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.

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).

A Grand Plan

I don't know about most people, but I always have ideas popping into my head. Most of them are what I'd consider insignificant in terms of their scope. Over the last couple years, Krissy and I have bantered about on varying ideas like selling pictures, crafting things, and so on, while others have suggested we do other things--namely open a bakery or go into construction.

Most of my ideas are not very organized. Krissy would probably disagree, thinking I can come up with a pretty organized plan off the bat, but my idea of organized and hers can be a bit different at times (which is great).

I think that there's a lack of accessible, free and open education; namely in the arts. College really shouldn't bankrupt people, and it hardly guarantees employment. Arts degrees, I suspect, are becoming even less worthwhile since it seems like funding for the arts is always getting cut.

I don't know what it's like now, but I really never took an art class. There were the normal arts and crafts type things in elementary school, but nothing that really encouraged a desire for the arts. I seem to recall cutting construction paper into circles and making a chain out of it. Now that's inspiring! Middle school actually got worse, if you can believe it. In Middle School we had this bizarre system where every single "elective" shared a period. This essentially meant that you spent two weeks in each class: Phys Ed., Health, Library, Art, Wood Shop, Computers, Spanish, French (and more that I'm sure I'm forgetting). This is a terrible "solution" for a mountain of reasons, but that's my exposure to art class as I remember it. My high school, as awesome as it is, did not require art classes and, having never been given the chance to want to like art, I skipped it.

Which takes me to now, where I have a vested interest in art and in a most bizarre turn of events: education. I'm not going to go into detail, but growing up I really did not like school. I think I prefer a more hands-on, learn at your own pace type of environment, rather than the standard approach that treats everyone the same and teaches, primarily, to standardized tests. Creativity is often a casualty in these methods.

Please excuse my rather rapid and poor graphic:

Perhaps I should explain. I'll try to do that in a reasonably coherent way, but I make no promises. My brain tends to go off on tangents.

Some Basics And Background

I've long been a proponent of free stuff. I understand the basic tenets of capitalism and respect the great wealth it has infused into this country. But I can't help but think that that's a bit selfish. Should Exxon-Mobil be rolling in the dough while your average Saudi is dirt poor. Or while Somalia is stricken with the most atrocious bouts of poverty and malnourishment-- far worse than I could possibly begin to fathom.

Or how musicians make little money while the organizations that purport to represent them are filthy filthy rich.
But that's not what this is about. What I want is an unrestricted. accessible place where people can (and will) come together. Not merely in the physical sense either, I want people to come together emotionally and intellectually because I believe that's the backbone of art. And I want this space to invite and encourage anyone to teach, and teach often.

Much has been written that information wants to be free; this is an old debate. but whether or not information wants to be free doesn't matter, it deserves to be free. Modern Science or mathematics would not exist if this basic idea didn't hold true.

The Basics

Don't mind the sentence fragments, this is a pseudo list.

I want to create a community-driven, free, and open space for arts education. I would certainly be open to other types of education as well, but the emphasis would focus on the arts, both arcane and modern.

Small classes, because no thirty people learn the same way, and no instructor ought to be stretched that thin.
I want to create a focus on children, but without alienating adults. I'd like to see children and parents working together. But there'd also be plenty of programs for adults. too.

Really fun informal events like open dance studio where kids and adults can dance together to some sweet jams. Well, the little tykes will probably dance while the parents watch from the perimeter waiting for some other brave adult to make the first move.

Something A Wee Bit Different

I'd like to have a user-friendly and intuitive website that makes all the information and lessons available to anyone, for any use.

I'd really like to encourage the premise of the open exchange of ideas. I feel that by giving away the information and allowing others to see and use it, that they can also improve upon it. This is a good thing. Not everyone is the best teacher in the world (it's statistically impossible) but the simple desire to teach should be celebrated. By teaching in a cooperative community-driven way, any idea can turn into something much bigger.

In a more technical sense, everything released by the "school" would be under a Creative Commons license. Specifically a non-commercial Share-Alike license. It might sound like gobbledygook, but this is the general idea:
We release something (a lesson plan, artwork, a template, et cetera). Someone can take that and share it with whomever they like. But, they cannot do so commercially. They are also free to create a derivative work. But this derivative must also be shared under the same license, ad infinitum. This kind of piracy is encouraged.

Crazy Talk

I'm not going to actually put a price on any of this. Art classes are typically expensive. Between tuition and course supply fees, art classes have a certain barrier to entry that most might find intimidating.

Instead, I'd institute a pay what you can model. I don't want someone to choose between art classes for their child or dinner. No one should ever have to make such a choice. (More on this in a future post.)

I understand there are a lot of kinks to work out, and that creating a non-profit is incredibly complex and that this hardly scratches the surface of what would need to be done, but this is just one post, and I think blogs with lots of words and few pictures can be, well, a bit wordy.

How do I hope to achieve this craziness and what are some more details? We'll just have to wait and see.
More to come...

On Terrible Ironies

There is currently a movement in New York for a living wage. I wrote about Minimum Wage and how as a system it's full of fail twice back in December, and it's refreshing to see people fighting against it, even if the war isn't being won, small battles won are nice.

The problem with minimum wage goes far deeper than it's name suggests. Seriously, how has no one given this a nice sounding euphemism by now? Nothing about "Minimum Wage" connotates good feelings. Where is the pro-business lobby on this one? Oh right, they were trying to eliminate the minimum wage entirely, almost forgot.

