Eporants

The Challengers

2011-11-30T12:13:00.000-08:00

When I think about the Republican field for President, on the one hand, I gotta hand it to them for finally providing a diversified field. On the other hand, I can't imagine that the "rank and file" party members like any of them and must be in quite a quandry over who to vote for. Given my own upbringing and background, plus what I see in today's public media, the 'generic' Republican voter tends to be white, middle aged, Christian (not necessarily evangelical, but certainly only believes in one way to God), above-average income, married (and monogamous), and to put it bluntly, rather old-fashioned in a belief that women and non-whites have to 'know their place.'

Now this is certainly not the case for every Republican, and likely not even most, but it does seem to be a plurality. I'm sure there are many who are fine with a woman nominee, but there's also probably enough that feel the exact opposite that it probably hurt her chances regardless of her politics. Yeah, Sarah Palin got the VP nominee last year, but she wasn't voted in via a primary election, she was chosen. And she (and McCain) didn't win, and I have no doubt that there are some people out there that didn't vote at all because they didn't want to vote for a woman on one side, or a non-white on the other. Yes, those people still exist.

So how do the nominees stack up?

Michelle Bachman - Female, so any that don't like women in power won't vote for her. Plus, she's show a distinct lack of brainpower.

Herman Cain - Black, so any that don't like non-whites in power won't vote for him. Ditto on the lack of brain power.

Newt Gingrich - Smart, but he cheated on two ex-wives and divorced one while in the hospital. Not exactly a poster boy for 'family values' that so many Republicans like to spout.

Mitt Romney - Mormon, so any Christians that are real hard-liners (evangelicals, for instance), won't vote for him.

Jon Huntsman - See Mitt Romney. Plus, who?

Rick Santorum - Google it

Rick Perry - One George W. Bush was enough (and this one seems even dumber)

Ron Paul - Too libertarian - so any that are against legalizing drugs won't vote for him.

Not a single one of the candidates have all the qualities necessary to win over the majority "generic" Republican voter. There's not one white, male, Christian (preferably evangelical, but they'll accept any protestant - non mormon), still married to one woman (and not cheated), smart, totally conservative candidate, who's name can't be googled with laughter. Frankly, I see most Republicans holding their noses at the voting booth come 2012.

I think this is why, for the most part, Mitt Romney is presumed to win the nomination. He'll get enough plurality votes, 30% or so probably, that he'll have most of the delegates he needs, but no doubt he'll have to be saddled with some Tea Party darling (maybe even Michelle) to make the even further right consider voting for him to counter for his forays into bipartisanship (gasp!), while they agonize over his religion.

No doubt, its not a sure thing for Obama, but I think there's still enough divide in the Republican party that they'll have people staying at home rather than voting for one of these nominees as President.

The Bubble

2011-11-22T15:55:00.000-08:00

I recently finished reading Michael Lewis, "The Big Short" which is about the housing bubble, how it started, how wall street traders who originally bought/sold government bonds created mortgage bonds, which then got bundled into credit default swaps and thereafter rebundled again into collaterialized debt obligations, and when people making $10,000 year could no longer afford to pay their mortgage on $500,000 homes, the market crashed. And if you know what any of those things are, you're ahead of 95% of America (not to mention 95% of investment bankers).

The book was quite eye opening. The most surprising thing about the book wasn't that wall street people were greedy, but that the vast majority of them didn't know what the hell they were doing, what any these CDS and CDOs were, they just continued to buy and sell them because everyone was doing so. Frankly, most of them couldn't have cared less whether what they bought or sold for their customers made money or lost money. Every sale or purchase made money for Goldman Sachs, or Lehman Brothers, or the rest of the crooks. Most of the "money managers" who were tasked by pension funds, mutual funds, IRA accounts, didn't care if they buying the crappiest of mortgage bonds disguised as A rated CDOs, because they made money simply by the buying of the bonds. If the bonds burst, the money managers didn't lose a dime.

It also demonstrated that the so-called "neutral" ratings agencies, Moody's, S&P, etc., were anything but. They rated these crappy mortgage bonds and CDOs triple A because if they didn't, Goldman Sachs would just ask (and pay) their competition to do so.

Essentially, the entire housing bubble was nothing but a Ponzi scheme. As long as new suckers were buying houses and taking out mortgages (which the originating bank, after collecting its fee, promptly sold to another bank, who then took its fee and packaged it into a mortgage bond with other crappy mortgages to sell to yet a third bank, who took its fee,then packaged it into a CDO with other crappy mortgage bonds to sell to a pension fund), the system continued. The banks didn't care that the buyer couldn't pay the mortgage, that was the next bank's problem, and the next. All the banks cared about was getting their fees from issuing the mortgage, or selling the mortgage, or mortgage bond.

Once suckers stopped buying houses, once new mortgages slowed down, like a ponzi scheme, the pyramid collapsed. Many people blame those that took out the mortgages, that they should have known that they could not afford such homes when they had such low incomes. Maybe they should have. But you have to realize that so many of these people had no college education. How can you expect someone with a high school diploma (if that even) to understand the complex and opaque financing scheme created by these bankers when most of them didn't even understand it or if they did, even a little, they ignored it because of their own greed. And these are the people the banks claimed that they had to pay six-figure bonuses too to "keep the talent." Yeah, talent for lying and hiding the truth.

I often wonder what my financial situation would be like had I bought a house in 2002 or 2003. Even by that time, mortgages were being made to people with no money down and average income, even on houses $250,000 or more. I probably could have bought something with an interest only rate for the same price I paid in rent, then likely two years later, refi'd into another mortgage on similar terms. Eventually, that quit being an option, one either had to accept the increased interest rate or default. Would I have taken the higher home value and just spent it, still running up my credit cards? Or would I have been smart and saved it or paid down the mortgage? I'd like to think I would have still insisted on a fixed rate, but if that was too expensive, would I have accepted one of those ARM subprime loans? I guess not, since I didn't, but I didn't really check it all out either.

What I do know is that I thought my financial situation wasn't stable enough to qualify for a mortgage at a rate I could afford in a location I wanted to live. So I didn't buy until I actually had some money saved up. Unfortunately, that meant I bought near the top of the price and its probably likely I'm underwater. Not by much, certainly not enough to walk away, but enough that I probably don't have any equity in my house anymore and I doubt I'll be able to get a construction loan for some remodeling in a few years, which was my plan.

What I also know is that wall street is nothing but Las Vegas with my retirement money. All that claim that people should pay lower taxes on capital gains because they "invest" in business and give them money to expand their business is nothing but bullshit. People don't "invest", they gamble. I am fairly certain that less than 10% of people who own stocks (and aren't employees) do so because they really believe in the company. And I guarantee that less than 5% who buy bonds are the same. In fact, many many people make money on wall street because they gamble that companies will default on their loans and go out of business. How is that "investing"? Its not, its gambling pure and simple. That's why these earnings should be taxed at least as much as real income, if not more, in my opinion. Especially those that bet against companies.

The Great Depression was caused due to lack of banking regulation and high speculation on wall street. Our great recession was caused by the exact same thing. How can people say with a straight face that these regulations should not be implemented again?

Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-17T09:20:00.001-07:00

Some people are prescient. I present Keith Olberman's "Special Comment" from August 1, 2011 (repeated on Oct. 14, 2011) regarding the raise the debt ceiling deal. In particular, his call at the end to rise up and protest. It seems that some people were listening.

I close, as promised, with a Special Comment on the debt deal.

Our government has now given up the concept of right and wrong.

We have, in this deal, declared that we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all political incumbents are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Re-nomination, re-election, and the pursuit of hypocrisy.

We have, in this deal, gone from the Four Freedoms to the Four Great Hypocrisies.

We have superceded Congress to facilitate 750 billion dollars in domestic cuts including Medicare in order to end an artificially-induced political hostage crisis over debt, originating from the bills run up by a Republican president who funneled billions of taxpayer dollars to the military-industrial complex by unfunded, unnecessary, and unproductive wars, enabled in doing so by the very same Republican leaders who now cry for balanced budgets - and we have called it compromise. And those who defend it have called it a credit to a pragmatic president who wins some sort of political "points" because, having stood for almost nothing here, he gave away almost nothing for which he stood.

It would be comical if it were not tragic.

Either way, it is a signal moment in our history, in which both parties have agreed and codified that the political structure of this nation shall now based entirely on hypocrisy and political self-perpetuation.

Let us start with the first of the Great Hypocrisies: The Committee. The Republican dogs can run back to their corporate masters and say they have forced one-and-one-half trillion dollars in cuts and palmed off the responsibility for them on this nonsensical "Super Congress" committee.

For two-and-a-half brutal years we have listened to these Tea Party mountebanks screech about the Constitution of the United States as if it were the revealed word and not the product of other - albeit far better - politicians. They demand the repeal of Amendments they don't like, and the strict interpretation of the ones they do, and the specific citation of authorization within the Constitution for every proposed act or expenditure or legislation.

Except this one.

Where does it say in the Constitution that the two houses of Congress can, in effect, create a third house to do its dirty work for it; to sacrifice a few Congressmen and Senators so the vast majority of incumbents can tell the voters they had nothing to do with this?

This leads to the second of the Great Hypocrisies: how, in the same breath, the Republicans can create an extra-Constitutional "Super Congress" and yet also demand a Constitutional Amendment to force the economic stupidity that would be a mandated balanced budget. Firstly: pick a side! Ignore the Constitution or adhere to it.

Firstly, pick a side, ignore the constitution or adhere to it.

And of what value would this Mandated Balanced Budget be? Our own history proves that at a time of economic crisis, if the businesses aren't spending, and the consumers aren't spending, the government must. Our ancestors were the lab rats in the horrible experiments of the Hoover Administration that brought on the Great Depression, in which the government curled up into a ball while it simultaneously insisted the economy should heal itself, when, in times of crisis - then and now - the economy turns out to be comprised entirely of a bunch of rich people who will sit on their money no matter if the country starves.

Forgotten in the Republican Voodoo dance, dressed in the skins of the mythical Balanced Budget, triumphant over the severed head of short-term retrenchment that they can hold up to their moronic followers, are the long-term implications of the mandated Balanced Budget.

What happens if there's ever another… war?

Or another… terrorist attack?

Or another… natural disaster?

Or any other emergency that requires A government to spend a dollar more than it has? A Constitutional Amendment denying us the right to run a deficit, is madness, and it will be tested by catastrophe sooner than any of its authors with their under-developed imaginations that can count only contributions and votes, can contemplate.

And the third of the Great Hypocrisies is hidden inside the shell game that is the Super Congress. The Super Congress is supposed to cut evenly from domestic and defense spending, but if it cannot agree on those cuts, or Congress will not endorse them, there will be a "trigger" that automatically cuts a trillion-two or more - but those cuts will not necessarily come evenly from the Pentagon. We are presented with an agreement that seems to guarantee the gutting of every local sacred cow from the Defense Department. Except if the Congressmen and Senators to whom the cows are sacred, disagree, and overrule, or sabotage the Super Congress, or, except if for some reason a 12-member Committee split evenly along party lines can't manage to avoid finishing every damned vote 6-to-6.

We're cutting Defense. Unless we're not.

The fourth of the Great Hypocrisies is the evident agreement to not add any revenues to the process of cutting. Not only is the impetus to make human budget sacrifices out of the poor and dependent formalized… but the rich and the corporations are thus indemnified, again, and given more money not merely to spend on themselves and their own luxuries, but more vitally, they are given more money to spend on buying politicians, and legislatures, and courts, buying entire states, all of which can be directed like so many weapons, in the service of one cause and one cause alone: making by statute and ruling, the further protection of the wealthy at the expense of everybody else, untouchable, inviolable - permanent.

The White House today boasted of loopholes to be closed and tax breaks to be rescinded -- later.

By a committee.

A committee that has yet to be formed.

There are no new taxes. Except the stealth ones, enacted on 99 out of 100 Americans by this evil transaction. Every dollar cut from the Safety Net is another dollar added to the citizen's cost for education, for security, for health, for life itself. It is another dollar he can't spend on making a better life for himself, or at least his children. It is another dollar he must spend instead on simply keeping himself alive.

Where is the outrage over these Great Hypocrisies? Do you expect it to come from a corrupt and corrupted media, for whom access is of greater importance than criticizing the failure of a political party or defending those who don't buy newspapers or can't leap website paywalls or could not afford cable tv?

Do you expect it to come from a cynical and manipulative political structure? Do you expect it from those elected officials who no longer know anything of government or governance, but only perceive how to get elected, or how to pose in front of a camera and pretend to be leaders? Do you expect it from politicians themselves, who will merely calculate whether or not it's right based on whether or not it will get them more contributions?

Do you expect it will come from the great middle ground of this country, with a population obsessed with entertainment, video games, social media, sports, and trivia?

Where is the outrage to come from?

From you!

It will do no good to wait for the politicians to suddenly atone for their sins. They are too busy trying to keep their jobs, to do their jobs.

It will do no good to wait for the media to suddenly remember its origins as the 'free press,' the watchdog of democracy envisioned by Jefferson. They are too busy trying to get exclusive details about exactly how the bank robbers emptied the public's pockets, to give a damn about telling anybody what they looked like, or which way they went.

It will do no good to wait for the apolitical public to get a clue. They can't hear the clue through all the chatter and scandal and diversion and delusion and illusion.

The betrayal of what this nation is supposed to be about did not begin with this deal and it surely will not end with this deal. There is a tide pushing back the rights of each of us, and it has been artificially induced by union-bashing and the sowing of hatreds and fears, and now this ever-more-institutionalized economic battering of the average American. It will continue, and it will crush us, because those who created it are organized and unified and hell-bent.

And the only response is to be organized and unified and hell-bent in return. We must find again the energy and the purpose of the 1960's and early 1970's and we must protest this deal and all the God damn deals to come, in the streets. We must arise, non-violently but insistently. General strikes, boycotts, protests, sit-ins, non-cooperation take-overs - but modern versions of that resistance, facilitated and amplified, by a weapon our predecessors did not have: the glory that is instantaneous communication.

It is from an old and almost clichéd motion picture that the wisdom comes: First, you've got to get mad.

I cannot say to you, meet there or there at this hour or that one, and we will peacefully break the back of government that now exists merely to get its functionaries re-elected. But I can say that the time is coming when the window for us to restore the control of our government to our selves will close, and we had damn well better act before then.

Because this deal is more than a tipping point in which the government goes from defending the safety net to gutting it. This is wrong, and while our government has now declared that it has given up the concept of right-and-wrong, you and I… have not, and will not, do so.

Good night, and good luck.

Not Knowing

2011-10-06T07:54:00.000-07:00

Yup, long time since last post. Busy busy.

Today, Occupy Wall Street is marching in Philly. My secretary had no idea what that was, although its been in the news for close to a month. Granted, mostly in NYC, but still, that's pretty close to Philly that we usually get their big news. Yes, it started small, but its grown quite a bit in the last two weeks. I don't watch "regular" news, primarily The Daily Show, Colbert Report and Countdown, but since its been in the newspaper, I figure ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox have at least touched on it a tad.

Also today is the fall out from everyone (you'd think at least) hearing about Steve Job's death. Again, my secretary had no idea who he was. Only the man that created Apple, the iPod, the iPhone, iTunes, essentially he created our personal computing/social media culture. Without Jobs, there would be no Twitter (which is, of course, how I first learned of his death at 7:40 p.m. last night), no Facebook (no Winklevii for Zuckerman to allegedly cheat, hah), music would still be bought on CDs as complete albums, TV/movies would still only be on TV or through DVDs and we wouldn't be up in arms with Netflix raising prices to stream movies and TV. I wouldn't be writing this blog right now, and neither would millions of others. We'd still get our news via paper or TV.

I was a little surprised my secretary hadn't heard about Occupy Wall Street, but then again, she doesn't pay all that much attention to life outside her kids, her job, her home. But that she didn't even know who Steve Jobs was just gobsmacked me. How could anyone not have heard about Steve Jobs?

But I also remember that my secretary doesn't read a news paper, she doesn't watch the news, she doesn't have a smartphone, she doesn't vote. She has never voted in any election and sees no reason to start. As such, she doesn't bother finding out anything that's going on in the world, the country, even her own city unless it directly impacts her family.

Surprisingly, or maybe not, more than half of this country is the same. Everytime I think how can people vote against their economic interests, I have to remind myself that the vast majority don't even know what their economic interest is, and don't bother to find out enough information to vote.

Even in our last presidential election, 122 million voted out of approximately 230 million voting age people. Just over 50%. That means almost half of this country doesn't care about their economic interest, their social interest, or really much of anything beyond their own life, much like my secretary. The vote was historic. We'd either have the first black president, or the first female vice president. Yet still half didn't care.

I can't imagine going through life and not knowing what's going on. I remember how embarrassed and dumbstruck I was when I went on a two-week vacation to France in August 2005, and because my in-laws' computer connection was very slow, I only checked my email a couple of times, nothing else. My in-laws didn't get a news paper (and I'm not sure I could have read much of it anyway). It wasn't until I came back to the US that I heard about Hurricane Katrina. How could I have not heard about this during my trip? I swore never to be so out of touch again. Its one of the (many) reasons I don't think I could ever be a Survivor contestant, don't think I could stand to be so unplugged for an extended amount of time again.

I'm sure some people like not knowing what's going on. "Ignorance is bliss" is the phrase. I don't agree. All ignorance does is allow other people to control things that affect your life, even if you don't realize it. Its amazing, for example, that one person controls so much that he got all or nearly all Republican office holders to sign a pledge never to raise taxes for any reason (although despite this pledge, some apparently distinguish between raising taxes on wealthy people - no no no - and the middle and lower classes - yes yes yes). Is that really the best thing for this country or just for a few thousand? But this is what comes from not knowing and allowing others to control this country.

One doesn't have to be smart or understanding everything that happens. I don't understand investment banking, although I've been trying to educate myself (and what I've read so far, just strikes me as incredible that people were so gullible - no actually it doesn't - and that our country has let so many people get away with almost outright fraud - except that its hard to prove because people are so gullible). But it doesn't take a genius to recognize the inconsistency in someone saying they pledged never to raise taxes for any reason, but its ok to "broaden the tax base so more people contribute (i.e. pay) taxes. Um, if that doesn't mean a raise of taxes on some people, i.e. those at the bottom of the base, which supposedly you pledged not to do, I don't know what does.

I may not agree with other people, but at least read a newspaper, or watch some news on your computer (thank you Steve) or TV (and make it more than just Fox news, please). At least know the names of the people who have a significant impact on your life.

Liars and Hypocrits

2011-08-22T06:17:00.000-07:00

Watching my favorite show, TDS from Thursday night. I totally floved that $700 billion bit. Its been said that if Obama and The Dems got their way and eliminated the tax cuts on those that make over $250,000 a year, it would raise $700 billion dollars. The Republicans/Faux News keep saying that the amount wouldn't do anything to solve our debt crises and in fact take need money away from the so-called "job creators" that only seem to be able to create jobs in third world countries.

However, the Republicans are all fine with increasing taxes on the poor and middle class. As Jon Stewart pointed out, the bottom 50% of the country has a combined wealth of $1.4 Trillion, about the same amount as the combined wealth of the top 2%. If one takes half of that amount, its, oh lookie, $700 billion.

The republicants that are all 'no raising taxes' and can't let the Bush tax cuts expire on millionaires because its a 'tax increase' but have absolutely no problem with refusing the extend the payroll tax holiday on the poor and middle classes (who are the only ones that pay it all in full) because "its fair to make them pay" and the country needs their money to reduce its debt.

It just amazes me that the faux news people can say with a straight face that $700 billion from millionaires is "eh, too little to consider", but when its from the poor and middle class, suddenly its a game changer and a save to the country.

And yet, those morons in the "heartland" continue to vote for these hypocrits and liars because of the social issues and the lie the republicans keep telling them that Obama wants to raise their taxes. I bet there isn't more than 20 people per "heartland" state that make more than $500,000, yet their all afraid that the bad black man will raise their taxes. Its such bullshit.

Come on Dems show them who is really lying out there. Quit bending over and kowtowing to these liars and hypocrits. Most of the media would probably like to be on your side, if you'd give them something to hold on to.

Maybe Raising Taxes is the Solution

2011-06-22T08:30:00.000-07:00

I am just flabbergasted that PA's governor wants to slash 1 billion of education funding, but impose absolutely no taxes/fees on natural gas frakkers. I know that he claims that it will 'create more jobs' but frankly that's bull. Those companies will hire workers regardless of whether they have to pay taxes or fees. Its not like they can effectively harvest the natural gas in another state, its in PA, so why not get something for it?

I'm tired of hearing businesses complain that their taxes are too high (hello GE who got a 14million refund). I've never run a business, so maybe this is incorrect. But aren't the wages paid to workers tax deductible as a business expense? Has anyone thought that perhaps if businesses paid their employees more, perhaps give them the same percentage of raises and bonuses given to executives, that their tax burden would be less? Then any tax hikes on those businesses won't actually affect them (much).

Maybe the reason maybe why businesses started complaining so much about what they paid in taxes is because they stopped increasing their workers' pay in the 70s and thus had less tax deductions and more 'profit' that was being taxes. Go back to increasing worker pay to meaningful levels and lower your tax burden.

Plus, those employees who now make more money can spend that money and increase their "consuming." That will then create even more jobs, which will make businesses grow and hopefully earn more money for everyone. More profits for the execs, more employees getting better wages, able to spend more, requiring businesses to hire even more workers. More people can afford to buy homes again and will want to, because their employer needs them to stick around and pays them well.

Win win for everyone. Yeah, maybe those execs/stockholders won't be super super super rich, maybe they have to just settle for super super rich. Is that so bad?

Another One, Seriously?

2011-06-07T05:26:00.000-07:00

While I believe that politicians' sex lives shouldn't be important and as big a deal as our media makes it out to be, the fact is, our media does, and our public does. Otherwise, tabloid papers and paparazzi would be out of business.

So, knowing that it is a huge deal that is totally blown out of proportion, and knowing that anything once put on the internet is forever on the internet, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THESE MEN? I mean seriously, is it that hard to keep one's sex life private and off the computer? Is it that hard to stay faithful, or have an agreement with one's wife? Did you even try to talk with your wife about your issues?

These men have to know that every moment of their life has the potential to be scrutinized and publicized. If they don't want to be public figures, then stay out of politics. You can't have it both ways - obviously. They obviously know what they are doing won't be viewed in a good light, that's why they lie about it, which of course, makes it worse. And naturally, those lies will be exposed. You think that makes people view you better? Now you've exposed yourself in some way and you lied about it, in public. Way to go.

If you want to have your sex and politics, move to France or Italy. Otherwise, buck up, live within this society's prudish morals for politicians, and keep it off the internet.

Another Rare Rave

2011-05-13T09:56:00.000-07:00

Today, I'm raving about a recent travel experience I had. Of course, it didn't start out that way. I had to fly to Germany for some depositions. Knowing how much travel sucks, especially with luggage, delayed flights, etc., I decided to travel a day earlier than I really needed. I wanted to give myself plenty of time to arrive, prepare for the depositions and get enough rest/overcome jet lag. So I flew out on a Saturday evening and arrived Sunday afternoon in Germany. I arranged to meet the local Germany attorney we had retained on Monday afternoon and Tuesday was the depositions.

Well, good thing I was prepared. Because this trip was several days, I opted to check my luggage. Besides clothes, I also packed a large amount of documents that I planned to review for the depositions, which were a bit too heavy to easily carry, especially since I had to take two planes (couldn't fly direct). I carried on the plane my purse and laptop.

