whole idea of the death penalty. (That's another story.) But this guy saying spare me because I'm fat enough that I may feel a little pain while i die?!? Sorry, but the whole "humane death" thing isn't really part of my ambivilence. In fact, I think that people condemned to die should die in a manner similar to how they killed their victim(s).
On the flip side of the coin, prosecutors say that he's never demonstrated remorse, and attempted to escape death row in 2005 with a homemade ladder of rolled-up magazines and sheets.
My take on the whole deal: Please don't kill me. I'm too fat to die humanely. By the way, I was beaten as a child, and I was an alcoholic.
Man, talk about the last pleadings of a condemned man. He was able to rape and kill two college chicks, but he seems to think that he shouldn't feel a few minutes of discomfort? Look, I'm torn about the whole idea of the death penalty. (That's another story.) But this guy saying spare me because I'm fat enough that I may feel a little pain while i die?!? Sorry, but the whole "humane death" thing isn't really part of my ambivilence. In fact, I think that people condemned to die should die in a manner similar to how they killed their victim(s).
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Suffering Builds Character
I look around my country and I can't help but worry. The dollar is falling at the speed of gravity, gas prices are rising to astronomical levels, our boys are fighting a war I don't support, and all we can do as a society is watch reality TV, continue accruing debt and bickering because that T-Shirt at Bloomingdale's doesn't come in cornflower blue. Every generation is a little softer than the previous, and expects a little more without earning or doing. My own children have a cow when I make them walk a few blocks.
I look back to World War II and the Great Depression -- okay, I look back to the stories of history, not my own memories -- and I see a generation that was willing to do more with less. Here's my point... suffering builds character. We need to experience a little discomfort in order to understand what it's like to go without... in order to appreciate what we have... in order to realize that all of our physical possessions don't bring happiness or success.
Yeah, this is a disjointed ramble.
I look back to World War II and the Great Depression -- okay, I look back to the stories of history, not my own memories -- and I see a generation that was willing to do more with less. Here's my point... suffering builds character. We need to experience a little discomfort in order to understand what it's like to go without... in order to appreciate what we have... in order to realize that all of our physical possessions don't bring happiness or success.
Yeah, this is a disjointed ramble.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
...At Least in Some of It
A couple of days ago, I said that what I've been witnessing is restoring my faith in humanity... at least some of it. As time passes though, I'm beginning to witness stupid human tricks. There have been a couple of reported cases of looting... primarily bars being relieved of their alcohol supply, and my ex is back to some of her old tricks.
My ex's birthday was not too long ago. On her birthday, she text messaged my younger daughter, saying "Hey, I'm going to come by and we'll go to dinner." The ex did this on my custody night, without asking me first, and to top it off, she ended up flaking out on my daughter. As the pickup time approached, my daughter phoned her mom. Here's a summary of the conversation I heard (my daughter's side).
(In an excited voice) "Hi mommy. When are you coming to get me."
(Long pause) "What you mean we're not going."
(Tears start flowing) "Bye."
Later on, the ex calls again... this time it was to flake out of her custody time the next evening, saying that she had to work. Again, she calls the kid. So my daughter was doubly crushed. Her mom calls with a 'surprise' dinner, and then flakes out on it. The kid is upset, but consoles herself by saying, "hey, that's okay, I'll get to see her tomorrow." Then mom calls up and flakes out on that night, because she had to work.
A few days later, she calls again and says "Hey kid, I'm coming to pick you up." For those of you who are keeping score, you may remember that the ex doesn't have a car, and was evicted from her home about six months ago. She's been staying at a friend's house since then. But I'm digressing...
"Mommy, did you get a car?"
"No, it's a surprise," she replied. As you can imagine, the kid's all worked up. After all, mom's got a surprise for her. The surprise? She showed up with her backup boyfriend and a new hairdo.
I call him backup boyfriend because every time the ex is between boyfriends, they start dating for a little while... just long enough for the younger daughter to become re-attached to him. And he's just enough of a doormat that he continues to let this happen.
Yep... this woman's a peach. She disses my little girl twice, and then announces a surprise... the surprise is arriving with backup boyfriend and a new hairdo. She can't pay rent. She can't afford a car, but she's damned sure going to afford her hair.
My ex's birthday was not too long ago. On her birthday, she text messaged my younger daughter, saying "Hey, I'm going to come by and we'll go to dinner." The ex did this on my custody night, without asking me first, and to top it off, she ended up flaking out on my daughter. As the pickup time approached, my daughter phoned her mom. Here's a summary of the conversation I heard (my daughter's side).
(In an excited voice) "Hi mommy. When are you coming to get me."
(Long pause) "What you mean we're not going."
(Tears start flowing) "Bye."
