This is the new John Grisham novel, which I borrowed from the library (I'm being cheap these days). I've only just started it, so I admit that I don't know the whole story, but the set up already annoys me.
Its about a 3L law student, just about to graduate, who wants to work for legal aid and help immigrant workers. Due to some bad judgment in college, where he hung out with drunken frat boys, a party at his apartment becomes the scene of an incident where two of the protagonists' frat brothers have sex with a drunk, wasted (and quite loose with her morals) female student, who may or may not have been unconscious (and therefore may or may not have consented). The protagonist has passed out and has no idea what has happened until later. The female student cries rape many days later, but no charges are issued because she has a bad reputation and can't remember any details, such as who exactly raped her, if it was rape. Everyone puts the incident out of their head.
Unfortunately when the protagonist is mulling over accepting the legal aid job after law school versus a super high paid wall street legal job (where the big firm works you 18+ hours a day for $200,000 a year), he gets blackmailed because apparently someone video tapped the college drunken party/possible rape scene. Again, our protagonist isn't shown doing anything, but for some reason, he's convinced he'll still go down for the incident because he was in the room (albeit passed out). So to avoid ruining his legal career, he is blackmailed into working for the big firm in order to perform corporate espionage on some huge government defense contractor lawsuit. Its unclear whether its to benefit the competing company on the other side of the lawsuit, or a foreign country/company trying to take advantage of the situation.
I just find it highly improbably that any smart law student, as the protagonist is supposed to be, with a "scrappy but smart lawyer dad" is led to believe that he'd go down for a rape he clearly didn't commit, or even be considered an accessory, such that it would "ruin his career." He's supposedly so scared that he won't even tell his "scrappy but smart lawyer dad" about the problem in order to, oh, I don't know, maybe get some real legal advise. The book talks about how the law student "remembers the Duke student rape incident" and how those kids are "still trying to live it down." I know I barely remember the incident, let alone know the names of anyone involved such that I would hold it against them (since they were found not guilty or charges dropped or whatever).
I just find it hard to believe the law student would fall for this crap. He did nothing really wrong. Sure its not a good thing to be associated with a sordid incident, but I doubt anyone, certainly the vast majority of employers this guy could work for (particularly since he wanted to go into legal aid - not exactly a top secret or security clearance type job) would hold it against him.
Maybe the rest of the book will improve. I know that sometimes authors have to stretch to set up the story, but this is quite a big one. I would have thought John Grisham was better, he's had many good good legal thrillers, and some great non-fiction books too. So far I'm not impressed with The Associate.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Monday, December 14, 2009
Someone's Always Perfect
As a mother to two young girls, my perspective on things has changed greatly since BK (before kids). I have certainly come to realize that being a parent is incredibly hard. I know parents always love to tell their children "I hope you have a child just like you, so you can see how difficult you are." Yeah, its really true. I see actions by my kids and my reaction thereto, totally echoing what I did as a kid. As such, I know it can be difficult for them to change bad habits, because they don't really know they are doing it, I know I didn't. At the same time, I have to struggle not to overreact to things, to control my annoyance and anger. Its not easy and sometimes I slip a little, but nothing hurtful or really bad. However, I've recently been given reason to try and work a little harder at my reactions, as you never know how something is perceived by another, the person who seems to be, or at least thinks they are, always perfect.
A co-worker of mine also has a young daughter in daycare, a little older than my youngest. She recently had a fall at home, where she was running in the house and hit a living room table, causing a bruise above her eye. No cut, just a bruise, which made it look like a shiner (although typically "shiners" are below the eye). She didn't think anything of it, but did tell her daycare teacher to keep an eye on it, just in case it worsened.
A couple days later, she gets a call from the daycare that someone had reported the child to Child Protective Services, concerned about possible abuse. CPS had then contacted the daycare to follow up, as required by law. Fortunately the daycare was as shocked as the mother and totally backed up the parents, saying they had absolutely no reason whatsoever to suspect abuse. CPS said that since the bruise was above the eye, rather than below (as above indicates fall, while below suggests 'hit'), likely there'd be no further follow up. The Daycare administrator called the mother to let her know what happened, just in case there was further follow up. All were pretty surprised by the event and the daycare said they had no complaints to them by any teacher or parent.
Given that I had recently become involved in an alleged sexual harassment of a student case, I knew a little bit of the law and could tell this co-worker that if it was daycare teacher that made the report to CPS, the teacher was also supposed to tell the daycare administrator. Under law, the daycare has to report suspected abuse, so the daycare would need the teacher to tell the administrator as well or the daycare could be cited. Since this didn't occur, it was more likely that another parent called CPS (figuring it had to be someone around the daycare, as otherwise how would CPS know where the child was). The mother was still quite angry that some parent, who knew nothing about the situation, saw one bruise and made an abuse accusation. This parent didn't talk to the teacher or the daycare administrator, just made an unsupported accusation.
A week has gone by with no new contact, so everyone believes that CPS just closed the investigation without the need for further follow up or opening a case file. The mother is relieved because, like most parents (apparently except this one perfect parent), she has occasionally yelled at her kids, pulled them by the arm to get in the car, spanked a behind, all (at least in my humble opinion), typical parent actions to discourage bad behavior by the kids. Naturally she's concerned that once you get on CPS' radar, that anything you do can be interpreted badly.
My own daughters get bruises now and again and Elise actually had a similar one on her face due to a bathtub slip, so this story is all too close to home. I'm not perfect either, and I would never think of reporting someone to CPS without some further question to the daycare or at least asking the parent. Heck, I've seen kids at the daycare with bruises and it never once occurred to me that their parents were abusing them. I guess some parents are lucky and are not only perfect themselves, but have kids that never fall and hurt themselves, get bruises or cuts, or otherwise aren't perfect.
A co-worker of mine also has a young daughter in daycare, a little older than my youngest. She recently had a fall at home, where she was running in the house and hit a living room table, causing a bruise above her eye. No cut, just a bruise, which made it look like a shiner (although typically "shiners" are below the eye). She didn't think anything of it, but did tell her daycare teacher to keep an eye on it, just in case it worsened.
A couple days later, she gets a call from the daycare that someone had reported the child to Child Protective Services, concerned about possible abuse. CPS had then contacted the daycare to follow up, as required by law. Fortunately the daycare was as shocked as the mother and totally backed up the parents, saying they had absolutely no reason whatsoever to suspect abuse. CPS said that since the bruise was above the eye, rather than below (as above indicates fall, while below suggests 'hit'), likely there'd be no further follow up. The Daycare administrator called the mother to let her know what happened, just in case there was further follow up. All were pretty surprised by the event and the daycare said they had no complaints to them by any teacher or parent.
Given that I had recently become involved in an alleged sexual harassment of a student case, I knew a little bit of the law and could tell this co-worker that if it was daycare teacher that made the report to CPS, the teacher was also supposed to tell the daycare administrator. Under law, the daycare has to report suspected abuse, so the daycare would need the teacher to tell the administrator as well or the daycare could be cited. Since this didn't occur, it was more likely that another parent called CPS (figuring it had to be someone around the daycare, as otherwise how would CPS know where the child was). The mother was still quite angry that some parent, who knew nothing about the situation, saw one bruise and made an abuse accusation. This parent didn't talk to the teacher or the daycare administrator, just made an unsupported accusation.
A week has gone by with no new contact, so everyone believes that CPS just closed the investigation without the need for further follow up or opening a case file. The mother is relieved because, like most parents (apparently except this one perfect parent), she has occasionally yelled at her kids, pulled them by the arm to get in the car, spanked a behind, all (at least in my humble opinion), typical parent actions to discourage bad behavior by the kids. Naturally she's concerned that once you get on CPS' radar, that anything you do can be interpreted badly.
My own daughters get bruises now and again and Elise actually had a similar one on her face due to a bathtub slip, so this story is all too close to home. I'm not perfect either, and I would never think of reporting someone to CPS without some further question to the daycare or at least asking the parent. Heck, I've seen kids at the daycare with bruises and it never once occurred to me that their parents were abusing them. I guess some parents are lucky and are not only perfect themselves, but have kids that never fall and hurt themselves, get bruises or cuts, or otherwise aren't perfect.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Music Obsession Take 2
In follow up to My Music Obsession, I've gotten Adam Lambert's first album and its as good as I'd hoped. Yeah, I would have liked a little more rock, but I'm good with the electronic/pop stuff too. Still, very good first album. Definitely looking forward to his next (and I'd love to see one of his shows, the AMAs be damned, heh).
I also decided to join the 21st century and give up resisting Apple to get an Ipod. I've been missing listening to music as much as I used to, since my minivan has no CD player, my work CD player/radio/clock is broken (although I can still play CDs on the computer) and I can't really listen to CDs much at home except through the computer as we no longer have any speakers hooked up to the CD player. At least now I can listen to music on the subway and at home when I'm reading (and in the car, though I really should get an adapter/plug rather than using the earphones).
I downloaded all the songs and videos I bought from Itunes during AI, plus the new Adam Lambert CD (which actually I bought as MP3 from Amazon for $3). Now I have to start uploading my CDs onto the computer and then putting those songs on the Ipod (room for like 2000 songs I think). That's going to take a while (more than 400 CDs, I'm sure), but I suppose it will force me to finally go through and catelogue my CDs, maybe actually put them in order in a real storage container (good use for empty boxes from Christmas deliveries), as opposed to shelves here and there (and I need more room for books and DVDs anyway). I may even find some I can take to the CD store for credit/exchange (although does anyone actually buy music from a brick and mortar store anymore?).
I'm at least trying to set some good examples for my kids (whom I know will eventually get electronics of their own). No listining to the ipod during meals. When someone speaks to you, take the earphones off, both of them. Always put the ipod in a designated 'not being used' spot so it doesn't get lost or laundered (hubby swears I'll lose my ipod in 4-6 months - gotta prove him wrong so I can get a new phone to replace the crappy one I have because my good phone was lost/stolen, and my decent replacement went through the washing machine in my pants pocket - lost my cool Adam Lambert ringtone on both /sob).
Can't wait to rediscover old favorite tunes (and find out what Offspring CDs I'm missing).
I also decided to join the 21st century and give up resisting Apple to get an Ipod. I've been missing listening to music as much as I used to, since my minivan has no CD player, my work CD player/radio/clock is broken (although I can still play CDs on the computer) and I can't really listen to CDs much at home except through the computer as we no longer have any speakers hooked up to the CD player. At least now I can listen to music on the subway and at home when I'm reading (and in the car, though I really should get an adapter/plug rather than using the earphones).
I downloaded all the songs and videos I bought from Itunes during AI, plus the new Adam Lambert CD (which actually I bought as MP3 from Amazon for $3). Now I have to start uploading my CDs onto the computer and then putting those songs on the Ipod (room for like 2000 songs I think). That's going to take a while (more than 400 CDs, I'm sure), but I suppose it will force me to finally go through and catelogue my CDs, maybe actually put them in order in a real storage container (good use for empty boxes from Christmas deliveries), as opposed to shelves here and there (and I need more room for books and DVDs anyway). I may even find some I can take to the CD store for credit/exchange (although does anyone actually buy music from a brick and mortar store anymore?).
I'm at least trying to set some good examples for my kids (whom I know will eventually get electronics of their own). No listining to the ipod during meals. When someone speaks to you, take the earphones off, both of them. Always put the ipod in a designated 'not being used' spot so it doesn't get lost or laundered (hubby swears I'll lose my ipod in 4-6 months - gotta prove him wrong so I can get a new phone to replace the crappy one I have because my good phone was lost/stolen, and my decent replacement went through the washing machine in my pants pocket - lost my cool Adam Lambert ringtone on both /sob).
