The Problem With Getting Rid Of Free Checking

Free Checking. It's one of those wonderful ideas of the last, oh I don't know. However long it's existed. Banks so wanted our money, they'd bribe us with things like coolers and other junk just to get us to sign up for free checking. So free checking was basically free (plus a present!) checking.

But now banks are in a tizzy because they're being "regulated." Personally, I think it's a joke, and they should be more heavily regulated, but that's neither here nor there. The problem is, they claim they can't make money, so they need to axe free checking. After all, how are the banks supposed to make money, now that overdraft fees aren't automatic? You know, I wanted that juice to cost me 35 extra dollars. I can think of very few times when overdrafting makes sense. Even being late on payments usually doesn't cost you $35, buying a soda certainly shouldn't. Then Dodd-Frank cut in half the amount of swipe fees they could charge per swipe on Debit card fees. So now they charge for the privilege of spending your own money.


So let's see. Free checking. How does it work?


In the beginning, I give a bank what money I have. Any future money I might hope to earn will also go in their vaults. I can/will do this up to $250,000.


With my money, and the money of millions of others, they make loans. They loan people my money and charge them interest. Auto loans, mortgages, small business loans, etc. These loans (I'm not a financial planner) will likely vary from 3% to 15%. Maybe even higher, who knows. Lines of Credit, I'm sure, have even higher rates. Many banks even offer credit cards with rates in the 20-30% range.


Now, they don't get my money for free. They actually pay me some interest too. It's an amazingly high rate of .01%. Basically, I could travel in time 10,000 years and I'd still be poor (not even accounting for inflation). They also give me wonderful extras like Bill Pay (oooh) and Customer Service. Also, now that I'm a "customer" I can utilize their other services, like loans and stuff.


But now, this model is apparently unsustainable. The banks just can't turn a profit anymore because of free checking. Well, actually, that's not true. They'll keep your checking account free if you have a minimum balance varying from $1,000-$15,000; utilize direct deposit; or some other stipulations (like using Bill Pay a few times a month).


I don't agree with this. Don't get me wrong, I think people should be paid for their services. But the bank isn't exactly doing anything for me here. All they do is protect my money. Well, that's not true, if they are robbed, insurance covers the loss. If they make terrible bets with my money and lose it all, the FDIC will give me what they lost, up to $250,000.


They don't give me checks, either. I don't use them, but if I want them, I have to pay for them. I want to buy something with my debit card? They get money. 


The fact is, simple checking accounts should be free because they aren't worth that much; the value just isn't there. Having a checking account isn't some magical vessel that transforms my money into anything--it just lets me pay people. And 99% of the time I pay people, my bank gets money. The bank uses my money to make money.


But you know what the absolute worst part is? This is a fee for not having enough money. I literally just opened up a piece of mail stating that if I do not maintain a minimum daily balance of $100, I will be charged $15 a month. Sure, I may not be making the bank much money at that small a balance, but I'm not costing them anything either. So if I were living pay check to pay check (which I'm currently not, anyone want to hire me?) and had a balance hovering around $100, it would take five months before my balance was brought down to $10. And anyone living paycheck to paycheck with a small monthly balance could run into this problem, for example, senior citizens.


It's a shame the letter just mentions regulatory changes, but doesn't actually say which. I have a feeling the changes don't affect free checking accounts.

On The "Rich" And The "Job Creators"

Personally, I've been dreaming of this moment for three years. I go to bed every night and I dream of another recession. - Alessio Rastani

To begin with, I'm in favor of taxes, and taxing wealth. I think people deserve to keep what they earn, but earnings are not the result of a windfall, they take time to mature into wealth. My views are unorthodox, but I'd tax exceptional incomes at exceptional rates. Nobody on earth is going to try to earn less money simply because it's taxed more--especially the people who love money the most.

Short term gains should be taxed at the highest rates. Long term investments should be taxed lower. Wages, actual, honest wages should be taxed at the lowest rate since they are the most "earned." I'd still tax income progressively, though, and my top tax bracket would not be $250,000.

A lot of the rhetoric in politics lately talks about the rich and the job creators. Frankly, this gets us nowhere. There's no unilateral definition for "rich." Even job creator as a class is ambiguous. Rich in Connecticut is different than rich in Florida. Rich in Greenwich, Connecticut is different than rich in Derby, Connecticut. Most people would agree that $10 million is rich, but some wouldn't. Some people find this whole conversation irrelevant, because their money is theirs. Period.

Job creator as a title is equally ambiguous. Anyone who has hired someone is a job creator. And referring to a class of people as a job creator doesn't do anything for the national conversation. Should we tax job creators? Absolutely. Should we encourage them to create jobs? Absolutely. Does offering tiny tax cuts to businesses do it? No, not really. But cutting their taxes entirely won't either.