What they are fighting for in New York is livable wages, though, not just the bare minimum. And this is why the battle, and the war, are ultimately foolhardy. You see, they are fighting and protesting over, not a livable wage, but ten dollars an hour. Could you live in NYC for ten bucks an hour? Remember, that's just over twenty grand a year, before taxes or any kind of expenses--like healthcare for example. The answer is obviously no. No one can.

Minimum wage should be abolished, and replaced with a system that scales based on location and average expenses.

Unfortunately, this won't happen because Big Business has lots and lots of money to lobby with, and Republicans (and conservative democrats) really like that money, which is why so little progress has been made for regular folks in the wage department over the years.

You know what the worst part about this nonsense is though? It's not that it won't happen; I think we've resigned ourselves to that (as sad as that fact may be). No, it's that the people who fight against minimum and livable wages are the same people who fought for the Bush tax cuts being extended for uber rich people and for keeping executive pay high (and keeping "golden parachutes") "because we need to entice them to stay as CEOs, even if they are running the company into the ground" or something.

The message they're sending?

You only deserve the money if you earned it by running a business poorly, but those people who are now out of work, because that douchebag doesn't understand how to run a profitable company, sorry you're going to need to take a pay cut or lose your job. Don't worry though, with luck, you'll be able to find a job with another company-- and that same douchebag might just be running that one into the ground, too.

It's Valentines Day

I've been instructed specifically not to blog about the origins of Valentines Day by my other half. There will be no rant about how Valentines Day is a "hallmark holiday" or how it really caters to women, and in a way sort of forces men to do something for their women today. There will be no mention of the executions of two men named Valentine, both on February 14th of different years. Nor will I delve into their canonizations.

Nope. Not gonna do it. And not just because the wife said so. Truth is, it's kind of depressing to think about all that on a day that's supposed to be happy (and hopefully stress-free).

A lot of people buy things on Valentine's Day, and you have to wonder why? Not "why do they do it" why, why why this day? Do flowers and a card mean more today than some other day? Is Valentine's really a holiday that caters to women and only to them? Is Valentine's a day for a guy to behave so he gets rewarded by his lady (or man)? I don't really think so.

Speaking of which, here is mine. I hope she doesn't get too upset with me over this. ; )

How can one not love this girl?

I don't think that Valentine's, at it's core, meant to become what it is today. I think we made it that way.

No one says you have to give someone a Hallmark card. No one said you have to give anyone flowers, or massages, or anything else. Who says today requires a romantic dinner? What makes it special today? To me, I think it is less special.

The best part about romantic dinners is that they are usually a surprise. They are special because, for all you know, you are the only two people doing it at that very moment. Chances are you are not, but you can believe it to be so.

But on Valentine's Day? Being special, being different is what I think makes a day memorable. You can (and should) shower your significant other with love, gifts, and the like every day of the year. On Valentine's Day, do something different. Make them something by hand, for example. I know no woman who doesn't appreciate something made by hand. And I'm going to assume that guys would feel the same way. I know I do.



Making your own valentine is certainly a start. This couple has been using the same valentine for seventy years. It doesn't have to be anything too fancy. If you are not artistic or crafty, it won't matter. It really is the effort and out put that matter, not the artistic sensibilities behind it. Though, if your other half is an art critic, I cannot guarantee this previous statement.

Maybe that is too simple, or you've been doing that and you want to impress your love with something new, something different. You might try a new, unique craft. Quilling (or paper filigree) is one of those lost crafts that people just don't see much of anymore. It's incredibly inexpensive, all you need is some paper, a quilling tool, and some glue. It costs maybe ten dollars to get started. You could make something like this:



You could go with a different craft, too. Maybe you are clumsy with your fingers, or you have large hands, or can't focus on the small minutiae of quilling. Try making a book. There are all kinds of ways to make, and further customize, a book. It could be a recipe book, a note book, or a book for him or her to write you letters. We personally have this one, and I like it. It's simple and not too overwhelming if you are starting out. Even better is that some books require nothing more than paper, while others do require a few more tools. I assure you though, they're not expensive.

I think an important part of Valentine's Day though, arguably the most important in fact, is every single other day of the year. No amount of neglect can be made up for in one day of flowers and chocolate. No Hallmark card is going to make up for you being a bastard for the rest of the year. It doesn't take much to go a long way. Make them breakfast (Pancakes are yummy). Leave them notes at random, maybe daily before they leave for work. Surprise them every once in awhile. Tell them you're going to go out for dinner, and leave work early to prepare a meal at home instead.

This is not that difficult.

Really, if you're going to be spending the rest of your life with someone, it is in your best interest (and theirs) to treat every day like Valentine's Day.

You'll only have yourself to thank for it.

Have You Heard Of BlogHer?

I don't think I respond to things the way most people do. Sometimes, I feel bad because of how I respond, because I wonder if I am fair, or just whiny. For the record, I'm not whiny, though I am a critic. I, like most, have an opinion about everything, and I tend to share it.