Can't wait to rediscover old favorite tunes (and find out what Offspring CDs I'm missing).
Sunday, November 29, 2009
The Guild
Today is more of a rave than a rant. I spent yesterday watching all the webisodes of The Guild. How did I not hear of this earlier? Of course, I always thought a show about gamers would be sort of boring. I mean, how exciting is it to watch people sit at their computers, play games and talk to people. But then, the Big Bang Theory is evidence that shows about nerds (who game) can be successful, so anything is possible.
Now the Guild is a little different from "typical" gamers, imo. It is written by a gamer (a female one to boot!), so it has the lifestyle and terminology pretty much down. But its about a group of local gamers, who can meet and interact in person. That's not too typical. Certainly in my own experience, members of one's guild run across the country and sometimes even across the world (hello to my hubby from France, whom I met playing EQ). Also, most of the time, the gamers rarely, if ever, meet other players. I've met some of the people in my guilds, we actually planned a vacation to New Orleans for Mardi Gras with a bunch of them (and yes, at first we did call each other by our character names, rather than our real names). That was a real blast! But I've never met most of my good guildy friends.
But like The Guild, the majority of my social interactions (at least several years ago) was through my on line guild friends. And they ran the gauntlet of power gamers, flirts, rules lawyers, auction studs, casual players, 'goody goods', role players, etc. My life a few years ago, was pretty much rushing home from work to log on and spending the rest of the evening and most of the weekends playing. We used to eat while gaming, using quick raid breaks to throw clothes in the laundry or nuke food. I know a lot of my guild buddies skipped classes, called in sick to work and spent the vast majority of their time on line. I was never quite that bad, but I will admit that when I had my first child, it was challenging to play and breastfeed at the same time.
Our life revolved around playing the game for several years, doing raids with our guild, completing epic quests, leveling our characters. When my husband was in France for four months waiting for his visa to be approved, during my first winter in Philly, I don't know what I would have done if I hadn't been able to speak with my guild mates. I only knew a couple of people in Philly (also gamers, but neither were playing much at that time), so having the social interactions with my guildmates through that long cold dark time really kept me from being incredibly lonely.
We had the best guild in EQ, Legions of Darkness. It was one of the top guilds on the Innoruuk server and in the game. It was great being a part of great group of players, who knew how to play and were dedicated to the game. Even now, many years later, we're still in touch with people with whom we played. We continue to play other games, WoW, EQ2, Vanguard. Even those that don't play as much are my Facebook friends, so we can still keep in touch.
We haven't played much recently, most of our gamer friends have stopped playing for various reasons, and some like one game better while other friends like different games. Breaks always seem to happen when hubby and I go on an extended family visiting vacation. At the moment, we haven't played our on-line games in nearly four months, which is a pretty long time for us. Maybe after our Christmas vacation, we'll contact some of friends and play again. I hear both EQ2 and WoW have expansions out or coming out that we haven't tried yet.
For anyone that has played MMORPG and been in a guild, The Guild webisodes are a little microcosm of that life. They are pretty spot on with the types of people that play (some exaggerations of course) and how gamers react with each other. The three seasons (plus extras - the Christmas ones are great) take a few hours to watch, even though the episodes are like six minutes apiece (12 episodes per season). Definitely brings back memories.
Now the Guild is a little different from "typical" gamers, imo. It is written by a gamer (a female one to boot!), so it has the lifestyle and terminology pretty much down. But its about a group of local gamers, who can meet and interact in person. That's not too typical. Certainly in my own experience, members of one's guild run across the country and sometimes even across the world (hello to my hubby from France, whom I met playing EQ). Also, most of the time, the gamers rarely, if ever, meet other players. I've met some of the people in my guilds, we actually planned a vacation to New Orleans for Mardi Gras with a bunch of them (and yes, at first we did call each other by our character names, rather than our real names). That was a real blast! But I've never met most of my good guildy friends.
But like The Guild, the majority of my social interactions (at least several years ago) was through my on line guild friends. And they ran the gauntlet of power gamers, flirts, rules lawyers, auction studs, casual players, 'goody goods', role players, etc. My life a few years ago, was pretty much rushing home from work to log on and spending the rest of the evening and most of the weekends playing. We used to eat while gaming, using quick raid breaks to throw clothes in the laundry or nuke food. I know a lot of my guild buddies skipped classes, called in sick to work and spent the vast majority of their time on line. I was never quite that bad, but I will admit that when I had my first child, it was challenging to play and breastfeed at the same time.
Our life revolved around playing the game for several years, doing raids with our guild, completing epic quests, leveling our characters. When my husband was in France for four months waiting for his visa to be approved, during my first winter in Philly, I don't know what I would have done if I hadn't been able to speak with my guild mates. I only knew a couple of people in Philly (also gamers, but neither were playing much at that time), so having the social interactions with my guildmates through that long cold dark time really kept me from being incredibly lonely.
We had the best guild in EQ, Legions of Darkness. It was one of the top guilds on the Innoruuk server and in the game. It was great being a part of great group of players, who knew how to play and were dedicated to the game. Even now, many years later, we're still in touch with people with whom we played. We continue to play other games, WoW, EQ2, Vanguard. Even those that don't play as much are my Facebook friends, so we can still keep in touch.
We haven't played much recently, most of our gamer friends have stopped playing for various reasons, and some like one game better while other friends like different games. Breaks always seem to happen when hubby and I go on an extended family visiting vacation. At the moment, we haven't played our on-line games in nearly four months, which is a pretty long time for us. Maybe after our Christmas vacation, we'll contact some of friends and play again. I hear both EQ2 and WoW have expansions out or coming out that we haven't tried yet.
For anyone that has played MMORPG and been in a guild, The Guild webisodes are a little microcosm of that life. They are pretty spot on with the types of people that play (some exaggerations of course) and how gamers react with each other. The three seasons (plus extras - the Christmas ones are great) take a few hours to watch, even though the episodes are like six minutes apiece (12 episodes per season). Definitely brings back memories.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Baby Boomers are Luddites
I read this comment on a legal blog I visit from time to time, Above the Law. The blog is mostly about "big law" firms in NYC, but it has articles that have relevancy to me as well, and its always a good idea to keep informed about one's profession in the "big markets."
So this comment is about how baby boomers are, for the most part, quite computer illerate. They figured out how to program the VCR, but aren't quite up to speed when using a computer, or maneuvering about most of todays top tech (ipods, texting, twittering, etc.) I have to agree, at least in general, but mostly for older boomers. Granted there are some exceptions, exceptionally bright people who have learned to use computers, or those that were educated in math, science, engineering. But in my line of work, I'd say probably 50% of those over 45 and 75% of those over 50 are barely able to respond to an email, let alone how to use MS Word.
Of course, given I was born in 1964, supposedly I'm "technically" part of the baby boomer generation. I usually take great umbrage to that designation, because I feel I have virtually nothing in common with boomers, especially those 15-20 years older than me. Hello, I didn't get to take advantage of cheap housing, little to no student loans, and career development. Instead, I've been stuck with higher taxes, higher housing and education costs, funding my own retirement from the git go (while trying to afford housing, taxes and student loans), and I'm a bit stymied in career development because most boomers won't let go.
The one thing I always felt I had a bit of an advantage is in my computer literacy. I got a head start because my dad worked for Xerox, so we actually had a computer at home since I was in high school. In college, I was using a Xerox memory writer with discs, a very very early version of a word processing program on a PC. It was huge help in law school, I was nearly the only person that would type up my class notes for studying. I actually spent most of my time on law review helping other students edit and format their articles. I've not gone without my own home computer since probably 1992 (no sharing for me, hubby has his own).
Now I definitely am not as 'up to speed' on some things, I'm a pretty slow texter (damn buttons are too small), I don't really care to read tweets 50 times a day and I haven't yet downloaded music to an mp3 player (I want to, its just a matter of finding the time to download my hundreds of CDs into a player and finding earbuds that don't fall out of my ears). But maneuvering around a computer is something I am pretty good at, and this is actually where I've had some issues at work.
For the first time ever in my career, I have a secretary all to myself. I'm the only attorney she works for (in general at least, she helps out others frequently). Previously, I've always had to share a secretary, and at least partly due to having to wait for my work to get done, and my typing speed, I've found that its probably 3-4 times as fast for me to type something up, letters, briefs, memos, than it is for me to dictate it, wait for my secretary (who types slower than me) to type it up, revise the letter and correct all her errors, have her fix all her errors, proof read the document again and fix other errors, have her fix more errors and then finalize the document. Instead, I can create the document as I think of it, revise it as I go, run a spell check, proof read one time, then give it to her to put in "final form."
Granted, some things are easier to dictate (summarizing depositions, transcripts and documents, for example). But that's probably no more than 1/5 of my job. Maybe its because I'm used to seeing my thoughts instantenously on the computer screen, but when I dictate, especially a long letter or memo, I've sometimes forgotten what I've said before. If I'm typing it, I can instantly curser up screen to see what I wrote, but with a dictaphone, I either have to let it go and revise the letter later or rewind the tape and listen to the whole thing. Either way is more time consuming. And lets not get into the instances where I've dictated almost an entire tape side only to have the tape break and now I have to redo the whole damn thing.
So even with my own secretary, I do a lot of my own work. I give my secretary things to do, but she still has more down time than most of the other secretaries. My boss tells me I have to dictate more. Grrrr, I hate it. I am significantly more productive when I do my own typing. I have limited time in the office due to child care issues, so I try to get as much done at the office as I possibly can. So its annoying to have to redo and redo and recorrect a report or brief or memo three, four and five times. I end up taking a lot of correction work home to review after the kids are in bed, but this annoys me because I like having what little free time I get at home available to me to catch up on tv shows, or watch a movie. Spelling errors I can understand, but it does annoy me to see errors that doing a little checking in the case file or looking something up online would solve (like getting an address, or knowing how to spell 'ischial', or spelling a party's name wrong).
Why does my boss want me to dictate? Because he does and it keeps secretaries busy. He dictates everything, including his time entries. Maybe if my secretary didn't make as many errors as she does, or would take a little initiative to find out information that's in the case file or easily found online without me having to spoon feed it to her, I wouldn't mind as much, but I still find it easier for me to just type things myself. I've tried to compromise, dictate some time, email her things to do, take work home to correct errors or make revisions, but its annoying. Frankly, if I didn't like my secretary as much as I do, I would have pushed to just share one a long time ago, but I like her a lot as a person, I get along with her better than most of the rest, so I want her to stay. I just wish she'd maybe care a bit more about her job and become a real legal assistant so I could give her subtantive work to do that would really help me. Summarize depositions, documents, prepare draft answers to discovery, stuff I could just review and add to, without having to do the whole thing myself. That would be useful.
In the meantime, I have to deal with my luddite boss, use the stupid dictaphone and teach my secretary how to google.
So this comment is about how baby boomers are, for the most part, quite computer illerate. They figured out how to program the VCR, but aren't quite up to speed when using a computer, or maneuvering about most of todays top tech (ipods, texting, twittering, etc.) I have to agree, at least in general, but mostly for older boomers. Granted there are some exceptions, exceptionally bright people who have learned to use computers, or those that were educated in math, science, engineering. But in my line of work, I'd say probably 50% of those over 45 and 75% of those over 50 are barely able to respond to an email, let alone how to use MS Word.
Of course, given I was born in 1964, supposedly I'm "technically" part of the baby boomer generation. I usually take great umbrage to that designation, because I feel I have virtually nothing in common with boomers, especially those 15-20 years older than me. Hello, I didn't get to take advantage of cheap housing, little to no student loans, and career development. Instead, I've been stuck with higher taxes, higher housing and education costs, funding my own retirement from the git go (while trying to afford housing, taxes and student loans), and I'm a bit stymied in career development because most boomers won't let go.