The logic is that if the corporations and rich have more money, they will hire more. The Job Creator Fallacy. The problem with this logic is that corporations are hoarding trillions of dollars in loans from the treasury, and they aren't using it to hire people. They are sitting on it. They are buying their competitors with it. And they are buying patents with it. This actually gets rid of jobs with things like consolidation and excessive litigating. Congress recently passed a law to "reform" patents. This did nothing to solve the problem, though. Google shouldn't be spending $12.5 billion on patents, they should reinvest it, or create jobs. The same is true for every other tech company battling over patents.

The problem with this whole conversation is how polarized and politicized it has become, however. Liberals see the rich as a bunch of assholes hoarding the wealth of this country while taking a massive dump on the rest of Americans. Conservatives see the rich as benevolent job creators who want to reinvest their money in their companies and create jobs, if only their taxes were lower. If only America wasn't such a high-taxed, terrible place to house a corporation. Lower their tax burden, and the jobs will come.

Liberals would counter that this "race to the bottom" gains nothing. Sure, there are jobs then (maybe) but what kind of job? All jobs aren't created equally. There are good quality jobs and terrible quality jobs. And wages are only a very small part of the quality equation.

Conservatives would counter that liberals in favor of taxing the wealthy and spreading their wealth constitutes socialism, and socialists are very, very bad. Why should they have to give up what they earn to lazy, incompetent people who don't want to work, they'd argue. It's a valid point, but who says the poor don't want to work? Maybe no one will give them a job. It's one big circle jerk, where the poor man on the totem pole isn't getting his, but ends up with everyone else's "egg" on their face. And I'm not exactly referring to trickle down "economics."

I don't care where you are on the map of conservative or liberal views, but people like this deserve to be taxed. This person deserves to be taxed at the standard rate up until $75,000 (and I'm being very, very generous. Anything after that should be taxed at 100%.



Some gems in case you don't want to watch the whole five minutes or so:

The governments don't rule the world, Goldman Sachs rules the world.

The savings of millions of people are going to vanish" in less than a year

This economic crisis is like a cancer, if you just wait and wait thinking this will go away, just like a cancer it's going to grow and it's going to be too late

Personally, I've been dreaming of this moment for three years. I go to bed every night and I dream of another recession.

When the market crashes... if you know what to do, if you have the right plan set up, you can make a lot of money from this.

For most traders we don't really care about having a fixed economy, having a fixed situation, our job is to make money from it

Until next time.

Would You Like Some Cheez Whiz With That Whine?

There's a storm a brewing, and the mommy/food bloggers are not happy. You see, this is what happens when you replace a longstanding professional trade or career with amateurs.

I am not a journalist. I could never hope to be one on my own. I don't have access to Lexis Nexis, nor do I have information gathering services like that of NBC. I just like the stuff. I follow it where I can and do my due diligence to verify what I read.

In this same regard, food bloggers are not professionals (in the traditional sense). You can learn to cook on your own; almost everyone learns this way. But curating a food blog does not a professional make. I'm the worst person to critique food since I can't actually, you know, eat most of it.

If you truly wanted to be a critic of anything seriously, you really have to prepare. Can I critique photographs? Sure. But my reading Strobist hardly makes me an expert. Seeing movies doesn't make me an expert capable of critiquing them either. And making dinner every night and posting about it on my blog doesn't make me a foodie or an expert on foods.

Does it matter what non experts think? Of course! That's why Adam Sandler cranks out movies that critics hate. Because the rest of america loves them. But Punch Drunk Love, Spanglish, and Reign Over Me (the last one in particular) are great movies that critics loved. And they all failed at the box office.

Recently, some food bloggers got an invitation to a dinner hosted by the one and only George Duran. You know, that guy who hosts Ultimate Cake Off. The one you want to kick only slightly less than the tool that hosts Cupcake Wars.

Photo from Food Network Canada

Yeah, that guy. Food is serious business.

Apparently, some bloggers are upset because they feel like they were lied to and duped into eating free food they would not have otherwise eaten. I don't want to sound like a douche, so here's what went down (objectively).

An invitation was sent to a select few bloggers; it looked like this:

The bloggers were told that this restaurant was essentially a pop up shop of restaurants and would be open for only five days. The bloggers were allowed a guest/date, and were allowed to have a giveaway on their blogs for dinner at Sotto Terra.

I'm not familiar with how this sort of thing works, but I'm something of a skeptic. And I research pretty much everything. I don't think I am normal like this, but I'd think anyone with a large audience would at least research places they were going to blog about.

Is it normal for a restaurant to open for only five days? Restaurant equipment is exorbitant. I'd think that five days would make very little sense for a restaurant. A pop up fashion or letterpress shop? Absolutely! The amount of overhead is much lower for those businesses. Not to mention food permits, etc.