I don't praise everything, either. I tend to point out the flaws in things. I don't do this because I'm a Negative Nancy (sorry if anyone named Nancy reads this, it's nothing personal.) I just feel that everyone points out what's good. Look at competition shows: what good is telling people on American Idol they are all talented, or bakers on TLC (don't get me started...) that they're all talented. Of course they are. That's like telling someone on Jeopardy that they are all intelligent. The rounds and rounds of testing they need to pass to get on Jeopardy proves that. Only one person can win.

So I point out what is wrong with things, because I think people tend to overlook them. Not that flaws are bad, mind you. I like flaws, they add character. But sometimes, these grievances need to be aired.

BlogHer is a blogging network of sorts. Basically, it's a collection of blogs that they think women would be interested in. I don't like this. I don't like a men's version either. They are stilted. I'm willing to bet I like more websites on the BlogHer network than the College Humor or Asylum network of sites.

Apparently, men like the following things:

- Women. Lots of them. The less clothing, the better. Some sites offer scantily clad one, others offer naked ones, while others offer celebrities.

- Vehicles. The more horsepower, the better.

- Tools, clothing, video games, movies, music, et cetera.

I don't agree with this. I don't care about looking at things like AskMen or Maxim and seeing women in them. And anytime I click a link to one of those websites that does interest me, I'm inundated with women everywhere, and Krissy facetiously asks me why I'm looking at sexy ladies. But I'm not; she's my sexy lady, so I look at her.

Then there's cars. I don't really care about cars. I have one, it gets me from A to B. I don't need a cat that costs a million dollars, or goes 200 MPH. I don't need to tow a house through the Grand Canyon. I just don't. I have an interest in tools, but I'll get what works and what's needed, it's not an obsession. The rest are really applicable to anyone. In fact, it all is.

Women like movies. Women like music. They even, gasp, play video games. Not just wussy ones, either. They play things like Halo and Call of Duty. True story.

It is in this vein that I disagree with BlogHer. Here is their information page for bloggers and what it says:

• over 90 days old
• open to comments
• that are updated weekly (preferably twice a week, or more)
• free of any advertorial or sponsored posts, and compensated product reviews
• that are not password-protected
• without profanity in the title and/or URL
• that don’t publish adult content
• that don’t belong to another ad network, requiring “above the fold” placement
• hosted by a service that allows advertising (some do not)
• not hosted by a service that places graphic banners at the top of the page
• written by women, or with a demonstrated female audience
• that adhere to our Editorial Guidelines

First, I must add that they randomly made some words bigger than others. Much bigger. This hurts my eyes, and is obnoxious. This is not dynamic, it is stupid. Reading is not a roller coaster ride, it doesn't need to be more exciting. They are guidelines, treat them as such.

They want blogs that have been around for a bit, I understand, they want people to be able to comment, fair enough. They want people who actually blog, and that people can actually see. This all makes sense.

But here's what I don't get. adult content, profanity, and written by women for women. I'm sure there are women that like adult content. They are alienating a large group of women with this. Adult content is exceedingly vague, too. Does this mean no penis? No vaginas? Women love vaginas though, they are beautiful, like childbirth. What about breasts, is that "adult content?" Is a woman grabbing her breasts adult, but checking for breast cancer okay? If so, what is the difference, a woman is touching herself either way.

Profanity. Women curse. Yes, we curse too much as a whole, but profanity hardly should be censored. Women, or anyone else for that matter, do not need to be shielded from language, coarse or otherwise. Fuck isn't going to hurt anybody. Shit, either, unless someone flings poo and it gets into your eyes. But not the word; it's just letters. Maybe copulate and excrement are more suitable. But we all know they just mean fuck and shit. Even women; especially women.

The big one: written by women for a demonstrated female audience. I don't qualify, I'm not a woman. Apparently, men do qualify, though, because David Lebovitz is a member. They just appear to emphasize  women writers, literally, "women" and "female audience" are several sizes larger. I get wanting female writers, though. Women are interested in other women, and simultaneously hate every single one of them. But how does one demonstrate a female audience?

Does blogging about food do it? What about politics, does that do it? Does one need to post about feminist ideas, or emasculate men? Can you write about sex without breaking the earlier rules about adult content? Jezebel certainly doesn't apply, because their writers use profanities and talk about all kinds of adult content, yet they are a blog about and for women. In fact, Krissy makes fun of me when I read it. Blogging for a female audience seems awfully vague about a very specific idea.

Then there are the editorial rules, most of which are fair, and the heart of why I started this post. Their editorial guidelines stipulate:

We define unacceptable content as anything included or linked that:

Contains editorial content that has been commissioned and paid for by a third party, and/or contains paid advertising links and/or spam. 

except, they actually encourage it through their reviewer program. Let me explain. BlogHer has advertisers. These advertisers give BlogHer money and products for their bloggers to review and give away. This clearly violates the whole "no sponsored posts" rule, and is, frankly, disappointing.

Here's an example: Right now, BlackBerry is a sponsor, so if you head here you get a page of BlackBerry ads. Also on that page are links to blogs, like this one, which are really just advertorials. Maybe that's not fair, or being too fair. Advertorials are written by the ad agency to look like editorials, and we recognize them as such. No, these paid reviews are more like payola in the music industry.

I clicked one of the BlackBerry posts which led me to a site about baking. What does a baking blog need to review a cell phone for? Computer magazines don't review chocolate. Of course, this isn't really a review either, it just praises the phone.