The one thing I always felt I had a bit of an advantage is in my computer literacy. I got a head start because my dad worked for Xerox, so we actually had a computer at home since I was in high school. In college, I was using a Xerox memory writer with discs, a very very early version of a word processing program on a PC. It was huge help in law school, I was nearly the only person that would type up my class notes for studying. I actually spent most of my time on law review helping other students edit and format their articles. I've not gone without my own home computer since probably 1992 (no sharing for me, hubby has his own).
Now I definitely am not as 'up to speed' on some things, I'm a pretty slow texter (damn buttons are too small), I don't really care to read tweets 50 times a day and I haven't yet downloaded music to an mp3 player (I want to, its just a matter of finding the time to download my hundreds of CDs into a player and finding earbuds that don't fall out of my ears). But maneuvering around a computer is something I am pretty good at, and this is actually where I've had some issues at work.
For the first time ever in my career, I have a secretary all to myself. I'm the only attorney she works for (in general at least, she helps out others frequently). Previously, I've always had to share a secretary, and at least partly due to having to wait for my work to get done, and my typing speed, I've found that its probably 3-4 times as fast for me to type something up, letters, briefs, memos, than it is for me to dictate it, wait for my secretary (who types slower than me) to type it up, revise the letter and correct all her errors, have her fix all her errors, proof read the document again and fix other errors, have her fix more errors and then finalize the document. Instead, I can create the document as I think of it, revise it as I go, run a spell check, proof read one time, then give it to her to put in "final form."
Granted, some things are easier to dictate (summarizing depositions, transcripts and documents, for example). But that's probably no more than 1/5 of my job. Maybe its because I'm used to seeing my thoughts instantenously on the computer screen, but when I dictate, especially a long letter or memo, I've sometimes forgotten what I've said before. If I'm typing it, I can instantly curser up screen to see what I wrote, but with a dictaphone, I either have to let it go and revise the letter later or rewind the tape and listen to the whole thing. Either way is more time consuming. And lets not get into the instances where I've dictated almost an entire tape side only to have the tape break and now I have to redo the whole damn thing.
So even with my own secretary, I do a lot of my own work. I give my secretary things to do, but she still has more down time than most of the other secretaries. My boss tells me I have to dictate more. Grrrr, I hate it. I am significantly more productive when I do my own typing. I have limited time in the office due to child care issues, so I try to get as much done at the office as I possibly can. So its annoying to have to redo and redo and recorrect a report or brief or memo three, four and five times. I end up taking a lot of correction work home to review after the kids are in bed, but this annoys me because I like having what little free time I get at home available to me to catch up on tv shows, or watch a movie. Spelling errors I can understand, but it does annoy me to see errors that doing a little checking in the case file or looking something up online would solve (like getting an address, or knowing how to spell 'ischial', or spelling a party's name wrong).
Why does my boss want me to dictate? Because he does and it keeps secretaries busy. He dictates everything, including his time entries. Maybe if my secretary didn't make as many errors as she does, or would take a little initiative to find out information that's in the case file or easily found online without me having to spoon feed it to her, I wouldn't mind as much, but I still find it easier for me to just type things myself. I've tried to compromise, dictate some time, email her things to do, take work home to correct errors or make revisions, but its annoying. Frankly, if I didn't like my secretary as much as I do, I would have pushed to just share one a long time ago, but I like her a lot as a person, I get along with her better than most of the rest, so I want her to stay. I just wish she'd maybe care a bit more about her job and become a real legal assistant so I could give her subtantive work to do that would really help me. Summarize depositions, documents, prepare draft answers to discovery, stuff I could just review and add to, without having to do the whole thing myself. That would be useful.
In the meantime, I have to deal with my luddite boss, use the stupid dictaphone and teach my secretary how to google.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Why Men Shouldn't Shop
Now I know why men don't shop and why it should stay that way. Besides the fact that they usually don't like it, too many people, having to wait around for sales people or in line at the register, trying to make sense of the sales and/or prices, they just don't pay attention and they suck at comparison shopping. Even when its on-line, at home, with all the time in the world and no pushing and shoving, apparently they can't be bothered to google something and see if someone else is selling the same thing for less.
We're home this weekend buying a Christmas gift for our daughter, on behalf of my french in-laws (the item wasn't available in France). We're buying a Leapster 2 and a bunch of games/accessories. My husband goes to the Leap Frog website to buy the item. He tells me that the console is $50.00, but more in pink and the games are $25 each, plus shipping of like $20. I say wait, lets check Amazon.com. Sure enough, I find the same item and the games for less money and the shipping is $8 for everything.
Not more than an hour or two later, he comes to me again about a Christmas gift for his brother. I say sure, get the items. He then tells me after placing the order that the cost is more more because the shipping is $14. Excuse me? $14? For what we're getting? Well, that's what the manfacturer's website charges. Did you check Amazon.com? Uh, no. Sigh. Sure enough, Amazon has the same items, a few dollars less, for FREE SHIPPING. You think he paid attention with Leap Frog, yes? Nope.
That's why men shouldn't shop. They just don't pay attention. We won't get into the fact that I can't send him to the grocery store for milk unless I give him a photograph of exactly what to buy.
We're home this weekend buying a Christmas gift for our daughter, on behalf of my french in-laws (the item wasn't available in France). We're buying a Leapster 2 and a bunch of games/accessories. My husband goes to the Leap Frog website to buy the item. He tells me that the console is $50.00, but more in pink and the games are $25 each, plus shipping of like $20. I say wait, lets check Amazon.com. Sure enough, I find the same item and the games for less money and the shipping is $8 for everything.
Not more than an hour or two later, he comes to me again about a Christmas gift for his brother. I say sure, get the items. He then tells me after placing the order that the cost is more more because the shipping is $14. Excuse me? $14? For what we're getting? Well, that's what the manfacturer's website charges. Did you check Amazon.com? Uh, no. Sigh. Sure enough, Amazon has the same items, a few dollars less, for FREE SHIPPING. You think he paid attention with Leap Frog, yes? Nope.
That's why men shouldn't shop. They just don't pay attention. We won't get into the fact that I can't send him to the grocery store for milk unless I give him a photograph of exactly what to buy.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
More Stupid Credit
I have to wonder sometimes how some credit companies stay in business. It has to be stupid people. Case in point.
I got a call from Wells Fargo, with whom we have our mortgage and a couple of credit cards. One we got when we got the mortgage (which pays us back 1% automatically to the principal of our mortgage every time we use it), and another we got when we bought some furniture from Raymore and Flanagan when we bought the house and took advantage of one of those 0% interest for 3 years pay-off plans. The furniture will be payed off next month, so I guess WF is looking to keep our business (even though we didn't pay any interest).
WF contacts us to ask if we have some high interest credit cards we'd like to consolidate and pay on a "fixed rate" plan, using either equity in the house or on our cars. We say sure, we'll check it out. They already have the mortgage info, so I send them info on our 2005 Ford minivan (which we are paying on at 7%) and three credit cards with balances and interest rates of about 15%. I have a few other cards with balances, but all those are 3-5% interest, and I didn't think I'd see better than that. I wasn't expecting miracles, but if I could pay down the 15% balance at 9% I figure I could save a few bucks and every little bit counts these days.
Naturally, WF can't do this over the phone with us, we have to visit them at our office, which requires taking time off work. We go and turns out the only thing they can offer (because the real estate market is still too 'dicey') is to buy out our current car loan, plus give us a whopping $1,300 extra (and we wouldn't have to pay the Nov. car payment), but the loan would now be at 16%.
Excuse me, 16%? Do you think I'm stupid? They want me to exchange my 7% car loan with about 3 1/2 years to pay for a 16% loan just to get $1,300? Why possible good could that do me, since even the credit card I could pay off with that amount is at 15%? I was so pissed it took all my willpower not to totally go off this loan agent.
Talk about a complete waste of time. I mean they knew the interest rate of the credit card I wanted to pay off, I faxed it to them. If there was no way they could even beat that rate, why on earth would they think I'd even be remotely interested? Just to get a "fix payment plan"? Yeah, no thanks, I can put myself on a "fixed payment plan" and pay off both the car and the credit card quicker and at less cost.
I suppose for some people, this might work for them, if they had credit cards with 19% interest or higher. But still, for only $1,300 I wasn't about to exchange a 7% loan for a 16% loan. Maybe some people fall for this when they've taken the time to come into the office, but I'm not that easy. So I was nice and told them no thanks, it really didn't make good economic sense, and we left. Of course, they said maybe we can do business again, but I'm not so sure I want to do so with a company that must think I'm stupid.
Which reminds me, I need to go close a credit card account that I rarely use because now they want to charge me a yearly $50 fee for the privilege of loaning me money for 20 days (because with their new interest rate of 29% I'd never carry a balance on that card). Yeah, I may take a temporary hit to my credit score, but the available credit was low and not worth much anyway. I doubt it will hurt us too much and we're not looking to get more credit right now anyway.
I got a call from Wells Fargo, with whom we have our mortgage and a couple of credit cards. One we got when we got the mortgage (which pays us back 1% automatically to the principal of our mortgage every time we use it), and another we got when we bought some furniture from Raymore and Flanagan when we bought the house and took advantage of one of those 0% interest for 3 years pay-off plans. The furniture will be payed off next month, so I guess WF is looking to keep our business (even though we didn't pay any interest).
WF contacts us to ask if we have some high interest credit cards we'd like to consolidate and pay on a "fixed rate" plan, using either equity in the house or on our cars. We say sure, we'll check it out. They already have the mortgage info, so I send them info on our 2005 Ford minivan (which we are paying on at 7%) and three credit cards with balances and interest rates of about 15%. I have a few other cards with balances, but all those are 3-5% interest, and I didn't think I'd see better than that. I wasn't expecting miracles, but if I could pay down the 15% balance at 9% I figure I could save a few bucks and every little bit counts these days.
Naturally, WF can't do this over the phone with us, we have to visit them at our office, which requires taking time off work. We go and turns out the only thing they can offer (because the real estate market is still too 'dicey') is to buy out our current car loan, plus give us a whopping $1,300 extra (and we wouldn't have to pay the Nov. car payment), but the loan would now be at 16%.
Excuse me, 16%? Do you think I'm stupid? They want me to exchange my 7% car loan with about 3 1/2 years to pay for a 16% loan just to get $1,300? Why possible good could that do me, since even the credit card I could pay off with that amount is at 15%? I was so pissed it took all my willpower not to totally go off this loan agent.
Talk about a complete waste of time. I mean they knew the interest rate of the credit card I wanted to pay off, I faxed it to them. If there was no way they could even beat that rate, why on earth would they think I'd even be remotely interested? Just to get a "fix payment plan"? Yeah, no thanks, I can put myself on a "fixed payment plan" and pay off both the car and the credit card quicker and at less cost.
I suppose for some people, this might work for them, if they had credit cards with 19% interest or higher. But still, for only $1,300 I wasn't about to exchange a 7% loan for a 16% loan. Maybe some people fall for this when they've taken the time to come into the office, but I'm not that easy. So I was nice and told them no thanks, it really didn't make good economic sense, and we left. Of course, they said maybe we can do business again, but I'm not so sure I want to do so with a company that must think I'm stupid.
Which reminds me, I need to go close a credit card account that I rarely use because now they want to charge me a yearly $50 fee for the privilege of loaning me money for 20 days (because with their new interest rate of 29% I'd never carry a balance on that card). Yeah, I may take a temporary hit to my credit score, but the available credit was low and not worth much anyway. I doubt it will hurt us too much and we're not looking to get more credit right now anyway.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Lotsa Rants
Today I have many rants.