I didn't even know George Duran was a chef, so I Googled him. Turns out, he is. Go figure. He went to NYU for Communications, worked as a producer, so on and so forth. Then, he went to France to learn how to cook. To me, this is important, we'll see why later.

Next, I'd Google Ketchum. This person I'm supposed to reply to works there (or at least has an e-mail address there). Oh, they are a marketing and PR firm. That's odd, but hey, maybe that's normal. George Duran isn't going to give you his personal e-mail. For all we know, Christine is his assistant. Or his agent or something.

The invitation states that they will be dining at an Italian eatery, learn about food trends from Phil, talk to each other, and sample George's Sangria while eating a four-course meal hosted by George Duran and Phil Lempert.

A few points. This is an Italian restaurant. George Duran studied French cuisine. His specialties are French, Armenian, and South American. I'm sure he can make a decent enough Lasagna, but I would be more excited about being served Italian food by someone who's known for cooking Italian food. In the celebrity chef scene, Mario Batali immediately comes to mind. Needless to say, this is yet another red flag.

But wait, the invitation refers to George and Phil merely as hosts. I don't think it implies that they will be cooking. In fact, the only time it mentions them in relation to food is when it says they'll be served Chef Duran's Sangria. You know, something South American.

So let's read what some of the bloggers had to say.

Over at Mom Confessionals, there's this:

Our entire meal was a SHAM! We were unwilling participants in a bait-and-switch for Marie Callender’s new frozen three cheese lasagna and there were cameras watching our reactions. I’ve got a sense of humor so I was okay with it and I had been enjoying myself up until that point, but I could tell that the rest of the participants were not. Everyone feigned weak shock and faked approval of the frozen meal.

I feel like "bait-and-switch" gets thrown around a lot. This is one of those times. This was not a bait and switch. They promised a four course meal hosted by George Duran and delivered. Also, bait-and-switch is kind of excessive considering that the food was free. It's not like Best Buy having an ad for a free monitor, then not having it and convincing you to buy something else.

All in all, this blogger seemed a bit annoyed, but mostly because her guests were duped.

Next up is the very poorly named blog of Chubby Chinese Girl (cuz she's, you know, kinda skinny).

First, I'd like to commend her for being the only one who took decent photos. The crop of the invitation came from one of her photos, in fact.

Then the focus shifted to healthy eating, fresh and local, seasonal, reading our labels, so on and so forth. Sort of like a Food Inc. panel if you will. I pointed out that the reason I ate organic, fresh and good food was because my calories are very precious to me, so I want to use them wisely.

(emphasis hers)

Okay I have some problems with this. Lasagna and Razzleberry pie don't exactly conjure up words like healthy or calorie conscious to me. I honestly can't take something like Razzleberry pie seriously. It sounds like something out of Willy Wonka or (yes) Marie Calender.

The reading labels thing throws me off, though. Eating fresh, local, and seasonal [ingredients] doesn't really involve labels. I'd hope a serious chef (or food blogger) would use as little prepared foods, except maybe ones they'd made themselves.

I'm NOT their target consumer and they were totally off by thinking I would buy or promote their highly processed frozen foods after tricking me to taste it. I'm not saying I ONLY eat/write about healthy and organic foods, but what unhealthy stuff I choose to eat/write, at least I was aware of it and it was my decision to do so.

But this is hardly new. Companies have been doing this for decades--getting people to try something they'd say they dislike (Think Coke and Pepsi).

I don't think they thought that the bloggers would do nothing but praise them either. I think they wanted to give them food they'd otherwise shun because it's processed and see what they think. If they all hated it, they'd know to change the recipe or whatever. I don't think they were thinking, "Let's woo some food bloggers with a big name like George Duran, some sangria, and free lasagna. This will get us tons of free positive publicity. Nothing could possibly go wrong." No, when giving people food, you always run the risk of a negative review. Food critics always get free food, and negative reviews abound. If a food blogger thought, "I won't say anything bad, I'll be polite" then they ought to not be reviewing food. Personally, if they found it so disgusting at Sotto Terra, they should have spoken up.

If I was a foodie and expecting a home made meal from a big name chef and it was only so-so, I'd certainly at least say something to the people around me. I wouldn't call the chef out on it because I'm just not that extroverted. But hey, if I had thousands of readers who took my opinions to heart, maybe that'd be different. Who knows. But I'm sure there was at least one loud mouth (and I don't mean that in a disparaging way) in the group. Why didn't anyone say "This Lasagna tastes like crap, who the hell taught you to cook?"

But Chubby Chinese Girl was again mostly upset at having eaten processed food. She seemed more upset than the first blogger, but seemed to take it mostly in stride.

The people over at Food Mayhem, on the other hand, were nonplussed.