Uh, I couldn’t be more wrong. This new BlackBerry Style phone is rocked. It features a full QWERTY keyboard and it’s one of two BlackBerry(s) to run on the BlackBerry’s latest OS 6, the best part—it is the only one to sport a 5 megapixel camera. How’s that for being dead wrong? I’m a BlackBerry user and always have been. I love its functionality for work and for play—most importantly, it’s a hardy phone. No cracked glass screen when I drop it. Yes, I know there are sleeves to prevent that, but I firmly believe a phone should be able to withstand a drop without going bust. I’m also a working mom who needs functionality and form to work hand in hand.

Okay, so first impressions are that...it's one of two BlackBerrys with the new OS? That excites her? oh, and a full QWERTY keyboard, because that's unique. It also has a 5 megapixel camera, because when it comes to cameras, megapixels is all that matters.

Here are the things that I look for when I’m phone shopping:
Size
Yes, size does matter. I love that the BlackBerry Style is even smaller than my work issued BlackBerry Bold. That means I can easily slide it in my back pocket for convenience and since it’s a flip phone I don’t have to worry about any accidental butt dials!

Okay, it's smaller. This is a plus? It's smaller, has a full QWERTY keyboard and a 5 megapixel camera?  Anyway, the real benefit here is that the camera is smaller than her old BlackBerry, so she can place it in her back pocket no problem. I can thus only reach one conclusion. Her old BlackBerry must look like this:

Zack Morris, you have a phone call.

The best thing about flip phones? You can totally put them in your back pocket, sit on them all day and not dial old ex-boyfriends with your ass. You might have a nasty case of hemorrhoids, though, so I don't think the back pocket is the ideal place to put a phone. Just sayin'

Camera
Camera. Lights. Action. Go. Okay, so my son doesn’t get this kind of preamble, usually it’s me just shoving my phone’s camera in his face to capture a moment. I don’t carry a point and shoot everywhere but I do carry my phone everywhere. Having said that, I’m loving the 5 megapixel with flash. That’s right five-five megapixels on a phone!

Lights! Camera! Action! Wait, this camera does video? Oh, no, it doesn't. Now I'm confused. Okay, so maybe she confused video and still photography, no biggy. She does have an amazing camera in her phone though. I mean, it's five megapixels! That is unheard of in a phone. Wait, didn't the Nokia N95 have a 5 megapixel camera? When did that come out again? Oh yeah, that's right, 2007. 

Speed
This BlackBerry-baby is fast. For a working mom, time is a commodity—so yeah, I need speed. The load time for switching between web based applications is nil and the search time on the web browser moves at the rate in which I can inhale a cupcake—Ahem, that pretty much means a little under a nano second.

It's fast. Blazing! But the Torch (AT&T) is faster. And then there's the iPhone and many Android based phones with a processor nearly double this ones speed. And the BlackBerry app platform is hardly robust compared to that of Apple or Google. This sounds like total pandering, and I don't like it.

Needless to say, I love this BlackBerry Style phone, so I’m excited that in conjunction with Blogher, BlackBerry is offering this phone with Sprint’s network to (2) lucky winners.

Great! except, they are only giving you the phone, you're on your own for service. And it only works on Sprint. How much does this phone retail for? $399. Yikes! This must be a pretty good prize, no? What's that? You're telling me this phone is only $20 when you sign up for a contract with Sprint?

You can enter thusly:

• Leave a comment letting me know the most important feature you look for when shopping for a mobile phone.
• Tweet about this promotion and leave the URL to that tweet in a comment on this post. 
• Blog about this promotion and leave the URL to that post in a comment on this post.
• For those with no Twitter or blog, read the official rules for alternate form of entry.

Commenting is easy, although clearly this is so BlackBerry knows what people want. That's fine, we all want better phones. Maybe they can give us a phone that the wireless providers can't cripple with their own software? Android is supposed to be open, and it is, but AT&T and Verizon cripple them with their own, closed software. We shouldn't be at the mercy of the providers.

Tweet! That way, #BlackBerry #Style can be trending on #Twitter and people will  be #curious about this #Payola! As they say, any news is good news.

You could also blog about it. I wonder if this counts? Does a blog criticizing the company, the product, and the network count? After all, there was not one flaw reported in that entire "review" Maybe she could have mentioned how the app market is poor compared to competitors. Or that the browser is slower than Apple or Android. How web pages look tiny on the itty-bitty screen? The incessant scrolling and zooming you need to do to read the pages could have been pointed out.

FYI: I just checked, it actually does do video. How could she leave this out?


Here's a real review on the camera courtesy of PCMag:

The Style's 5-megapixel camera could be better. Its awkwardly placed, so it's easy to cover it with your thumb. The continuous autofocus can make for some blurry pictures if you don't wait a second or so for it to lock in. And images are a little bit dark, and show slightly too much color noise. It's not hideous by any means, but there's better out there. The video mode takes 640 by 480 videos at 20 frames per second with a slight pulsing effect; that's behind the 30fps we see on top-of-the-line Android and Apple phones.

 So the camera is actually just okay, and can be kind of annoying.

Anyway, I'm done. I just wanted to dissect BlogHer and their advertorial/Payola system, because this kind of stuff really bothers me. I don't like pandering to companies, and how mommy blogs were kind of founded on it. I'd hate for someone to have read a less then genuine review on a blog only to buy that product and be disappointed.