Naturally, as I swear has happened the last four times either my or my husband's family have flown in or out of Europe, the luggage didn't complete the trip. Despite a four hour layover in Zurich, somehow my small suitcase didn't get transferred from US Airways/Lufthansa to Swiss Air. I filed the claim with Lufthansa immediately and they gave me an overnight package of toiletries (toothbrush, toothpaste, shampoo, lotion). It worked for Sunday night, but I was hard pressed to put my now two-day worn clothes back on again Monday. Plus I had the meeting that afternoon.

Swiss Air/Lufthansa still hadn't found my bag by Monday morning and certainly made it sound like it was lost. Fortunately, almost all the documents I brought were scanned on my work's computer system, so I could access them on the laptop. But I still needed new clothes. Lufthansa said I'd be reimbursed 50% of my purchases, so out I went shopping.

Given that it was very possible I wouldn't have my luggage at all, I bought 2 days worth of clothes. That got me through my meeting Monday afternoon. Happily, my suitcase was finally found and returned to me Monday night, so I could wear my packed clothes for the depositions the next day.

As there was the possibility of further meetings on Wednesday, I didn't schedule my return trip until Thursday. That provided me with the time on Wed to return half the clothes I bought, as the meetings didn't happen (although I was able to do some other work on the laptop in my hotel room). I wasn't sure I would be reimbursed for 2 days of clothes, when my suitcase was delivered only 1 day late. I might have kept the extra clothes, but they were a bit expensive, especially with the exchange rate and I really didn't need them.

When I arrived back home, I again followed up with Lufthansa about reimbursement for the clothes I did keep (and couldn't return - well, I suppose I could have hidden the tags, but I did like the outfit a lot). Lufthansa referred me over to Swiss Air, which responded very quickly. Swiss Air confirmed that they would reimburse my purchases up to 50%, with a certain capped amount they didn't disclose. I provided them with my receipts, nearly 300 euros for shoes, skirt, blouse, jacket, hose, underwear, toiletries, which cost me $438. I wasn't sure whether I spent too much, or if they'd take issue with the extra toiletries, claiming I didn't really "need" them or that my buying them wasn't due to the lost luggage (some perfume, scented soap/lotion, tampons - yes I have wonderful timing with my traveling).

To my surprise, Swiss Air quickly acknowledged everything, and sent me a check for $267.50 (which was an exchange rate of $1.83 compared to the $1.45 +3% my credit card charged). No questions about my purchases, no issue with spending too much, just thanks for the receipts, here's your money. Less than a month from my trip, I got reimbursed for more than 50% of my purchase, effectively giving me a nice new outfit for $170.50.

So despite losing my luggage, Swiss Air/Lufthansa get a rave for their quick and very easy reimbursement me for new clothes.

Work Bits

2011-04-29T09:02:00.000-07:00

Yay for more work rants.

Update from the prior post about subpoenas. I just found out that said sec'y who didn't know how to fill in said subpoena with a person's name or an accident date, failed to have said subpoena actually signed and stamped by the Court before she sent it out to the hospital and police dept. for the records. Now you might (and I mean MIGHT) get away with that with a small doctor's office, and that's even up for speculation considering HIPPA laws these days and doctors' general awareness of said laws. But no way is a hospital or a police dept. going to respond to a subpoena that's not signed and stamped. I mean really. I just can't believe this sec'y didn't know the basics. We had to redo the subpoena, get it signed/stamped, and re-served.

But then again, I asked her today if she sent out a document we just received yesterday for an estimate on its translation from German, and she honestly did not recall getting it (forwarded by my sec'y as I was out) and forwarding it onto the translator. Its like total swiss cheese in there. She honestly can't recall what she did the day before. I feel like I'm dealing with Momento. Its a good thing email can document these things.

Not that my own sec'y is any better sometimes. I specifically asked her to look through the file to find a witness phone number my boss wanted me to contact for a trial appearance (we represented non-party plaintiff employer on plaintiff's third party injury claim). I suggested starting with his depo transcript, and if it wasn't there to check discovery, attorney notes, correspondence. It wasn't in the depo. She asked Swiss cheese sec'y, who said she saw it in the attorney notes file (I can't believe she remembered that). However, the attorney notes file was missing (possibly accidently taken by my boss on his business trip - he forgot to take it out of his briefcase). Did she look elsewhere? No. Oh she said she did, but she clearly didn't because when I looked through the correspondence folder later, I found it. Of course, it would have been nice if someone had maybe typed up a list of the witnesses with their address and phone on a computer document. I do that because I if I lose the paper, I can look it up easily. But no one else thought to do this.

About the only thing that makes my sec'y better is that I know she doesn't know things. I know she doesn't know what an "affirmative defense" or a "new matter" or a "cross-claim" is. That's why I have to refer her to a specific document #1, cut and paste paragraphs 10 to 19, then go to specific document #2, cut and paste paragraphs 25-30, then specific document #3, etc. and I do it in order. She can at least follow those orders.

My boss assumes his sec'y knows what all those things are, so he just says "do standard affirmative defenses/new matter claims and std cross-claim for indemnity" and she has no idea what that is and of course, comes and asks me because she doesn't want to ask the boss. I do the work, and I bill for it. If my boss asks me why I billed for something (which he rarely, if ever does), I'll explain.

I suppose I could tell him about things as they are, but I'm not entirely sure it'll do all that much good. Besides, it helps me get to know the cases ahead of time, so I'm not caught too off guard when he asks me a question about the case (that he hasn't previously told me about).

I have to remember to keep these work rants very general, not be specific about any names, cases, etc. Was at an employment law seminar for two days and was reminded about confidentiality challenges in the electronic age, and the importance of googling oneself now and again. That's rather an interesting thing to do, its amazing what info gets out on the web. Like, how in the world did my name get attached as a "debt settlement attorney"? I have no idea, I've never done that sort of work. I also had to contact a few places that listed by work address as an attorney with my home address. Asked to have the address changed. I don't mind people having my work info, but not to publicize my home address.

I'm pleased that my facebook profile shows almost nothing for the public. I will always keep it that way, no one gets to be my "friend" unless I really know who they are. I've declined invites from people who said they knew me in high school or even elementary school and I didn't recall them. I've made some MMORPG people "friends," some that I've never met IRL too, which is about the farthest I'll go.

Of course, pretty much everything has the potential to be exposed with a subpoena.

I'm Doing Two Jobs

2011-04-04T10:22:00.001-07:00

Double post today, but this is annoying me.

I have a full time job. Actually more than full time. However, most days, I feel like its really two jobs. It may be close to three. Apparently, I have to seriously calendar and double check every thing at work that I give to my boss (or his secretary). I can't rely on my boss' secretary to have anything calendared for when stuff has to be filed with the court, or provided to the client, or otherwise followed up on. I have to double check that when I give something to my boss for him to review, a court filing, a letter to the client, that the document has subsequently been signed, filed with the court, mailed, etc. I have to double check everything that is created by my boss for filing, service, etc. because his secretary will not do anything extra.

The last couple of weeks were just amazing. We have a settlement conference in a case coming up. My computer reminds me two weeks before that I have to do the statement and have it filed with the court a week before the conference. I do the statement, give to my boss. The last day for filing, my reminder comes up (should have been the day before, next time). I never got the statement back from my boss (which he'd do if a change was needed), so I ask my boss' secretary if she filed it with the court. She looks on the computer to see if it was electronically filed (our local court does that for 90% of documents). I have to remind her that it won't show up on the computer because the settlement conference statement is hand filed, not electronically filed. She should know this.

However, she also doesn't find a cover letter of service to the other parties. I look in her redwell of documents for filing in our office files. Sure enough, there's the Settlement conference statement, signed by my boss, just sitting there ready to be put in the case folder. Not filed with the court (no stamp). Not served (no cover letter or proof of service). Fortunately, the courthouse is across the street, so we can get it filed and served on the last day.

How does she just put something in her filing folder without looking at it? Without knowing it has to be filed with the court? She supposedly has experience, but seriously she has to be told every little thing.

When we got a copy of the filed statement back, I double check the client correspondence file. My boss' last letter to the client, dated a month previously, said we'd let him know about the settlement conference when it was scheduled. No letter since then. With the conference a week away, I draft a letter to the client, enclosing the statement and asking him to call us before the conference to discuss our position. I print and give to my boss.

Now, three days before the conference, I find out that more than likely, the letter never got emailed. Oh, the letter is in the client correspondence folder, but its not signed, there's no email attaching it, and the settlement conference statement never got scanned in to be an attachment. Again, a document gets put in the file, by my boss' secretary, without actually having anything done with it. She can't recall a day or two later that a letter she's filing never got sent?

My bosses secretary also needed me to sign some cover letters today to serve subpoenas (because my boss is out). Good thing I had to, since I do read "routine" letters before I sign them. She hands me four subpoenas for records we need to get, one for accident/investigation records, two for medical records, one for employment records. The subpoenas simply say that, "Investigation records for accident." "Medical records and documents." "Employment records and documents." Nothing about um, like WHOSE records we're requesting. Nothing about um, like WHAT accident (date, location, something). I'm sure the hospital going to say, "Oh nice, a subpoena for somebody's medical records, that narrows it down." The Police Dept. says, "an accident report? How about a date maybe?"

I just can't believe this secretary was going to let those subpoenas be served. She says, I just type what he (my boss) tells me to. I want to say, don't you think he assumed you fill in whatever info is necessary, like a name, date, etc.? Haven't you ever done a subpoena before, since you're supposed to have been a legal secretary for 15 years? Don't you even read what you've typed from the point of view of the person receiving it? Did you really think the hospital records clerk is going to have ESP to know to which of the thousands of patients your subpoena referred? While most of the time, yes we're subpoenaing the plaintiff's records, in this case, we were also subpoenaing a co-defendant's records. The Hospital isn't going to know that. You really want to tell the boss you didn't know to put a name on the subpoena, or who he was referring to and then didn't ask him, when he inevitably gets the letter from the hospital saying "We have no idea what you want, the subpoena doesn't say what patient"?

The second excuse, that my boss probably looked at them when he signed the Notice of Intent (which has to be served on opposing parties 20 days before you serve the subpoenas, so they can object) and he didn't have any problems and opposing counsel didn't object, is also without merit. She knows my boss doesn't review what he considers to be 'routine' items. I doubt he even looked at them, he just signed the Notice of Intent and cover letter, and probably didn't read those either (the subpoenaes are signed/stamped by the court clerk, not the attorney).

My boss barely looks at discovery we serve. He had one set of "standard/form interrogatories" that had about 10 questions that needed to be slightly changed each time for the particular case facts (change names, dates, address, etc.). His prior secretary always made those changes, so he never bothered looking at them, he just signed the last page. The new secretary didn't make those changes (even after I pointed it out to her), so we started getting a bunch of "not applicable" or "I don't know what you mean" answers to those questions. We had one plaintiff threaten to file a motion with the court because our questions implied she had other problems with her house that she wasn't aware of, but that was only because the questions were from a different case. I finally had to take my own time to redraft "standard interrogatories" for each type of case and court system (state and federal) so that they didn't require any changes for the different cases because it became obvious that my boss' secretary was never going to individualize the rogs for each case.

Finally, of course, opposing counsel isn't going to object to vague subpoenas that aren't going to produce anything. Its not his problem if we don't get his client's medical records. He'd probably prefer we didn't, or at least that we cost the client more money so the defendant will want to settle.

This mindless, 'I just following the literal instructions,' is annoying as hell. Its not that difficult to think a little bit. Read what you type. Does it make sense? If not, figure out what will make it make sense.

I have the same complaint about my own secretary. She just types what she thinks she hears/reads, and doesn't bother to determine whether the sentence makes any sense. This is why most of the time, I do my own typing. I can type what I want to say in half the time it takes me to dictate, proof-read, make corrections, proof-read my corrections, make more corrections, proof-read those corrections, etc. Its bad enough that I have to do my time-sheets twice. Write them once (sometimes twice if I scribble), then review them again after my secretary types them into the time program, usually requiring multiple fixes.

Secretaries are supposed to help us do our jobs. They are supposed to be a back up for dates, names, etc. It does not help me, and in fact makes my job twice as hard, if I have to track down and follow up on every thing I give my boss, or that my boss does to make sure its been done right, or even done at all.

I better get a good raise next review time.

Government Jobs and Vacation

2011-04-04T08:21:00.000-07:00

I was watching Bill Maher's show on Saturday (recorded from Friday night). I don't always agree with him, particularly on extreme anti-religious views. Some yeah, I can agree with, like how so many people just take on face value what a priest, or pastor or other church leader tells them is "God's word" or what God wants them to do, without doing any investigation on their own, without asking any questions, just being told "you must believe it" and they do. In this day and age, when there are so many resources available to people, you have question, you have to investigate, and yes, you may then have to just follow your heart, but you just can't blindly believe.

But besides that, I tend to agree with a lot of Maher's politics (again, not all, he's a bit too liberal on drugs, for example), but I have no qualms agreeing with his socialism. Maher had an excellent panelist, Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont. He was so articulate and clear about the health care law and education (we're cutting funding for millions of kids, but the Republicans are saying "but wait, we're helping 1700 kids in DC, yay us").

Another point brought up is how the corporations pay little, if anything, in taxes, yet they complain about raising corporate tax rates. Of course GE might be upset if the tax rate got raised from 35% to 39%. GE might actually have to pay taxes instead of getting a 3.2 billion refund/rebate on its 14 million in profits. In addition to the huge sums that corporations don't have to pay in taxes, these corporations cut jobs, freeze wages, cut/freeze or just never provide benefits, like sick and vacation time.

Then the corporations get its employees all worked up against public employees who do get sick and vacation time. Thus, instead of being mad at their bosses, the CEOs, the management, for only getting 2 weeks vacation, if that, the private sector workers get mad at the public sector employees who do get sick time and 5 weeks vacation. Its like having 20 cookies to share amongst a CEO, a Teabagger, and a union worker. The CEO takes 19 cookies, then tells the Teabagger to watch out for that greedy union worker stealing the last cookie. And the Teabagger falls for it.

Why isn't the Tea Party riled up against corporations who aren't paying their fair share of taxes? Heck, so many billion dollar corporations don't pay any taxes and yet the Tea Party is worried about people making less than $50,000 a year not paying enough taxes, having health care and getting too much vacation? Are you kidding me? Seriously, if you want that 5 weeks of vacation so much, why don't you rise up against the CEOs of these corporations rather than trying to take it away from other workers?

Already today, workers in America work far more than any other industrialized nation in the world. We work the longest hours and get the fewest number of paid vacation days. No, providing more paid vacation days would not necessarily have to lead to higher prices on goods and services. GE could well afford to have slightly less profits, or at least a lower tax refund.

And don't tell me that one just has to negotiate for better benefits. Even in the "boom times" I didn't know anyone who got more than 3 weeks vacation. One worker cannot adequately negotiate with a business/corporation, that's why there are unions, that at least bring collectively bargaining, the strength of thousands, to have some possibility of equal bargaining power with a corporation. Many places have never had unions, and realistically, the vast majority of employees can't dictate their salary and benefits. Most of us, are extremely fungible. Maybe you can get a little more, IF you have some special/rare skill, IF you are highly desired by the company and IF you have multiple offers for your services. But really, how often does that happen? Even the lowest fast-food employee in France gets 5 weeks vacation, I never got paid vacation when I worked at Burger King, you really think I could have negotiated for that?

I might be more sympathetic to corporations if they maybe used their profits and lower taxes for better work benefits or even jobs here in America. While current reports show that many corporations are making new jobs, those jobs are in China, India, Indonesia, where they can pay workers $1 a day. Come on, we're not even talking about minimum US wages, let alone union wages that are reportedly so outrageous. Do we really want to force US workers to live on a $1 day? Do we really want that standard of living?

I'd have a helluva lot more respect for the Tea Party if they weren't complete and utter tools of the Republican (Corporation) party. All they talk about is cutting spending to reduce the deficit. How about raising taxes on those billion dollar corporations and millionaires? How about raising more money to lower the deficit. Why take it out on kids, the poor, the sick, rather than those that can truly afford it. Don't blame unions or government workers who only want to eat 1 cookie, blame it on the 19cookie hoarding corporations.

Rich Teachers and 93 Sentras

2011-03-01T06:41:00.000-08:00

So put me in the camp in support of the union supporters in Wisconsin. I find it absolutely incredible that people that want to keep the top 2% of American's income, i.e. those that make over $250,000, at a lower tax rate, they get to keep a whole $5,000 or so a year (yes, more for those that make $1,000,000 - oooo, I bet they really feel the pain), and instead are trying to take away the wages and benefits of people that make $50,000 a year. Yes, these teachers that make a fifth, or even less of the richest people in America, those are the people that are the "blame" for our country's budget woes. As Stephen Colbert states, damn those rich teachers and their 93 Sentras. Totally makes sense to go after people driving almost 20 year old cars instead of those that, you know, own several 2011 Rolls Royces, or Bently's, or Mercedes, or Porches.

Now the unions in Wisconsin are willing to compromise. They are willing to accept less in wages and less in benefits. They understand that everyone needs to contribute in these hard economic times to help balance budgets. But what they are not willing to accept is their absolute destruction, the complete inability to later bargain and negotiate to get those benefits and wages back when economic conditions improve. These people will sacrifice some money now, but want the right to get it back later. Compare this to bankers, who didn't even have to sacrifice their money, not one single penny of it, now. The bankers got bailed out in the billions. They got their six figure bonuses. Did you get a bonus for Christmas this year? Or last year? Did you get a raise? Bankers did, teachers did not. Teachers are giving up their ability to trade in their 18 year old car for a 10 year old car, whereas bankers are trading in their 2010 RRs for the new 2011 model. Cry me a friggin river you top 2%.

Oh, but those teachers get 3 months vacation and only work till 3pm. Well, let me say Bullshit! My mother was a teacher. She worked well past 3pm. At home, she was always grading papers, getting lesson plans together, making bulletin board displays. She worked summer schools often. I remember seeing many of my teachers working in grocery stores over the summer because they just couldn't last 3 months without a paycheck. That's right, its not like these teachers get 3 months "paid vacation." They get 3 months without a paycheck. You try living 3 months without a paycheck.

QUIT BALANCING OUR BUDGET ON THE BACKS OF TEACHERS AND KIDS! We have to pay teachers well to encourage more to enter the field. I've constantly heard the excuse by big companies. Oh, we have to pay our CEOs these millions of dollars to encourage them to stay/come to our company. That's what "big lawfirms" say to excuse their $160,000 paychecks to top law students. Why not use that same excuse to attract more teachers to the profession?

Maybe, just maybe, if more teachers entered the profession and could make living wages, our kids would be better educated. I've heard arguments that teachers are so secure in their jobs, so they don't try. How about, our teachers are so overwhelmed with 35+ student classes, having to find ways to get school supplies, even paying for them out of their own pocket (there's a special tax write off for that too, you think that would be necessary if teachers were getting such supplies from the school?), having to be babysitters as well as teachers because both parents (to the extent there are two parents) are working long hours trying to pay the rent or mortgage and put food on the table. These teachers are exhausted, and so are the parents. Meanwhile the poor top 2% are having to "sacrifice" by canceling one of their ten trips to Europe this year and only being able to buy 10 new pairs of shoes this year instead of 15. Lets get that violin out.

A poor education leads to poorly trainable workers. A recent article in my local paper talked about problems with the new Septa rail cars. They have a lot of defects. They're being made in America (which we're all supposed to encourage, right, rather than having them made in Mexico?), but the Korean supervisors are complaining that all the workers are unskilled and they are difficult to train. Maybe if they could read and do math better, they'd be better workers. And maybe if those workers had better education in school they could read and do math better. And maybe they'd get that better education if there was more money being paid to the schools and the teachers.

Some say that "throwing money at the problem won't solve it." HOW DO THEY KNOW THAT? WE'VE NEVER TRIED IT! How about we give it a try and throw more and more money at education, and do it for like 10 years and see if things improve?

Unions may not be perfect. There may be corruption at the top. But there's no way there's more "corruption" in unions than there is at the top of big business, and no way that union bosses earn more than the CEOs of these businesses. You think CEOs "make jobs"? Yeah, maybe, but I bet half of those jobs are in other countries, Mexico, India, China. Union bosses, however, make American jobs. Union bosses fight for more wages for their union members, giving them more money, so that maybe the members can afford to eat out at Applebees once a month, thereby allowing Applebees to hire more waiters, servers, cooks and dishwashers. There, more jobs created and in America.

So I say no to abolishing unions or taking away collective bargaining rights. Frankly, I don't think they should be giving up any of their hard earned wages or benefits, not unless the top 2% make similar concessions in their taxes. You want union employees to take a 5% cut in wages and benefits, then raise the taxes 5% on the top 2%. Guess which one creates more money for state and federal budgets?

Legal Profession?

2011-02-10T11:40:00.001-08:00

Have got to cut and paste a few comments from my favorite Legal Blog, Above the Law. The article concerned how DeVry University (you know, the "institute" that provides vocational education with lots of TV spots, mostly in fields like medical billing, human resources - i.e. employment benefits mgmt, network administration, etc.) may be buying the Bar/Bri prep course business from Thomas Reuters (who instead of investing in teaching Americans how to pass the bar and practice in the US is now investing in foreign attorneys/document reviewers by buying Pangea3 - a firm that primarily handles outsourcing legal work to India).

The article's author thinks that the marriage of DeVry and Bar/Bri is perfect because its clear that lawschools don't adequately prepare students to pass the bar, let alone actually practice law. Its truly amazing that three years of education and you still need to take a six-week 'focused' course on how to pass the only test that allows you to practice law. Three years and the school can't even teach you how to pass one friggin test? Considering the profit mills that many lawschools have become, it just makes sense that a for-profit vocational "institute" takes over the only course that actually gives students the information they need to pass the Bar exam.

Seriously, the legal profession used to be looked up to as respectable and you had to be smart and dedicated to law in order to get into lawschool. Now anyone with a pulse can pay $50,000+ a year or more to get three years of crap education, then pay another $6,000 for the Bar/Bri course to learn how to pass the bar.

So anyway, here are some of the comments:

"When I read these types of articles, it makes me appreciate the fact that I left this corroded profession. The value of a JD is at its nadir. When I became a lawyer, an LLB was the key to the kingdom. Kids today cry about a $160K/year salary. When I joined this profession, I was barely making $16K a year (1/10 of what kids think they deserve today). I was able to buy my first home outright with no mortgage within 3 years of becoming a licensed attorney. I had no student loan debt and I was financially secure within 5 years from passing the bar. Folks, the sad reality is that the dream is dead and has long been dead for decades. I recall a normal partnership track being 5 years. I remember being mentored and groomed, not hectored or humiliated. Times have changed and if you still signed up for a JD today, then you are truly a masochist. Kids, do yourselves a favor and go to a trade school. Mechanics and refrigeration technicians will earn more money than you and will serve a function in society. I never thought I would be alive to see the value of a JD being equal to a diploma issued by the Sally Struthers School of "Fill in the Blank." That is all."

"Isn’t Devry one of those schools that advertise on TV at times when everyone with anything better to do is away from a television set? If you’ve ever been sick at home and stuck in front of a TV you know what I’m talking about.