To Mr. George Duran:
On behalf of the the culinary world, we hereby revoke your dodin bouffant; apron; and most of all, your right to call yourself a ‘chef’. You sir are an embarrassment to those in the culinary industry working hard to maintain and enhance a culture of food as one of the best parts of living.

hyperbole, hyperbole, hyperbole. This is the equivalent of people calling each other tea baggers, libertards, or any other sensationalist garbage. This hardly disqualifies chef Duran as being a chef. He's just doing his job as a spokesman for Con Agra Foods. Anyone who has watched the Food Network (and they all do) would see Food Network chefs promoting products during the commercial break.

Normally, I'd run down a response to an entire blog post like this, but it's so filled with sensationalist, angry bitterness that I'm not even going to bother. (some examples, just so I don't look like a sourpuss):

Let’s consider a more personal hypothetical: George, how would you feel if invited to my home, fed chicken cordon bleu, and then afterwards informed that we had secretly stuffed the cavity with entrails of rats found in the street, cleansed using various chemicals from the utility closet, such as bleach (also food safe in small quantities).

because excessive salt and food coloring is just like bleach and dirty rat innards.

After several minutes, your partner-in-crime Phil Lempert addressed the group...

Crime? What crime? Inviting you to dinner? Giving you free food?

What good P.R. teams do not do is lie to build attendance. Lying to media makes it that much harder for legitimate P.R. teams to achieve their goals. Build trust, not facades.

P.R. teams lie all the time. This is what people refer to as spin. Sure, maybe it's not really lying. But it's just like advertising. Lying wrapped with a pretty bow. And I wouldn't consider food bloggers media any more than I'd consider myself the media. Sorry, maybe it's nit picky, but no.

This line is probably the closest to a sane point made in the post and even it is pushing it:

Whether a belief is grounded in religion or science or completely random, part of your job as a chef is to support it. This is not taste preference, such as putting ketchup on steak tartare, this is what one chooses to eat. Would you feed beef to a Hindu? Swine to someone kosher? Or, chicken to a vegan? I am none of those, but would never force them to do something against their belief.

No. Seriously, no. Do not compare this to feeding beef to a Hindu. Or non kosher pig during Passover. Or even vegans. This is an insult to them.

Believing in natural products that haven't been processed is a fair belief to have. I, too, think there's way too much unnecessary shit in our food. There's absolutely no reason for high fructose corn syrup in bread, for example. But this is not an appropriate analogue.

But let's be clear here: this should not have even been a surprise. All these bloggers needed to do is a little bit of legwork. The last blogger actually referred to the group as "the media." Well, the media actually does research beforehand. What would a little research have uncovered?

George Duran is a spokesman for Imusa, selling things like pressure cookers and cookware.

At least as of January of this year, George Duran has worked with Con Agra Foods. There are even pictures of him. Seriously, this is not that hard.

Of course, not everyone who attended was as flagrantly pissed off. Kimberly Coleman took it all in stride and didn't get bent out of shape.

We were all shocked. You could have knocked us over with a feather, because we never saw that coming. Personally, I found it hilarious. I turned to my friend who came with me and said, “Oh my gosh…I feel like Justin Timberlake on Punk’d!” (I didn’t almost cry/totally lose my street cred for a minute though…but that’s another commentary.) In any event, from what I observed (and I could totally be wrong/people could have went home and had totally different reactions) the group on my night thought that it was a fun way for MC to prove their point that their new lasagna was as good as homemade lasagna. (I couldn’t stop teasing my Italian friend for not knowing the difference though…he grew up on his grandmother’s authentic Italian food!)

But you know what they say. One person's hilarious joke is another person's hellish nightmare. Or something like that.

This all kinda reminds me of this episode of Penn & Teller in a way


P.S. Don't get me started on bottled water.
P.P.S. Maybe this from Consumer Reports was just too late for some bloggers.

Response: Why You Were Probably Expecting Too Much From Taylor Swift, Andrea Lampros

I read this article today entitled, "Parent Regrets: Why I Wish We Never Went to See Taylor Swift" and the arguments made in the article bother me. I'll go through the post little by little, but the author basically says the following: "Wah, wah, wah, I'm butthurt that Taylor Swift isn't the perfect symbol for feminists and her concerts are too flashy."

Good thing she didn't go to this concert; I imagine her son and husband would be scarred for life.

That said, here we go.

A note to moms: If you're thinking about taking your daughters to see Taylor Swift as their first concert, and maybe your first show since the Indigo Girls in 1996, please don't.

Here's your problem, Andrea. You haven't been to a concert in fifteen years. Things are different now. Concerts need to gross hundreds of millions of dollars now. Taylor Swift doesn't actually make money by selling millions of records (believe it or not). She makes money from endorsements and concert ticket sales. (Unless Tay Tay has a 360 deal, which is a possibility).