On Undermining Professional Photographers

Being unemployed has its pitfalls, but it also has it's benefits. One such bonus is that I get to read a lot. Perhaps too much, in fact. I have kind of avoided reading about photography opinion for a few months. Aside from the constant bickering over HDR, Canon vs. Nikon, first party versus third party lenses, stock versus micro stock, et cetera, very little was offered. I just got sick of reading about people complaining. Most egregious, though, are people complaining about others ruining the trade by diluting the market.

I understand their plight. Really, I do. They have been taking photographs for years, and getting a certain wage for that. And now, with digital cameras everywhere, everyone is a photographer, of sorts. Now, everyone can take photos, and we can all get better, because practice is free now. 

The fact is, there are tiers of artistry. I can take a photograph. I can take a better photograph (subjective, I know) than someone. And someone else can take a better photograph than I can. I am not Joe McNally. I could buy all the gear and hire all the help I wanted, I still wouldn't be Joe. I'm not Louis Pang either. I don't know the first thing about photographing a spread for National Geographic or photographing a wedding. So why do I read everywhere that people like me are ruining the field by driving prices down? 

For the record, I'm not, I haven't taken photos for anyone, but let's say I did. According to what I read online, I should charge roughly what  an experienced photographer charges, maybe a little less. But wait, charging just a little less hurts their bottom line, so I shouldn't do that. I'm not as experienced as they are, so I should charge a lot less, right? 

Say I wanted to be a wedding photographer (true story), prices range from $500 all the way to $10,000 or more. On average, prices tend to be $1500 on the low end and $5,000 or so on the higher-than-average end. So what about me? After all, I'm getting married, so I'm going to need a photographer. But I don't exactly have money, so what am I supposed to do? Go without photos? Hell no. So then what? 

What about other people in my situation? What about young couples (or old ones!) who want to get married but don't have a lot of money, but want photos of the event? Is it really hurting anyone for us to pay someone a few hundred dollars to take our photos? Does this really hurt someone charging three, five, or ten times this amount? Does Prada worry about Wal*Mart hurting their clothing sales?

So what is this really about?

I think it's about innovation. I don't think there's been much innovation until recently. Wedding photos have always been pretty boring and staid. But now, they are dynamic. Even the more traditional photos of weddings are more inspired now than in the past. But there are all kinds of wedding photographers now, and that is truly inspiring. Does it matter if some of them charge $500 on Craigslist? I don't think so. 

If you're a photographer who has been in the business, and you have not evolved, that is your problem, not everyone else's. You've missed the boat, and now you need to catch up, like me.

But I can't help but think of people who are far worse than we. I can't help but imagine what child workers in other countries would think of this complaining. What would these photographers do if they made seven cents an hour? Because I bet the people who make our clothes would be more than happy to switch wages, since I don't think many of them can even imagine $500, much less thousands.

I feel like I could have said this all better and more effectively, but the words aren't coming to me. Maybe because I've stopped reading about it, maybe because I'm tired or mentally fatigued. But my point stands. Complaining is not going to fix anything. If someone is undercutting your business, figure out why. Don't just whine and give up. If people are hiring them and not you, it's for a reason. Either they can't afford you, or don't value your work for your price. Reflect. I think you'll find that reflection offers all of the answers. Just keep an open mind. Oh, and one more thing. Innovate, for crying out loud!

The Unnecessarily Difficult Process Of Opting Out Of Junk Mail

I've gotten six calls in the last 24 hours from the same number. Apparently, it's about an auto loan. I don't need an auto loan, I already have one; it came with the car. In fact, my loan is pretty good, I think, at less than 4%. I also get offers in the mail for auto loans, and part of my statement has a giant ad for auto loans.

Needless to say, I was not going to stand for this. Ordinarily, I really don't like phones. I feel silly talking into an inanimate object. Also, I don't like the uncertainty that phone conversations offer. In person conversations are infinitely better. Or online, because for some reason, I don't mind that so much.

Normally, I would not have called to cancel this type of nonsense because of this whole me versus the phone thing, but I noticed that the number I can call did not include talking to a human. I like that. When I received my credit card, it required me calling and talking to someone. I really did not like this. In fact, I almost didn't do it, and went without the card. It turns out, the helpful woman on the other line was a very pleasant Chinese woman whose name I did not catch because I could not decipher a damn thing she said. As a matter of fact, she repeatedly referred to me as Miss Dennis. Over and over again. Actually, Miss Dennis is about the only thing I understood in the whole conversation. Anytime I was asked a question I would just say no. Well, the first time, I actually said I couldn't understand her, and it sounded like she enrolled me in something, so after that I said no to everything.

Fun Fact: I just received another phone call from that very same number I mentioned earlier. Only this time, the country code was included.

Anyway, I phoned the number to opt out of any and all information sharing from my credit card company; I really don't require them to share anything. Not having to talk to a person was only a bonus. However, it was one of those "Say yes" type deals, which are a beast all their own. Anyway, I called them up, and upon getting to the opting out part, the voice machine seemed very chipper, although he was a bit long-winded. I guess that's what happens when you employ robots.