I'm annoyed with my bank because first they increase the minimum balance to maintain a savings account without a fee. I close the account because I now get better interest (these days its not much, but every penny helps) with ING. I take out all the money and tell the CSR I'm closing the account, but apparently he doesn't do it. So when my bank charged me a maintenance fee, I had to call them up to take it off and really close the account. At least that one didn't cost me any money.
Then there's Citibank. Have a credit card with them. I take a weekend and pay/set up a lot of my credit cards with online banking information. Citi claims I put in the wrong checking account information, but doesn't tell me that until a week after the payment is due. I doubt I did it wrong because when I tried to "fix" it, the online program kept telling me I wasn't changing anything, so I couldn't "edit" the information. But the CSR took off the late fee and 'returned payment' fee because I agreed to make the full payment (which was actually two monthly payments now) right then and signed up for their credit protection service for free for 30 days (which we will now have to write them to cancel because those things are just new ways to suck your money).
So I make the full two month payment (even though the Oct. payment isn't really due yet) and confirm that the checking account info they now have is correct. So what happens? Come the day that the Oct. monthly payment was due, which I actually paid several weeks ago (and confirmed on line that I had O minimum payment due), the program still took out the full payment (which was actually two monthly payments). Normally I wouldn't mind too much if it cut down my interest charge, but this account is currently on a 1.99% promotion rate, so it was very minimal savings, but now I'm out two monthly payments that I didn't owe (with money already short these days and we're living on a tight monthly budget - not a whole lot available for 'extra' payments).
Also, the lovely Citi CSR person didn't tell me that because that first online payment didn't go through, my account got put into "default" mode, which means that I was going to have my interest rate increased to 30% and the balance transfer check I had already written (to transfer a higher interest credit card account to the 1.99% interest rate) would now be declined. I find this out only after the balance transfer check got bounced (which my bank charged me another fee). Fortunately more phone calls and requests for fee waivers got approved and I got the returned check fee waived by my bank and Citi finally agreed to keep my interest rate at the original 1.99% rate. I didn't ask if I could do more balance transfers, I figured that the less of my money Citi has right now, the better. I'll just work to pay off the higher rate card faster.
Granted all these problems got resolved, but they all took time to do so over the telephone and caused me stress in the meantime. Also, they only got resolved in my favor because I didn't have prior problems on my accounts. Now, of course, if I have new problems, I may not get a good resolution because of these now prior problems (which weren't my fault). I guess that overall this is just a lesson in why we need to get these stupid cards paid off as fast as we can. Its just hard to do with the current state of the economy, and little extra money left over each month.
The Septa strike is another rant of mine because that one is costing me money. Because I can't take the subway to work, I have to take the train. That costs me an extra $7.00 per day for fare and parking, plus the extra driving to the farther train station. A few days is not a real problem, but if the Septa strike continues for a few weeks, that $7.00 a day starts to add up real quick. Plus I have to make sure I have lots of change available to pay for parking because the meters don't take dollar bills. I'm sure Stephane wants the strike to end soon too, because since I have to be at the train station before 7 am to get a parking spot, he has to take the kids to daycare in the morning, which is a bit out of his way to work. Not a lot of sympathy for the union workers, who make $52,000 a year with guaranteed raises, cadillac health care plans (for which they pay $400 a month for a family) and well funded pensions (of which they only pay 2% of their salaries).
Its a tough time. Every penny/dollar counts these days, as expenses seem to continue to go up, yet our income remains flat. Just need to get through to August when daycare expenses will go down some at least. Hopefully Stephane will get even a small raise this year too.
I'm annoyed with my bank because first they increase the minimum balance to maintain a savings account without a fee. I close the account because I now get better interest (these days its not much, but every penny helps) with ING. I take out all the money and tell the CSR I'm closing the account, but apparently he doesn't do it. So when my bank charged me a maintenance fee, I had to call them up to take it off and really close the account. At least that one didn't cost me any money.
Then there's Citibank. Have a credit card with them. I take a weekend and pay/set up a lot of my credit cards with online banking information. Citi claims I put in the wrong checking account information, but doesn't tell me that until a week after the payment is due. I doubt I did it wrong because when I tried to "fix" it, the online program kept telling me I wasn't changing anything, so I couldn't "edit" the information. But the CSR took off the late fee and 'returned payment' fee because I agreed to make the full payment (which was actually two monthly payments now) right then and signed up for their credit protection service for free for 30 days (which we will now have to write them to cancel because those things are just new ways to suck your money).
So I make the full two month payment (even though the Oct. payment isn't really due yet) and confirm that the checking account info they now have is correct. So what happens? Come the day that the Oct. monthly payment was due, which I actually paid several weeks ago (and confirmed on line that I had O minimum payment due), the program still took out the full payment (which was actually two monthly payments). Normally I wouldn't mind too much if it cut down my interest charge, but this account is currently on a 1.99% promotion rate, so it was very minimal savings, but now I'm out two monthly payments that I didn't owe (with money already short these days and we're living on a tight monthly budget - not a whole lot available for 'extra' payments).
Also, the lovely Citi CSR person didn't tell me that because that first online payment didn't go through, my account got put into "default" mode, which means that I was going to have my interest rate increased to 30% and the balance transfer check I had already written (to transfer a higher interest credit card account to the 1.99% interest rate) would now be declined. I find this out only after the balance transfer check got bounced (which my bank charged me another fee). Fortunately more phone calls and requests for fee waivers got approved and I got the returned check fee waived by my bank and Citi finally agreed to keep my interest rate at the original 1.99% rate. I didn't ask if I could do more balance transfers, I figured that the less of my money Citi has right now, the better. I'll just work to pay off the higher rate card faster.
Granted all these problems got resolved, but they all took time to do so over the telephone and caused me stress in the meantime. Also, they only got resolved in my favor because I didn't have prior problems on my accounts. Now, of course, if I have new problems, I may not get a good resolution because of these now prior problems (which weren't my fault). I guess that overall this is just a lesson in why we need to get these stupid cards paid off as fast as we can. Its just hard to do with the current state of the economy, and little extra money left over each month.
The Septa strike is another rant of mine because that one is costing me money. Because I can't take the subway to work, I have to take the train. That costs me an extra $7.00 per day for fare and parking, plus the extra driving to the farther train station. A few days is not a real problem, but if the Septa strike continues for a few weeks, that $7.00 a day starts to add up real quick. Plus I have to make sure I have lots of change available to pay for parking because the meters don't take dollar bills. I'm sure Stephane wants the strike to end soon too, because since I have to be at the train station before 7 am to get a parking spot, he has to take the kids to daycare in the morning, which is a bit out of his way to work. Not a lot of sympathy for the union workers, who make $52,000 a year with guaranteed raises, cadillac health care plans (for which they pay $400 a month for a family) and well funded pensions (of which they only pay 2% of their salaries).
Its a tough time. Every penny/dollar counts these days, as expenses seem to continue to go up, yet our income remains flat. Just need to get through to August when daycare expenses will go down some at least. Hopefully Stephane will get even a small raise this year too.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Recession Over?
So I've been reading articles about how the recession is over, Christmas is going to be good for retailers (or at least not as sucky as last year), things are better, according to some "expert economists." Frankly, I think its a lot of bull, I suppose meant to make retailers (or someone at least) feel better.
I'd just like to know for whom is the recession over and things are better? No one I know. Almost every day I read an article about layoffs, increased unemployment, no jobs (and no benefits). I don't recall the last time I read something about someone hiring. If unemployment is increasing, how can people have money to buy things to make it a better Christmas?
Even people who have jobs are struggling. Most didn't get a raise last year and don't expect one this year. Same for Christmas bonus. But they are having high expenses (child care, food, gas, insurance). Everything goes up except our wages. So those that had a bit extra at the end of the month, don't anymore. Those that were already close to the edge have to dip into their savings to cover increased expenses. Those that don't have much savings, put more on credit cards and increase those payments. People who stopped using their credit cards, or cut down their usage and perhaps paid down their balance, don't want to put money back on the credit cards.
Christmas is coming up and spending will increase some, but I bet its going to be worse than last year. I know that I plan to spend less this year than last year, and I cut last year's spending too. But with no raises, we're tight on our bills and I don't want to put anymore on credit cards than I absolutely have to. I think that retailers (and economists) are fooling themselves if they think this holiday season will be better than last year.
I'd just like to know for whom is the recession over and things are better? No one I know. Almost every day I read an article about layoffs, increased unemployment, no jobs (and no benefits). I don't recall the last time I read something about someone hiring. If unemployment is increasing, how can people have money to buy things to make it a better Christmas?
Even people who have jobs are struggling. Most didn't get a raise last year and don't expect one this year. Same for Christmas bonus. But they are having high expenses (child care, food, gas, insurance). Everything goes up except our wages. So those that had a bit extra at the end of the month, don't anymore. Those that were already close to the edge have to dip into their savings to cover increased expenses. Those that don't have much savings, put more on credit cards and increase those payments. People who stopped using their credit cards, or cut down their usage and perhaps paid down their balance, don't want to put money back on the credit cards.
Christmas is coming up and spending will increase some, but I bet its going to be worse than last year. I know that I plan to spend less this year than last year, and I cut last year's spending too. But with no raises, we're tight on our bills and I don't want to put anymore on credit cards than I absolutely have to. I think that retailers (and economists) are fooling themselves if they think this holiday season will be better than last year.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
In the Middle
Well, I guess I've officially reached "middle age" at 45. Some might say I reached it a few years ago, but I'm holding out for a longer life. I spotted a few gray hairs finally, so its time to start coloring. I'm not going to look any older than I am, and I'd prefer to look a bit younger, given that my hubby is several years behind me, and my kids aren't even in grade school yet. I haven't colored my hair since college, when I did the lightening thing to be a blonde. That was easy though, I just sprayed some stuff in my hair and used a blow drier. This time, will be a little more time intensive and messy, but will have more immediate results.
Time has really flown by. I still feel like a teenager (or at least college age) sometimes. I still love the music I listened to back then and like a decent amount of newer music. I'm not completely at the cutting edge of tech (I have a very simple cell phone and no ipod - although I do want to get one), but I'm not too far behind. I'm pretty internet savvy, on facebook, and keep up with on-line gaming. I'd be more up to date if I had more time. I've got a small/simple mp3 player, but just haven't had the time to download songs from CDs into it. I know I should just try and do a few a day, but even that much seems to take too much time.
I know its not going to get too much better either. Even once the kids are old enough to get themselves out of bed, dressed and breakfasted (hah, I know even teenagers have problems doing this), then I'll be shuttling them to afterschool/weekend programs, supervising/helping with homework, and attending school functions. And trying to do all that while still working full time, cooking meals (at least the kids can help with other chores), and trying to keep up with my own entertainment of on-line games and TV programs. Its times like these when I think about how lucky my mom was that her job as a teacher provided her with at least a bit more flexibility in having afterschool time available, not to mention summers off.
Maybe work will lighten up (yeah, unlikely too much), or maybe we'll eventually make enough money to hire some help (a bi-weekly maid would be nice). I know that in a couple of years, when some bills are paid off and the monthly daycare expenses stop (although at least part of that will go to other kid-care, at least during the summer), our finances will be better. And it will probably be nice to have one summer where the kids spend it with the French family.
But for now, everything keeps me quite busy. Definitely looking forward to the (hopefully) two week Christmas holiday with the French.
Time has really flown by. I still feel like a teenager (or at least college age) sometimes. I still love the music I listened to back then and like a decent amount of newer music. I'm not completely at the cutting edge of tech (I have a very simple cell phone and no ipod - although I do want to get one), but I'm not too far behind. I'm pretty internet savvy, on facebook, and keep up with on-line gaming. I'd be more up to date if I had more time. I've got a small/simple mp3 player, but just haven't had the time to download songs from CDs into it. I know I should just try and do a few a day, but even that much seems to take too much time.