If you're thinking you'll see a sweet Southern singer/songwriter on stage with her guitar, a few pretty dresses, and simplistic but heartfelt lyrics, you won't.

If you want to see that, go to the House of Blues. You could probably see someone like Adele there. She's probably more up your alley, although not country or southern.

The overwhelming message of the Swift concert to the sea of girls ages 5 to 55: be pretty, be conventional, be quiet (well, it's OK to scream for me), and definitely put on some lipstick.

Bitch much? Considering anything I've ever seen of Taylor swift, she's hardly "conventional." She wears cute dresses instead of lingerie on stage. You ought to be happy you didn't bring your family to a Britney Spears concert where she dry humps the stage for ninety minutes.

When my 10-year-old daughter learned to belt out "A Place in this World" on her guitar a few months ago, I began to feel some affection for Swift. Country music up until the quasi-country, anti-Bush Dixie Chicks had never appealed to me, but Swift's commitment to writing her own songs and to making her own way in the music business was compelling. And she even maintained some dignity after being publicly berated by an obnoxious Kanye West.

Agreed. Taylor Swift is probably the closest I'd get to country music. She seems to handle herself with dignity and poise too, which is, well, unconventional. Plus she writes her songs, like you said.

On a recent trip to Washington, DC, my husband and I splurged on Swift tickets for ourselves and kids -- an 8-year-old boy and two girls, ages 10 and 12. We thought the young singer would be especially inspirational to our daughters who love her music and are avid musicians.

That's sweet of you. Taking your three children to a concert would be quite the outlay of cash for not just tickets, but food and souvenirs as well. And you suckered your husband into tagging along as well. You sneaky devil, you. However, I'm not sure that your reason of it "being inspirational" to your daughters was the best use of your money. But I'll give you a pass—you haven't been to a concert in fifteen years.

We joined the ebullient, predominantly female concertgoers in floral H&M jumpers and cowboy boots streaming into DC's Verizon Center. Many arrived holding their daughters' hands before the first two opening bands to stand in long lines for Swift t-shirts and merchandise and take photos next to the towering Swift cutouts in the lobby.

I hope people paying that much money for tickets at least saw the opening acts. Oftentimes, that's the best part of a concert. Also, those opening acts might have also served as an inspiration for your daughters. Or your son or even your husband for that matter.

The scene was sweet until you got to the CoverGirl stands (Swift is a CoverGirl) where girls of all ages sat on stools before stage mirrors to receive makeovers -- perhaps selecting the lip and eye colors that Taylor wears.

Cross promotion, baby. I'm sure that's in a contract somewhere. Maybe CoverGirl pays part of the concert expenses, or it's a part of her endorsement, either way, is this really important? Do you never wear makeup? If you do, why do you?

The message -- you're not really beautiful until you cake your tiny, pre-pubescent face with makeup -- wasn't the empowering one I had envisioned. (I later watched a five year old with ruby red lipstick pouting because the color had come off in her cotton candy. Welcome to the hardscrabble world, baby.)

This is actually complete, utter bullshit. What little girl doesn't like playing with makeup? For a child, makeup is a fun, tactile, experiment in dress up. This isn't even relegated to those without a Y chromosome; little boys enjoy make up too. This has nothing to do with empowering or belittling children. It doesn't tell them, "you're only as beautiful as the makeup you cake on your face." And if it does, you're probably not doing a very good job as their mother.

OK, I thought, that's advertising -- not Swift's fault? Actually the pre-tweens in makeup set the scene for the CoverGirl meets Disney extravaganza.

At least you seem to be giving Miss Swift the benefit of the doubt, here. Not sure what the latter half means, but I'm not to keen on the over-Disneyfication of our youth, either.

After her opening "Sparks Fly," that featured an inordinate amount of hair flipping, Swift stood on the stage for what felt like a long and awkward few minutes, taking in the screams of her girl fans, eyes wide open with feigned amazement. Glancing to the far reaches of the arena where fans paid upwards of $130 per ticket (the going rate on Craigslist), she gazed left. She gazed right. She beamed. She stood still and put her hands to her heart.

This is what she does. I've not been to a concert, but any performance I've seen, she does this. I think it's nice actually. She seems earnest in her appreciation of her fans. There aren't many concerts where the artist attempts to make a connection with the entire audience, as opposed to the front few rows. Complaining about ticket prices won't get you anywhere either. That's not something she controls; talk to LiveNation/Ticketmaster about that one. I could write entire blog posts about that, so don't get me started.

Throughout the concert, even the best songs -- "Speak Now" and "Fifteen" -- were convoluted by an elaborate stage show and a relentless multimedia set with projected live images of Swift inside a gigantic framed mirror. Hearts and words with curly-cue lettering flashed on the screens. (The most ironic image projected was of a girl's quaint bulletin board with a tacked up ticket stub for a concert that cost $10.)