Upon finally finishing his spiel, the voice machine on the other end of the line asked me to say "next" to stay as-is or say "opt out" to, well, opt out. So I muttered "Opt Out". Apparently, he did not hear me, because he repeated himself. Oh, brother. The second time, however, he must have gotten the message, because his response was an unequivocal, and heart-breaking sounding Okay. Seriously, the recording sounded pretty disappointed in me, and sad to lose another person who doesn't want their info shared, but I kept on. I wasn't about to let a mere machine make me feel bad. I then opted out of everything, with much excitement!

Then, they needed to verify my answers, you know, in case I changed my mind. Maybe they were hoping the machine would get to me. "Oh, no, maybe I should let them share my info! Bollocks!" So they read the same information over again, about sharing information and that if I changed my mind to say "Next" then, nothing. No way to verify, just "hey, want to share your information, yeah?" Long pause. Very long in fact, probably ten seconds, which in phone time may as well be a decade. This continued for each of the five categories.

But I triumphed.

On Music, And It's Constant Failings In Relation To Usher, et al

You may recall a certain song from 2010 by Usher titled OMG. It's one of those songs that became many a girls's jam. It had a couple things going for it: 1) a hook 2) Usher Raymond.


Let's take a look at this masterpiece, shall we?
(Lyrics not mine)

[Will.I.Am:]
Oh my gosh
Baby let me......
I did it again, so I'm gone let the beat drop
Oh my

A fine introduction, although what, exactly, has will.i.am done again? Written a song? Produced one? Plagiarized? Let's continue.

[Chorus:]
Baby let me love you down
There's so many ways to love ya

This is very compelling. Although, "let me love you down" sounds dirty, I will assume this is a much more wholesome sentiment based upon the next line which, accurately, posits that there are many ways to love. Already suggested is to love "down." I dutifully offer "up" as just one such alternative loving style. It's much more optimistic, anyway, don't you think?

Baby I can break you down
There's so many ways to love ya

This does not sound like something a lover would say. Why would he want to break her? Why would you want to render your love incapacitated. Maybe Usher wants to take advantage of his baby? If so, what kind of love is this? Again, he posits there are many ways to love. This time, I offer the suggestion, "I can build you up" in lieu of his line.

Got me like, ooh myy gosh I'm soo in love
I found you finally, you make me want to say
Oh, oh , oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh,
Ohh my gosh
You make me want to say
Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh

I'm not sure what to say about this, honestly. For such huge stars (Usher and will.i.am) this is middling emotions at best. I mean, really? Apparently he (or someone) is soooooo in love it makes him want to say "oh" repeatedly. On the one hand, it doesn't encourage him to say anything, just encourages him to, for once, actually want to say something. Then, upon realizing this revelation, he breaks down to the literary bombshell that is "oh" over and over again.

Personally, if all Krissy could come up with to describe her love for me is "oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh" I'd be insulted.

[Verse 1:]
I fell in love with shawty when I seen her on the dance floor
She was dancing sexy, pop, pop, popping, dropping, dropping low

Here, we begin to see the depth of Usher's heart. Here, we learn of the beginnings of what may well be the greatest love story of the twenty first century. Usher and his shorty. Or shawty, I don't know which.

Ah, love at first sight. This is kind of shallow. Love is not something you see across the dancefloor at a club while the music thuds your heart out of your chest. I understand how this can be confusing for Usher, though. The music at those places is really loud, the bass is egregious, and the ladies tend to dress...let's just say scantily.

I suspect what caught his heart was her repeated dropping, dropping low, and the visuals that that led him to imagine happening later that night.

Never ever has a lady hit me on the first sight
This was something special; this was just like dynamite

Oh, so this is the first time he's felt love at first sight. Maybe this is a part of Usher's great reawakening, lyrically and emotionally. Maybe this is the woman he cheated on his now ex-wife with. Could this be the real thing?

This is so special it's like dynamite. It will explode. Explosions, generally, are not a positive thing. Bombs explode and they kill people, lots of them, every day in fact. Maybe this is a description of his great outpouring of emotions watching shorty drop it, repeatedly.

Honey got a booty like pow, pow, pow
Honey got some boobies like wow, oh wow

Any legitimacy this song might have had, emotionally, lyrically, or any other way was just thrown out the window, just so you know. Girls, don't you love it when a guy comes up to you and tells you you've "got boobies like wow, oh wow?" I can't fathom it, but if a girl told me I had a penis like wow, oh wow, I'd wonder how she knew and call the police for feeling violated.

Anyway, my findings indicate that Usher has fallen in love at first sight based upon two facets of this woman:

• Her ass (booty)
• Her titties (boobies)

This may not have the makings of the great love affair of the twenty-first century after all.

Girl you know I'm loving your, loving your style
Check, check, check, check, check, checking you out like,
Ooh (oooh) she got it allll
Sexy from her head to toe
And I want it all, it all, it all

Usher loves her style. This makes sense, because Usher (and will.i.am) are pretty stylish themselves, so it is only fitting that he'd gravitate towards a woman's style. And her boobies.

We can't afford to forget, though, that this is a club. Club attire is not generally known for its cloying. Indeed, it's likely the opposite, clubbing attire is rather spicy. According to my scientific study which involves searching "clubbing" on Google Images, I have come to the conclusion that clubbing attire is an amalgamation of the following: (In relation to the ladies)

• They bare their midriffs and grab their own breasts, while wearing mini-skirts
• They wear t-shirts, rolled up until they are just under their breasts, and a g-string. No pants or skirt.
• They wear bikini tops/bras and short, pleated skirts.
• They wear dresses that just cover their derriere.