If an organization I only know about from bad TV is going to buy Bar/Bri, I think it should be that ‘Feed the Children’ Christian charity. I can see the commercials now: slide after slide of somber, doe-eyed 3Ls staring up at the camera from dim and dusty library tables while that fat bearded guy’s voice tells a few of their tales: “This is Margaret. She went to Baylor. There was a time when Baylor graduates could at least count on legal staffing jobs in Houston to pay their bills. Now Margaret faces a future as the bottom rung of her aunt’s Mary Kay distributorship pyramid. For just a few dollars a day, you could help her sit for the Texas Bar. The Texas dream of a lexis may not be in her future, but with your help, she may afford the payments on her Hyundai.” "

"My point here is that the line between "professional" school and "vocational" school has substantially blurred, that it actually makes sense for DeVry to take on this responsibility, and that to the extent that people graduate from 3 year law schools still needing to go to a finishing or vocational school before they can actually practice is a damning illustration of the state (and outsized cost) of legal education.

-- The ATL comment thread is the DeVry of commenter education schools."

TDS and CR - RAVE!

2011-01-20T07:18:00.001-08:00

I just love Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Their shows are just wonderful with humor, information, and satire. The last two nights have been great.

Jon did a wonderful bit about how the Dems are so curiously focused on the name of the Repubs attempt to repeal the health-care bill (about it being "job killing") that they completely miss the point that the bill substantively isn't "job killing". How about addressing the real issue Dems, instead of just the stupid name?

Then Stephen Colbert's show Tuesday night. He had a great bit about a tea party guy attempting to destroy an integrated school district because it actually was addressing the problems caused by separation.

# See, misguided government doogooders foolishly diluted the problem by addressing it. We need to ignore it so we'll pay attention to it.

# The injustices will become so apparent to everyone, that we'll put aside our differences that we worked so hard to reinstate, and join together in a new civil rights movement to undo the undoing of what we've already done.

Finally, Stephen's Palin rant was incredible. Copying it because it was so brilliant:

"Mika, you need to buck up. I know you think this story has no purpose other than keeping Sarah Palin's name in the headlines for another news cycle. I know you think she has nothing to offer the national dialogue, and that her speeches are just coded talking points mixed in with words picked up at random from a thesaurus. I know you think Sarah Palin is at best a self-promoting ignoramus and at worst a shameless media troll who'll abuse any platform to deliver dog whistle encouragement to a far right base that may include possible insurrectionists. I know you think her reality show was pathetically unstatesmanlike and at the same time, I know you also think it represents the pinnacle of her potential, and that her transparent desperation to be a celebrity so completely eclipsed her interest in public service so long ago that there would be more journalistic integrity in reporting on one of the lesser Kardashians' ass implants. I know when you arrive at the office each day you say a silent prayer that maybe, just maybe, Sarah Palin will at long last shut up for 10 fucking minutes. I know, because I can see it in your eyes."

Yes, don't we all wish that SP would shut the fuck up for 10 minutes.

OTOH, I hope both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert keep talking for a long long time.

Gun Culture

2011-01-16T09:42:00.001-08:00

I've been surprised that not more had been said in the media about politicians and others calling for more gun control in the wake of the AZ attack. I guess I shouldn't have been. According to what I've read, any politician that suggests even the smallest bit of gun regulation apparently draws both barrels from the NRA and thensome. Apparently the NRA caused the Dems to lose Congress in 1994 and also caused Al Gore to lose the presidential election. Here we are wondering if the Tea Party is going to take over the country when the NRA has already done it. It seems the NRA controls which political party wins elections (if the NRA decides to exert itself). I'm surprised that the NRA didn't come out barrels blazing against Obama and in support of its poster-babe Palin.

It just incredible. Seriously, being able to shoot at 6 targets in a matter of seconds or a minute isn't good enough. It has to be 30. With the tragedies we've had in CO, VA and AZ, people still have no problems with having these automatic weapons available to anyone with a few bucks.

The Second Amendment Should be Rethought

2011-01-12T06:45:00.001-08:00

I'm posting some comments I made on a blog or two about the recent terrorist attack in AZ. I know a lot of people think we should focus on the Republican hate-speak people like Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, etc., which may be appropriate (they at least help stir things up), but in my opinion, we should just take the damn guns away. That's right, I said it, not everyone in this country has a God given right to bear any damn assault rifle, semi-automatic rifle, and handgun they want just because we have a Second Amendment. Maybe the 2nd Amendment isn't Godspeak, you think? It was written by a bunch of men who were fighting against a tyrannical government. They never had any expectation that some nutjob would be allowed to fire 30 bullets into a crowd at a market, resulting in the death of a 9 year old girl.

What really should happen is tougher gun laws, such as banning automatic guns. Seriously, they have no purpose except killing people. So to the Repubs and the NRA, I say shut the hell up about no gun restrictions. I'm calling for a ban on all automatic and semi-automatic weapons, just like we had in 1994. I'm even calling on more restrictions on handguns, the need for everyone to get a permit for one. I'd like to see them outlawed completely, but I know that won't happen. I say that the 2d Amendment, allowing everyone and anyone a gun is just wrong.

I respectfully disagree that if we have a law banning automatic and semi-automatic weapons that people like Jared would have been able to get one by other means. In that case, the bullets shot before reloading is significantly reduced and maybe, just may...be, a little 9 year old girl, as well as several others, would be alive today.

If we have more restrictions on getting handguns as well, more waiting time, better background checks, then maybe he wouldn't have gotten one of those either.

So where would this guy have gotten a gun if certain ones were barred and others significantly more difficult to obtain? Steal one? From who? Again, if said automatic and semi-automatic weapons were banned and handguns more difficult to obtain, the people from whom Jared could have stolen a gun would be significantly fewer.

And don't give me the bullshit that if we ban weapons or make them harder to get, only criminals will have weapons (I suppose that may be true, since you'll be a criminal if you have one). If automatic and semi-automatic weapons were banned, NO ONE would have such weapons. Persons caught with such weapons (including "criminals", who are "criminals" by definition of having such guns) would be arrested and the guns take...n away and eventually destroyed.

Second, many criminals get weapons either from gun shops or from "law abiding citizens" (straw buyers or theft). Again, if certain weapons were banned and more restrictions placed on other weapons, then criminals would have a hard time getting such guns either.

Third, if permits were required for every gun and must be produced upon request, then again, many criminals would lose their guns because they would not be able to produce such permits.

The 2d Amendment is not the Bible. It is not sacrosanct just because it's in the Constitution. Slavery used to be in the Constitution too, as well as forbidding the right to vote by women and blacks. Prohibition was an Amendment. All of this was in the Constitution and later removed because they were wrong. So maybe the 2d Amendment is wrong too.

I'm hoping that this tragedy will wake up people to realize that we have to do something about this gun-loving 'I can do whatever the hell I want culture.' NO YOU CAN'T. Not when the lives of 9 year old girls, mothers, fathers and others are at risk. Ban these automatic and semi-automatic weapons and their magazines. Place better background and more restrictive checks and permit requirements on other guns. Require more than a week of waiting before you get your gun. Stop the sales of guns by unregistered dealers at gun shows. Stop the ability to buy a gun immediately at said gun shows unless one has already passed a background check and brings said paperwork to the gun show. You want a gun? Then do the homework!

A gun has no purpose except to kill. Drugs can be helpful or harmful, and we regulate those, why the hell can't we regulate something that has a very small helpful purpose (hunting animals)?

See http://abovethelaw.com/2011/01/sarah-palin-doesnt-kill-people-guns-on-the-other-hand/#more-52245

So, You Didn't Think It Gets Busy For Christmas?

2010-12-23T10:30:00.000-08:00

Given that this year both my husband and I got raises at work, even though we're still burdened by our student loan and credit card debt, I felt better off than others in this economy. So I wanted to share some Christmas cheer.

Our neighbors, with whom we share a driveway, are retired and home almost all day. They get up early and when they go out to the front of the driveway to get their newspaper, they grab mine as well and place it on my backdoor step. The first few months we lived at the house, I didn't know they did that and I, believing it was great service from my newspaper delivery guy, sent him a nice Christmas tip with a letter saying "thanks for the door delivery." I bet he was confused. Now, knowing its not him, but my neighbors, I still send a tip, which I suppose at least keeps my papers coming to me dry (wrapped twice on rainy/snowy days), but no note.

Its nice that by the time I'm up, dressed, downstairs getting coffee, my newspaper is right on my backdoor step so I don't have to go outside to get it. A few times, I happen to be the first one outside, so I reciprocate for my neighbors, but its me 10%, them 90%.

Similarly, our neighbors help with the trashcans. Our trash is always picked up after both Stephane and I are gone to work. Instead of coming home and hoping our trash cans are still in the vicinity of our house (even if the trashmen leave them in the driveway, sometimes the wind can blow them away), my neighbors will grab my trash can and bring it back to our backyard when they get their own trashcan.

I really appreciate their help, so I wanted to buy them something for Christmas this year. Not really knowing their tastes, I thought to buy them something from a gift-food place. They used to have a local store at our mall (which I frequented every few months for cocoa, chocolate covered cherries and other items), but it closed a few months ago. So I had to use their online service.

I inadvertently got my neighbor's address incorrect. I only ever knew their first names, but I needed their last names for the delivery. So I went to look up their last name via whitepages.com since I knew the address. However, I put in the wrong number, I mixed it up with the address of the house on the other side of us (which is also a nice family, btw). Later than night, I realized I put in the wrong address on the order. I tried to call the place, but the "on-hold" time was more than a hour because "Christmas is busy." I didn't have that kind of time, so I sent an email, which promised to "get back to me within 24 hours."

The next day, I got an email saying they got my email and would respond "within 24 hours." Already slow. Another day passes and I get an email that said "Hey, you know it's Christmas and we're busy, so we'll respond to you as soon as we can." I'm thinking, ah oh, problem. I tried to call again. Now its "so busy" the customer service can't take more calls, try back later or go on our website for responses "within 24 hours."

Well, sure enough, the next day I get an email saying my order has been shipped. :p Great. Now my other neighbors are getting the gift. Now, they're nice people and all, and we've exchanged pleasantries, they have a boy just a little younger than Elise, so its entirely possible we'll eventually get to know them better. But still, I think they're going to be quite curious as to why out of the blue they're getting a fruit/chocolate/cookie box from us. Oh well, guess we're being extra generous this season. Of course, now I wonder if this is going to cause them to feel they have to reciprocate (at least for next year) and we start some fake gift exchange because we feel we 'have to for appearances sake, even if we don't really want to' all because I made a mistake.

I went out and bought something from a brick and mortar shop for my retired neighbors (these wonderful chocolate covered apple slices and strawberries from Edible Creations) and delivered it myself. I should have done that in the first place, I know, but the other place offered free delivery and hey, I'm a busy full time working mom.

Several days later, I finally get an email from the on-line place. "Oops, sorry about your order, but its Christmas and we're busy and didn't get to it in time to cancel/fix your order. Hope you accept our apologies and Merry Christmas." :p Gee thanks. Only took you a week to respond to my email. Quite a bit beyond your "24 hour" promise, you think?

Yeah, I get Christmas is busy. Perhaps one of the busiest of year. You think I don't know that? Don't they know that too? These companies know (or should know, seriously) that Christmas is busy. Why didn't they oh maybe take a stab at lowering the unemployment rate (even if just temporarily) and hire more people so they could fix orders, or get orders out on time, respond promptly to emails, etc.? I'm sorry, but 7 days to respond to an email that was promised a response in 1? You're that busy and backed-up on responding to customer service questions?? Perhaps you should have hired an additional person, which could have cut that response time to maybe 3 days, or hire 2 to cut it down to the promised 1? Oh, and hire more telephone operators too maybe, so I could get through the telephone lines without having to sit around on my butt for over an hour, or even just get told to "call back later."

I know this food company isn't the only one that is using the "Christmas is busy" excuse either. I've seen complaints on other consumer websites as well about problems with other on-line order places. Seriously, there is no excuse for the "we're too busy because its Christmas" line for on-line companies that can friggin hire people in India for pennies if they don't want to pay Americans living wages (though I think those that do that should be taxed to make up for it).

Maybe these companies will make nice big profits this year, because they've cut their labor force to the bare minimum, but they're losing a lot of future customer orders in the process. I know I'm not exactly itching to place another on-line order with this company, which means they could loose at least few more orders each year (I've used the on-line service in the past for deliveries in CA and other places in PA). I haven't tried out the Edible Creations delivery service, maybe I'll do that next year (although I think its just local delivery, but that will work for most of my orders, or I can actually pick up my order at a physical store).

With unemployment bouncing against 10%, there's no excuse for the "its Christmas, we're busy" ploy to excuse poor service. Hire people! Companies keep saying they can't hire people because they don't have the orders, but then when they do get inundated with orders, for *surprise* Christmas, they can't provide the service. Seriously, you knew Christmas was coming, its the same date every year. Plan for it. Hire a couple more people, heck, even temporarily. People will take a decent paying job, then go back on unemployment afterward, if necessary.

Maybe if more companies quit thinking about bonuses for executives and CEOs and more about their employees and customers, we'd have less unemployment and more happy customers.

More Bits

2010-12-03T18:47:00.000-08:00

And another month gone by. Was busy this last month, had to write an appellate brief for the Third Circuit, which took pretty much an entire week of work. I'm pretty jazzed, my boss says I can do the oral argument in February. The damages at issue are in the seven figures, so chances are good that whoever loses will appeal to the US Supreme Court. The case involves the UCC, so it could have potential for acceptance. Now that would be exciting, to go to the SCOTUS.

Then I almost got to go to Germany for two witness depositions, that got canceled at seriously the last minute. I had always figured my boss would go, but the trip conflicted with a vacation he had and at least originally the depos couldn't be rescheduled. That only happened because my opposing counsel found out he had cancer and even then we weren't sure the German courts would allow the rescheduling. I was a bit nervous about going by myself, traveling a few states over for a couple of nights is one thing, going across the ocean for five days a bit more. So now the trip has been rescheduled for January (and may get rescheduled again for March). Not sure if I'll still get to go, or if my boss will want to do it. It will almost certainly need to be done, one witness is crucial to our defense and somehow I just don't see the plaintiff coming down in his settlement demands (currently in the seven figures) to anything near where the insurance carrier will consider paying (which is currently five figures, which may go up to low six, maybe). In the meantime, I spent several days getting stuff ready for the trip, that got canceled.

My Warcraft guild finally killed the main boss at the end of the current expansion. Always a fun accomplishment. A new expansion is coming out Tuesday, with level increase to 85. I expect to be spending most of my free time playing WoW over then next few months. New dungeons and boss mobs to overcome.

So trying to catch/keep up on my TV shows. I'm out of my Survivor pool now, my pick Brenda was betrayed by her alliance, one member of which then quit the next week. Bah! There's several shows I like, but nothing is OMG I MUST WATCH NOW the way Lost was for me. Couple shows are trying and I do watch, but sometimes several weeks are saved on my DVR before I get around to it.

I watched Dennis Miller's new show the other day. I really used to love his stuff, but he moved too far to the right, and I've moved more left, so half his show isn't funny to me anymore, since he got a bit more political in his comedy. I get my political comedy from Jon Stewart and Robert Colbert now.

Thanksgiving was "exciting" in that Cami fell against a table, cut her lip and needed three stitches at the hospital. :p

Now just a few more short weeks until Christmas. Kids' shopping is nearly done and I know what I'm getting Stef. I have my sister's family's list, so I just have to sit down and decide if I'm ordering on line or going shopping. So just a few other miscellaneous gifts to get and I'm done. Still need to get Christmas cards out, maybe this weekend.

Its a bit slower at work now, so maybe I'll have more time to write later.

Rant Bits

2010-11-01T10:48:00.001-07:00

Wow, a whole month without writing something. I've been busy. But now for some little rant-bits.

Why is it that on some days when I don't get into work until just after 9, when pretty much every secretary and clerk is in, no one has bothered to make a pot of coffee? I have no problems making it the days I'm in the office first (or even second) at 8 a.m., but its incredibly annoying to find no coffee made when I arrive at 9:15. I know I'm not the only one who drinks the stuff.

Why does my boss ask me to find/copy documents for him for his deposition? Isn't that what secretaries or clerks are for? I know he keeps his secretary very busy, so get one of our clerks to do it. If he doesn't think they are capable (which is clearly possible, because I have the same gripe), then maybe we should hire at least one competent clerk? At least he doesn't complain when I bill time for "prepare documents for deposition, .4".

And speaking of clerks, really how hard is it to copy the pages with colored tabs on them and keep them in the same order? Is the phrase "copy all pages in the paperclip" that difficult to understand? Is the instruction upon being handed a 2 inch stack of documents to "copy everything" and not just the two pages with a color tab on them that hard to comprehend? Do we really need a file folder that says "Plaintiffs A, B, C, D's responses to Defendants' X, Y and Z (all completely spelled out) Expert, Fact and Witness Interrogatories" instead of just Plaintiffs' responses to Defendants' Rogs"?

I love that my husband has taken more of an interest in cooking because he really can cook well. But he seems to only want to cook the meat/fish, leaving me to do the veggies/pasta/rice/potatoes, etc. So now, instead of my planning everything and timing everything, I have to read his mind as to when to start cooking the veggies, which take 3 times as long as the meat/fish. Half the time, I just hear him start cooking and now I have to throw something together in 5 minutes or have us eat dinner in two parts. I love that he wants too cook. How about the whole meal, maybe? Its not really saving me time by him doing one small part.

And I'm so tired of people on the subway who make it difficult for other people to sit on the seats. Whether they completely block the seats with stuff or their bodies, or they refuse to move over, or they move over but then almost immediately make you get up again because they're getting off the next exit, or they make you stand up while the train is in motion several minutes before the next stop, or they insist on being the first person off the train so they block the door, etc.

Nice to get that stuff off my chest.

Year of Change

2010-09-24T07:24:00.001-07:00

When one is a new parent, each year seems to be one of change. Until the kids are fully ensconced in school, it seems like there's always something different going on from the year before.

This year brings many new things in my life, a bit more than in the last few years. Camille is starting kindergarden, so now we are firmly committed to family vacations only in the Summer. We can no longer do two-week Christmas trips to France (except in certain special circumstances, which must be rare), as the elementary school only gets 1 week winter break (actually ends up being a week and a day or two, depending on how the holidays fall). Camille can't just stay out of school for a day 'whenever' as we could in daycare/pre-school.

Also for the first time, the kids don't spend their days in the same location. Three days a week, Elise goes back to the pre-school Cami went too. So Cami gets dropped off at the sitter's (a neighbor mom) house first, then I take Elise to pre-school. This has been hard on Elise, to go to school without her big sister with her. Cami, at least, has gone to school/daycare by herself before, so its not as big a change. Two days a week, we take Elise to the sitter's as well, to help the transition. That way, they have the morning together before Cami goes to Kindergarden, and then the late afternoon after kindergarden is over.

Its not easy doing two trips now in the morning and afternoon. Only have to do this for 2 years, until Elise is in kindergarden.

This year, I also started the kids in their extra-curricular activities. Cami started with swim classes at the Y over the summer and now that Elise is 3, she participates as well. They're doing gym/swim for early fall and I plan to sign them up for ballet in late fall. Saturday mornings are no longer sleep-in relax time, and probably won't be again for several years to come. Soon I'll probably have to choose one day a week at work to leave extra early for other after-school activities.

Stef's and my job situation appears to have stabilized, which is a good thing, especially in this economy. Stef likes his job and got a raise. After several years of searching and bouncing around, I finally have a place to work that I like (at least 95% of the time, no place is perfect really) and that pays me sufficiently. I think I could stick it out here in the long term. I feel I can relax a bit and not worry about job stability for either of us.

We can see the light at the end of the debt tunnel. Its slow going right now, but things are starting to get paid off, so we can increase payments to others. We're hopeful that in about 3 years we'll be in better financial shape (along with the economy) for a home loan to do some remodeling/expansion of our house.

The girls are starting to get more independent. Elise is finally potty trained, so we no longer have diapers. Yippee!!! They can dress themselves (even Elise) and can turn on the TV. Still need mommy or daddy to turn on lights, get drinks (they can reach most of the food options), help with DVR/DVS (until Cami is better at reading). Of course, now we're starting homework too, another new thing.

Life is good right now, if busy.

Are You Ready For Some Football?

2010-09-16T05:48:00.000-07:00

Yay, football season has finally begun. This year, however, isn't likely to be a good year for the Eagles. First they traded away their franchise quarterback to a division rival (WTF?) and now the supposed "new" quarterback is injured (and so far, he certainly isn't showing himself to be the new Peyton Manning either). At least the back-up is a former starter, albiet, not that great a one. Still, Vick almost pulled it out for the Eagles last week, but for yet another questionable play call by Reid. Seriously, WTF? with passing on 4 and 1 when you have a running quarterback? Hello!!!!????

So, I'm not holding out any hopes for the playoffs this year. Even if the quarterback situation works out, the Eagles still have many other problems, both offensively and defensively. Giving up 27 points doesn't make for a good defense.

In other football news, we have another example of why I don't believe that any reporters, not just women, should be granted access to locker rooms for interviews. Really, is the information that critical that you have to ask the guy while he's naked? Can't you wait until he has some pants on???

Of course, the issue currently brewing about Inez Sainz isn't just in the locker room (although that was a big part of it). She's claiming harassment outside the locker room as well, such as when she was on the field wearing jeans that if they were any tighter, she'd look like Mystique with her blue skin. She claims to have been wearing a "button down" blouse, but given the only photo we have is her from the back, we don't know how far "down" those buttons were undone.

A female football reporter for the Inquirer wrote about the situation today. She came right out and said, "look, if you want to be taken as a professional, you have to dress and act professional." Flirting (like sitting on players' shoulders) does not make one seem professional and then people won't treat you as a professional (or at least not as a professional journalist).

And finally, we've got Jimmy Johnson, former NFL two-time Super Bowl winning coach on one of my favorite shows this season, Survivor. Johnson is definitely the most famous contestant on the show, although there has been some quasi-celebrities previously. By "quasi-celebrity" I mean someone who has a shot at being known outside their personal circle of family, friends and co-workers pre Survivor (i.e. Elisabeth Hasselbeck doesn't count, she got famous after Survivor).

Former "quasi celebs" on Survivor include: Gary Hogeboom, a former NFL quarterback (backup only); Crystal, a former gold-medal winning US Olympic athlete (though she only ran the qualifying race and had to give her medal back after revealing drug use); Ashley (?) the female WWF wrestler; and possibly the biggest celeb prior to JJ, Jonathan Penner, an actor/producer (although I'll acknowledge that unless you were a big fan of his or the shows where he guest-acted on, you probably don't know him).

Thus just begs the question, how long until we have a true Celebrity Survivor season? Its been on the air for over 10 years now, we're going to get it soon, I just know it. But in the meantime, I don't think Jimmy J is going to last long. He's the oldest contestant (and they rarely make the merge) and he's not in that good a shape (unlike, say Rudy). So he'll probably stick around a few episodes, I'm guessing he's off by week 5 or 6. Motivational speeches only do so much when you can't otherwise contribute to winning challenges. Jimmy doesn't have Troy Aikmen on his tribe.

Obligatory Political Post

2010-09-08T09:39:00.000-07:00

Elections are coming soon. I've been watching some of the primary races, primarily the ones on the Republican side.