I think next time you need to do a little more research, Andrea. You went to a concert at a venue that seats 20,000 and expected an intimate style show. At a place like the Verizon center where you are paying "upwards of $130" a ticket, that's not what you're going to get. You're going to get a show. There will be explosions, lights, lasers, projections, and —yes— even a little hair flipping. You can see concerts for $10, too, though I understand the irony.

Dancers swirled up and down a staircase in the middle of the set and around Swift like something out of Glee, but not as entertaining. The music and lyrics (which do speak to girls) were secondary to the sparkle and fireworks -- literally -- of the stage.

Glee is not entertaining. Glee is just a high production value karaoke run by a couple douchebags who whine anytime a band won't let them use their songs. The show is unoriginal, uninspiring, and boring. Not to mention it's just a vehicle to offload said karaoke onto iTunes. And yes there will be sparkles and fireworks at concerts now. Especially ones that take place in large venues such as the Verizon Center.

Fleshing out the princess theme, Swift even drifted just above the crowd in a floating balcony -- her eyes seemingly meeting the eyes of each concertgoer. My husband was sure she was singing just to him.

Not sure if this is a complaint or not, but perhaps you should have enjoyed the show rather than critiquing every.single.aspect of the show. I'm all for critiquing but you could have tried to enjoy the concert at least a little.

My 10-year-old girl stood rapt on her chair, taking in everything. Like most of the girls (except the 13 year old making out with her boyfriend in the row in front of me) she loudly sang along with each song.

Yeah, you're going to see people making out at concerts. Sometimes same-sex couples if that sort of thing bothers you, or if you wish to protect your children from it (though, I hope not). If kids making out bothers you, I advise you to avoid any festivals or any concert with a "lawn" section. You, your husband, and your children will be exposed to far worse. You'll thank me for it.

I didn't expect Taylor Swift to make any radical, edgy, feminist remarks, but I also didn't expect Gidget meets the Little Mermaid. What an incredible platform for Swift to say something as simple as "Girls rock!" or something even crazier like "Love yourselves!"

I'm sorry, but saying "Girls rock!" or "Love yourselves!" is as lame as Glee. Honestly, this is your job. Do you want to rely on pop stars to get your children to like and appreciate themselves? Sure, maybe it wouldn't hurt for children to receive positive messages from many sources, but—really?— "Girls Rock?" I think I saw that on a backpack. And a t-shirt. And a Trapper Keeper. It was lame every single time.

Instead, she finished each song by looking wide-eyed into the crowd and noting how "amazing" it was that so many peopled came to the show and how "beautiful" everyone looked (incredible how she could see people with all those lights in her eyes).

Are you kidding me? You want her to say "Love yourselves" but telling the crowd how beautiful they look is too chock-full-o-bullshit to you? Maybe she couldn't see the crowd; maybe she could. I have no way of knowing, but complaining that she said you're all beautiful makes you look like you're just trying to find something to complain about. And if people came to see me perform night after night, I'd still find it amazing. I'd find it amazing that anyone would spend that kind of money just to see me, no matter how talented or famous I was. To spend that kind of money is amazing and she understands that. Don't you find it amazing that 20,000 people wanted to watch her sing? Consider most of the spectators were probably so far away that they needed to look at the Jumbotron just to see her.

But people aren't paying money to see her, or even watch her perform. People are paying that money for the experience. Good and bad. Parking at a venue like that? Terrible and practically robbery. Who wants to pay that much for a ticket to a show anyway, much less for five tickets? Souvenirs are crappy and overpriced and the food is equally terrible and expensive. But this is what concerts are. This is the, dare I say, charm of a big concert. This is also why some people prefer small venues. Good luck seeing U2 at one of those, though.

Maybe my family got the vacuous experience we deserved. That would be true if it were just a benignly bad concert experience. The problem is that it was an insidious concert experience that emphasized everything but the artist's voice -- the flowing fairy dresses and saccharine monologues covering up Swift's real power. Covering up girl power.

How was the concert insidious? In what way were you or your family harmed? Maybe this was in the bad part of DC? You went to a venue that seats 20,000 what did you expect if not a flashy, explosion-filled performance. Oh right. You expected girl power.

Don't you think that maybe, just maybe this could still inspire your daughter? Maybe she will look at this and realize that women can play music or create art that tens of thousands of people would be more than happy to converge and experience together. That girls can do whatever they want. They can be wildly successful and play giant arenas like U2 or play small hole-in-the-wall pubs for 100 people. That one can be equally successful playing both places is a lesson you could teach your daughters.