I know its not going to get too much better either. Even once the kids are old enough to get themselves out of bed, dressed and breakfasted (hah, I know even teenagers have problems doing this), then I'll be shuttling them to afterschool/weekend programs, supervising/helping with homework, and attending school functions. And trying to do all that while still working full time, cooking meals (at least the kids can help with other chores), and trying to keep up with my own entertainment of on-line games and TV programs. Its times like these when I think about how lucky my mom was that her job as a teacher provided her with at least a bit more flexibility in having afterschool time available, not to mention summers off.
Maybe work will lighten up (yeah, unlikely too much), or maybe we'll eventually make enough money to hire some help (a bi-weekly maid would be nice). I know that in a couple of years, when some bills are paid off and the monthly daycare expenses stop (although at least part of that will go to other kid-care, at least during the summer), our finances will be better. And it will probably be nice to have one summer where the kids spend it with the French family.
But for now, everything keeps me quite busy. Definitely looking forward to the (hopefully) two week Christmas holiday with the French.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Driving Me Mad
There are days when I really miss driving in Los Angeles. Don't get me wrong, I will never miss sitting in 4+ lanes worth of traffic inching my way to the city, or to home. But at least Los Angeles was built as a 'driving/car' city, with the understanding and intent that people will use their car a lot and drive everywhere. As a result, freeways are numerous, with lots of exits, streets are wide and its easy to find an alternative route to where ever you are going, since most streets are designed in a grid pattern. One is usually never more than one short block away from an alternative route.
I have had so many instances where I'm driving in Philly (or the burbs really) and the road I'm on is suddenly closed, or jammed and I have to find an alternative route (because sitting in one lane traffic is almost worse than 4+ lanes). Because this area was not really built with cars in mind, or at least not beyond the idea that a family would never own more than 1 car, no matter how many adults over the age of 18 lived in the house, the roads are narrow, snake all over the place (i.e. no such thing as a grid pattern), and seem to rarely, if ever, have signs to tell you where you are, what road you are on and whether the road ahead of you is closing.
On our way to an anniversary dinner in the city, we got stuck in traffic on the one freeway into the city from our area because of a lane closure ahead (turning a 2 lane freeway into 1 lane). Since we knew side streets never went the direction they first appear to go in, and it is quite easy to get lost and completely turned around, we took the only sure route we knew, which forced us to backtrack quite some distance. We ended up 30 minutes late to our reservation, fortunately got seated (the restaurant made no promises), but of course, cost us more in babysitter time and our own frayed nerves.
Another time we missed the turnoff we meant to take to get to the Turnpike, but thought it was ok because there was another junction further ahead. Ok, a little bit out of our way, but not much. Well, turns out that while the road we were on did intersect with the Turnpike (actually merged in so once we got past a certain point we were forced to continue), but only in 2 of the 3 possible directions and naturally not the direction we needed. So now we had to go even further out of our way because exits are very few and far between on the Turnpike. Took us a good 30 minutes or so to get to the next exit, turned around and back to where we should have been in the first place. Good thing it wasn't any more, or we would have had problems getting dinner that night, we barely made it to the restaurant before it closed.
This morning I ended up getting sent on a huge detour (because of snakey roads) that took me an extra 30 minutes to get to my local train station because Penn Dot (or whoever) couldn't be bothered to post a sign to the tunnel in front of the train station parking lot warning people that the tunnel was going to be closed today. I'm sure they knew yesterday they'd be working there today, so why couldn't someone take a few minutes to post a sign at the train station? Come on, people need jobs. Pay someone mininum wage to go around posting signs of upcoming work. Think a little bit about the public. In fact, there were 5 construction-type people standing around talking and doing nothing when I finally got to the parking lot, pay one of them to actually do something maybe. Will the tunnel be closed again tomorrow? Who knows?
Driving and parking on my street is always a challenge because the street is so narrow and most of the families in our neighborhood own at least 2, if not more, cars, but the houses have shared driveways and at most one car garages. So usually a house can only have 1 car parked in their portion of the driveway (or 2 if the driveway is extended into the yard). That means a lot of cars are parked on our road, making it sometimes quite difficult to back my minivan out of the driveway, and one always has to pull over to let opposing vehicles by because there's not room for 2 cars to travel when there's also a parked car on the road.
So yeah, I sometimes really miss driving in LA.
I have had so many instances where I'm driving in Philly (or the burbs really) and the road I'm on is suddenly closed, or jammed and I have to find an alternative route (because sitting in one lane traffic is almost worse than 4+ lanes). Because this area was not really built with cars in mind, or at least not beyond the idea that a family would never own more than 1 car, no matter how many adults over the age of 18 lived in the house, the roads are narrow, snake all over the place (i.e. no such thing as a grid pattern), and seem to rarely, if ever, have signs to tell you where you are, what road you are on and whether the road ahead of you is closing.
On our way to an anniversary dinner in the city, we got stuck in traffic on the one freeway into the city from our area because of a lane closure ahead (turning a 2 lane freeway into 1 lane). Since we knew side streets never went the direction they first appear to go in, and it is quite easy to get lost and completely turned around, we took the only sure route we knew, which forced us to backtrack quite some distance. We ended up 30 minutes late to our reservation, fortunately got seated (the restaurant made no promises), but of course, cost us more in babysitter time and our own frayed nerves.
Another time we missed the turnoff we meant to take to get to the Turnpike, but thought it was ok because there was another junction further ahead. Ok, a little bit out of our way, but not much. Well, turns out that while the road we were on did intersect with the Turnpike (actually merged in so once we got past a certain point we were forced to continue), but only in 2 of the 3 possible directions and naturally not the direction we needed. So now we had to go even further out of our way because exits are very few and far between on the Turnpike. Took us a good 30 minutes or so to get to the next exit, turned around and back to where we should have been in the first place. Good thing it wasn't any more, or we would have had problems getting dinner that night, we barely made it to the restaurant before it closed.
This morning I ended up getting sent on a huge detour (because of snakey roads) that took me an extra 30 minutes to get to my local train station because Penn Dot (or whoever) couldn't be bothered to post a sign to the tunnel in front of the train station parking lot warning people that the tunnel was going to be closed today. I'm sure they knew yesterday they'd be working there today, so why couldn't someone take a few minutes to post a sign at the train station? Come on, people need jobs. Pay someone mininum wage to go around posting signs of upcoming work. Think a little bit about the public. In fact, there were 5 construction-type people standing around talking and doing nothing when I finally got to the parking lot, pay one of them to actually do something maybe. Will the tunnel be closed again tomorrow? Who knows?
Driving and parking on my street is always a challenge because the street is so narrow and most of the families in our neighborhood own at least 2, if not more, cars, but the houses have shared driveways and at most one car garages. So usually a house can only have 1 car parked in their portion of the driveway (or 2 if the driveway is extended into the yard). That means a lot of cars are parked on our road, making it sometimes quite difficult to back my minivan out of the driveway, and one always has to pull over to let opposing vehicles by because there's not room for 2 cars to travel when there's also a parked car on the road.
So yeah, I sometimes really miss driving in LA.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Summer's Over
Well, its the day after Labor Day, summer is officially over. My in-laws were in town for two weeks, so during that time, it was a mini-vacation for me too. I didn't have to get the kids up and ready for daycare, nor drop them off/pick them up. I think I cooked maybe twice during the entire time, we went out to eat a lot and my mother in law cooked a couple of times. We also went away for four days to VA, which was nice (although typically we had a few problems - nothing is ever easy), then had the 3 day weekend at the end. Overall, a very nice time. I can't wait for Christmas, when we'll hopefully visit with them for 2 weeks in France (finances permitting, the last time we checked airfare it was still close to $1,000 per person).
Even with the in-laws in town, I didn't seem to have much "down time." I worked a lot, trying to take advantage of no-daycare with some extra work hours. Several cases have kept me super busy and September promises to be about the same. Its a little extra tough sometimes because my boss has little "memory lapses" and doesn't always (ok, rarely ever) tells me when certain things come in the mail, so I find out very last minute and have to scramble to get some things out on time. His new secretary seems quite competent, but she doesn't yet know the cases well enough to know what I need to be told about and what I don't, so I still have to try and find out most things on my own.
It would help if my own secretary was a little more competent, it annoys me sometimes when I'm proof-reading a letter or memo and there are blanks in it that she could look up herself (since many times, I'm getting the information from the Complaint, discovery responses, or documents we've received). The other day she couldn't understand my dictating the address of where to send a document subpoena, she got the name, street address, state and zip code, but not the city. So she sends me an email (while I'm on vacation) asking me for the city. Um, excuse me, but you have the zip code, look it up on google! She speeds through things, then mentions that she's got nothing to do. I wish she'd take things a little slower, look things up more. Then she'd get it right and wouldn't have as much 'down time.' Hopefully this year, she'll show some improvement.
I can't believe my birthday is coming up so fast. Naturally, hubby askes what I want, or says just to buy something on my own. I know its typical husband behavior, but still, he knows what I want, MY DVD PLAYER ON MY COMPUTER TO WORK AGAIN!!!! Seriously, I don't need a gift, I want to watch my DVDs on my computer. Ok, maybe a new DVD too (like vol 4 of ST:TNG).
Another thing I'd love is a CD player for the mini-van. Either that or one of these days I need to learn how to program/download the little mp3 player I got (of course, that again may require that the DVD/CD rom drive on my computer function so I could actually transfer music). The only problem with downloading on the mp3 player is that it actually requires me to have time to sit and play/download the songs. Especially if I'm not doing an entire CD, but just certain songs. Gotta figure out how to do all that one of these days, and see if I can do that while using my headphones to listen to something else (like my EQ2 game chat). And gotta get new headphones for the mp3 player to use at other times (since the ones that came with the mp3 player and now being used on my work computer because some cleaning person stole the cheapo ones I was using at work).
Yup, going to be a busy month. Gotta catch up on what I missed in EQ2 (finish quests our friends did while we were off for 2 weeks, including likely getting level 80). New TV season starts soon, so gotta try to watch a couple more movies on the DVR to clear up space and make my list as to what gets DVR'd and what I will try and watch on the computer, so I don't miss anything. Gotta check whats available over the internet (not everything is) and watch the computer stuff first, since some networks only make an episode available for a limited time, 4 weeks maybe. Also have to try to limit the DVR to one show at a time in case hubby decides to watch something - naturally he always seems to do this on days/hours when I have 2 shows going, but not at other times.
Well, back to work.
Even with the in-laws in town, I didn't seem to have much "down time." I worked a lot, trying to take advantage of no-daycare with some extra work hours. Several cases have kept me super busy and September promises to be about the same. Its a little extra tough sometimes because my boss has little "memory lapses" and doesn't always (ok, rarely ever) tells me when certain things come in the mail, so I find out very last minute and have to scramble to get some things out on time. His new secretary seems quite competent, but she doesn't yet know the cases well enough to know what I need to be told about and what I don't, so I still have to try and find out most things on my own.
It would help if my own secretary was a little more competent, it annoys me sometimes when I'm proof-reading a letter or memo and there are blanks in it that she could look up herself (since many times, I'm getting the information from the Complaint, discovery responses, or documents we've received). The other day she couldn't understand my dictating the address of where to send a document subpoena, she got the name, street address, state and zip code, but not the city. So she sends me an email (while I'm on vacation) asking me for the city. Um, excuse me, but you have the zip code, look it up on google! She speeds through things, then mentions that she's got nothing to do. I wish she'd take things a little slower, look things up more. Then she'd get it right and wouldn't have as much 'down time.' Hopefully this year, she'll show some improvement.