I used to be a Republican, its how I was brought up. I was raised that no one should be granted special privileges, everyone should work hard for themselves and not expect anything to be given to them. In essence, I was very much an fiscal conservative and definitely had social conservative leanings. This really came to a head when I was in college and I was annoyed how certain special interests groups got anything they wanted because they were "special interests groups" (i.e. anything non-white). Suddenly, any attempts to enjoy other cultures in a party atmosphere were deemed "racist" and prejudiced. I was insulted. My friends, sorority sisters, fraternity friends, were not being racist or prejudiced, we just wanted to some sombreros on the wall and drink tequila. We couldn't even call our spring Hawaiian themed party "Hawaiian Luau" because any use of a culture that wasn't "white" or "American" was considered "racist" (despite the fact that, you know, Hawaii is kind of part of America) and therefore banned because of the special interest group protest.

I was also annoyed by what I perceived to be special treatment given to certain persons of color to get into classes ahead of me, solely because of their color (and my school was probably 40% or more "of color"). As I look back on it, I really have no idea if other factors were taken into consideration with this preferential treatment, its entirely likely that economics played a part as well. At that time, it just seemed to me that nearly everyone I knew that was "of color" (which honestly wasn't all that many) got that special treatment and it annoyed me even though I didn't see all that many people "of color" in the classes I actually attended.

As I continued to live in CA, I maintained my conservative opinions. I was annoyed at how much taxes I paid (mostly because I was a renter and didn't have kids), particularly because that money funded programs for which I wasn't eligible. I always thought that the Republicans were a bit smarter, they seemed to know about economics more. About the only items I disagreed with the Republican party on were abortion rights
(I've always thought a woman should have the right to decide what
she wants to do with her own body, up to a point at least, and I
generally agreed with Roe v. Wade on that point - yes abstinence is
better, especially for teens, but its not realistic to think it will
never happen - hello Bristol Palin - and besides, I think its better
fiscally for someone who can't take care of a baby and/or who doesn't
want it to abort it in the first 3 months, rather than give birth
and have society, us tax payers, pay for it for 18+ years)

and gay rights
(frankly, I don't care who people marry, finding love is hard enough
to enforce a one-sex only standard).

Then I moved to PA and married a Frenchman, who opened my eyes to a different way of life (yeah, the whole "evilness" of socialism). I continued to be a Republican for many years. Frankly, it was really only with GWB made such a mess of things that I started thinking differently. Part of it was that I finally had kids of my own and that really opened my eyes to the struggles families with children do have. I suddenly realized why there are policies for families, for kids. I experienced some economic troubles of my own, which made me understand why there's welfare, WIC, unemployment, etc.

And I heard more and more intolerance from the (primarily) far right wing side of the party. Intolerance towards anyone who wasn't like them. Hypocrisy over forcing women to have babies they didn't want, but unwillingness to help raise/pay for those babies. Contending that anyone who wanted a job, could get one, and it was just too bad if the only thing available was minimum wage, even if that wasn't enough to pay bills (including child care), you obviously weren't working 'hard enough.' Some even had the nerve to gripe about how much minimum wage cost the employer.

More and more, I saw religion being pushed into politics and I didn't care for it. The whole point of our country was separation of church and state, that the government was not supposed to support, endorse, or proselytize any one religion, but now it was. This country is made up of all sorts of people with differing religions, but our President and his supporters were pushing only one form of it on everyone as "the only right way."

Now I was always very tolerant of different religions. In fact, the religion in which I was brought up, Lutheranism, actively teaches its followers not to blindly accept what the priest/preacher tells you, but do have one's own faith, to do things that you believe are right, to figure things out on your own. Through this teaching, I conducted my own research into a few different religions and began to reject the verdict that just because one believes in God in a different way, doesn't mean that they don't believe in God, or won't go to Heaven. There is no "one way" to believe in, or worship God. All God cares about is that you believe in him and follow his principals. How you go about doing that, what methods you use to worship him, what aspect of him you follow, doesn't matter.

So it annoyed me to no end to see the Republican party began to focus more and more on religion and less and less on the economic principals I believed in. Now, it wasn't that poor people just needed to be taught better how to succeed, it was their fault because they didn't believe right. Other social issues also began to take more control over the party, the jihad against gays made absolutely no sense to me. I know the Bible has the whole Sodom and Ghemorrah story, but I also know the book was written by men, words and stories chosen by men to enforce certain "expected" behavior of their choosing, and designed to control/appeal to the masses. Like with other religions, I really don't believe that God is going to damn someone because the person they fell in love with happened to be of their same sex.

My disappointment with the hijacking of the Republican party by the religious right got to be so much, I finally had to leave the party. I just could not support anyone that stayed in political party so encompassed by standards and morals that were nothing but platitudes. I saw people who claimed to be "good Christian folk" spew hatred and vitriol and others, just because they had different beliefs. That's not how Jesus taught people.

I also began to see the greed that was running the party. How its all well and good to tell people to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, but then they hit that glass ceiling. People can only get by on 'hard work' for so long before it becomes a 'good ole boy' network, where one only gets ahead because of 'who you know.' Sure its still possible to be successful by oneself, but its much rarer than it used to be. And ordinary workers have a lot of difficulties getting by, struggling to pay the ever increasing costs of health care, child care, funding their own retirement, funding their kids college accounts, paying a mortgage.

Employers/businesses were becoming more greedy with limiting vacation time, sick time, maternity time, etc. Management and executive salaries were far and away outpacing those of workers, and more and more benefits were being cut. When people have to pay $12,000 a year in rent, $12,000 a year in child care and $6,000 a year in health care premiums (that is what I paid when when Cami was born), that's already $30,000 a year of my salary. Yet some places I applied for jobs wanted to only pay me $50,000 a year (and my others not much more). That meant after taxes, I had very little left for transportation, food, clothing, utilities, let alone something for savings.

I was annoyed that someone with a good education, with an advanced degree, was only being paid mid-five figures and working for people earning well into the six-figures. The bosses somehow expected me to be able to afford full time child care, plus a designer wardrobe with my measly wages. Considering my lower student loan payment, I had to wonder how any newer attorney, with significantly higher student loan payments, could get by without a high earning spouse or live-in relatives.

So I left the Republican party and joined the Democratic party. I began to see that it wasn't enough to just be a fiscal conservative, one has to realize the effect on society and how sometimes it really is necessary to cover some society costs because most people/businesses don't do it on their own. We need government to tell businesses they have to do certain things for their employees, because otherwise, they won't. They'll just make the employees work harder, and if they complain, fire them (good old at will employment) and hire someone who will be quiet and be "happy to have the job." We've already seen what happens when government isn't telling businesses how to treat employees. We get child labor earning pennies helping their parents pay the rent.

Republicans say they want less government, but really they only want less government taxes and business regulations. They want more government to regulate or stop abortions, (gay) marriage, immigration, welfare, etc. I love how people complain that our education system is deteriorating. That's because it has less and less government funding. Repubs don't want education funding, but they want the government to stick its nose into the schools and force prayer, Christian prayer only. This is why I can no longer vote Republican.

I can see why the Republican voters have been coming out in droves in the primaries. Its a battle between the right wing religious/tax fanatics and what's left of the moderates (those that didn't defect to the Dems, like myself). Apparently the results have been 50-50 for each side. I know everyone predicts the Dems will suffer greatly in November and there will be a big Republican resurgence. I'm not so sure. I think the Dems will come out to keep the tea partiers at bay (at least I hope they do, because God help us all otherwise) and maintain a majority in Congress.

I know that Obama hasn't been perfect, but he's far far better than the alternative and if he has any chance of trying to turn this country around after the last 20 years of damage, he needs a Democratic Congress. I have no "fear" that its going to turn in to a socialists paradise (although really, some of the policies are really pretty good), there are enough far-right Dems to join the Repubs to keep that from happening. But if the Party of No gets some control, I can't see much of anything happening over the next two years. I'm sure that will please everyone.

Julia Child and France Then and Now

2010-08-23T13:10:00.000-07:00

These are various notes I made while reading Julia Child’s My Life in France.Julia Child lived in Paris, France in the late 1940s-early 1950s and later built a "winter" house in Provence. Our experiences with French culture are more than 50 years different, illustrating how much some things have changed.

Restaurant prices are obviously significantly different. Three dollars in 1950 bought a fantastic meal in Paris for two people. I don’t think that would buy the bread in 2010.

Even though Julia didn’t work, it was au naturel for her to have a cleaning lady, one that even lived with them. Her kitchen appears to have been quite roomy, although everything is either on hooks, on open shelves or on the countertop. There do not appear to be any cabinets. My belle mere (mother in law) has a fairly normal sized and looking kitchen and definitely doesn’t have a cleaning lady. Of course, they live in the south, not in Paris. Perhaps people in Paris still have servants? Or more than likely, it was just the way it was in those times.

Julia has plenty of time to cook and experiment. She didn’t work and she didn’t have children. That left her with lots of time to fill. The book mentions how she took up the cooking classes because she needed something to do and she liked food.

Although the French all go on vacance in August, apparently no Americans do. Its unclear if all of the Child’s friends also worked in government and thus didn’t get the same vacation time because they followed American holidays/vacation, or if that’s just the way Americans were used to doing. Already there is resistance in France to “American business principles” of working all day, or all the time. The French want to spend time on other pursuits and enjoy life. They work ‘hard enough’ to make a decent living, but not so hard as to be unable to enjoy their lives. So many Americans these days are forced to work 10-12 hours day (including commuting time) or more such that they don’t have the ability to enjoy what time off they do get.

Julia may be quite familiar with the French language, and even though I know a decent amount, I don’t understand many phrases she used in the book and no doubt most Americans know even less. Some of the phrases and sentences should come with a translation, especially when she’s trying to make us understand how funny they are. We can’t laugh at what we don’t understand. It seems to me that she always translates the easier words/sentences, but not the more complicated ones, and this is frustrating. I can easily understand “une maison sans chat, c’est la vie sans soleil (a house without a cat is like life without sunshine), but I had no idea what “nous, nous de la vraie Mediterranee, nous ne mettons jamais les tomates dans la bouillabaisse, nous, jamais” meant other than it has something to do with tomatoes in the Mediterranean bouillabaisse. Apparently it actually means that “true Mediterranean people don’t use tomatoes in bouillabaisse” (something said by a Marsellais woman which Julia said wasn’t really true).

The photos of Julia in her kitchen and with French women show how much she towered over everyone, and how especially tall she was, particularly during this era. Compare Julia, at 6’2”, with the French women, they appear to be a good 12 inches shorter. Most French women I have met in 2000+ have been what I understand is current average height of around 5’5” or so, so the French have grown taller. Considering that furniture was likely built for these short women, especially in the kitchen, it must have been quite hard on Julia to cook, or at least cause her more back strain. When Julia had homes built/remodeled for her, the kitchens were custom built taller for her size.

I found it interesting her mention of driving across the US in 1946 with Paul before they got married, nothing is said about separate bedrooms in the hotels at which they stayed. You mean in 1946 men and women sometimes slept together before marriage in the “golden family values age” of the US? Quelle horror.

There is a big difference between Julia Child describing her cooking and Julie Powell describing her cooking of Julia Child’s recipes in Julie’s blog/book. Julia Child discusses the taste, textures, flavors of the food. Julie described how hard it was to cook the recipe or find the ingredients.

Julia talks about how, at 40, she is now of “advancing age.” At least today, 40 is the new 30, so I don’t feel quite so “advanced age” at 45.

Julia apparently hates the pressure cooker because it ‘made everything taste nasty’ but it was “popular in U.S. households” so she had to adapt some recipes for its use. Quite a difference in 2010, where the only other person I know of with a pressure cooker is another mixed American-French household, and it was only through my belle mere that I learned to cook with one. If a pressure cooker was popular in the US in the 1950s, it’s definitely not now (most likely due to more frozen veggies that one just boils or cooks in the microwave). I think a pressure cooker is better. It’s so easy and I think it makes the veggies taste better, more natural. At least better than boiling or microwaving the vegetables. I’ll have to review Julia’s cookbook to see how she cooked the veggies, if she thought they tasted worse in a pressure cooker. I’m fairly certain she added butter to everything, so of course that would make them taste better, but I can still do that after using the pressure cooker, if I felt it necessary (which most of the time, I don’t).

Julia mentions the differences between French and American flour. In France, apparently the flour is (or was) more natural, and kept its fat. It would go bad if not used up in a fairly quick amount of time. American flour is more processed (I knew that in general) that takes away more of the fat, but allows it stay fresh a lot longer. Thus Julia had to scale her recipes for Americans to use more butter or other fat in cooking things like pastry crust. I wonder if the difference in flour still exists, and if so, if they sell flour in smaller quantities in France, since it must be used up quicker. I’ll have to ask, since some of the recipes for things I’ve asked from my in-laws use both flour and butter. Maybe I need to add more butter to my béchamel sauce, for example and perhaps that’s why it doesn’t taste as good as my belle souer’s.

When Julia talks about her first cooking lessons as a teacher, she’s charging 7000 francs, which she says is the equivalent of $20 (so about 350 francs to 1 dollar). I was floored. I went to France in 1988, when they still had the franc, and I’m pretty sure the exchange rate was about 7 francs to the dollar. So in 37 years, that’s quite a comeback for the franc. Of course now the French use the Euro, which is worth more than the dollar. So there you go capitalists, a couple of generations of socialism ruins an economy, eh?

Julia talks about how her book was to be the complete primer for French cooking, the preliminaries must be performed correctly and every detail must be observed. Certainly MTAFC is quite detailed and frankly I have problems sometimes trying to follow everything. It’s a lot of work to cook most of these recipes. The results are worth it, however. It’s just hard to find the time to devote to cooking when one has a full time job, plus young kids. Of course, Julia is writing this book at a time when most women aren’t working full time.

Before reading this book, I had no idea that Julia Child actually spent quite so much time living in France after her initial stay and definitely not in Provence. After they returned to the US and Julia began her cooking show, the Childs continued to visit friends in France. Her co-author, Simone Beck and her husband owned property in Provence, inherited from family. The property, five hectares of land (about 12 acres) was situated a bit north of Cannes. When the Childs wanted to find a place of their own, but could not find anything to their liking, the Becks allowed them to build their own home on a portion of their land. These was solely a lease arrangement, the house reverted back to the Beck family after the Childs stopped using it in the early 1990s when Paul Child could no longer physically visit. But with this home, the Childs now spent many months each year living in Provence. It is my hope that someday my family will be able to afford a home in Provence near my husband’s parents, so we too can live several months there when we retire.

I note she talks about by the time they quite visiting Provence it had become quite expensive, crowded and most of the small shops had given way to large supermarkets. While that may be true, it’s still closer to the “country” than in the US, or at least in most US cities. Its definitely harder to find butcher’s fruit/vegetable suppliers, bakers in US cities than in France, at least from what I’ve seen. OTOH, I generally haven’t seen my in-laws shop many places other than the supermarket, although I have seen smaller butchers and fruit/vegetable places. Certainly it is easier to do one’s shopping all at one place, I find it the same here. We do try to use the Amish farmers market more often, even if the prices are equivalent, the food is generally fresher than in the supermarket.

All in all, a very interesting book, certainly more so that Julie Powell's book.

On a Reading Roll

2010-08-17T05:33:00.000-07:00

I feel inspired to write more for a time. I was rereading some of my prior posts and saw that I was remiss in following up to my book review from a couple of months ago. So here is my review of some of the books I said I'd talk about, plus a couple others.

Committed by Elizabeth Gilbert - This was the follow up to Eat, Love, Pray (which is now a movie that I've read isn't so good, especially if you haven't read the book). For those that liked ELP, you'll like Committed. If you didn't like ELP, well, why are you still reading her books? Committed follows Elizabeth's relationship with Felipe, they fly back and forth between the US and Felipe's business interests in Bali and elsewhere. After several multi-month long stays in the US, immigration finally says Felipe can't come in any more without a more permanent visa (especially in the post 9/11 US). So the couple has no choice. Either live outside the US or get married. Given that both Felipe and Elizabeth are divorced from prior unsuccessful marriages, neither of them, Liz in particular, is all that keen on getting married, but they want to stay together and be able to spend time in the US. So while waiting forever for Felipe's fiancee visa (I know what that feels like), the couple live in other countries, primarily very low expense southeast asian countries and Liz explores the concept and institution of marriage through other cultures.

What was interesting in this book was realizing that our current US (and western European) culture of "marriage for love" is really a very modern concept. The vast majority of our history shows that marriage has almost always been a 'civil' arrangement, primarily to breed children and/or combine family interests/business/money. In poorer cultures, marriage was just something you did with someone agreeable enough when it was time to have children. In richer cultures, of course, a lot of time it was a business decision by parents to combine money, land, titles, etc. Love rarely, if ever, factored into the decision to get married, but it may have developed over time. Most of the time, it was good enough if you liked the person, or at least could stand to be in the same room together and share a bed now and again. That's why hardly anyone ever got divorced. No one in Liz's travels mentioned this ideal of a "soul mate" or the "one true love" that seems to drive so many Americans to divorce when their marriage lives aren't perfect.

The only real flaw in Elizabeth's work is that the vast majority of her interviews and opinions are garnered from women, very little is contributed to by men, who are really half of the marriage equation. While the book explains why the women never seem interested in being with a man other than one's husband (at least for sex), there isn't a similar query made to the men, many of whom aren't always satisfied with just one woman. There was no research as to what happens if the man does go outside the marriage, did that have any affect at all? There also wasn't any inquiry as to whether homosexual interests ever arose and what affect that could have. So, a bit like EPL, you feel like you're just getting half the story, but its still a good read.

"The Nanny Returns" - Emma McLaughlin and Nicola Krause (follow-up to "The Nanny Diaries"). The protagonist of The Nanny Diaries returns to NYC after about 10 years with her husband (whom she met in TND), who is the son of one of the NYC 'society women' whom Nanny derides. This book contains two stories, Nanny's relationship with Mrs. X and her new job at a private school funded by the X's, with a small subplot of Nanny's friendship with an old friend who appears to be a 'budding Ms. X.' The book continues on the same topic of how people in the X's circle are shallow, only interested in appearances, and don't give a damn about "the little people" who actually work. However, the treatment of the teachers at the school certainly isn't limited to the rich, we see that in middle-class public schools as well, except that there's a little less control over the teacher's jobs. Still an interesting look of how having a lot of money can change one's priorities, especially when children are involved.

"Think Twice" by Lisa Scottoline. Another book where Bennie's twin sister shows up to wreck havoc in Bennie's life. The twin is able to kidnap Bennie and assume her life for several days, while she tries to steal all of Bennie's life savings. Apparently the twin is able to do this because no one really knows Bennie well enough to see all the inconsistencies when the twin assumes Bennie's life and work. Eventually Bennie realizes this and vows to change her life so she will become closer to people. I suppose this was supposed to make people realize that they need others in their lives and not to be so isolated from people you work with and to make real friends. Frankly, I found it a bit inconceivable that Bennie had no close friend who knew her well enough to spot the fake and even those people that saw the differences just assumed Bennie wanted to act differently, even when these people knew Bennie had a con-artist twin sister. Also, lesson learned from Bennie: don't write your computer/bank/email passwords down in a Rollodex on your desk under the card marked "passwords." And this is supposed to be a very smart lawyer?

"Silks" and "Even Money" by Dick Francis and Felix Francis. These are the last two books written by (or with) Dick Francis before his death. His son, Felix, wrote with him. Its a bit unclear as to how much input Dick had in these books, given his age. Almost certainly he's not the one doing the bulk of the research, as his wife used to do it before her death, about 10 years or so ago (which nearly stopped the books completely, it appears, until Felix stepped up to the plate to help). The books are very much written in Dick's style and after reading all of his books (of which I think there are about 30 or so), they definitely have a pattern. The protagonist is nearly always a fairly meek man who gets caught up in circumstances beyond his control and a bit out of his depth, certainly violence wise. Almost always either the protagonist or a close friend ends up having some crucial skill that helps the protagonist defeat the bad guy. Almost always there's a 'thrill' scene where the bad guy threatens the protagonist's female companion. The main interests I've had in the books is how Francis combines horses (nearly always involving racing) with some other topic, such as photography, wine-making, banking, painting, or in the case of these two stories, bookmaking (i.e. gambling) and being an attorney. I'll be curious to see whether Felix Francis continues on writing the books.

"Blood Oath" by Christopher Farnsworth. I really liked this book. Its about a new vampire discovered by shortly after the civil war and "pardoned" by President Andrew Jackson and bound by a voodoo oath to serve only the President of the United States and men directly under his control. The vampire then helps serve and defend the US from other supernatural threats, which in this book are 'frankenstein' monsters put together from corpses of fallen soldiers set loose by radical Islamic terrorists. The book is clearly written as the first in the series, as all the necessary parties survive, and future encounters with involved villains are expected. I thought the book was well written, paced well and the characters well created. Looking forward to the sequel.

On vacation I read "The Alibi Man" by Tami Hoag and "Valhallan Rising" by Clive Cussler. Both were my 'throwaway' vacation books, paperbacks I had bought (at library sales) because they looked somewhat interesting, but knew I didn't want to keep them. So I took them on vacation with the intent of reading them, then leaving them for someone else to pick up and read on their vacation. Less stuff to take home, more room for souvenirs. Both were ok as diversions, but clearly just that. "The Alibi Man" involved a murder-mystery in Florida, which naturally makes you think its one person, but ends up being the completely no-way other person. "Valhallan Rising" was another story involving Cussler's main protagonist, Dirk Pitt, as he solves a mystery that starts hundred or so years before. I've read a couple of these books now and just can't really get into Cussler's world. I'm always a bit suspicious of the 'superman' who seems to be able to do everything and anything.

I'll be doing a separate post on the Julia Child book, as it's fairly extensive. I've also read through several of Wil Wheaton's books that I plan on posting about. Still working my way through Laurell K. Hamilton's latest, "Divine Misdemeanors." Its been taking a bit of a back shelf to other books I'm on a deadline with for the library, and frankly, some of her books are starting to plod a bit as well. Plus its big and hard to port around. I'm also in the middle of "The Passage" by Justin Cronin, another new vampire-type book (and this one clearly needed an editor).

Concert Experiment Fail

2010-08-16T11:12:00.000-07:00

I went to see Adam Lambert in concert on Friday night at a Musikfest put on by the city of Bethlehem, PA. Bethlehem is a smallish town north of Philly, a little bit east of Allentown (made famous in a Billy Joel song). Every year it holds this two week Musikfest, which is like a county fair with booths of food, drink, games, shopping and about five or six stages for musical performers. All of the performances are free except for the big main stage at the "RiverPlace," which turns out is simply a island in the middle of the river next to the town where they set up a stage and folding chairs.

While I loved Adam's performance, I was not happy at all with the venue. Had I known he was going to have another date near Philly (which was the night before in Upper Darby, 5 miles from my house, /sob), I would have waited to buy tickets there, as the temporary RiverPlace was a hassle to get to (normally its about an hours drive, but Friday night traffic to the Poconos, plus the concert traffic made the drive 2 hours), the venue is not a real good place to see the stage if your seats were back beyond the first section, not to mention the nightmare of parking (or I should really say, getting back to my car after the concert - that took longer than Adam's concert). But the Musikfest tickets went on sale a month or so before the Tower Theater performance was announced, so I thought it was my only chance to see him (and money is tight enough that I couldn't justify two concerts in two nights). I have to wonder if that was intended, in order to up the attendance at Musikfest, since it was a much larger venue (about 6,500 seats, plus lawn seating, compared to the Tower Theater at about 2,500 seats).