Apparently, she has it all, too. Does this mean she dresses and acts like a tramp? Regardless, he wants it all. No skirt will be left unturned.

[Chorus:]
Baby let me love you down
There's so many ways to love ya
Baby I can break you down
There's so many ways to love ya
Got me like, ooh myy gosh I'm soo in love
I found you finally, you make me want to say
Oh, oh , oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh,
Ohh my gosh

You make me want to say [repeat 2x]
Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh

Here, he reiterates what he said earlier. You, know, that part about loving her down, exploding, and how this ever exhaustive love makes him want to say oh, repeatedly. He just wanted to remind you, in case you forgot, or something.

[Will.I.Am:]
Feel so hard for honey out of all the girls up in this club

I hope he means that he has fallen hard for her, and not that she has gotten him aroused. This one can really go either way. By the way, you'd think if she's had this much of an effect on him, he would approach her, maybe? No, he'd rather watch creepily from a distance like a peeper.

This one got me whipped, just off one look, yep I fell in love
This one something special, this one just like dynamite

Again with the dynamite? Really? I'd think maybe will.i.am could get more creative with the earlier mention of explosion. Maybe he could have instead gone with "This one something special, this one just like Mentos and Cola."

Consider that dynamite destroys ("blighted") buildings, people, vehicles, (nonblighted) buildings, et cetera. These are not happy, positive visuals. Even when done properly and safely, for the proper reasons, there are sirens, horns, and warnings everywhere. The entire process is kind of acerbic and desensitized. But who doesn't enjoy Mentos in cola? It's fun and exciting! It's not particularly dangerous either. Anyone can understand this simile because they can reenact it. Can I go buy some dynamite and blow a building to kingdom come for a better understanding of these lyrics? No. I'd be considered a terrorist. But I can buy some Mentos and soda, and so can you. As an added bonus, you won't even be added to the No Fly List. You're welcome, will.i.am.

You're, you're, you're, you're, you're, you're, you're out of sight
Fell in love with honey like my, oh my
Honey looking wonderful; fly, so fly

Okay, so she is out of sight (nice throwback!), and fly, so fly. Oh, and again he just has to mention that he's fallen in love with her. Maybe this is a play on repetition. After all, this song is largely built upon repetition, to an extent not normally found in songs that tend to be repetitious in general anyway. Could this be a literary device? I wonder...

Honey like a supermodel; my, oh my
Baby how you do that, make a grown man cry?

Maybe not. Okay so you're in love with her. Check. She has a nice body. Check. You love her booty and boobies. Check. She's like a supermodel! Though, supermodels aren't exactly known for their bodacious booty or voluptuous breasts. In fact, any supermodel I can conjure up kind of has...well flat butts and virtually no breasts. Except for swimsuit models, but they aren't what I consider a "supermodel" or "high fashion." Heidi Klum didn't really gain those assets until fairly recently, after repeatedly dropping out Seal's babies and now what? She resigned as Chief Angel for Victoria's Secret. Maybe Victoria's secret is that she only likes curvy models if they're in their twenties or below; no MILFs allowed. Sorry Heidi, you've stumbled into this song's plot hole.

Ooh (oooh) baby, you got it alll
Sexy from her head to the toe
And I want it all, it all, it all

I think this was said already. If it wasn't it's been implied. One could likely infer this, plot holes notwithstanding.

[Chorus:]
So, honey let me love you down
There's so many ways to love ya
Baby I can break it down
There's so many ways to love ya
Got me like, ooh myy gosh I'm soo in love I found you finallyy,
You make me want to say..
Oh, oh , oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh,
Oh My Gosh!

The chorus again. What a refreshing break from the verse! My, oh my am I glad to have this brief reprieve from the literary blowing of my mind that is happening, lyrically.

Oh my gosh
Oh my
Oh my
Oh, oh my gosh

Oh. My. Gosh. When will it end?

[Will.I.Am:]
Oh myy gosh
I did it again
So I'm gone let the beat drop

Oh, hey, this is how the song started. Maybe this means this is over, and I can mull over what this has done to my brain. Perhaps I can now write the great novel of the twenty first century. Or just not listen to Usher ever again.

Oh, by the way, what's with the autotune. I mean, really, it's obnoxious. I'd like to think Usher can sing and doesn't need it. Why take this song which is kind of flat on its own, and juice it up with autotune? Not only is it unnecessary, but it took a song which was bad and made it worse. The only part of this song that I enjoy is the melody/beat, and that isn't original.



That's right; the Simpsons did it. In Usher and will.i.am's defense, the Simpsons have done everything, so nothing is original.

For the record, will.i.am wrote and produced the song, so I guess it's his fault that the song is unoriginal in its melody, and atrociously written.

So You Think I Should Start A Bakery?

Yesterday, Krissy and I traveled to New York to celebrate Christmas with my mom at my brother Chris' apartment. Unsure about who, exactly, we should bring gifts for, we opted for the always appropriate goodies. I didn't want to show up empty-handed if my brothers had gifts for me. Besides, it might lessen the burden upon us in the week to come.

Last year, Krissy and I decided that since we really had no idea what to get people, and not really having time to coordinate gift buying, we baked. We enjoy baking, frankly. We have a system, usually, in which I mix the batters and she deals with the oven. Generally, I don't really like making things like cookies because they are too repetitive a process; I'm not a machine or a robot-- they are built for repetition. Needless to say, from time to time, I bake various goodies because others enjoy it (as do I).