I can't believe my birthday is coming up so fast. Naturally, hubby askes what I want, or says just to buy something on my own. I know its typical husband behavior, but still, he knows what I want, MY DVD PLAYER ON MY COMPUTER TO WORK AGAIN!!!! Seriously, I don't need a gift, I want to watch my DVDs on my computer. Ok, maybe a new DVD too (like vol 4 of ST:TNG).
Another thing I'd love is a CD player for the mini-van. Either that or one of these days I need to learn how to program/download the little mp3 player I got (of course, that again may require that the DVD/CD rom drive on my computer function so I could actually transfer music). The only problem with downloading on the mp3 player is that it actually requires me to have time to sit and play/download the songs. Especially if I'm not doing an entire CD, but just certain songs. Gotta figure out how to do all that one of these days, and see if I can do that while using my headphones to listen to something else (like my EQ2 game chat). And gotta get new headphones for the mp3 player to use at other times (since the ones that came with the mp3 player and now being used on my work computer because some cleaning person stole the cheapo ones I was using at work).
Yup, going to be a busy month. Gotta catch up on what I missed in EQ2 (finish quests our friends did while we were off for 2 weeks, including likely getting level 80). New TV season starts soon, so gotta try to watch a couple more movies on the DVR to clear up space and make my list as to what gets DVR'd and what I will try and watch on the computer, so I don't miss anything. Gotta check whats available over the internet (not everything is) and watch the computer stuff first, since some networks only make an episode available for a limited time, 4 weeks maybe. Also have to try to limit the DVR to one show at a time in case hubby decides to watch something - naturally he always seems to do this on days/hours when I have 2 shows going, but not at other times.
Well, back to work.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
The Shingle
So a lawyer friend of mine, who's had some difficulties finding an employer where there is mutual appreciation, has finally decided to hang out her own shingle. She actually won't be going at it alone, she has two other attorney friends that are joining her. Each of the three has their own specialty and contacts, so they may just do ok. I'm rooting for her. I know it hasn't been easy for her, although there have been some times I thought she brought some problems on herself. Still, I can totally sympathize with the difficulties in finding an employer you like and that appreciates the work you do, both in terms of verbal and monetary appreciation.
Especially in the legal field, it seems that the vast majority of lawyers are very super-type A people, very egocentric, very aggressive. I suppose that's probably why there are times when I'm too aggressive, though there are also many times I think I'm not aggressive enough in my work. Part of that is because of who I end up representing, I have felt more empathy for the plaintiffs than I do the defendants (or at least their insurance carrier). Still, its my job to defend them, so I do the best I can, which when I'm writing briefs is usually pretty good. I just need to do a better job in communicating verbally.
But back to my friend. Her new firm is planning to open in October. She'll possibly be renting space from a small firm for which we both used to work. Definitely small world. She ended up taking this move because her latest attempts to find a new position indicated that her prior employer problems may be biting a bit. A place she interviewed at (passing four rounds) found out that she used to work with an attorney (whom I also worked for - see Karma), who she believes may have passed along some not so nice remarks. Obviously the guy didn't admit it when she confronted him, but he didn't deny it either, so she has her suspicions, which may be valid. He wasn't her boss, but apparently he has enough contacts that he can still make a difference, and its sad that three years removed he can have that kind of sway and a desire to use it against her. So I hope her new firm is very successful and that someday, she beats him in court.
Part of me is pretty jealous of my friend, I admit. I would love to be my own boss, help real people, enjoy the rewards of being able to some work quickly on the computer, not have to worry about filling in a stupid billing sheet (although I suppose if I'm working for clients more directly, I'd have to record my time somehow, at least if I'm doing hourly work as opposed to flat billing). But until my family's financial situation is stable and supportive without me having to bring in a regular paycheck, its unlikely to happen. My friend doesn't have children and while she does have family and expenses (yeah, those dreadful student loans), she can get by on less.
I do have some hopes that in my current firm, I may eventually take over my boss' clients when he retires (which could be anywhere from 3-10 years depending on how his memory holds up). As my kids get older, I'll be able to focus a little more time for work and can hopefully get into more of the client-side of the business. This current firm is probably the best shot I have, so I hope everything continues to go well. So far, so good.
Especially in the legal field, it seems that the vast majority of lawyers are very super-type A people, very egocentric, very aggressive. I suppose that's probably why there are times when I'm too aggressive, though there are also many times I think I'm not aggressive enough in my work. Part of that is because of who I end up representing, I have felt more empathy for the plaintiffs than I do the defendants (or at least their insurance carrier). Still, its my job to defend them, so I do the best I can, which when I'm writing briefs is usually pretty good. I just need to do a better job in communicating verbally.
But back to my friend. Her new firm is planning to open in October. She'll possibly be renting space from a small firm for which we both used to work. Definitely small world. She ended up taking this move because her latest attempts to find a new position indicated that her prior employer problems may be biting a bit. A place she interviewed at (passing four rounds) found out that she used to work with an attorney (whom I also worked for - see Karma), who she believes may have passed along some not so nice remarks. Obviously the guy didn't admit it when she confronted him, but he didn't deny it either, so she has her suspicions, which may be valid. He wasn't her boss, but apparently he has enough contacts that he can still make a difference, and its sad that three years removed he can have that kind of sway and a desire to use it against her. So I hope her new firm is very successful and that someday, she beats him in court.
Part of me is pretty jealous of my friend, I admit. I would love to be my own boss, help real people, enjoy the rewards of being able to some work quickly on the computer, not have to worry about filling in a stupid billing sheet (although I suppose if I'm working for clients more directly, I'd have to record my time somehow, at least if I'm doing hourly work as opposed to flat billing). But until my family's financial situation is stable and supportive without me having to bring in a regular paycheck, its unlikely to happen. My friend doesn't have children and while she does have family and expenses (yeah, those dreadful student loans), she can get by on less.
I do have some hopes that in my current firm, I may eventually take over my boss' clients when he retires (which could be anywhere from 3-10 years depending on how his memory holds up). As my kids get older, I'll be able to focus a little more time for work and can hopefully get into more of the client-side of the business. This current firm is probably the best shot I have, so I hope everything continues to go well. So far, so good.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Vick? Seriously?
Well, I was pretty shocked last night watching the Eagles preseason game against the Patriots to hear that the Eagles signed Michael Vick. This is a team that booted a rookie for smoking marijuana and giving pretty hefty punishments for other players caught doing acts of which the management didn't approve. Heck, they made TO persona non gratta because he criticized the coaching staff and the lead quarterback (yeah, I think he was a jerk that deserved it too).
So it was pretty surprising that they'd sign someone with not just a criminal record, but a felony that involved killing animals. I hear the statements that Vick served his time, he's remorseful, he should be forgiven and allowed to make a living. But that doesn't mean I have to like him being on my team. Frankly, I expected him to go to the Raiders, where pretty much all other NFL criminals go. I would have been real money that the Eagles would never sign such a player. I understand the concept of forgiveness, but its hard to show that to someone that willingly took another creature's life (ok, bugs and mice are excepted).
Then there's the whole question of what the Eagles plan to do with Vick. Besides the fact that he can't play in a game until at least mid-October, the Eagles don't really need a quarterback. They have AJ Feeley and Kevin Kolb (who has a minor injury, but is supposed to be back), unless the Eagles really don't feel Kolb is McNabb's eventual replacement (in which case, there went a waste of a good first/second round draft pick).
They don't really need a running back or a wide receiver either. They have plenty of players at those positions already (and more than enough at wide receiver). Yeah Brian Westbrook has some questions of age and his knee, but he'll probably be good for this season, and his new second, McCoy looks great. I suppose Vick could be another backup in that position, or maybe tight end, where the Eagles are somewhat thin. Still, gotta wonder what player is going to lose out because of Vick being on the roster.
I want the Eagles to get to the Superbowl and win as much as the next Philadelphian, but (especially after the TO experiment) I'm really not sure the ends justifies the means.
So it was pretty surprising that they'd sign someone with not just a criminal record, but a felony that involved killing animals. I hear the statements that Vick served his time, he's remorseful, he should be forgiven and allowed to make a living. But that doesn't mean I have to like him being on my team. Frankly, I expected him to go to the Raiders, where pretty much all other NFL criminals go. I would have been real money that the Eagles would never sign such a player. I understand the concept of forgiveness, but its hard to show that to someone that willingly took another creature's life (ok, bugs and mice are excepted).
Then there's the whole question of what the Eagles plan to do with Vick. Besides the fact that he can't play in a game until at least mid-October, the Eagles don't really need a quarterback. They have AJ Feeley and Kevin Kolb (who has a minor injury, but is supposed to be back), unless the Eagles really don't feel Kolb is McNabb's eventual replacement (in which case, there went a waste of a good first/second round draft pick).
They don't really need a running back or a wide receiver either. They have plenty of players at those positions already (and more than enough at wide receiver). Yeah Brian Westbrook has some questions of age and his knee, but he'll probably be good for this season, and his new second, McCoy looks great. I suppose Vick could be another backup in that position, or maybe tight end, where the Eagles are somewhat thin. Still, gotta wonder what player is going to lose out because of Vick being on the roster.
I want the Eagles to get to the Superbowl and win as much as the next Philadelphian, but (especially after the TO experiment) I'm really not sure the ends justifies the means.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Why Watch Reality?
Ok, I've never been a big fan of "Reality TV." It took years before I ever watched American Idol, Survivor or The Amazing Race (TAR). I've since become of fan of these shows, but they seem to offer something different. TAR at least offers viewers the opportunity to see places around the world they might otherwise not see and certainly has wet my appetite to someday visit some of the areas (and cooled by interest in others). AI offers singing. Survivor is more borderline. I like the interaction of the contestants, but I do get annoyed with the editing and some of the manipulation of the producers. Still, at least they players are in a completely abnormal situation that I would never experience, so it holds some interest for me.
What I don't understand is the popularity of other shows like The Bachelor/Bachelorette (and similar), Big Brother, Jon and Kate, etc. These are people being placed in generally normal situations, dating, living with roommates, raising kids, what is so interesting about that? Ok, I admit I've not watched these shows more than glances in passing, but I just fail to see the attraction. Why watch a show about raising kids when I'm busy raising my own kids? Yeah, I don't have 8 of them (thankfully), but I don't see what's at all interesting about seeing a family getting everything handed to them (free beach vacations, camping equipment, playhouses) and yet claiming to "struggle." You want to see struggle? Try raising two young kids while working full time, having no relatives around to help and having to pay for child care that calls you home from work when they are sick. Kate has never struggled like that.
What's so interesting about dating and living with roommates? I've done both and granted they have not been in these compact scenarios, but I still don't quite see the interest. I know some would say that BB is not that much different from Survivor (at least in terms of throwing a bunch of strangers together) and I see validity to that claim. Maybe it just because of the surroundings in a foreign land (island or jungle) and their limited provisions that adds to my interest. Or maybe if Survivor was on 3 days a week like BB, I'd get sick of it too. Who knows.
I have limited time to watch TV, so I do pick and choose what to watch. With so many other good shows and stories out there, its hard to watch "reality" (otherwise known as 'manipulative') TV. Yeah, I can't wait for TAR and Survivor to start.
What I don't understand is the popularity of other shows like The Bachelor/Bachelorette (and similar), Big Brother, Jon and Kate, etc. These are people being placed in generally normal situations, dating, living with roommates, raising kids, what is so interesting about that? Ok, I admit I've not watched these shows more than glances in passing, but I just fail to see the attraction. Why watch a show about raising kids when I'm busy raising my own kids? Yeah, I don't have 8 of them (thankfully), but I don't see what's at all interesting about seeing a family getting everything handed to them (free beach vacations, camping equipment, playhouses) and yet claiming to "struggle." You want to see struggle? Try raising two young kids while working full time, having no relatives around to help and having to pay for child care that calls you home from work when they are sick. Kate has never struggled like that.