And waiting nearly an hour after opening act Orianthi for his less than a hour performance was annoying as well. I don't know who's fault that was. The stage appeared to have been done in 20 minutes, so why was there a delay? The delay also caused concerns getting back to our car, since we had to park way off site and take the shuttle bus to the festival grounds, which were supposed to stop at 11:30 p.m. (but obviously kept going after midnight to get everyone back to the parking areas). I think Adam had to cut his encore to just one song because of the bus schedule, since I understand at other concerts he did two songs.

My only other quibble was with the whole camera thing. I've been going to concerts for a few decades now, so I know that in general one can't bring in cameras. Obviously some of that had changed to some extent with phones having cameras, I haven't heard of any place that keeps one from bringing your phone into the concert, even if it has a camera in it, but I haven't gone to a whole lot of concerts in the past couple of years (kids will do that).

With Musikfest, I thought seriously about bringing my small camcorder and my sister-in-law did bring her camera, which was a little bit larger than a phone, with a protruding lens (i.e. it doesn't easily slip inside a pocket, but its not a 'professional' type camera either). I tried to find information as to whether such was allowed at the Musikfest concert, since the rest of the festival was free, had a lot of music, games, other entertainment for families, who one would expect would naturally bring their camera. But I couldn't find any info.

In the end, I didn't bring my camcorder, which I guess was a good thing. We're in line to get into the venue when we see the sign that says "no cameras". Its now 6:40 (the website said the concert was to start at 6:45 - although it actually was an hour later) and since we had parked a long ways a way and taken the shuttle bus, we had no easy way back to the car. Neither of us had pockets, so I did a little trick with my purse and got the camera in (lets just say I've had a little bit of experience with that). Of course, inside the venue, we see that 90% of the people have camera phones and most aren't even bothering trying to hide them. So why is there any restriction at all on cameras, if everyone has a camera phone these days? Turns out, we couldn't even get any decent pictures because of our seats.

But despite all that, I loved Adam's show. His voice was absolutely wonderful and he puts on a pretty good show (at least what I could see of it). He was beautiful on Soaked and I liked the acoustic change up for Aftermath. I was sorry to miss out on Whole Lotta Love, but 20th Century Boy was pretty good instead. I'll definitely plan to see him again, but next time in a real theater.

Mexican Vacation

2010-08-15T14:54:00.000-07:00

We did a family vacation to Mazatlan last week, which included my French in-laws (mother, father and sister). Overall, it was pretty good.

I was expecting slightly better prices and deals, considering Mexico is still somewhat recovering from last year's swine flu and this years crime reports, but prices weren't too bad. No great deals on food, unless one went for the small taco stands and un-air-conditioned restaurants. Merchandise also wasn't a significant savings, even with bargaining (and some places were clearly not interested in doing that, or at least with 'tourists'), but didn't get ripped off at least.

Mazatlan is apparently quite ripe for developers, or at least trying to be. They were doing a lot of hard sells for these new Private Residence Clubs. A bit similar to the time share bit, except that they want to "lease" you the space, with the hope that you'll eventually want to buy a whole vacation home. The biggest problem we had (besides the large upfront payment) was being tied to just a few areas (the one we went to was offered in about 5-6 places in Mexico, but nowhere else). We like to travel and see new and different things. We're not interested in buying a vacation home in one place.

Weather was good, flight decent enough (Continental was ok, free food that was good, free checked bag back to the US). It was more humid than I expected, we definitely needed to do laundry during the trip. I was also a bit annoyed at the seat assignments, it was a real effort to try and get seats together 2 at a time, so each parent could sit with a child.

My main surprise was the price of sun lotion. $15 a bottle. If I had known that, I would have checked a bag full of it. I didn't bring any because I thought I could buy it for a comparative price and didn't want to pay $25 for a checked bag. I thought I would have had to pay the bag fee for the Philly to Houston flight, but since we went onto Mexico, I may not have anyway (since I didn't get charged to check a bag coming back). But it still would have saved money to pay $25 to check a bag with the 4 bottles of sun lotion we went through at $15 a piece.

We had checked one bag in Mexico all the way to Philly (everyone else had carry-ons). The one bag was selected to carry all the liquids we were taking home (a bottle of tequila, two bottles of vanilla, suntan lotion, after-sun lotion, etc.). My father in law then bought some duty free Tequila at the Mexico Airport, which he carried on the plane.

After going through immigration in Houston (which had its own issues), we had to collect the "checked bag" from baggage claim, take everything through the final customs check, then "recheck" the "checked bag". At that time, we were told that we had to place the duty free tequila bottle in the "checked bag" or we couldn't take it through the security screening we had to go through again to our connecting flight. Fortunately we had room to do that, although I was somewhat concerned with protection for the bottle, especially since we were a bit rushed because immigration took forever.

My question is what could we do if we hadn't previously "checked" a bag so that we had one available to place the duty free bottle inside? There were no areas set up to do a formal "checking" process for a bag after immigration/customs, you had one area to give the already "checked" bag, then you had to go through security.

I'm told we would have just had to throw away the duty free bottle. That makes no sense. Isn't the point of duty free with it being in a special sealed bag supposed to serve the security purpose? I'm glad we had room for the bottle, but what if we had bought more or didn't have an already "checked bag"? I'm told that this is the wonderful TSA v. Duty Free issue and TSA wins. So be warned. If you are flying internationally, make sure you check a bag if you intend to buy duty free liquids and go through customs in a different city than your final destination.

We had another wonderful issue, this time with immigration. I'm just so fed up with the obvious lack of training and/or poor training provided to employees. No one ever seems to know the rules or the correct way to apply them.

My french sister in law has a B2 visa she got a few years ago when she lived with us for five months while providing some child care. The B2 visa is valid for 10 years. Even when she's just visiting a few weeks, now every time she comes to the US, she had to fill out a special form that allows her to remain in the US for 6 months, even though she doesn't stay that long now.

She filled out this form when she entered the US a few days before our Mexico vacation, and kept part of it in her passport as required. When we went to Mexico, no one removed it from her passport, although apparently someone was supposed to do so. When we came back to the US, she had to fill out the form again, even though she still had the part of the form from the prior week. The immigration officer practically accused her fraud and worse because she still had the part form from the prior week because someone else didn't do their job and remove it from her passport. She didn't know that was required, she didn't remember what occurred the last time she visited.

So when she returns to France, she has to be sure someone takes both of these forms back out of her passport. Otherwise, she could be barred from visiting again. I just love our wonderful Homeland Security's failures at training.

We're constantly learning new rules in air flight. I guess I'm becoming an expert on this.

Greener Grass

2010-07-19T06:51:00.000-07:00

I was reading an article about various panels and guests at this year's Comicon in San Diego and really for the first time in 10 years I was almost sorry I had moved from SoCal. I would love to see some of these panels and while I can most likely watch them later on youtube, its really not the same thing as being there in person and enjoying it with a whole bunch of other like-minded people. Thinking of that made me think about other things I miss from SoCal, and I came up with this list:

1. Disneyland
2. Good Mexican food
3. LA Art Museums
4. Tam O'Shanter (favorite restaurant that still exists)
5. Local gaming cons
6. So Cal Ren Faire
and now I add
7. Comicon - I would so go if I still lived there.

We have amusement parks in in PA and NJ, although I haven't actually been to any of them, which is rather surprising given my love of rollercoasters. I think we were just too poor and had other interests (EQ/WoW) so we never got to them, and now of course, can't go until the kids are old enough. Still, nothing is quite the same as D-land.

I've been to a couple of Mexican restaurants here, but lets face it. There are very few Mexican immigrants in this neck of the woods, so not only are there very few who could cook authentic Mexican food, there's very few who'd even want to eat it. I even have trouble sometimes finding enchilada sauce in grocery stores. At least I finally found a place to buy good chorizo sausage - the Amish market. Go figure.

Philly has an art museum too, but its not as good as MOMA or LACMA. Plus its expensive, although maybe the LA ones have raised prices too.

Still haven't found a "go to" restaurant that I love as much as Tam O'Shanter. I say "of restaurants that still exist" because my very favorite in Pasadena, Maldonado's, closed about 10 years or so ago. Whenever we visit SoCal, I try to go to Tam O'Shanter, best prime rib, best souffles, but we don't always make it. Some day, I hope to find a good "go to" restaurant here in Philly too. One that has good food that I can't get most anywhere else, and isn't too expensive.

Surprisingly to me, Philly doesn't have any gaming cons. LA has 3, at least. The closest is the Age of Enlightenment Con, which has a few games, notably one of my favorites, Age of Renaissance. However, that con runs during the week (plus the weekend), so I can't really participate, since I kindof have to work. The LA cons were always just weekends only, the 3 big 3-day holiday weekends during the year. I miss both the people there and playing the games. I had a whole lot of fun at those cons.

Philly has a ren-faire, but its much smaller than the SoCal one. Less shows, shopping, activities, food. Plus, beer is limited to one small area, you're not supposed to carry your drink with you throughout the faire. I'm not a huge beer drinker, but its that state of mind I miss. Without the beer, you get a lot less of other "ren-faire" type things, like the overall bawdiness and crazy fun that people have. Still, they have a nice end of the day production and sing along, which makes one want to stay till the end, which I hardly ever did at SoCal's ren-faire, unless I was with certain friends.

But, there are some things I like about Philly that LA doesn't have:

1. Seasons - I do like having an actual winter (at least when we don't have 3 huge snowstorms with 2+ feet of snow that wreck our travel plans). I love seeing the fall colors and so much green in the spring/summer.

2. Amish markets - Yes, CA has its own farms, but I really love the locally grown produce and butchers here and Amish food. Between Costco and Amish market, I rarely go to the grocery store now.

3. Eagles - One big thing about moving away from LA was the likelihood I'd find a place with a pro football team for whom to root. Luckily, I landed in a place with a very strong fan base for nearly all sports, including pro football, with a team that was finally pulling itself out of the basement and making the playoffs almost every year. Its been great rooting for the Eagles and really being able to get behind a pro team. LA never had that for me, outside the UCLA Bruins (which I do miss being able to watch the games all the time).

4. Better public transportation - Unless LA has drastically improved, at least Philly has more frequent buses and a more extensive train/subway/trolley system, so I never have to drive to work. Its also fairly easy to get information about schedules and routes. SEPTA is not perfect, but its a lot better than LA's system.

5. Proximity to Europe - This is probably the main reason we live on the east coast. Gotta be closer to Stephane's family, both for telephone calls (6 hours difference is big enough, 9 hours would be seriously problematic) and travel.

6. Proximity to NYC - We've only visited NYC a few times, but I like having it a 2 hour train ride away. I'm hoping that once the kids are older, we'll go more often to see plays/musicals as they don't come to Philly all that often. Plus I want to check out their museums. Similarly, its nice being a bit closer to other cities, like Wash DC.

7. Housing - Philly never went "really big" on housing prices, so we were able to afford to buy a house when our finances finally enabled us to do so. After the big bust, our housing value hasn't fallen as much either, its really been right at what we paid, give or take 5-10,000, which is a lot better than other parts of the country. Another add to the PA side is houses with basements. Its nice having all that extra room in the house (which storage wise, helps replace the fact that so few houses have garages - what's up with that btw, when there's so much more weather to put up with here).

8. Driving - This one is right on the cusp. Yes, there are less people here than in LA, so yes, there's less people on the road. But, the roads are smaller. Our freeways tend to be 2-3 lanes wide, compared to 4-5 lanes wide, but they still get crowded. Many surface streets have just enough room for one lane of parking and one for traveling, meaning you have to pull over when cars are passing in opposite directions. OTOH, most places are closer, so I don't have to drive as much. Everywhere in LA is an hour from anywhere else. In Philly, its about half that. My only gripe with Philly driving is that outside Center City, the roads are not grids, they curve all over the place. Buying a GPS was a must since we usually had no idea how to get somewhere if our main road was closed or there was an accident and trying to figure it out on the fly usually made us even more lost. But generally, with fewer people, it at least seems like there's fewer people on the roads.

9. French wine - granted we have to pay a bit more for any alcohol due to PA's blue taxes, but its still generally easier to get french wine here than in CA.

There's a lot that about equal for both. LA has the Rose Parade, Philly has the Mummers. Both have close beaches, although all are free in LA, whereas only a few are free in South Jersey (but we're not really beach people anyway). Both have a lot of well respected colleges and universities, perhaps a few more on the east coast, but I think they are more expensive here as well. CA does have a very good and affordable public university system, which isn't really matched here. Essentially, there are things I miss about living in LA, but then again, I'd miss it if I had to move from Philly too.

WoW, I'm Back

2010-06-28T06:08:00.000-07:00

Started playing World of Warcraft again this weekend. Stef had been playing DDO (Dungeons and Dragons Online) with our friend Jeremy for the last several months. They heard another old friend of ours, Rob, had started playing WoW again, so they decided to play again too. I've always liked WoW, so I reactivated my account as well.

Had a fun time this weekend. We played all Saturday night and then a few hours Sunday afternoon. There's a been some changes since we last played (which appears to have been about a year or so ago. No new expansion, but a few new dungeons, plus a change on pick up groups (PUGs), which is definitely an improvement from before. Now, instead of being limited to one's own server, you can get into a queue for a random dungeon with a group from any server, or get a person to complete your group from any server. So, since our group was only 4 this weekend, we put in to get a 5th for several dungeons, which worked out well most of the time. There was only one dungeon that we tried to do that didn't work out with the 5th we got, we really just needed a different class for that particular dungeon, which you don't really get to choose, the class or the dungeon. You only get to choose from Tank, Healer and Damage, which can be quite different in actual production. Most of the time, whatever you get will work, but some certain dungeons really require the right mix of classes to succeed.

Naturally, since we last played, there's been another set of "ultimate" equipment to strive for. Where we once had the top armor, we're now back at the bottom of the next totem pole. That's what the new dungeons are for. I think they also made some changes to some of the achievement requirements, because we got several achievements during the dungeons we did, that we struggled and failed to get after many attempts before.

Its nice to see that the game comes up with new things to do. We're hoping to get another friend to play again to be our regular 5th. Its always more fun to do things with people you know. I'm not sure how long we'll play this time, I know that we've got Stef's family coming in at the end of July and through most of August, so I'm guessing we won't be playing much during that time.

The only downside to playing again is that it cuts into the time I was going to spend this summer catching up on watching some movies and TV shows of which I've got on DVD but haven't yet seen. I was trying to clear a bit of backlog before the fall shows start (although there's less I'll be watching this fall too). But social interaction is a good thing, so I'll just enjoy it for now. At least I don't have to spend as much solo time doing daily quests and faction grinding as before, and I'm almost maxed on my profession skills. So mostly I'll only be playing when our friends are on, so it won't be quite the time consuming things as before. Plus, we both have to spend some time with our kids. They're not plugged in just yet.

French Work

2010-06-18T06:07:00.000-07:00

I read an article the other day about France raising its retirement age from 60 to 62 in order to help maintain its budget, afford its services. I can understand that, since we have the same problem in America. I just had to both laugh and shake my head at some of the comments to this article. People that didn't understand why the French were protesting the raise, complaining that French workers don't work hard like Americans, that people have to keep working into their 70s and 80s or otherwise they get bored, etc. Some laughed that the French planned more protests, but only after the August vacation season.

People forget that the French live longer than most Americans and yet they still are able to afford pretty good retirement benefits, plus the ongoing health care, shorter work days and long vacations. The French have learned that work isn't the "end all, be all" of everyone. Sure, some people will always want to work for their entire lives, but that doesn't mean that those that don't are wrong. Most people can enjoy their work and still have other things to do outside of work. That doesn't mean they just "collect a paycheck." The French know that to enjoy life, you have to experience more of it than just your cubicle.

You think that Americans wouldn't be healthier and happier if we had more time to exercise, buy and cook fresh food, enjoy time with our families, educate ourselves after your college years are done? People always marvel at how the French live longer despite drinking wine every day and eating rich foods. Perhaps its the lack of stress and ulcers because they don't have to put in 60 hour work weeks 50 weeks a year. They get a good amount of vacation time to relax and recharge. They can go home and enjoy a nice meal with their families without thinking that they have to go back to work immediately afterwards. They don't have to worry about being taken care of when their retire, or being able to pay to see a doctor when they're sick, or having to choose between medicine and food.

Its really amazing how a pleasant work environment can change one's attitude, even about work. My last job was incredibly stressful. My boss was a micro-manager, always criticizing, always cutting my billable hours yet yelling at me because I wasn't billing enough, and was stingy in providing work to boot. He'd complain if I was 5 minutes "late" to work or left before 6pm even though he knew I had to pick up my kids at 6pm. At that job, I'd bristle over every little .10 that I wasn't allowed to bill for whatever reason, or when I had to take work home.

At my current job, my boss gives me a long reign to work as I see fit. He doesn't criticize every little thing (some things, yes, but not every thing). I come and go as I need. I bill for what I do and he rarely, if ever, cuts my time. Sometimes, pretty rarely, a client will complain and he'll compromise, but he sticks up for the work I've done and the time I've spent. He only compromise because its good business. I don't mind taking work home. I don't mind the occasional times that I spend more time and effort doing a project that I was authorized to bill and therefore cut my own time. For the most part, I take what days off I want or need.

Ok, there is one partner, not my direct boss, with whom billable hours, vacation/sick/family time is more of an issue, so I have to juggle that. But I'm (mostly) better able to handle the stress from that partner because my boss isn't so stress-inducing. So its not quite as good as working in France, but its far better than most of my prior jobs.

Its like my secretary. I don't really mind the time she needs to take off for family and such. I just wish she was a better worker when she was here. But because she's not that good a worker, sometimes I get annoyed at her time off. I like to think that my boss doesn't mind the times I not in the office because he knows I'm doing good work and a lot of the time, I'm doing work at home to make it up. The less stress makes me a better worker.

Perhaps if more businesses treated their employees better, paid more, gave more sick/vacation time, provided more respect, the employees would work so much harder and better that these extra benefits wouldn't hurt the bottom line. Plus they'd have healthier, happier employees to boot.

Even so, not everyone is living to work. Some people still like to enjoy life outside the office. So just because some people want to retire at 60 shouldn't mean that their lazy or living off other hard working people. There's so much more to see and do and learn, its no life to be cooped up forever.

Movies 2

2010-06-10T06:13:00.000-07:00

Well, I wasn't going to refresh this topic so soon, but I've recently seen some real gems through my DVR so had to comment.

The Reader - This definitely makes you think, and certainly its the first time (I think) that a Nazi war criminal was portrayed in a sympathetic light. I say sympathetic only because this war criminal was so far down the food chain, as it were, that it shows how ordinary people can end up getting sucked into something they don't understand and then feel powerless to get out. Its also interesting that the lead character felt more shame by her illiteracy than her participation as a guard at a death camp. I understand the movie is based on a novel, which I may pick up to read to see if it provides further details about the thought processes of the two main characters. Why did Hanna testify as she did at the trial, admitting to everything, when her co-defendants had clearly agreed to jointly deny it all? Had Hanna followed suit, the outcome would likely have been much different, so why did she not? Why did Michael choose not to speak with Hanna and convince her to acknowledge her illiteracy, knowing the likely devastating affect her silence would have on the trial outcome? Lots of questions left unanswered.

War, Inc. - Its movies like this one (along with Grosse Pointe Blank) which make me love John (and Joan) Cusack and can forgive his schlop films like 2012 (if he has to do those kind of 'paycheck' type roles in order to produce an intelligent comedy like this, I'll accept it). While not a sequel to Grosse Pointe, clearly along the same vein. I had thought that this movie would have been kinda like the Nick Cage "War" movie, but it was completely different. It is hilarious, especially in its subtleties (references to "former VP" who works for a defense contractor, haha, we know who that's about - as well as who wrote the book in the gift bag). And I never would have guessed that Hillary Duff could really act. I had no idea it was her until the end credits. I liked this movie so much, I'll probably add it to my buy on DVD list (used, of course - new price for movies is ridiculous).

Max Payne - Ok, a dud. Such a dud, I admit that I didn't even finish it. Hard to follow and a bit too much violence, even for me. Maybe it got better, but I couldn't get through half.

Capitalism - A Love Story - Yeah, more left-wing political propoganda from Michael Moore. Still, he makes some good points. I definitely liked the parallels at the beginning between ancient Rome and present day USA, kindof scary and something worth considering. I also liked the additional info on TARP, which frankly I didn't know (yeah, I need to read more). I thought it was right to point out that the source of the US' current economic crises really had its origins back with Ronnie Regan and his deregulation crusade. Seriously, people are really upset that Obama couldn't fix the problems that have been growing since the 80s, only coming to fruition and collapse now, 20 years later, in less than 2 years and that's the reason they want to give the country back to the right-wing nut jobs in the Tea Party? Give the man a chance people! As they say, Rome wasn't built in a day, and the rebuilding of the civilization took a bit longer after its collapse. He's working towards solutions, but it takes time. He also has it a hell of a lot harder than say Roosevelt or Johnson, who didn't have to contend with the significant partisanship that exists today. Not to mention the greed that certain financial industries have grown to expect and do their damnedest to maintain. I seriously hope MM does a movie on the Tea Party next.

Shrek IV - Wow, a new movie. I took the girls to see this after Cami's Pre-K graduation (and it starts). Cute story, despite a lot of plot holes. The 3D stuff was kindof cool, though I seriously don't want to see it in Every. Single. Movie., the outrageous price notwithstanding (and it was outrageous). Better than III, but still not as good as I or even II. Unless you have kids that have to see it, wait for the DVD.

Weighty Matters

2010-06-07T06:16:00.000-07:00

I was reading an article today about a T-shirt offered by clothing store with "Eat Less" written on it and how people are all up in arms about it. Or at least some are, some think there's no problem with such a message because America is so fat. One commenter starts talking about how people in other countries are thin because they eat less, and uses France as an example.

Well, based on actual experience, I can tell you that people in France do not, in general, "eat less" than in America (at least in general, there are always exceptions). Their meals are usually several courses. Appetizers, entrees, cheese and desert, all with bread and wine. Believe me, they eat at least as much as Americans, at least at meals.

But the French do eat differently. People are thinner in France for several reasons.

1. They work less hours a day and have more time to buy/cook fresh food. Part of this is also because they generally don't eat dinner until at least 7pm, sometimes as late as 8pm. Their meals then last a couple of hours. Kids don't spend time after dinner watching TV. They eat dinner, then go to bed. Homework? Well, that's another topic, but suffice it to say that French kids go to school until 5pm four days a week (half day one day a week) and overall have less homework because they are doing more work in school. So less time is needed for 'homework.'

2. They have more vacation time and are therefore less stressed and thus eat less to relieve said stress. Stress causes a lot of overeating. French workers are treated better and have a lot less work induced stress.

3. They're food is not made with HFCS. In fact, they have significantly less processed food. I know some people say that HFCS is no worse than sugar, and maybe that's true. But the French buy much less pre-made food so they have control over whether sugar is even going into the recipe. They don't need HFCS in their bread for preservatives, they buy fresh bread daily so only the sugar needed for the yeast reaction is sufficient. Look at ingredients, you'd be amazed at how difficult it is to buy almost anything without HFCS.

4. They eat out a lot less because restaurants are more expensive, because they include 20% tip in the price of the food in order give the wait staff a living wage (and when they do eat out, the portions are significantly smaller). My in-laws love eating out in America because its so cheap (yeah, this is why the French are famous for cheap tipping) and they can order one meal to split between them because the portions are so big. They don't have "doggie bags" in France.