The best moments were rare authentic ones with Swift's top lip a wee bit sweaty, hair oh-so-slightly disheveled, strumming "Mean" on a banjo and later "Fearless" on a ukulele. That's what we had come to see, but it was fleeting.

 That's your token mellow song most every large concert has. Sets like these allow the performer to catch their breath in addition to making a more "direct" appeal to the crowd. This is what you wanted the entire concert to be. This is not how large, high-production concerts are produced. Most people would not be happy paying $135-$500 for this type of concert—especially given that most concertgoers could barely see her on stage with just her banjo.

This isn't her fault, nor is it yours. She puts on a certain concert and you were expecting something different. Should you have maybe done a little research? Yeah, probably. Were your expectations for a super positive, "you go, girl" type experience a little out of reach? Yeah, probably. Not because you were unreasonable, though, mostly just because that's not what the other 19,995 people there wanted to hear. The girl positive messages are in her lyrics and (probably) in interviews she gives.

As the house lights came on, my older daughter, age 12 and a half, gave me a deflated, knowing look. My younger daughter was tired but managed to quietly gush: "I loved it." My son loved his glow stick.

 It sounds like your older children know your expectations, and knew you were disappointed. I don't know if this is good or bad. On one hand, you've gotten your beliefs across, which is good. But on the other hand, they probably wished they could revel in the joy that they just saw a sweet concert with their mom instead of having to worry about your disappointment in the show. In all, you wanted to take your daughter to see a concert, to feel inspired and have fun. Did you do that? Did your children enjoy themselves? That's all that should matter.

I hope more discerning parents than us might think twice about Swift tickets. Better to have to explain the explicit sexuality of someone like Gaga and her "Born this Way" message than to have to undo the message of female powerlessness -- especially from an artist who is so fervently emulated by girls. If you have tickets already, perhaps you can prep your music lover. It's sort of like a game of I Spy: look hard and look deeply for Swift's voice. It's there, just buried in the fluff.

Speak Now tour? More like Speak softly and smile a lot.

I don't normally think of Lady GaGa as "explicitly sexual." Sure her style is a bit avant garde but I don't usually see her shoving dildos in her vagina. I think she just has fun with fashion and has a certain aesthetic she likes (Think: Alexander McQueen). I'd say pop stars like Rhianna or Britney are more sexual than GaGa.

As for "her 'Born This Way' message," what are you talking about? I really hope you're not saying this is a message you'd rather they not know or have to "explain" away. Considering all the complaints you made  about wanting your children exposed to more powerful, positive messages "Born This Way" should be the Holy Grail of positive messages for them to hear.

There's nothing wrong with loving who you are"
She said, "'Cause he made you perfect, babe"

"So hold your head up girl and you'll go far,
Listen to me when I say"

I'm beautiful in my way
'Cause God makes no mistakes
I'm on the right track, baby
I was born this way

Don't hide yourself in regret
Just love yourself and you're set
I'm on the right track, baby
I was born this way

I can think of no more empowering a message than accepting who you are and embracing yourself—realizing that you are beautiful the way you were made. For all her quirks and fancy, Lady Gaga really is a good role model for a child. But so is Taylor Swift. If you are going to let a concert spoil her message, you might not be winning at that little game called Life.

On Being Told How To Use A Product You've "Bought"

I don't own a smartphone. But I know more or less how they work, and the way in which they work (at least in a fundamental sense for the latter point). I don't think it's any secret that the various telecoms run their businesses in some pretty shady ways, and I think they feel like they have to. Like most other large scale, global conglomerates, they've failed to innovate when they needed to the most.

One of the ways people use their smartphones is as a mobile hotspot. This is called tethering, which basically uses your phone's data plan as a means to connect to the internet on another device, such as a laptop or a tablet. The name comes from "tethering" your laptop or tablet to your smartphone.

Verizon and AT&T are essentially a duopoly; sure there's T-Mobile, but AT&T wants to buy T-Mobile (which is another post entirely). But when a company sells you a product and a service and then forces you to use it in only the way they intend (which can change at any time, taking away a necessary or beloved feature) because they realize they can make additional profits from said feature.

Tethering is one such example. There are apps that allow you to tether on Apple iPhones and Android phones. AT&T and Verizon don't allow these applications to run. In the past, Apple even took apps out of the app store because they'd take away potential profit (Think: Shype).

To me this seems bizarre. AT&T and Verizon are offering a service to a customer. In this case, they are selling us phone service. This is not new; they've been selling us phone service for a very long time. What bothers me is that this is an unprecedented smack in the face to customers.

Imagine back when you had a landline if the phone company blocked you from using your modem to connect to the internet because you didn't use them as your portal or ISP. Or, imagine having to use their modem to even connect.

Or imagine they tried to disable the use of modems to connect to the internet entirely, demanding you use their DSL (or cable) internet instead.