What's so interesting about dating and living with roommates? I've done both and granted they have not been in these compact scenarios, but I still don't quite see the interest. I know some would say that BB is not that much different from Survivor (at least in terms of throwing a bunch of strangers together) and I see validity to that claim. Maybe it just because of the surroundings in a foreign land (island or jungle) and their limited provisions that adds to my interest. Or maybe if Survivor was on 3 days a week like BB, I'd get sick of it too. Who knows.
I have limited time to watch TV, so I do pick and choose what to watch. With so many other good shows and stories out there, its hard to watch "reality" (otherwise known as 'manipulative') TV. Yeah, I can't wait for TAR and Survivor to start.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Current Again - But Healthy?
I was reading my morning newspaper (yeah, I still like to read a newspaper when I'm riding the train into work, the print is bigger than if I tried to do it on a tiny phone), and there was an article about a 'town hall' meeting discussing the health care overall that is struggling to make its way through Congress. I admit, this was one of the big issues that led me to vote for Obama (my parents, and most of my family will now disown me for voting democratic). I just felt that being a democrat and having to struggle in his life (until his recent book sales), he could understand more the struggles that most working people go through to afford health care.
To this day, I do not understand the people that oppose an overall, claiming that the government will restrict their ability to obtain health care. As if health insurance companies don't do this already???!!! Oh, you say, the health insurance company doesn't restrict your ability to get whatever health care you want, just whether it will pay for it. Well, if the government takes over, it will be the same thing. People in this country who have means, will always be able to afford whatever health care they want. Its people without means that have to deal with rationed healthcare. Frankly, I'd rather have the government, who presumably would have no self-interest in what care I get, running as a non-profit, making a payment choice, rather than a health insurance company, who makes choices based on profit, shareholder demands and its CEO's salary/bonus program.
How can anyone seriously believe that a health insurance company would make a "better" choice on whether a patient is allowed to have 10 physical therapy visits or 30 than the government? Of course the health insurance company is going to choose 10, if it can get a medical practitioner (whose paid by the health insurance company, btw) to say 'that's enough, the patient doesn't need 30.' I loved how my health insurance company believed I was ready to return to work four weeks after my shoulder surgery, after my physical therapy benefits were 'exhausted,' because clearly I didn't need to use my shoulder to type at a computer or dictate. Didn't matter that I still couldn't move my primary arm enough to operate a car (at least safely) to get to my work, or to properly shower and wash my hair, or put on a bra, so I could actually appear presentable at the office. But I guess insurance companies believe that everyone has maids, dressers and chauffers. I ended up paying out of pocket for additonal physical therapy, which took another two months (although I was better able to return to work after another three weeks).
Then there are the people who think its 'socialism' to have the government involved in our health care. As opposed to our public schools, police, fire dept., and a myriad of other services provided by our government or at least regulated by it? We seem to get along pretty well with our electricity, water and gas services provided or regulated by the government, I don't see that health coverage would be much different. Again people point to failings in some government services or slowness, but I don't see health insurance companies being all that much better. Everyone always talks about how one of the best perks in working for the government is the 'great health benefits', so why can't the rest of the country enjoy the same? Is that really so bad?
I know the final big argument is who will pay for it? Well, who has the money? If those that make the big bucks don't want to give it up in taxes, maybe they should give up more of it in liveable wages so other people can afford health care. Sorry, but the money has to come from somewhere and it certainly can't come from people making $7.00 an hour. Either pay a bit more in taxes, or cut part of your salary and raise it for your workers. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE deserves to have decent healthcare. Ok, maybe not everyone is going to get the top of the line care or the world famous surgeon, but not everyone needs that. But if someone is sick or hurt, they should be able to get health care, without worrying about how they are going to pay the bill.
To this day, I do not understand the people that oppose an overall, claiming that the government will restrict their ability to obtain health care. As if health insurance companies don't do this already???!!! Oh, you say, the health insurance company doesn't restrict your ability to get whatever health care you want, just whether it will pay for it. Well, if the government takes over, it will be the same thing. People in this country who have means, will always be able to afford whatever health care they want. Its people without means that have to deal with rationed healthcare. Frankly, I'd rather have the government, who presumably would have no self-interest in what care I get, running as a non-profit, making a payment choice, rather than a health insurance company, who makes choices based on profit, shareholder demands and its CEO's salary/bonus program.
How can anyone seriously believe that a health insurance company would make a "better" choice on whether a patient is allowed to have 10 physical therapy visits or 30 than the government? Of course the health insurance company is going to choose 10, if it can get a medical practitioner (whose paid by the health insurance company, btw) to say 'that's enough, the patient doesn't need 30.' I loved how my health insurance company believed I was ready to return to work four weeks after my shoulder surgery, after my physical therapy benefits were 'exhausted,' because clearly I didn't need to use my shoulder to type at a computer or dictate. Didn't matter that I still couldn't move my primary arm enough to operate a car (at least safely) to get to my work, or to properly shower and wash my hair, or put on a bra, so I could actually appear presentable at the office. But I guess insurance companies believe that everyone has maids, dressers and chauffers. I ended up paying out of pocket for additonal physical therapy, which took another two months (although I was better able to return to work after another three weeks).
Then there are the people who think its 'socialism' to have the government involved in our health care. As opposed to our public schools, police, fire dept., and a myriad of other services provided by our government or at least regulated by it? We seem to get along pretty well with our electricity, water and gas services provided or regulated by the government, I don't see that health coverage would be much different. Again people point to failings in some government services or slowness, but I don't see health insurance companies being all that much better. Everyone always talks about how one of the best perks in working for the government is the 'great health benefits', so why can't the rest of the country enjoy the same? Is that really so bad?
I know the final big argument is who will pay for it? Well, who has the money? If those that make the big bucks don't want to give it up in taxes, maybe they should give up more of it in liveable wages so other people can afford health care. Sorry, but the money has to come from somewhere and it certainly can't come from people making $7.00 an hour. Either pay a bit more in taxes, or cut part of your salary and raise it for your workers. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE deserves to have decent healthcare. Ok, maybe not everyone is going to get the top of the line care or the world famous surgeon, but not everyone needs that. But if someone is sick or hurt, they should be able to get health care, without worrying about how they are going to pay the bill.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
My Music Obsession
Ok, another long break. Busy with work, kids, playing EQ2, not too much time for posting. A visit from my cousin prompted me to post since its been a long time. Lots has happened recently, but today going to post my thoughts on amusement over the whole Adam Lambert deal. Yeah, I'm a few months old. So sue me.
I've watched AI on and off over the last several years. Its kindof a guilty pleasure for me. I don't listen to radio all that much anymore, so seeing AI keeps me appraised of at least some current songs. Naturally, I always root for the rocker, but rarely have I voted and never bought any songs off the internet. I did buy Daughtry's and David Cooks' CDs, both were pretty decent, and I've thought about buying some others, Bo Bice, Elliot Yamine, but never got around to it.
But this season was different. I'd like to say I was surprised over my reaction Adam Lambert, but it wasn't really all that different from other times that I've gotten hooked on a singer. Just a few years ago, when my husband turned me on to Jean Jacques Goldman, I scoured the internet looking for videos of his songs, reading the lyrics (since I couldn't understand most of them - they're in French), buying older copies of his CDs, even finally tracking down a DVD of his (last?) concert. I would have loved to seen him in concert too, but that's very unlikely now, since I think he's retired from performing.
The only difference between now and when I was a teen/college student (and went gaga over bands like Cheap Trick, Journey, Styx, Bon Jovi, etc.) is that now I can scour the internet for videos and information. I certainly would have done that back then, if that was available. But all we had were teen magazines and MTV.
So its not really out of my character to have done the same thing when I saw Adam Lambert. Like many others, I was awestruck by his voice, his control, his pitch, and he wasn't bad to look at either. Yeah, I learned he was gay, but so what. Its not like when I was a teen and 'dreamed' of hooking up with the band. Even if Adam was straight, I wouldn't be out to date the guy. But I loved watching his performances over youtube and on AI. Here was a real showman, the likes of which I hadn't seen since Freddie Mercury of Queen. Granted, I haven't been to many concerts lately, but even thinking back to some I saw in college or early post-college, none of the lead singers had the charisma of or put on a performance like Adam Lambert.
So for the first time I actually bought copies of his songs from Itunes (only because I learned that those songs are never released on CDs, so this was the only way to get a copy) and voted a whole hell of a lot more than before. I wanted to keep him on the show, I wanted to see him perform more. I definitely plan to buy his CD. I'd love to see him in concert, but that's less likely given other time/money/family commitments (and my husband's not interested). Maybe someday. In the meantime, thank god for youtube.
And by the way, I also purchased songs by Kris and Allison, two other singers I thought were the best that AI has put on in years. I think Allison has real potential to become the best female rocker AI has ever had and may finally be a worthy successor to Anne Wilson.
It was then kindof annoying to see articles about "cougars obsess over Adam." I guess there are many other women out there like me, who haven't seen a great charismatic singer in a long time, but using the word "cougar" kindof insulted me. Maybe some women obsess as they did years ago and want to 'get backstage' to bed the singer, but come on, even assuming Adam was interested in women, are you really going to ignore your family for a 27 year old guy? What's wrong with just being a big fan? Why do I have get labled a "cougar" because I think Adam is the best singer/performer I've seen in ages? Why am I made to feel different than a friend of mine who's had a serious crush on Steve Perry of Aerosmith for decades? Just because Adam is nearly 20 years younger than me, doesn't mean I can't appreciate his voice, his charisma, and yeah, his sexuality. He may be gay, but he still exudes a great sexual attraction that can get anyone excited. No different from porn for men IMO.
So I'm brimming with anticipation to hear his new material and I check youtube periodically to see some of his concert performances. Someday perhaps I'll get to see him perform live. I think he's got the ability to stick around a good long time.
I've watched AI on and off over the last several years. Its kindof a guilty pleasure for me. I don't listen to radio all that much anymore, so seeing AI keeps me appraised of at least some current songs. Naturally, I always root for the rocker, but rarely have I voted and never bought any songs off the internet. I did buy Daughtry's and David Cooks' CDs, both were pretty decent, and I've thought about buying some others, Bo Bice, Elliot Yamine, but never got around to it.
But this season was different. I'd like to say I was surprised over my reaction Adam Lambert, but it wasn't really all that different from other times that I've gotten hooked on a singer. Just a few years ago, when my husband turned me on to Jean Jacques Goldman, I scoured the internet looking for videos of his songs, reading the lyrics (since I couldn't understand most of them - they're in French), buying older copies of his CDs, even finally tracking down a DVD of his (last?) concert. I would have loved to seen him in concert too, but that's very unlikely now, since I think he's retired from performing.
The only difference between now and when I was a teen/college student (and went gaga over bands like Cheap Trick, Journey, Styx, Bon Jovi, etc.) is that now I can scour the internet for videos and information. I certainly would have done that back then, if that was available. But all we had were teen magazines and MTV.
So its not really out of my character to have done the same thing when I saw Adam Lambert. Like many others, I was awestruck by his voice, his control, his pitch, and he wasn't bad to look at either. Yeah, I learned he was gay, but so what. Its not like when I was a teen and 'dreamed' of hooking up with the band. Even if Adam was straight, I wouldn't be out to date the guy. But I loved watching his performances over youtube and on AI. Here was a real showman, the likes of which I hadn't seen since Freddie Mercury of Queen. Granted, I haven't been to many concerts lately, but even thinking back to some I saw in college or early post-college, none of the lead singers had the charisma of or put on a performance like Adam Lambert.