5. They walk/bike more because their roads are smaller and not conducive to driving everywhere. At least if one is living in a city, one doesn't need a car at all in France. Its like living in NYC (and maybe a few other metropolitans)

6. They do not multi-task while eating (such as reading or watching TV). They enjoy the company of people they are eating with and spend the time talking. Thus, their meals last a lot longer (2 hour lunch is quite common) and people enjoy the food more. They don't "wolf down" their food. Similarly, they never eat while walking, driving, etc. They eat sitting down, at a table, almost always with another person.

7. They snack significantly less, probably because their meals last longer. No need for that 10pm 'snack' when you just finished dinner 30 minutes ago.

8. They eat a much lighter breakfast. Sometimes I think the American idea of a "big breakfast" is a contributing factor to obesity. It was fine for when one lived on a farm and needed to burn a lot of calories early in the day. But a normal person who is just going to sit in an office doesn't need a breakfast of pancakes, eggs, bacon, etc. You know that they call "Continental breakfast"? The roll, coffee, juice? Well, that's why its called that, because that's what you eat in 'continental Europe' for breakfast. Kids are really the only people in France that eat more (and only a little bit more at that) than a roll or croissant for breakfast.

9. More French still smoke. This is probably the only negative. However, even those that don't smoke are significantly thinner overall.

We're trying to incorporate at least some of these habits at our home. Its hard for me to break my habit of reading while eating. It will be easier as the kids get older and we use dinner time to talk more. As it is, we force the kids to turn off the TV during dinner time. Even if they are not watching it, if they can hear it, its distracting, and they eat faster.

I'm trying to buy and cook fresh food, buy foods with no HFCS. Its hard because I work much longer than most French. Again, when the kids are older and can help more, I hope it will be easier. In the meantime, I go to the farmers market once a week for fruits and veggies, they last longer and taste better than those in the grocery store (and the price difference is negligible, some are cheaper, some are not, it works out about the same).

We eat out less than before, although that's mostly an economic factor. When we do eat out, I almost always try to order something to take half home for a lunch. If we have to put up with such large portions, I'm going to at least try and split it up for two meals.

We try to go out walking/biking every day, at least when its not too hot or cold. This is also primarily when its still light out after work. Once Elise is old enough to bike too, we can even do some longer trips.

I love our vacations in France. I never gain weight there, even with some of the heavy food. In fact, I usually drop a few pounds and never feel hungry. So its not at all about 'eating less,' its how you eat that matters.

Movie Review

2010-06-02T05:35:00.000-07:00

Like my prior book review, this post will sum up some thoughts I had on movies recently seen. Most are older movies that I finally got around to seeing because they were on cable and I DVR'd them. We don't get out to the theater too much because of the kids and price. We can't really take the kids to most movies we'd like to see and its expensive to not only go to the theater (even with discount tickets - although that helps), but also for the babysitter. But the kids are getting older, so at least we can take them to some kids movies now. Shrek is a definite possibility.

So here's what I've seen recently, well mostly over the past long weekend. I'll try not to divulge too many spoilers:

Revolutionary Road: About a husband/wife in their late 20s living in suburbia Connecticut in the 1950s who are unhappy with their lives. They decide to move to Paris and switch roles (she will now work), but circumstances prevent this decision from occurring with unhappy results. I can see why this movie was very controversial, since it involves pro-life/pro-choice issues, but also the roles in which men and women played, especially during that time. Women were pretty much forced into two roles: married with children, or working single. With the production of the Pill and other better forms of birth control, women finally had the choice to marry, but delay childbirth, which I believe helped a lot of women who weren't yet ready to have kids, wanted a career first. I think that would have solved April's problem. She was definitely unhappy being forced into the mother role before she wanted it, if she ever wanted it. At least moving to Paris would have allowed her some time to have a career, something outside the home. I can respect and understand April's desires and am happy that I at least got to live in a time where I could have my career first and now enjoy being a mother. Heck, I'd give up working now and just be a full time mom if we could afford it. So I sympathize mostly with April in this movie, even though she made a bad decision in the end.

W.: I'll say one thing for this movie, my opinion of GWB actually improved. I know he was still never the sharpest tool in the shed, but at least he was sincere in his beliefs, in realizing that he had to give up alcohol and get his life in order, in finding what he wanted to do as opposed to what his family wanted him to do, in at least trying to be a good President. Its really almost a shame that he got played by others like Rumsfeld, Rove and Cheney, who had their own best interests at heart rather than the country's. Too bad he didn't listen better to Powell (who I think also got played a bit). I still don't like that his 'born again' nature led this country into such a division, between those that still want separation of church and state and those that obviously want a state religion. And I really dislike how his very nature made people of this country prefer a president "who one could have a beer with" rather than someone who got into Harvard on his own merits and graduated at the top of his class. I just hope that for those that see this movie and really understand it, realize that we need to elect people that can stand on their own, and not just be surrounded by yes-men and yes-women (yeah you Conde - I swear the administration went looking for a black yes-woman just so they could point to how diverse they were) and be run by those that use the good nature of others for their own selfish reasons.

The Hangover: - So this was supposed to be the 'breakout' comedy a summer or two ago, one that everyone underestimated, but turned into a blockbuster. Yeah, I don't get it. It was ok, fine, some good parts I did laugh at. But I fail to see why this was huge. The guy on the roof couldn't yell to get someone's attention, especially when people were getting the mattress off the spire? They really shared a back seat with the tiger (in getting him to the hotel) and how did they get him up to the room? They really couldn't show up to the wedding and taken another 15 minutes to shower? How they'd get the Chinese guy in the trunk naked anyway while drunk and high if they guy could take them out when they were sober? And the guy with the girlfriend back home was very unrealistic, I can't even imagine why a guy would stay with a woman like that, let alone want to marry her. So yeah, the movie was cute, but I didn't think it lived up to its reputation.

Benjamin Button - Another movie that while I thought was ok, didn't live up to the hype. Sure it was cool to see the guy age backwards, as unrealistic as that could be (I understand it was supposed to be akin to Forest Gump, but that was at least in the realm of possibility) and see how he interacted with people who didn't realize his 'true' age. But it was so contrived, and it had to be, that it was hard to really enjoy it.

The Incredible Hulk - Edward Norton edition. Not a complete remake of the origin story, which at least was a nice change of pace. A sequel without an official prequel, presuming we knew the origin story (either that or Eric Bana didn't/couldn't/wasn't asked to do the sequel). Either way, I liked Norton in the role, although this was mostly a special effects laden movie and the "villain" hulk pretty obvious from the beginning. I loved seeing Phil from Modern Family. But the story was pretty thin.

Taking Woodstock - This was a pretty cool movie, a behind the scenes look at how Woodstock came to be. Yeah, would have liked more music, but the story was cool. I read later how the main protagonist was really in his mid-30s, whereas in the movie he looks to be like 22. It definitely came off better in the movie how he allowed himself to be pushed around by his parents, although he appeared to be making much more mature decisions over the other parts of his life that belied how young he looked. It gave me some flashbacks to when I went to the US Festival in CA back in 83, with driving there, parking a long ways away, riding a truck, bus and walking there, how big it was. Of course, wasn't quite the extent of drugs (or at least none that I took outside a little bit of pot - I was driving). Quite the experience, I'm sure Woodstock was even moreso, especially since it lasted several days.

Robin Hood - Russell Crowe edition. A current movie! Went to this one last week when we went out for our anniversary. Our other choice was Iron Man 2, but Steph apparently never watched the DVD for the first movie (I could have sworn we watched it together, but maybe not). Still, not bad. Not as campy as the Kevin Costner movie (ok, I only missed Alan Rickman), and better dramatic wise and realism wise. Naturally took liberties with history, but don't they all, when you're dealing with a bit of a mythological or at least legendary person. I liked finally seeing a portrayal of Eleanor d'Aquitane and acknowledging that she had a pretty significant role during that time period. Also a lot more french than normally seen in these movies, which was also much more realistic. It could have used more french even, but then people would think they were seeing a foreign film. I was happy to understand a fair amount of the french, even without the subtitles. My main criticism, as many have pointed out, is the ages of the characters. Especially for that time frame, its totally unrealistic to have Robin Hood played by a 45 year old man. Crowe did a decent enough job at it, but definitely if they're going to do a sequel, better do so quick.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall - I keep hearing how "good" Judd Apatow movies are and yet every time I see one I have to wonder who thinks this? I guess they appeal to a certain segment of the population, maybe college age kids and maybe I would have liked this movie better if I was 20 years younger. I was bored throughout most of the movie and kept my finger on the fast forward button. I do have to say that I thought I had seen several of the actors in other things, but checking IMDb, nope. I guess these movies saturate the media quite well.

I'm Right!!

2010-05-28T09:02:00.000-07:00

There are many ups and downs in my job. Most of the time, it can be completely monotonous, doing a lot of the same things over and over. Same standard Answers to Complaints or Objections. Same standard discovery answers. Same routine in how to defend certain cases. Same usual cost of defense settlements even when our client is probably not liable because settlement is cheaper than trial or even summary judgment (blech).

Every once in a while, we get some real interesting cases that require actual legal research, and involve a significant amount of damages that we get the green light to really fight a claim. And when my research shows that my client should win and the plaintiff refuses to acknowledge the logic of my arguments, nothing feels so good as when a court agrees that I AM RIGHT! Yeah, I just saved my client millions of dollars, and yeah the case is not over as the plaintiff will no doubt appeal, but still I WAS RIGHT!!! HA HA HA!

Ok, got that off my chest.

It just feels so good to know that the hours I spent researching the law, reading many dozens of cases, checking citations to dozens of more cases, following every possible tangent, reading and rereading deposition transcripts for both the best and worst testimony, reviewing hundreds and hundreds of documents, all ended up PROVING ME RIGHT!

I can handle the routine of my work knowing that these moments come along where I finally feel that the money and hours I spent on my legal education and work experience was worth it, that I helped my client (who likely would have to file for bankruptcy if we lost, putting a lot more people out of work)and I WAS RIGHT!! I was right on the law, right on the facts, right in all my case cites and legal interpretation, right in all my arguments.

I WAS RIGHT!
I just can't hear that enough sometimes. :)

Bits and Pieces

2010-05-19T05:35:00.000-07:00

Wow, almost a month since my last post. Been busy with work and trying to catch up on some shows on my DVR (and lots of good finales on TV this season). So a few thoughts here and there.

Voted in the election yesterday. Had a bit of a choice between Specter and Sestak. Specter is a lot like me, generally a more moderate republican, but now having to live in the democrat party because the republicans went way too extreme to the far right. Ideologically, I like Specter better, but I voted for Sestak in part because I was concerned over Specter's age and health, and worried that if PA voted in republican for governor, we'd get a too far right wing replacement like Santorum if Specter became unable to serve. Plus, Sestak did some nice work as my Congressman, and frankly if I have to choose between democrats and right wing nutjobs, I'm choosing the democrat side of the ticket and would rather have their platform succeed. So here's to hoping that Sestak defeats Toomey in the general election.

Was very sad to hear of the death of Ronnie James Dio. My first concert was a festival type show with many bands, headlined by Black Sabbath with Dio as the singer. I went mostly to see Journey and Cheap Trick, but I was so impressed by Dio's voice that I bought their album (Heaven and Hell) and followed Dio on his prior and subsequent bands. I never cared much for his theatrics, but the man had one of the best voices in rock. I understand from a friend of mine, that Dio was very open and nice to every fan he met, he didn't hide away or cop an attitude that he was 'too good for the riff raff'. I haven't listened to him sing in a long time, so I'm going to add some BS, Dio and Rainbow tunes to my ipod.

Been reading up on new TV shows for next season and so far, nothing has grabbed my attention, certainly nothing sounds as interesting as Lost replacement. I'll probably check out a few shows, but I definitely have less patience for them than previously. Too much time needed for other things to try and catch up on shows I've recorded. Plus, I already have 9 shows I'm already definitely committed to (TAR, Chuck, Castle - love Nathan Fillon, Survivor, Parenthood, Grey's Anatomy, CSI, Modern Family, The Big Bang Theory), and 6 others that I'm more luke-warm about, but still watch (CSI NY, The Good Wife, Desperate Housewives, V, Stargate Universe, Glee). That's more than enough to keep me busy.

So many of the new shows look like the same old medical drama this, legal drama that, cop show everything else. Legal dramas are very hit and miss with me. I know they are nothing like reality, I accept that. But in order to stomach that total break from reality, the show either has to be wildly entertaining/funny/overthetop with great actors like Boston Legal, or very poignant with topics that need to be addressed, but aren't, like The Practice. Simply silly shows like Ally McBeal or Eli Stone don't interest me. Shows that are patently wrong on the law, procedure, lawfirm life, everything, like The Deep End, don't interest me (and frankly annoy me). The Good Wife walks a thin line. Its got great acting going for it, and the underlying story about the political husband is good. The legal drama, less so.

I get enough medical drama with Grey's Anatomy and medical/cop drama with CSI. I don't need to see more blood and guts. Same with cop shows. Unless you through in some unusual twist and cool music, like Life on Mars did, I'm a bit worn out on the same catch the bad guy plot lines.

So we'll see what I have room for on my DVR, and what lasts more than a few weeks. These days, with the ease of seeing shows streamed on line, I doubt I'll watch a new show from the beginning. I'll wait to see if its going to stick around a whole season before I commit. Nothing I hate more than to get into a show, only to have it pulled. I tend to watch most shows by DVR these days anyway (except for TAR and Survivor) because I can fastforward through the commercials. Saves more time.

I won my Survivor pool this season, woo hoo! Go Sandra! Its funny seeing comments about how Russell should have won because he's so strategic. He can make it to the end of the season, but like Amanda, can't build up enough good will of the jurors to win the money. I'd love to try out for the show, but no way would Stephane forgive me for leaving him with the kids for almost two months. Maybe if the show is still around in another 10 years, but then I'd more than likely be an early boot as an "older" contestant. Oh well.

Ignorance is not Bliss

2010-04-21T05:23:00.000-07:00

Today while looking at Facebook, I see this posting by a "friend" (i.e. not really a personal friend, but a friend of many people do know personally for many years, so I added her as well).

"DEAR LORD, THIS YEAR YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTOR, PATRICK SWAYZIE. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTRESS, FARAH FAWCETT. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE SINGER, MICHAEL JACKSON. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, MY FAVORITE PRESIDENT IS BARACK OBAMA. AMEN."

There were four comments to this posting, all saying how funny it was or how much they agree with it. I couldn't believe it. People really think its funny to wish death on someone?? They do realize that's what this post means, right?

I didn't like George Bush, but it certainly never occurred to me to wish him death, even as a joke. I am just astounded by the vitriol and antagonism that people have against Obama. I may not agree with everything Obama does, but I still respect him as a person and as our President, same as I had to do with Bush, although I liked him a lot less.

It still amazes me that some people think Obama is not a natural American citizen. Get over it! Don't you think that if that was true, it would have been confirmed way before the election and certainly before he took over the office. That there are people that still harp on this clear falsehood just goes to show (a) how stupid/uneducated so many people are in this country; and (b) how willing so many people are to spread lies in order to get their way.

And many of these people call themselves Christian too. Its just heartbreaking that people have perverted the teachings of Jesus to whatever suits their selfishness. I may not go to church every week, but I still think I lead a more Christian life than so many of these fanatics.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprise that there is so much hate going around given the 'airwaves of hate mongering' by the likes or Limbaugh and Beck. What's worse is that they know what they are doing (which makes them worse than the likes of Sarah Palin, who is just ignorant - I mean seriously, her saying she knows about Russia because she could see it from her house is like me saying I know auto mechanics because I drive a car). They prey on those that are ignorant and blissfully wish to remain so (which is almost as bad).

In this day and age, its just astounding how many people seem to want to return to the dark ages, where fear, hate and ignorance ruled the day for the few in power. Its so easy to get true information these days, although I admit one sometimes does have to wade through lies to find it. Still, anyone with a little bit of effort can find the truth. That people who have lost their jobs and suddenly find themselves with a lot of time choose to take the easy road, go to teaparty rallies and just chant along with the crowd instead of taking the available time to educate themselves as to the truth behind the issues is just sad.

I know I certainly hope that the educated, intelligent, thoughtful way prevails in our national elections for a while, so that those that willfully choose to remain uninformed will realize that ignorance is not bliss.

Book Review

2010-04-12T06:27:00.000-07:00

Ok, time for more reflective posting after my work-rant. I've been through quite a few books recently, so I thought I'd share my thoughts.

"Caught" by Harlan Coben. One of my favorite authors serves up another good thriller. Got a bit unrealistic toward the end, I thought, when the viral marketing, which previously was somewhat based on truth, went quite a bit overboard. Still, it shows how the power of the internet makes a big difference in our news today. Also, a good cautionary tale to parents, how you must 'parent' your kids, not be their friend. Its one thing to allow one's kid to have a few sips of wine with dinner when their a teenager, its another to host a keg party.

"Eat, Pray, Love" by Elizabeth Gilbert. I only read this book because I had read a review of her current book, "Committed" and saw that it was about marrying a non-US Citizen and at least involved some of the wonderful dealings with the INS. Given my own interactions with him, I was curious to see what she wrote. However, it was the sequel to the prior book, so I had to read that first (I hate starting something in the middle). I liked the book, it did well showing the extremes and trying to find balance. Not reading anything by Gilbert previously, I don't know if any prior books discussed more of her marriage life, I did feel that I was missing something, the prologue to "Eat, Pray." Still, I could empathize with being on one path, only to find out it wasn't quite right and needing to change things up to find the better way. I started this book about the same time Lost returned to TV, so naturally I perked up at the whole 108 bit and wonder if the Lost writers intended the connection (of course they did). So now going to get the second book from the library.

"Best Friends Forever" by Jennifer Weiner. I really enjoyed her first couple of books. Based in Philly, main character is a lawyer and usually on the heavy side. Something to which I could relate. The plots were decent as well. However, this book was a poor effort. Very superficial and cliche. The characters were not developed well at all, especially the cop. The story line seemed very thin as well. I guess a deadline forced a very rushed book. I hope she takes her time more with the next one.

"Marley & Me" and "Longest Trip Home" by John Grogan. Another Philly writer. Great books, very funny and "Marley" is wonderful as a book, although the bit at the end takes longer to complete, so you cry more. I miss Grogan as an Inquirer writer. After reading these two, I checked out a couple of other books from the library, compilations of his Inquirer articles that were put together by the newspaper. Its a shame that they didn't consult with Grogan on these books, invited him to write a prologue or edit. I loved reading the articles again (some for the first time, as I had missed some when initially published). I recalled reading about Kate Gosslin back when she first had the sixtuplets and was a controversial person even then.

"Julie and Julia" by Julie Powell. This one is long. Yeah, another book I'm on the late train with. But probably more people saw the movie rather than read the book (I haven't yet, another habit of mine, I always try to read the book before seeing the movie). I would have liked to have read the actual blog (which I had presumed this was, a'la "Sex in the City"), but this was more of a book about the blog. I gather some portions of the blog were rewritten for the book and expanded upon, but it was clearly completely reviewed and redone after the fact and I would have been more interested in reading the process as it went along. I wonder if by really searching the internet one could find the original blog, probably not, no doubt the publisher made Julie Powell remove the blog so as not to impinge on book sales.

Anyway, as to the subject itself, I was interested because I cook from Julia Child all the time, or at least once I married a frenchman. And naturally as I'm reading it, I'm thinking, I could have done this, why didn't I think of this. Of course, I really couldn't have done this. I had interests outside of my job (other than drinking and watching TV that is, which appear to have been Julie's) so I never would have had the time to devote to finding all the esoteric ingredients and cooking all the recipes. I admit, I'm also reading this book with the knowledge that Julie Powell eventually separated from her husband and engaged in several affairs, so reading portions of the book about how great their marriage is, how annoyed she is with her philandering friend, how much she depends on Eric and appreciates his support, seem well, rather hollow in retrospect. Still, I enjoy reading about her experiences in trying to get the dishes right and struggling with eggs and aspic (which I'd never eat either, blech). If nothing else, I'm glad this book (and movie) and exist because now its easier to find certain ingredients in normal grocery stores (like marrow bones - hooray!). I've got the movie in my Netflix queue, so I'll get to it eventually. I'm not interested in reading Powell's follow-up however, I've read too many very negative reviews and frankly, the subject matter isn't all that interesting to me.

I'm currently in the middle of several other books (one in my briefcase for commuting, one by the TV for commercials, one upstairs by the bed), "Nanny Returns" by Emma McLaughlin and Nicola Krause (follow-up to "The Nanny Diaries"), "Think Twice" by Lisa Scottoline, and "Divine Misdemeanors" by Laurell K Hamilton. I also started "The Audacity of Hope" by Barak Obama, which I'll return to as my commuting book (because its in paperback and lightweight) after the "Nanny" (which I borrowed). Also will be checking out "Committed" by Elizabeth Gilbert from the library probably later this week. Finally, I recently bought the last two Dick Francis books, "Silks" and "Even Money" and "My Life in France" by Julia Child. I'll report on these another time.

Kids and Law Don't Mix

2010-03-25T08:12:00.000-07:00

I'm ranting hard today because one of the partners in my law office was annoyed because I deemed to question incredulously why there was even a question as to whether I was coming in this morning because me and another attorney were switching offices. My secretary is calling me at 8:45 because I hadn't yet gotten to my office this morning, I was only about 10 minutes away. Because I ask why it was even an issue, this partner thinks I'm disrespecting him because he thought maybe I wasn't coming in because I don't come in on (most) school holidays and snow days. I'm sorry, was today a holiday? Was there snow? No. So why was it even a question?

You know, law schools need to put out a bulletin that says "Attention Women: If You Ever Plan on Having Kids, Don't Be A Lawyer" or at least, don't be one if you have to work for someone else. I have yet to work at any office where there was real understanding to the female lawyer with kids. Fortunately, the partner I work directly for understands, but unfortunately, he's probably not going to be practicing all that many more years (maybe 5 I'm guessing), the other name partner, whom most of the associates work under, isn't quite so understanding.

It just fucking annoys the hell out of me that lawyer bosses cannot realize that some people believe there is more to life than sitting in a god damn office all day and all night long. That some people, women especially, believe that its better to actually see their children awake more than just a few hours on a weekend.

I work my butt off when I'm in the office, I take work home, I fucking bill my god damn 200+ billable hours almost every month and still I get bitched at because I'm not in the office by 8:00 a.m. every single day. Well excuse me for being the only lawyer in this office to either have young kids, or not have a stay at home wife to take care of the kids. I have all these issues and I still bill more that most of the other attorneys in this office. So shut the fuck up!

Yeah, I don't come in on most holidays and the occasional snow day. Its not my fault that we had five snow days this year because we had Snowmaggeddon. And one of those days, I did come into the office, but I had to bring my kids in too. They all really loved that.

Yes, I do have a backup person who can babysit my kids. But she had to have fucking brain surgery in January so she's a little out of things for a while and couldn't babysit them during the Snowpocalypse. Like I'm supposed to expect that and find yet another person? Someone who's home all day and that I can trust and that lives close by? Excuse me for not having family around at my beck and call. Excuse me for having a husband that works full time too and has even less flexibility in his work hours than I do.

I'm just pissed off that I am doing more than is even expected of me (I was hired with the expectation of 180 hours a month and I bill more that 200 nearly every month), and its still not enough because the fucking partner doesn't see my face 10 hours day. I'm pissed off that virtually every partner I've ever worked for has these stupid fucking ego trips that they are god and are never wrong and everyone has to bow down before their greatness and you can't express any different opinion.