This is basically the same thing. Back then, this kind of crap wouldn't be tolerated. Sometimes, regulation is a good thing.

Except of course when regulations are written by the corporations we're supposed to be protected from by regulations. (Think: Making a mixed CD, or backing up a movie you purchased licensed).

BREAKING NEWS: Michelle Obama Eats A Hamburger! And A Shake Too!

It's sad but true The Washington Post reports that the only thing worth reporting about Michelle Obama's visit to a newly opened diner was that she ate a burger, shake, fries, and a diet coke. That's right, not just one sugary sweet drink, but two!

The headline of this story? Seventeen hundred calories of gastrointestinal goodness that Michelle Obama has been campaigning against with her Let's Move Campaign. Maybe she went for a run afterwards? We'll never know because, sadly, WaPo left out any other details.

Of course she did say this to ABC news over a year ago:

I love burgers and fries, you know? And I love ice cream and cake. So do most kids. We're not talking about a lifestyle that excludes all that. That's the fun of being a kid. That's the fun of being a human.

The article also doesn't mention whether she ate the whole meal or not. Maybe she wrapped up a good portion of it and gave it to a homeless person. And then encouraged that person to exercise.

I like what David Katz had to say:

I invite only those whose diets are housed with no walls of glass to hurl a burger in the first lady's direction on the basis of this one lunch

Or, there's this comment by Kitchendragon50:

Burger, fries, Coke, and a shake? I'd bust with that much food.

Unlike multi-mansion Al Gore, the first lady needs to set an example rather than an exception. Let's hear about her daily exercise routine, assuming she has one. No more "do as I say, not as I do" from our national leaders.

First, lots of people can eat varying amounts of food. We're all unique. Second, nowhere does it say how much she ate, just what she ordered. Also, I don't understand what Al Gore has to do with anything. Are they suggesting that the First Lady does not lead by example?

Why do people freak out every time Michelle Obama eats ice cream or something? She isn't saying eat only fruits and vegetables; she's saying be reasonable. As far as I can tell, she looks like she's in fairly decent shape so I don't see how anyone can possibly complain. She hardly looks like your typical practically morbidly obese American.

Good Job, Washington Post!

What's Wrong With Calling The President A Dick?

Don't get me wrong, I like President Obama, and I don't think he's a dick. I like his press conferences, especially when he has a little spunk (as he did the other day). Do I agree with all of his policies? No. Most of them? Ehh, I don't know. But I think he does a solid job in the current climate. Frankly, I'm surprised he ever gets anything done, because congress certainly tries their damndest to stop anything resembling progress.

This, of course, warrants the obvious but necessary Philosoraptor reference.

But I really don't understand what the issue here is.

Mark Halperin called the president a dick. He is a journalist. Journalist speak and write, presumably, quite freely. I really don't like that MSNBC has suspended him indefinitely and backed off from his remarks.

Obviously they want to appear fair and balanced, but seriously, he's an analyst. I wouldn't expect Michael Moore to appear as a centrist. Or Matt Taibbi. Sure, Mark Halperin is Time magazine's Editor-At-Large and being in that position and saying what he said is controversial.

But who cares. Everyone has made a big deal out of this. The White House disapproves. MSNBC disapproves. Time disapproves. I bet Fox News disapproves, even though they're saying basically the same thing.

Congress seems to basically agree with Mark Halperin, since they've said the same thing, if not worse, suggesting the president take a Valium and calling his press conference "disgraceful" and disrespecting the office of the presidency. I wonder how Senator Cornyn has disrespected the office of the Senate? I imagine the founding fathers would be pretty pissed off and use words far worse than "dick" (though sounding far more refined) to describe our current political climate.

I understand that calling the president--any president a dick is "inappropriate" but not once did I read or hear anyone say anything in his defense.  But don't worry Mark, I've got your back. I know you don't think the president's a dick. I know your reaction to his conference was reactionary, and that you probably meant that the president was perhaps more combative than you'd like. But you shouldn't have to apologize. Journalists should really never have to apologize for their opinions--so long as they're not purporting them as facts.

How many people have called Dubya stupid? Do I think he's stupid? No, of course not, and I think he'd be pretty amazing to spend a few hours with. He seems like a really charming guy. But as a president I think he did a terrible job. For my interests. But to the people who he "represented," he did an amazing job.

You know the press conference the other day? Yeah, you probably missed it. I don't blame you at all for not watching it. No one watches C-SPAN either. (I do sometimes. For reals.)

Well, President Obama was kind of a dick during it.

But that's okay, because I loved it. The president doesn't have to be a stuffy pushover, or a quiet diplomat. Sometimes, people need a firecracker shoved up their asses and the fuse lit.

Happy Fouth of July, 112^th Congress; you've earned it.