So for the first time I actually bought copies of his songs from Itunes (only because I learned that those songs are never released on CDs, so this was the only way to get a copy) and voted a whole hell of a lot more than before. I wanted to keep him on the show, I wanted to see him perform more. I definitely plan to buy his CD. I'd love to see him in concert, but that's less likely given other time/money/family commitments (and my husband's not interested). Maybe someday. In the meantime, thank god for youtube.
And by the way, I also purchased songs by Kris and Allison, two other singers I thought were the best that AI has put on in years. I think Allison has real potential to become the best female rocker AI has ever had and may finally be a worthy successor to Anne Wilson.
It was then kindof annoying to see articles about "cougars obsess over Adam." I guess there are many other women out there like me, who haven't seen a great charismatic singer in a long time, but using the word "cougar" kindof insulted me. Maybe some women obsess as they did years ago and want to 'get backstage' to bed the singer, but come on, even assuming Adam was interested in women, are you really going to ignore your family for a 27 year old guy? What's wrong with just being a big fan? Why do I have get labled a "cougar" because I think Adam is the best singer/performer I've seen in ages? Why am I made to feel different than a friend of mine who's had a serious crush on Steve Perry of Aerosmith for decades? Just because Adam is nearly 20 years younger than me, doesn't mean I can't appreciate his voice, his charisma, and yeah, his sexuality. He may be gay, but he still exudes a great sexual attraction that can get anyone excited. No different from porn for men IMO.
So I'm brimming with anticipation to hear his new material and I check youtube periodically to see some of his concert performances. Someday perhaps I'll get to see him perform live. I think he's got the ability to stick around a good long time.
Monday, March 16, 2009
One more Debt
I read an article in my local paper this weekend about how applications are up at state colleges, hypothicizing that people are cutting back on paying private school tuition. The article mentioned that state colleges generally run between $8,000 to $13,000 a year, compared to private colleges which were over $40,000.
I was just astounded that the costs are that much. I knew that law school tuitions were that high, but I didn't know that a regular undergraduate degree now costs so much. I'm surprised that even state schools are so expensive (when I went to UCLA back in the mid 80s, it was only about $3,000 a year).
Its no wonder that so many 20 and 30-somethings (or their parents) are reeling in debt. Certainly most 'entry-level' jobs out of college haven't tripled their salaries. I just can't fathom coming out of college already $30,000 in debt, let alone over $100,000 if you went to private school.
Its no wonder the US population has one of the highest (if not the highest) debts in the world, with everything one has to pay for these days. These days, people are required to pay for their own healthcare, retirement, college student loans and their kids college fund. No other generation (that had the option of retirement and college) has had to fund so much completely by themselves. Are we really moving forward as a civilization, or backwards to the early 20th Century? It would be so bad if the costs for these items didn't increase so much more exponentially than their salaries.
Part of the problem, however, is that college has become the new high school. Everyone who aspires to work in something above minimum wage, has to have a college degree. Its not like one will always use the college education at their job, but the employer feels that they have some "reassurance" that their employee is smart enough to train. This is not always the case, I know plenty of people that got a BA degree and are still pretty dumb, and others who never went to college, but are incredibly smart. Yet the "dumb" people with a degree are still favored over the "smart" ones without.
As a result, virtually everyone has to go to college, even to obtain jobs as bank tellers and retail managers. This gives the colleges a virtual carte blanche to charge whatever they want, knowing that they have ready customers who have no choice but to buy their product. Thus, we get people buying the virtually worthless BA degree in history, sociology, philosophy, who then have no idea what they want to do in life and/or get jobs in fields that have absolutely nothing to do with those degrees (a friend with a "geology" major became a bank teller and later an HR manager - yeah that's related). There's only so many teacher/professor jobs out there.
Course, this is why so many students with BA degrees end up in lawschool, a scam which is a whole 'nother rant.
I think there needs to be an evaluation as to why college tuition is so much, and what can be done to bring it back down to affordability. Either that, or parents need to sit down and talk realistically with their kids about what they want to do in life. If its not going into some sort of science or technology based program for a BS degree, maybe they should look into trade school or a 2-year program at a community college. They need to figure out how the kid is going to pay back that minimum $30,000 debt (which is about $400 a month at 7% interest over 30 years - bigger payment if its 10 years) if a BA degree only gets them a job for $25,000.
I think education is a good thing, the more educated a person is, the less likely they'll get sucked into things like ARMs. But while there used to be lots of jobs to suck up the BA degrees, many don't exist anymore, or really don't need a people with a 4-year college education. One can (and should be able to) get an education going 1-2 classes a semester/quarter at a small(er) cost while working. Sure it takes longer, but better than being in debt. Companies just need to realize that not every mail room clerk needs a 4-year degree.
I was just astounded that the costs are that much. I knew that law school tuitions were that high, but I didn't know that a regular undergraduate degree now costs so much. I'm surprised that even state schools are so expensive (when I went to UCLA back in the mid 80s, it was only about $3,000 a year).
Its no wonder that so many 20 and 30-somethings (or their parents) are reeling in debt. Certainly most 'entry-level' jobs out of college haven't tripled their salaries. I just can't fathom coming out of college already $30,000 in debt, let alone over $100,000 if you went to private school.
Its no wonder the US population has one of the highest (if not the highest) debts in the world, with everything one has to pay for these days. These days, people are required to pay for their own healthcare, retirement, college student loans and their kids college fund. No other generation (that had the option of retirement and college) has had to fund so much completely by themselves. Are we really moving forward as a civilization, or backwards to the early 20th Century? It would be so bad if the costs for these items didn't increase so much more exponentially than their salaries.
Part of the problem, however, is that college has become the new high school. Everyone who aspires to work in something above minimum wage, has to have a college degree. Its not like one will always use the college education at their job, but the employer feels that they have some "reassurance" that their employee is smart enough to train. This is not always the case, I know plenty of people that got a BA degree and are still pretty dumb, and others who never went to college, but are incredibly smart. Yet the "dumb" people with a degree are still favored over the "smart" ones without.
As a result, virtually everyone has to go to college, even to obtain jobs as bank tellers and retail managers. This gives the colleges a virtual carte blanche to charge whatever they want, knowing that they have ready customers who have no choice but to buy their product. Thus, we get people buying the virtually worthless BA degree in history, sociology, philosophy, who then have no idea what they want to do in life and/or get jobs in fields that have absolutely nothing to do with those degrees (a friend with a "geology" major became a bank teller and later an HR manager - yeah that's related). There's only so many teacher/professor jobs out there.
Course, this is why so many students with BA degrees end up in lawschool, a scam which is a whole 'nother rant.
I think there needs to be an evaluation as to why college tuition is so much, and what can be done to bring it back down to affordability. Either that, or parents need to sit down and talk realistically with their kids about what they want to do in life. If its not going into some sort of science or technology based program for a BS degree, maybe they should look into trade school or a 2-year program at a community college. They need to figure out how the kid is going to pay back that minimum $30,000 debt (which is about $400 a month at 7% interest over 30 years - bigger payment if its 10 years) if a BA degree only gets them a job for $25,000.
I think education is a good thing, the more educated a person is, the less likely they'll get sucked into things like ARMs. But while there used to be lots of jobs to suck up the BA degrees, many don't exist anymore, or really don't need a people with a 4-year college education. One can (and should be able to) get an education going 1-2 classes a semester/quarter at a small(er) cost while working. Sure it takes longer, but better than being in debt. Companies just need to realize that not every mail room clerk needs a 4-year degree.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
180 Degrees
I had to laugh, and wonder sometimes how/why I was ever a Republican (well, other than the fact that my parents were). I read this legal blog (Above the Law - which is mostly about "Biglaw" firms in NYC, but it has some relevance to Philly so it keeps me informed) and they have this guest writer who has been writing about being unemployed.This person quoted her father:
"Having lived through all Grandma and Grandpa's Depression stories, I know that this has nothing do with anyone's worth. I agree with mentioning your situation to everybody and most emphatically with not hanging your head in shame. That was one of the multiple things I learned from Grandma and Grandpa, who had a hell of a lot of experience with unemployment, and taught me that what one earns, or does not, in a capitalist society is ABSOLUTELY NO MEASURE of one's intrinsic worth intellectually, spiritually, or in any other way."
I loved the quote. It just struck me as so true when I read almost everyday in my local paperabout people who are earning millions of dollars in salaries for jobs that I think most people can do, but these people got the job, not because they are good (and many times, they aren't that great, just look at allthe failed CEO's of business that routinely get golden parachutes at one company, only to simply move on and becomea CEO of another company), but IMO, solely because of WHO THEY KNOW. I've become convinced that the CEOs of many businesses,the deans of many schools, the so-called "business/political consultants/lobbyists", higher-ups in professional sports,media personalities and others get their jobs because of connections. They really aren't any smarter than most other people, but they knew someone, or knew someone who knew someone, or was in the 'right' greek (or other 'secret') organization. and for that, these people earn millions of dollars while the rest of us, who work just as hard, and many who work harder, scrape by on five figure salaries.
I read somewhere that in the 1970s, the top 1% of our nation's taxpayers earned 9% of our nation's wealth. Now its 22%. and that top 1% has grown as well, just like the bottom 99%. Its just amazing to me how much some people get paid for their work, but "its ok" because "everybody does it." Like a tv news caster here in philly earns $800,000 a year. for what? I'm sure they do some investigation, but probablynot that much more than what I do in my work as an attorney. Seriously who needs that much money? Its people that kept earning these huge sums that helpedblow up housing values so high that people had to lie to get mortgages (and the bankers earning their six figure salaries let them). Sometimes I feel like I've gone a complete 180 from my college days. Hell, socialism isn't that bad of word to me anymore.
"Having lived through all Grandma and Grandpa's Depression stories, I know that this has nothing do with anyone's worth. I agree with mentioning your situation to everybody and most emphatically with not hanging your head in shame. That was one of the multiple things I learned from Grandma and Grandpa, who had a hell of a lot of experience with unemployment, and taught me that what one earns, or does not, in a capitalist society is ABSOLUTELY NO MEASURE of one's intrinsic worth intellectually, spiritually, or in any other way."
I loved the quote. It just struck me as so true when I read almost everyday in my local paperabout people who are earning millions of dollars in salaries for jobs that I think most people can do, but these people got the job, not because they are good (and many times, they aren't that great, just look at allthe failed CEO's of business that routinely get golden parachutes at one company, only to simply move on and becomea CEO of another company), but IMO, solely because of WHO THEY KNOW. I've become convinced that the CEOs of many businesses,the deans of many schools, the so-called "business/political consultants/lobbyists", higher-ups in professional sports,media personalities and others get their jobs because of connections. They really aren't any smarter than most other people, but they knew someone, or knew someone who knew someone, or was in the 'right' greek (or other 'secret') organization. and for that, these people earn millions of dollars while the rest of us, who work just as hard, and many who work harder, scrape by on five figure salaries.
I read somewhere that in the 1970s, the top 1% of our nation's taxpayers earned 9% of our nation's wealth. Now its 22%. and that top 1% has grown as well, just like the bottom 99%. Its just amazing to me how much some people get paid for their work, but "its ok" because "everybody does it." Like a tv news caster here in philly earns $800,000 a year. for what? I'm sure they do some investigation, but probablynot that much more than what I do in my work as an attorney. Seriously who needs that much money? Its people that kept earning these huge sums that helpedblow up housing values so high that people had to lie to get mortgages (and the bankers earning their six figure salaries let them). Sometimes I feel like I've gone a complete 180 from my college days. Hell, socialism isn't that bad of word to me anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)