Later on, the ex calls again... this time it was to flake out of her custody time the next evening, saying that she had to work. Again, she calls the kid. So my daughter was doubly crushed. Her mom calls with a 'surprise' dinner, and then flakes out on it. The kid is upset, but consoles herself by saying, "hey, that's okay, I'll get to see her tomorrow." Then mom calls up and flakes out on that night, because she had to work.
A few days later, she calls again and says "Hey kid, I'm coming to pick you up." For those of you who are keeping score, you may remember that the ex doesn't have a car, and was evicted from her home about six months ago. She's been staying at a friend's house since then. But I'm digressing...
"Mommy, did you get a car?"
"No, it's a surprise," she replied. As you can imagine, the kid's all worked up. After all, mom's got a surprise for her. The surprise? She showed up with her backup boyfriend and a new hairdo.
I call him backup boyfriend because every time the ex is between boyfriends, they start dating for a little while... just long enough for the younger daughter to become re-attached to him. And he's just enough of a doormat that he continues to let this happen.
Yep... this woman's a peach. She disses my little girl twice, and then announces a surprise... the surprise is arriving with backup boyfriend and a new hairdo. She can't pay rent. She can't afford a car, but she's damned sure going to afford her hair.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Alcohol - a Rant
Drinking is a huge part of our culture. We drink when we celebrate, we drink when we relax, we drink when we socialize and we drink when we grieve. Alcoholics crave it, abolitionists demonize it, and governments regulate and tax it.
Like many Americans, I first tasted booze before I was legally old enough to drink. I didn't like the taste but enjoyed the way it made me feel... until the next morning. The first time I experienced intoxication also brought on the pain of my first hangover. This quickly helped me learn the importance of moderation... a lesson that has carried over into many aspects of my life.
When I was a teenager, the legal drinking age in my state was 19. I remember the Federal Government's de facto establishment of a national drinking age of 21 by threatening to withhold federal highway funds from states with lower drinking ages. I recall when my state raised the drinking age to 21. I don't remember the exact time, but I remember it happening.
Not too long after that, I joined the Marine Corps. I was allowed to consume alcoholic beverages at my first duty station because that state permitted people under 21 to drink if they were active duty military. I was also allowed to drink on base at other duty stations.
Shortly after I turned 21, the Federal Government increased the pressure and the military abolished under-21 drinking even on base, and states closed the loophole. I disagreed then and I disagree now. I object even more now, since many of our military personnel currently serving are below the legal drinking age. We can order them to kill another human being, but will not allow them to consume spirits. Disgusting.
This brings me to my point for today's story. According to this article, there is a "nascent movement" to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 in some circumstances, and I support this change. I don't like the government telling my fellow citizens that they are responsible enough to drive a vehicle, elect a president, and fight in a war but not responsible enough to consume alcohol. An 18-year-old is expected to differentiate between right and wrong and can be executed for murder, but they are not allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to consume spirits.
I suspect that some M.A.D.D. mother will throw statistics my way about how traffic fatalities have decreased since the laws changed, but statistics do not consider causation. And even if they did, it's still the inconsistency of this "quasi-adulthood" to which I so strenuously object. It's time to revisit the current drinking age.
Like many Americans, I first tasted booze before I was legally old enough to drink. I didn't like the taste but enjoyed the way it made me feel... until the next morning. The first time I experienced intoxication also brought on the pain of my first hangover. This quickly helped me learn the importance of moderation... a lesson that has carried over into many aspects of my life.
When I was a teenager, the legal drinking age in my state was 19. I remember the Federal Government's de facto establishment of a national drinking age of 21 by threatening to withhold federal highway funds from states with lower drinking ages. I recall when my state raised the drinking age to 21. I don't remember the exact time, but I remember it happening.
Not too long after that, I joined the Marine Corps. I was allowed to consume alcoholic beverages at my first duty station because that state permitted people under 21 to drink if they were active duty military. I was also allowed to drink on base at other duty stations.
Shortly after I turned 21, the Federal Government increased the pressure and the military abolished under-21 drinking even on base, and states closed the loophole. I disagreed then and I disagree now. I object even more now, since many of our military personnel currently serving are below the legal drinking age. We can order them to kill another human being, but will not allow them to consume spirits. Disgusting.
This brings me to my point for today's story. According to this article, there is a "nascent movement" to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 in some circumstances, and I support this change. I don't like the government telling my fellow citizens that they are responsible enough to drive a vehicle, elect a president, and fight in a war but not responsible enough to consume alcohol. An 18-year-old is expected to differentiate between right and wrong and can be executed for murder, but they are not allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to consume spirits.
I suspect that some M.A.D.D. mother will throw statistics my way about how traffic fatalities have decreased since the laws changed, but statistics do not consider causation. And even if they did, it's still the inconsistency of this "quasi-adulthood" to which I so strenuously object. It's time to revisit the current drinking age.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