Its a good thing I like the one partner I do work for and he likes me. Cause I don't know if I could stand working for this other one. Frankly, I know I couldn't stand to work for him. I hate being micro-managed. Hopefully, the partner I work for will continue to work for a long time, at least long enough that this other partner will recognize that I do just as good of work, if not better than others, even with my other time commitments and leave me the fuck alone to do it.

Music Obsession Pt. 3 - Muse

2010-03-06T15:12:00.000-08:00

Its time for another edition of Music Obsession. This episode is about Muse, my latest major interest. I only heard about Muse, oh maybe a year or so ago, followed someone's link to Supermassive Black Hole and I loved the song. From that I watched videos of other songs they did and everyone I saw was great. Shortly thereafter, I bought several of their CDs and I've been listening to them almost non-stop on my ipod. The lyrics are good, the music fantastic. Reminds me of great bands like Queen and Rush.

I'm really surprised that they are apparently not all that big here in the US (the band is from the UK), although they are gaining more popularity (Twilight probably helped a lot). Recently, they played Philadelphia. I would have loved to have gone, but couldn't find anyone to go with me, none of my friends had heard of the band (even referencing Twilight only brought a "oh yeah, I think so" recall). All my friends still listen mostly to older music from the 80s and 90s, and while I still like that music too, I am open to newer singers and bands, at least when I can find them.

Frankly, its a bit harder than it used to be. The radio stations around here pretty much only play 'older' rock music (not even stuff like Linkin Park, 311 or Offspring, for that matter, that have been around for 10 years or so), and stations that player "newer" music concentrate on either rap, dance, or other Top-40 type songs (and while I do like some of those, like Lady Gaga, most really aren't my cup of tea). I haven't found a station like KROQ in LA, that plays new rock/alternative music. MTV used to introduce me to a lot of new music, but they haven't played music videos in nearly a decade or so.

So most of the time, the way I find out about new music is hit and miss. Sometimes through movies, or linking from a variety of websites (like how I found Muse), or through American Idol (both with singers that emerge from the show and the singers/bands they have on the show). Its even hard sometimes to find out when bands I already know and like put out a new album. It seems to me that radio doesn't keep people updated on music much anymore, certainly not like it did when I was young. I guess radio figures there are other ways to find out information (i.e. the internet), so it doesn't do it anymore. Still, I'd love to find a radio station that plays newer rock music. I've started using Facebook to "fan" various singers/bands and hoping that way I'll keep more up to date on music I like, what new albums or videos are out.

I expect Muse to be around for a while. I'll just have to get my friends (and husband) to listen to them so I can go to the concert next time. I haven't been much up on going to concerts lately. I've only been to two since moving to Philly, Rush and the Who. Rush was good, but it was an outdoor, general admission type show, and we were way way in the back and even with the video screens, it was hard to see. I liked the Who, but tbh, I was a little disappointed. The concert was shorter than I expected and a lot of songs I liked weren't played. Still, we had great seats (though pricey) and had a good time. I'm really looking forward to seeing a concert with a newer act, to see if anyone can top some of the best concerts I've seen, like Queen and NIN (both visually stunning, in completely different ways). Frankly, I'd love to see Lady Gaga in concert, but somehow I think finding someone to go with me to that show will be a lot harder.

I just pray that my kids grow up with good taste in music and don't fall for manufactured boy bands or a Brittany clone.

More Snow

2010-02-24T05:57:00.000-08:00

Ack!! More snow is due tonight and tomorrow. Haven't we had enough already??? The last two storms, back to back, were killer (and yes, this was in addition to that huge storm from December that messed up our travel plans).

We still have piles and piles of snow in the streets, in our driveway, on our roof, in parking lots. We saw this absolutely huge pile of snow in the Acme shopping parking lot, took up probably at least twenty parking spots. Parking at my train station lost about 20 spots (which means I have to get up extra early to make sure I get a spot).

They say that this is the second biggest winter Philly has ever had (at least since records were kept). It could even become the biggest, if we keep getting these big storms. These last three snow big snow storms were three of the top 6 storms Philly has gotten ever, and we got all three in one year! Usually Philly just gets one big storm a year (and by big, I mean between 6-12 inches). So far, Philly has recorded over 72 inches of snow this winter. The upcoming storm is predicted to drop another 6-12 inches.

In general, I like snow. I didn't grow up with it, so I still love watching it fall. I love playing in it. I love taking snow days off of work. The problem, however, is shoveling the stuff out of the driveways and dealing with the kids. When the kids are older, it won't be as much of a problem, but right now its hard. Elise is just a little too small to really play around and enjoy it, she can't keep her mittens on, she can't walk in it when its deep.

The other problem is school snow days. I don't mind the school being closed when its really snowing, or even the day after a big storm that went all night. We didn't get dug out of the second storm two weeks ago until after noon. But that was Thursday. We had been home for two days now and so on Friday, when most of the digging out had occurred, the streets were driveable, the weather nice, I had to go to work. So did Stef.

However, our daycare was closed because the school district was closed. The school didn't want to heat up the building for one day, when it was going to be closed again for three more days because of President's Day holiday. My babysitter was unavailable because she was still only two weeks removed from brain surgery, and would be out of commission for at least another month. Her two older daughters also had been home for two days and had to go work on Friday to make up for the time off. Basically, everyone had to work except teachers. So I had no choice, I had to bring my kids to work with me. Stef, who had missed client meetings for two days, was going to be out all day meeting with said missing clients.

Going to work was awful. I should have just driven and parked in the city, forking over $28.00, but our tax refund still hadn't come in and we had just shelled out $100 to get our driveway and sidewalks snow-blowed and cars dug out (yeah, we got hosed, we might buy our own snow-blower, but they are $900). So I was feeling cheap and decided to just take the train in, since the kids ride for free. What a mess. Instead of a train every 5-10 minutes, it was one train every 30 minutes and they were absolutely packed (because everyone had to work after being home for two days). We waited at least 25 minutes in the cold for a train and only made it on because two other people got off when they saw I had kids. It was brutal standing the entire time. When we got to the train station, for some reason, only one door on the train opened, I got pushed and fell, catching my leg between the platform and the train. Nice big bruise on my leg.

Finally got to work, and of course, after being cooped up for two days, the kids were not too quiet. I tried to keep them as quiet as possible, with DVDs and crayons, but they still wanted to run around too much. I had hoped to go home early, but I had a lot to do at the office that I couldn't do at home, so it took almost a full work day to get everything done. I know my bosses were not happy I had the kids with me, but I didn't have much choice. Totally unusual circumstances all around. One can only hope we don't have to go through it again.

The next storm is scheduled to hit sometime tonight. I expect tomorrow to be yet another 'snow day.' I'll bring home what work I can. Hopefully the storm will end early enough that it won't mess Friday up too, but frankly, I anticipate that it might be a very long weekend. After that last week with two storms, I'm really ready for spring to come.

Ode to Reading

2010-02-16T06:13:00.000-08:00

One of my favorite authors died on Sunday, Dick Francis. Francis was a steeplechase racer in England, who after retirement wrote mystery novels. I was first turned onto his novels when I did a semester of law school in London, England. A college friend of mine was visiting London with her family and she was a big fan of his books. Turns out, he was going to be in London signing his latest book, but she was going to miss it. So she asked if I would pick up her signed book and bring it home with me (definitely cheaper than shipping). I did so, but being a mystery book lover, naturally I read it first.

I was hooked. The first novel I read, The Edge, involved a transcontinental train ride of racing horses across Canada. All of his novels involved something to do with racing, plus usually one other subject, like painting, trains, photography, art, wine, banking. That's what made his novels so enjoyable, he thoroughly researched the second subject of his novels so that I always learned something new.

I read The Edge while I was about half-way through the school semester. I spent the remaining couple of months scouring used book stores in London picking up a bunch more paperback Dick Francis novels. There were quite a few. Once I got home, I began to buy his books each year as they came out. I always looked forward to the next novel, since it combined two of my favorite topics, horses and mysteries.

I understand that the majority of the novels were actually co-written (or at least co-researched) with Francis' wife. When she died in 2000 the novels stopped for several years. I heard that he was no longer writing. However, in 2006, the novels started again when Francis' son, Felix joined in. The books were a bit different, but still good. Unfortunately, Francis' health continued to deteriorate, so there was only a couple more books, and it is entirely likely that Felix wrote the majority of the text, following the "Francis' formula." I anticipate that Felix may continue to write more books, hoping for his father's following (like Frank Herbert's son has done with Dune - with mixed results, imo).

Francis is one of the few authors that I will buy books. These days, I tend to just borrow books from the library. Its cheaper and takes up less space. I've thought of getting a Kindle, but while that solves the space problem (I already have four very full book cases), libraries are still cheaper than Kindle books at $10 a pop. Plus, I know that if I buy a book, I have something tangible, whereas I'm still wary of losing downloaded information with a computer glitch (which is why I still prefer to buy CDs over MP3s and print my photos, even if I also keep back up copies on disc). If I do break down to buy a Kindle (or similar), it will likely be because its smaller and easier to carry than a book.

But for authors that I really love, I'll buy the books. These days, that includes PD James and Martha Grimes (also discovered during my time in London), Sue Grafton, Janet Evanovich and Laurell K. Hamilton. I've also been a fan of Lillian Jackson Braun's "Cat Who" series, but reviews of her last book in 2007 suggest that she's not writing them anymore (she is 97 afterall). I used to buy John Grisham, but his last several fiction books weren't all that great, so I've just been renting them from the library.

I had a few science fiction/fantasy authors I followed religiously as well, but they too are waning: David Eddings (died), Melanie Rawn (ill with cancer), Anne McCaffery (now taken over by son Todd). Katheryn Kurtz and Harry Turtledove are still writing, but I've not read many of their recent books. To be honest, I think the science fiction/fantasy genre is starting to get really played out, a lot of recycling of the same old plot lines and ideas. To be sure, Kurtz and Turtledove's recent books (or at least the summaries of them) sound very much like rewrites of their older books, just with some new names, which is why I haven't sought them out recently.

All of my favorite authors are aging and frankly, there's not really much new out there that's of interest to me, at least in fiction. I've actually started reading more non-fiction books lately, though, as I said above, mostly library rentals. My co-workers have started an in-office library, so I'll try out some of the books there, see if anything or any one interests me like before.

Its just as well I have less books to read because I have less time in which to read them. Most of my reading time is on the train home from work (riding to work, I read the newspaper). Once I'm home, I don't have too much free time, between fixing meals, cleaning up, spending time with the kids. The hour or two I have after putting the kids to bed, I tend to catch up on shows I've recorded on the DVR. I don't even read during commercials these days, I fast forward through them. Usually the only time I spend an entire evening reading a book is when the library due date is quickly approaching, or I'm on vacation.

I do want to keep reading and I hope that my kids pick up the reading bug like I did. I had hoped to give my old Nancy Drew books to my girls when they are old enough, but unfortunately, my collection (1-55) somehow disappeared through my various moves in California and never made it to Pennsylvania. I guess we'll just have to track down copies of the books, either used or at libraries. I do still have my old Piers Anthony books, plus the Harry Potter books, which I hope they will like. My love of books means I am never board. Once the girls learn to read, I'm hoping it will be the same for them.

The Turbo Thermo

2010-01-30T14:39:00.000-08:00

Another one of my rare rave posts, yay! See, I don't complain all the time.

This is a rave over a kitchen appliance that my French mother in law owns. Its called a Thermomix and its absolutely wonderful. Its an appliance about the size of a food processor or a mixer. What it is, though, is a food processor, a mixer, a blender, a bread maker, a steamer, a sauce maker, all in one. It takes the place of all of these appliances and then some.

What's wonderful about it is that it will stir your soup, sauce, mashed potatoes (after you simply slice in the potatoes, and add butter and milk) while it cooks them, so you don't have to. Instead of having to hover over a saucepan constantly stirring the hot cocoa, soup or sauce, or cooking the potatoes then mashing/mixing them yourself, the Thermomix does it all for you. It stirs and cooks at the same time. It doesn't have to cook, so you can still use it to mix cookie dough or cake mix. The latest model has a steamer attachment on the top, so you can cook your veggies or fish at the same time the sauce is cooking below. This saves you from having to "time" things just right to have the sauce done when the veggies are done.

Its a very versatile machine that won't take up all of your counter space. Sounds wonderful. There's one problem, however. Its not that the machine isn't sold in the US. One can order it from Canada with a US power cord/adapter. One does wonder why such a wonderful machine is generally only available in Europe and Canada. Well, I'm pretty sure there's one reason. Cost. The Thermomix is quite expensive. Not just a few hundred dollars, but in fact $1,400. Eeouch!

I was totally in shock when I heard that my mother in law spent 900 Euros for her Thermomix. Its really hard to see how its worth it. Definitely wonderful machine, and takes the place of several other appliances, but really, how much is that worth? A food processor, mixer, blender, steamer, altogether cost what $500 for top of the line items? Maybe $700. That's still another $700 for the convenience of having them all in one, plus being able to cook at the same time.

Still, someday I'd love to have one. Certainly won't be any time soon at that price. Unless it comes to the US massproduction, the price probably won't ever go down. Someday, I just hope to have more discretionary funds.

Here are some links to check it out.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124112844457074685.html
http://www.thermomixcanada.ca/en/

The Associate, pt. 2

2010-01-26T07:43:00.000-08:00

Last month, I posted my rant about the beginning of a Grisham book, The Associate, regarding how stupid the plot set up was made. How some guy is somehow convinced that he was going to be charged and convicted of rape when he, as a drunk fratboy, was passed out asleep and couldn't even be seen on a video recording of the alleged rape committed by two other drunk fratboys of a drunk frat groupie, who had previously slept with pretty much everyone in the frat. This guy, a supposedly very bright law student, whose own father is a 'scrappy-type' lawyer, would be convinced of this, and not tell anyone who could conceivably give him proper legal advice, was incredulous.

I had hoped that the resolution of the plot line would improve. My hopes were in vain. The rest of the book sucked as much as the beginning. Definitely Grisham's worst piece of fiction. The remaining characters had no development or background, they are just made as "filler" to the story. A significant amount of time is devoted to one of the alleged frat boy rapists, and then that character is disposed of "off-screen." We aren't even provided with the opportunity to read the details of his pivotal conversation and last day.

The protagonist engages in a relationship with another woman, who is merely a cardboard cutout for all the character development she is given. She too is disposed of rather "off-screen" such that we have no interest or reason to care why she left the "big law" firm.

Resolution of the rapist plot line is ridiculous. We're led to believe that the victim involved, who supposedly is all concerned with justice and having her name cleared, was naturally, only interested in the money settlement. When the failed blackmail is all over and the protagonist leaves the firm, there's no repercussions (although he technically did nothing actually wrong to the firm). We are not told if the video is ever released, if the other alleged rapist ever has issues about it with his family. All we're told that now all of a sudden, the protagonist doesn't care if the video is released on youtube, because it would only show him as a drunk fratboy, like millions of other drunk fratboys. Why would blackmail work in the first place if the protagonist was only worried about the victim seeing the video to cry rape again, and she was clearly willing to settle for money? Just call the blackmailer's bluff, let him post the video, then settle with the victim. Pretty much the same result, just no book for Grisham.

And the end is completely unresolved. Once the bluff is called and the protagonist tries to capture the blackmailer to charge him, the guy escapes with no explanation as to how he does so, or how he learned of the capture attempt. There's a vague suggestion that someone else in the firm is also a spy for the blackmailer, but no development is given to this suggestion, no attempts made to find him/her, no investigation. We are never told who the blackmailer was, or for whom he was working. In that respect, it almost seems like this book was the first half of a story and the second half will be in another book. I'm not sure I'll read it.

Coming Home

2010-01-22T15:52:00.000-08:00

Ok, so here's part two to my airline rant.

It starts out ok. We get to the Marseilles airport and checked in for our flight to Amsterdam. We're on a KLM/Air France flight. All goes pretty well, no real complaints.

We arrive in Amsterdam. My first issue was with airport layout. I know this isn't really the fault of the airline, but rather the airport. Trying to find information about our connecting flight to Philly was nearly impossible. We had to walk a significant distance before we finally found information as to where we had to go to check in for the connection. As it turned out, our two gates could not have been further apart. We literally walked the entire length of the Amsterdam Airport, I'd say it had to have been close to a mile.

While we were walking, I was trying to keep an eye out for this "Children's Corner" which we were told by a friend was supposed to be a real great place to hang out with one's kids while waiting for your flight. I was told there were signs for the place, but I never saw one on our long walk. I did grab a map, which seemed to indicate there were several of these "Children's Corners" which was a bit confusing, but I never saw any actual signs in the airport.

We finally get to the place to check in for our flight to Philly, and after waiting in line a while (because naturally US Airways had only one check in person), we're told the flight will be 3 hours delayed because it was coming in late. So now, instead of arriving in Philly at 3:30, we were not scheduled to arrive until 5:30 or possibly even 6 pm. Not happy, especially hubby, who was going to work the next day (I took it off, since I knew I'd have to unpack, do laundry and grocery shop).

At least this time, however, we got food vouchers, 15 Euros each. Good thing, since the food in the airport was quite expensive. We used two for lunch and I used the other two to buy a lot of snacks for the plane (which ended up being quite a good idea). With now 5-6 hours of wait time ahead of us, we went in search of food and the elusive Children's Corner. We walked, and walked, and walked, and hunted, and hunted and hunted. Could not find the place. We asked several airport employees. No one knew where it was, even after looking at the map. The only one we found easily was this very small play area at a McDonalds, which clearly wasn't what our friends had described.

Finally, when we were close to giving up, we found the place. It was smaller than I had been led to believe, but it did have stuff for the kids to climb on and slide down. It wasn't really meant for kids younger than 4, since none of the ladders were conducive to young kids. I had to supervise and help Elise quite closely to make sure she didn't fall when she wanted to climb up to go down a slide. The kids played around for a bit, but there were quite a few kids and it got to be too many and my kids were clearly hungry and tired and started crying. So we left and got lunch at McDonalds. I really wanted to eat somewhere else, we can get McD's anytime, but it was easy since there wasn't really a lot of other options for sit down eating places where we could have kids (and not totally annoy other people). Good thing we had the vouchers, I would have choked to paying 7 Euros for a Big Mac, Fried and Coke (costing roughly $11.00 US).

We head over to the airplane gate and go through the "extra" security for flying back to the US. There was even more due to the terrorist that flew from Amstersdam to Detroit on Christmas Day. They not only ran us and our carry-ons through the x-ray, but patted us down and unpacked our carry-ons completely (which made a mess of some of the stuff I had packed).

Then we're led into this walled off waiting area to sit for at least another hour. What annoyed me most was that even though there was a restroom in the area, it had no baby changing area. So I had to change Elise's diaper on floor. Clue to airport people. If you are going to force people into a separate area to wait for a plane for an extended amount of time, give them full amenities.

The plane finally arrives for us to board and we get on. Unlike our flight to Europe, this time we were separated 2 and 2. I took Elise, hubby took Camille. We were several rows apart. Both Cami and Elise sacked out pretty quickly. It was good that Elise slept through dinner because even though we had ordered special kids meals, only Cami got hers. The flight attendant held up the kids meals shouting "kids meals!" and while Cami got hers, who knows who got the other one, likely some enterprising parent. All I know is that when I got the flight attendant's attention, she said she had no more kids meals and Elise would have to eat the regular meal. Since she was still sleeping, I just told them to hold it.

Unfortunately, I also had no such option. I had ordered special 'low cal' meals for hubby and I, but again the flight attendant didn't know anything about those, so we had to eat the regular meals. I usually don't mind too much, although overall airplane meals have gone down in quality, but these were the absolute worst. Half the meal was still frozen, the other half overcooked. It was gross. As I said above, good thing I bought lots of snacks.

Oh, and as per usual, it seems that whenever we fly back from Europe, we get the crappy airplane with the overhead movie screens, rather than the individual screens. Always annoying since I'm usually sleeping on the flight to Europe, but wide awake on the flight home. The weren't playing any good movies, so I skipped buying the headphones and just read my book and listened to my ipod. Just as well, since Elise woke up half-way through the second movie and once she was awake, I had to give her my full attention.

My other gripe about the airplane is the usual. We were in a 3 seat row (and I still don't understand why we couldn't get our seats closer together), with Elise and I having a window/middle seat. I have the worst luck on airplanes, especially being a larger than average person. Naturally, the person behind me kneed me the entire flight (and twice actually stuck his feet between the seats), the person in front of me reclined his seat fully, and the person next to me was also larger than normal, forcing me to take up half of Elise's seat to have any measure of comfort, which was slim. Once Elise was awake, it was terrible trying to keep her in line, while being squished and bumped on nearly all sides. It was especially hard when we got extra turbulance and I had to force Elise to sit in her seat with the seat belt on. She kept wanting to stand up and watch the 20-something behind me make funny faces. Said 20-something also yakked yakked yakked the whole flight (which at least I didn't have to listen to when I had my ipod on).

At least the flight went faster than planned, so we landed just before 5:00 p.m. Got through immigration quickly and even got our luggage fast. So at least we got home safely, which means it was a good flight, even if it was probably the worst I've ever been on.

Getting There

2010-01-12T06:10:00.000-08:00

So, the first leg of our trip was getting from Philly to France (Marseilles was our airport). I'll preface this by explaining why we were on US Airways to begin with. Typically, we have taken European airlines to fly to France, usually either Lufthansa or Air France. When I first began to check ticket prices, everyone was about the same, which meant we'd do L or AF (since European airlines give far better service, more inclusive in the price). However, due to economic factors, my husband couldn't confirm his time off for Christmas right away. In fact, even when I did finally buy the tickets (because seriously, we had waited far to long, imo) he still hadn't confirmed his time off, but I told him that fine, we'd visit his family without him. He did finally kinda-sorta get the time off (at least no one complained). By the time I finally bought the tickets, the European airline prices had gone up and US Airways had gone down. By buying with US Airways, I saved nearly $1,000 over 4 tickets, so that was a no brainer.

We've never had problems flying to Europe. Its long and sometimes the flights are a little slow, but we've always had these long layovers in Europe (4-5 hours), so its never been a problem. Weather has also always been good, Philly usually has cold, but clear weather through the holidays, not getting snow until January, or even February. Unfortunately this year, was the exception. On the day of our flight, Saturday th 19th, the predicted 2-4 inch snow fall turned into a 22 inch snow blizzard.

Our flight to Amsterdam wasn't until 9:15 pm that night. All day long, we're checking the internet and despite so many other flights canceled, nearly all the night flights to Europe were listed as "on time." I called once in the morning, and was told the flight was going out. I tried again later in the afternoon, but was put on hold for more than 3 hours and never got through before it was time to leave for the airport. The computer still said the flight was leaving "on time."

So we pack up the car, the kids and get our neighbor (who was going to drive our minivan back home and pick us up in two weeks) and head out. We drive to the airport in a nice little snow storm. For the most part, it wasn't too bad, enough traffic on the roads to help keep them clear. When we got to the airport off-ramp, it was clear that hardly anyone was coming to the airport, the road was full of snow. Somehow we made it through to the terminal. I jump out of the minivan, go inside and ask a US Airways rep if the 9:15 Amsterdam flight was still going out. I was told yes, along with many other flights to Europe that night. So we unload the car and send our neighbor on his way.

We check in, get our boarding passes and go eat dinner. We then get to the gate and by 8:00 it still says we're going out "out time." We're supposed to start boarding at 8:30 and when nothing happens, I get worried. I walk up to the gate counter and sure enough, as I get there, they make the announcement that the flight has been canceled. Apparently, they had "hoped" the weather would improve, but it didn't. Now I'm pissed. All day long, the weather has been terrible and they've been canceling flights. Did they seriously think that the weather would improve at night? It never improves at night. I was seriously mad that they could have reasonably believed the flight was going out.

We have no choice but to rebook the flight. Of course, by this time, so many other people who had previously canceled flights had already rebooked, so there was very little left. In fact, the CSR initially told us that there was nothing before Christmas Eve, 5 days later. No way were we flying on Christmas Eve. I push, I bring my two young kids up, the CSR says well, I think I can do something earlier, but I "don't have the rights codes. I have to get a supervisor." Excuse me, there's a serious possibility of flight cancellations and no supervisor is around? He calls and calls and finally gets one. The supervisor rebooks us for the next day, a flight to Munich at 6:30 pm. that will have 'plenty of open seats' because the originating flight from Chicago earlier in the day is already canceled.

From Munich, we can then secure a 2 hour layover and a new flight to Marseilles, landing around 12:30 p.m. local time on Monday. We have to call the next day to get this Munich to Marseilles flight because its actually with a different airline than we had originally booked with (I can't recall if we originally were flying Air France to Marseilles or Lufthansa). At the moment, the CRS could only book us on the 7:30 p.m. Munich to Marseilles flight, which is with our original airline, but that's an 11 hour layover, so clearly we wanted the earlier flight.

So we're set for the new flight, but its now after 10:00 p.m. and there's no way I can call up my neighbor to come pick us up. It was hard enough driving with some daylight earlier in the snow storm, I can't ask him to drive at night in the snow storm. Naturally there's no help with hotel or food, no vouchers from the airline or the airport, despite their telling us, assuring us, we'd fly out that night. If we didn't have kids, hubby and I could have slept on the floor of the airport, but with the two kids, we thought it best to get a hotel room. So I get a list and start calling. I have to be careful, I can't call a super cheap hotel because we have no transportation to the hotel. Generally, only the more expensive hotels provide airport shuttle. I try some of the less expensive hotels, but they are all booked up. The only place I find is the Hilton at $200 a night.

We get to the hotel and sleep, well sortof at least. We have no jammies, the airline kept our bags, promising that they'd be rerouted to our new flight. So we sleep in our clothes. I did pack a change of clothes for the kids, in case they spilled something in the airplane, so they can change the next day. I also had a change of underwear, but nothing else. We get up the next day and head to the airport, having to check out by noon. So back at the airport to wait around another five hours and eat expensive airport food. Good thing I went to the bank before the flight (we already had Euros from hubby's parents' prior visits - which saved us exchange fees).

I called the airline about the Munich to Marseilles flight while still at the hotel. The CRS on the phone is all confused because he keeps saying our Philly to Munich flight was canceled. I keep having to tell him, no the Chicago to Philly originating flight is canceled, not the Philly to Munich extension (hubby is confirming this on his pda). Oh yes, he says, I see that now. It took several times to get him to figure that out. Finally he clears that up and works to rebook our Munich to Marseilles flight. Again there's there issue of a different airline being involved, so he has to ring off to work that out and call us back. Eventually that does work out, we're on the 10:30 am Munich to Marseilles flight.

We get to our gate and wait and wait and wait. Another flight is scheduled for our gate for 4:00 (it had already been delayed for 2 hours). That flight gets canceled because not enough flight crew showed up. Good sign there, those passengers are pissed. A flight to Miami gets scheduled for that gate, for 6:00 pm. I head up to the gate counter. How can our flight to Munich go out at 6:30 when there's a flight to Miami heading out at 6:00? Do we have a new gate or are we delayed? Sure enough, I'm told that we're still scheduled to go out on time at this gate. How can this be, can you check? No, there's no one I can call and check, I just go by what the computer says. Really, there's no one you can call? Nope. Great communication.

Sure enough, by 6:00 when the Miami flight leaves, we're suddenly told our flight is delayed to 8:30. They have to get our plane out of the hanger, to the gate, loaded up and then we can go. Our flight crew is already there (hooray!). I head up to the gate to say we're going to miss our connection. We get rebooked on the much later Munich to Marseilles flight (yes, we're looking at sitting around in the Munich airport for 8 hours if we actually land at 10:30). Any food vouchers for this delay? Of course not, because "its weather related." I don't believe this, because our plane is supposedly already at the airport, has been there all day. They could have gotten it out of the hanger and ready earlier. That's not weather delay, that's incompetency delay, which should be reimbursed.

Our flight continues to get delayed, now to 9:30 p.m. We're board crazy in the airport and still no offer of food vouchers. We spent 3 meals in the airport for 4 people, that's a lot of money. The kids are driving us nuts because they're board and tired (I packed a few extra toys for them, but one can only do so much with sitting around for 8 hours) Finally we board the plane at 9:30 and the pilot informs us that the reason we were delayed is because snow plowed off the runways was put in front of the hanger and so they had to dig out the hanger. So yeah, incompetency yet again. And does US Airways provide any sort of apology or compensation? Nope. Not even free headphones (pay up $5). We passed, since by this time, we're all tired and cranky, so we just sleep on the plane. The kids didn't even eat dinner, they sacked out almost immediately.

We finally land in Munich around noon local time, so we have 6-7 hours before our flight to Marseilles. At least Munich has a nice airport, they had a pretty Christmas village in their courtyard, some good German food places to eat and shops. We had to buy diapers because I was running out, even though I packed extra in the carry-on. We take our time eating and doing a little bit of shopping (the kids got some pretty music boxes). We get our new boarding passes and are told again that our bags are in Munich and going with us to Marseilles. We board on time, thankfully, and head out.

Our plane lands in Marseilles near 10:00 p.m. We get to the baggage claim area, and guess what? Of course, no bags. Yup, our bags went to Amsterdam from Philly on their earlier flight. They'll ship our bags down to Marseilles and deliver them to us over the next two days. So another two days with the same clothes. At least we're staying at the in-laws, so we can get them washed. We get there by midnight, have a super late dinner and head to bed.

One bag was delivered the next day, but the other two took another day. At least everything arrived, only one item was broken, but it was easily fixable with glue. Needless to say, US Airways did not make a good starting impression.

Unfriendly Skies

2010-01-03T18:04:00.000-08:00

Well, after our latest trip to France, I've about written off US Airways as an airline of choice, to the extent there is much of that anymore with code sharing anyway. I've certainly decided that while flying used to be a pleasure, something I looked forward to, now I endure it with gritted teeth. Seriously, the person who invents the teleporter will be someone who has to fly (and economy at that). Even the European airlines have earned my grimace, though they are still better than what we endured over our last trip, both coming and going. Too tired to really go into details tonight, will post more in the coming days. I'll just say that for our next trip, I will remind my husband of what happened the last time he procrastinated in clearing his vacation days at work, forcing us to use US Airways because tickets on the European airlines had risen more than $200 apiece.

The Associate

2009-12-19T07:07:00.000-08:00

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.

Someone's Always Perfect

2009-12-14T07:29:00.000-08:00

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.

Music Obsession Take 2

2009-12-02T11:00:00.001-08:00

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).

The Guild

2009-11-29T12:24:00.000-08:00

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.

Baby Boomers are Luddites

2009-11-24T05:55:00.001-08:00

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.

Why Men Shouldn't Shop

2009-11-23T08:23:00.001-08:00

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.

More Stupid Credit

2009-11-14T12:14:00.000-08:00

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.

Lotsa Rants

2009-11-06T08:43:00.000-08:00

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.

Recession Over?

2009-10-21T10:40:00.000-07:00

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.

In the Middle

2009-09-16T06:42:00.001-07:00

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.

Driving Me Mad

2009-09-09T06:38:00.001-07:00

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.

Summer's Over

2009-09-08T07:30:00.000-07:00

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.

The Shingle

2009-08-18T06:32:00.001-07:00

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.

Vick? Seriously?

2009-08-14T17:34:00.000-07:00

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.

Why Watch Reality?

2009-08-05T07:01:00.000-07:00

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.

Current Again - But Healthy?

2009-08-03T06:36:00.000-07:00

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.

My Music Obsession

2009-07-30T06:43:00.000-07:00

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.

One more Debt

2009-03-16T09:49:00.000-07:00

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.

180 Degrees

2009-02-25T11:02:00.000-08:00

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.

Karma, Baby, Karma

2008-12-17T10:34:00.001-08:00

Long time, no post, been busy with work, kids, etc. But last night, I got some fun news.

I used to work for a satellite office of a relatively large law firm. At that time, I really wanted to work in the suburbs, thinking I'd have a shorter commute, less stress/work hours and more time with family. Certainly I was interested in getting ahead in my profession, and I had the impression the firm understood my desires and would work with me for both our benefits.

The job started out well, my boss seemed pretty decent, interesting cases and I made my billable hours without problems. After six months, I got a good review and indications that this would be my job for the future. I had heard rumors that my boss could be difficult to work for, but he seemed ok to me. I was also aware that the current managing partner of the satellite office was going to retire within the next couple of years and my boss was the leading candidate to take over the position. He knew it and did have a tendancy to throw his weight around because of it.

Then, over Christmas, I went on vacation and during that time found out I was pregnant. When I returned to work, I was still having a very difficult time with "all-day sickness" (I ultimately lost 25 pounds with the pregnancy, and only gained back about 10 of those pounds before birth). Also, given my age and weight, I was placed in the 'high risk' category. Due to these circumstances, and the anticipated effect it might have on my work hours, I told my boss early.

Almost overnight, my work environment changed. Suddenly my boss was on my back about every little thing. While I didn't have set work hours, he would be annoyed if I got to work 5 minutes later than when he felt I should be there. He was annoyed everytime I went to a doctor's appointment (which were more frequent because I was high risk). He started cutting my billing hours, then yelling at me for not billing enough. During this time, work did slow down overall, plus none of the other partners wanted to give me work when I was going out on maternity leave soon. On several occasions, my boss yelled at me about something or another, enough that it brought me to tears. My doctor could tell that my work environment was not good and wanted me to go out on maternity leave early, but I didn't have the 'symptoms' to justify a medical leave, so going out early would be without a paycheck.

I also heard from a couple other people that my boss treated them quite poorly over various things. A friend of mine, who got a job at this office on my recommendation, ended up leaving because my boss treated her so badly. I'm sure her leaving didn't sit well with my boss and he probably took some of his annoyance out on me, but I certainly don't blame my friend.

My boss made my life so miserable during this time that I pretty much decided before I did go out on maternity leave that I would either seek to transfer to another office within the firm, or find a new job. As it turned out, my maternity leave got extended into a medical leave due to a torn rotator cuff that required surgery, and when I didn't return after the FMLA leave expired (due to the medical leave), my firm decided they didn't want me back. I'm fairly certain it was my boss' decision, or that he pushed it through the managing partner.

Coincidently, the other two associates at this office did not have families, and thus worked late hours. I'm pretty certain that I was let go because I did have a family, with other obligations that required my time, and couldn't work late hours. One of the associates I kept in contact with said that after I left (along with another associate that quit) she routinely worked until 8-9 pm almost every night and rarely took more than 15 minutes for lunch. In my opinion, the office decided it was better to have 2 associates working 15 hour days, rather than 4 associates working 7-8 hour days. I also know that the other associate that left, did so in part because she hated working for my boss (she had a few cases with him before my maternity leave, but more when I went out on maternity leave).

I suppose it worked out pretty well for me in the long run. I got a decent severance package and unemployment sustained me until I found a new job. I got more time home with my new baby. My new job doesn't pay quite as much, but its close, and the work environment is significantly better. Fortunately, I got my new job before the economy went to hell and I'm plenty busy.

So, the good news? Well, turns out that my ex-boss, Mr. "In the lead for managing partner" didn't get the job. Hah!! Just found out last night when a friend and also former associate ran into a secretary at the office who told her that another partner, a much nicer partner, got the job. Rumor has it that my ex-boss was voted down because the management committee for the entire firm felt that my ex-boss cost too many other people jobs and people didn't like working for him. Gee, wonder where they got that idea from?

All I can say is Karma, baby, Karma.

Seriously

2008-09-24T13:03:00.000-07:00

Why are we still allowing Chinese products into our country? They poison our children's toys, they poison our pets' food and now they poisoned their milk (at least it was only their own, but I feel terrible about their babies). Clearly this country is emerging in the shadow of capitalist america by valuing the almight dollar (or yuan) above all else. So much for communism, eh? This is a country that faked the Olympic opening ceremonies, having one child lip-sync to another child because the singer wasn't 'cute enough.'

Unfortnately, chinese products are so cheap, they are practically the only ones you can find in certain markets, like toys. Of course, that's because of our own country's rampant corporate greed that found it was better to hire the chinese company that pays its workers 5 cents an hour with no benefits than american workers that require unreasonable things like health insurance and sick days. Then the american corporation can give its CEOs and boardmembers millions and shareholders thousands, while sure they pass along perhaps a dollar or two savings on the product to the public. Frankly, I would rather pay a little more for something made elsewhere. Definitely going to look for that in the upcoming holidays.

So far so good

2008-09-15T20:14:00.000-07:00

So I've been at this new job nearly four months now, and so far, so good. My boss is easy to work for, he gives me plenty to do, but doesn't nag me. He doesn't cut my billing hours (or at least he hasn't complained to me that he's had to). He hasn't said word one about whether I'm dressed appropriately (or complained that I wasn't), or that I have to leave to pick up my kids from school, or even the couple of days I had to work from home because of sick kids.

And now, for the second time in this four month period, I'm getting a trip to NYC to wine and dine clients. The firm is paying for me to take whatever train I want, will pay for the taxi fare, and pay for a pretty expensive meal. If I wanted, they'd even pay for me to spend the night in a decent hotel. I opted not, so I could come home to family, but it was nice to know it was an option. My last law firm that was supposedly "more elite" or "more prestigious" never did this. The closest was a "quick bite" in a hotel restaurant when a client was in town for a settlement conference. My last lawfirm also refused to pay for my California bar license or for more than one bar association membership. My current firm says they'll pay for both the license and any extra bar associations I want to join.

Now my salary isn't quite as high, but its not too far off. I know my current firm would love me to bill as much as my last firm required, but they accept that I probably won't. Given that my boss isn't slashing my hours faster than a Ginsu knife, I've actually come close to 'ideal' hours twice and made it once in the last three months. For September, I'll probably come close again. If this keeps up, the only month I'll probably not bill well is December, when the French family comes to visit.

So far, I'm really liking it here. The work is interesting, the people nice, the work environment great. I hope it keeps up.

Shoot Me Now

2008-09-09T17:33:00.001-07:00

I can't believe I am going to defend insurance companies. I know I have to do it for a living, but I don't really like it. Usually, I try and convince myself that even though the insurance company is paying my bill and calls the shots, I'm really representing the poor sap insured (whose rates have already increased the moment the lawsuit is served).

Anyway, recently I've worked on cases where the Plaintiff has sued our client, who admittedly was probably negligent, but the plaintiff doesn't sue the party that really caused the wrong. The reason? Because our client has insurance and the really wrong party doesn't. Yup, the Plaintiff presumes that the insurance company will likely pony up at least some money to settle the lawsuit, which is probably right, whereas the really wrong party probably doesn't have two sous to rub together (which may or may not be true). Its annoying because not only does it offend my sense of justice (yeah, I do have one), but it makes more work for me because I then have to prepare a joinder complaint to join the really wrong party into the lawsuit, and serve the complaint (and I have plenty of other work to do, I don't need the extra billables, thank you).

Its not like it costs the Plaintiffs that much extra to add on another defendant, and the plaintiffs in these cases, can well afford the sums. Some plaintiffs (or their counsel) are just too lazy.

Pro Se Pains

2008-09-02T18:35:00.000-07:00

Gah, I hate pro se plaintiffs. They flaunt the rules, enforce the ones they choose, get away with not following the ones they don't like. You can't call them up and ask for reasonable extensions, because they aren't reasonable. You can't file motions against them because they just plead "poor me, I have no attorney" to the judge and get away with their vague and incomplete answers to discovery. You are left with no choice but to take their deposition, where they make your life even more difficult by claiming not to understand your questions, or just outright refusing to answer. Sure you can file a motion for that, but then you're forced to retake the deposition.

Its not quite as bad in federal court, you can arrange to have a magistrate sit in on the deposition to make instant rulings and force the plaintiff to answer. The judges are also a lot more likely to grant summary judgment motions, even if the plaintiff could make an argument for his case, but due to his lack of attorney, he doesn't. State court is much more forgiving to pro se plaintiffs and bend over backward. State court judges deny clearly meritorious motions because they too don't want the pro se plaintiff filing even more documents. More often than not, their settlement demands are outrageous, they refuse to see reason and ultimately the client has to pay a ton of money in attorneys fees to either win at summary judgment (if lucky) or at trial. Yeah, its nice to have good billing time, but the headache these plaintiffs put one through, its not worth it.

All in all, pro se plaintiffs are a PITA in every sense of the word. They really should get a clue when they can't find even a sleaze-ball attorney to represent them.

Poor Attorneys

2008-08-27T18:08:00.000-07:00

So recently I've been reading a few blogs and forums about the problems many east coast lawyers are facing (I don't know is west coasters have the same problems, all the info I can find seems limited to east coasters). Apparently since the time I graduated lawschool tuitions have risen significantly at "lower tier" schools (i.e. the ones not at the top - Harvard, Yale, etc.) so students resorting to student loans, come out in debt to the tune of $100,000 or more. Thereafter, unless they are at the very top of their class and on law review (or have connections), they can't find worthwhile paying jobs, and many end up doing document review for "biglaw" firms.

Document review is where big company, like Merck, gets sued, due to Vioxx for example, and there are literally hundreds of thousands of documents that have to be produced in discovery in this mass tort claim. Each document must be reviewed to determine whether it must be produced (i.e. relevant to the case) and if so, whether there is any privileged information in it that needs to be redacted. I did a little bit of work in this field when I first got my law license in PA (and frankly I was annoyed that the headhunters didn't tell me about this stuff when I first moved to PA, I could have done with my CA license and made more money than the paralegal jobs I got, but back to the main issue). It was easy work, you pull the document up on a computer screen, code it, go on to the next document. You could set your own hours, 9-5 was pretty much necessary, but you could work more or sometimes a little less, if you wanted or needed to. The only thing is that most of this 'contract work' provides no benefits (although some staffing agencies will allow you to buy into their benefits package) and, of course, its not really stimulating work nor does it provide any real legal experience.

As it is, I feel for document review attorneys who are struggling to pay off these huge loans, working jobs for $25-$30 per hour ($50,000-$60,000) without benefits. Now apparently the ABA (who accredits the multitude of these lower tiered but expensive lawschools) has decided that its "OK" for biglaw firms to outsource their document review projects to India. You have got to be kidding me. Work that requires a US law license can now be done by someone with who knows what legal training and certainly no US law license in another country? Naturally the lawfirms love it. Why pay a US attorney $30 an hour when his/her Indian counterpart will do the same work for $5 an hour? Hell, they might not even tell their client they've outsourced the work, thereby pocketing the difference when they bill out the work at $150 per hour.

Its bad enough that the market is glutted enough with too many lawyers, with huge debts, that sink non "biglaw" salaries down to $60,000-$70,000, even for lawyers with significant experiencee (just no clients). Now there will be even more out of work attorneys, who will be forced to take just about any job, so employers will lower salaries even more. All the while lawschools advertise that their graduates earn up to $160,000. Yeah, some do, but only some, not the majority, yet everyone has to pay the high tuition. You don't get a tuition refund if you fail to make top 10%. Maybe they should.

Mixed Bag

2008-08-22T18:10:00.000-07:00

So given how I lost both of my last two jobs after I gave birth to my children, I was following with interest the case of Todaro v. Siegel Fenchel & Peddy, which is in the Eastern District of NY. In this case, one plaintiff, an associate, left her job citing hostile work environment, after she received a paycut from $102,000 to $77,000 shortly after telling her employer she was pregnant. The employer claimed the associate's work product quality had decreased. The other plaintiff, a paralegal, was actually let go after she returned from maternity leave and proved that she received raises every year of her employment except the two years she gave birth.

Details about the cases are at:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202423744292 and

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202423970420

The paralegal received a judgment of $203,838 (plus punitive damages, which are being contested); the associate got $16,499, apparently only because after her pay cut, the next lowest paid associate still made $20,000 more than her, thus violating the Equal Pay Act.

Now, I don't know all the details of the case, but I have to wonder what difference there was between the two. Either there was discrimination against pregnant women/mothers, or there wasn't. I did notice that while the firm touted itself as 'women friendly,' apparently only one other woman at the firm had kids, a named partner (though no mention is made as to their ages or what her family situation is like).

Did it make a difference that the paralegal was fired, while the associate quit? How many people do you know could stay in a job with a 25% pay cut? Does this mean that all an employer has to do is cut a pregnant woman's salary and claim that work product was 'going downhill?' Some women blossom in pregnancy, but for some (myself included) its a miserable experience that I couldn't wait to be done with, I was sick and exhausted all the time. I'm sure my work wasn't as "top notch" as it is normally.

Did it make a difference that the associate got a bunch of perks (golf clubs and lessons, a five figure wedding gift, paid off car lease) that most jurors would never see in their jobs? Maybe. Hard to know when one doesn't know the jury make-up (although in my experience, high paid professionals are never jurors).

In any event, I thought this case was a real mixed bag for women's rights.

Those Who Stand

2008-08-20T18:49:00.000-07:00

When I started my new job in the city, I began using public transportation again. This time, however, I was using a trolly/subway instead of the train. The main difference I've noticed, is that while people do their best to sit on the train, most want to stand on the trolly and subway. What's annoying is that they stand right at the doorway. Now if the person gets on at one stop and is getting off at the very next stop, or perhaps the one after that, I can understand standing near the door. But when one is taking up space at the door, making it difficult for other passengers to get on, and move past them for several stops, I want to yell out "hey, take a seat!"

I mean really, do you have to block the door just to make sure that you're the first one out the door? Are those few precious seconds that are saved because you reached the exit first that necessary? Are you that important that you must reach your destination a few seconds before me? Its annoying enough when I have to move through several of you to get into the trolly so I can sit down. On the few occasions that I have my baby stroller and therefore must stand in the area you are at because the stroller is too big to move down the aisle, I'm pissed.

Hey! Take a seat!

A Night Out

2008-08-18T06:32:00.000-07:00

So my husband and I had a night out last night. Our first dinner sans kids in about four years. We went to a nice restaurant and then to see Spamalot.

I know that a Sunday evening performance isn't exactly the prime "dress up" night like Friday or Saturday, but I was really shocked to see how casual some people were dressed at the show. Maybe I'm a little old fashioned, but even when my parents took me to shows as a teenager on Saturday or Sunday afternoons, I always wore a dress and my father always wore a suit. My mother either wore a dress or a nice pants suit.

But my how times have changed. I saw people last night wearing jeans or shorts and T-shirts. Its not like they were sitting in the 'cheap' seats either. These were people that had paid at least, if not more than the $85 a ticket my husband and I paid for seats in the third row of the first balcony. The only time I ever wore casual clothes to a show was the few times I sat outside a theatre in London while a lawstudent waiting for returns (I had to wait nearly 6 hours in line to see Phantom, but got the best seats ever, second row of the Dress Circle).

Just seems to me that theatres should impose a dress code, like some restaurants do. You won't see jeans and T-shirts at Le Bec Fin, you shouldn't see them at the Academy of Arts. Its a sign of respect to the performers to dress up and at least pretend that going out to the theatre is special.