For some reason, people will at this point suggest I open a bakery. I suppose that this idea is due to the fact that I've never found something I liked doing, and unemployment being what it is, any idea is better than no idea. I appreciate that people enjoy what I make enough to suggest opening a bakery. Unfortunately, there are some problems with the idea of opening a bakery.

First, I don't know what I'm doing. I don't even have proper pots much less mixers or other tools. I know that egg whites are emulsifiers (at least I think that's right?) but I don't necessarily know what that means. I can't create a recipe. To me, reading a recipe doesn't make me a cook or baker. It's like suggesting someone be an architect because they can follow the instructions to build a desk.

I don't know flavors, and how they interact and meld with each other. I haven't actually baked that much. I think that to start a bakery, I'll have had to make at least 1,000 cookies; I don't think I'm anywhere near that. Okay, maybe I am, but to be fair, I think the required number ought to be more like 10,000. I'm pretty exhausted from baking after a couple days of baking; I cannot fathom spending sixty-plus hours a week doing it. Operating a bakery is expensive. Ovens, employees, mixers, accessories, cases, tables, and everything else needed is not only overwhelming, but would cost more money than I have ever seen.

But, knowing people enjoyed the end product would be worth it.

So if I did own a bakery, this is what I would want:

First of all, to call it a bakery would be a misnomer; I think we'd serve a few different foods. Of course, there would be plenty of sweets and baked goods. I'd also want to sell fresh bread made daily. I'd like to serve lunch in the form of pizzas, burgers, and a few other classic Dennis foods. Oh, and ice cream. I'd make ice cream year round.

I'd like to have the seats be old school desks. I'd like to have booths and tables too, since I understand we can't all fit into school desks anymore (especially if we're eating sweets). I'd like to have a jukebox, too, or maybe just a record player, I'm not sure. Regardless, I love music, and there would definitely be some sweet tunes playing in my shoppe.

As for pricing, that's easy; pay what you want. I don't think food needs to be exorbitantly expensive. And I understand that some people can't afford to go out and eat sometimes. Whereas, maybe other people can and can pay more. I don't know how successful my plan would be, and clearly I'd need to have a lot of money to do it. But that is how I would run my bakery. Pay what you can or want. You don't get paid until Friday? That's fine, have a slice of pizza and a few cookies, maybe even a scoop of ice cream. Come back on Friday and pay what you want, or not; that's fine.

So if you think I should start a bakery, just know that it's only under those circumstances.

We're All A Bunch Of Kholops

It's true. In case you're unfamiliar with the term, Kholops are like serfs, except instead of having its etymology based in French and Latin, it's based in Ukrainian, like me.

It's no secret I'm not a fan of the corporatization of the world and the incessant bureaucracy that such a life entails.Workers and company owners nowadays are far too removed from each other, in my opinion. I mean in the literal sense, too, not just financially. Let's say you're a regular worker at a regular company, you might have as many as 3 supervisors. There are supervisors, managers, operations managers, department managers, so on and so forth. This system would work fine for me. In this system, you can, on a daily basis, interact with your superiors and work together. Unfortunately, this is merely the beginning; this is serfdom.

After the initial supervisory tiers, there are the corporate social orders. There are district managers, regional vice presidents, area presidents, presidents, executives, CEOs, CFOs, CBOs, CCOs, CMOs, so on and so forth. When is the last time you met any of these people in your company? How accessible are they? At a company with tens of thousands of employees, how can we expect them to care for one person?

We're all familiar with the concept of being just a number. I suspect this concept has its origins in prison, since prisoners are often prescribed numbers. Large companies, too, have to treat their employees in this manner; it's inevitable. I can't imagine knowing more than a hundred or so people well, so how could a CEO of a large company be expected to know anything about its employees, even their names?

In that same sense, workers are merely numbers, replaceable by cheaper workers. This is a big part of the current unemployment crisis. Businesses can be very picky about who they want to hire and how much they value them. People have to accept massive pay cuts because if they don't, someone else will. But then, how does that make us seem if we are so willing to devalue ourselves? What does is say if we are not only willing, but begging, to be another number, so long as that number isn't adding to the unemployment rate?

We are kholops, and large businesses are our lords. We work for them, they watch over us, but they are responsible for us. If we mess up, it's on their hands. As such, we are replaceable. In feudal times, Lords could sell or kill their serfs much like they can, and do, now in a figurative sense.

Financially, it's like each job level represents a social order, with pay increasing exponentially the higher up the social ladder you find yourself. Workers earn peanuts and the upper echelon of the company earns thousands of times what the soul of the company earns. I don't like this and neither should you.

This is why I love small businesses. This is why when I have money, they get it. I may hate telephones, but I can call the owner and talk to them, most of the businesses here even encourage it. When I walk into a store, the people there are earnestly engaging because they love what they do; it's not only their livelihood, it's their lifeblood.

I hope we can break down these walls that have been created. Every wall that's fallen has started with a small stone being removed.

On Minimum Wage

Minimum wage is kind of misleading. One would think, by its name, that it is the very least you could make and survive, but that's just over $17,000 before taxes in Connecticut, and ours is higher than the rest of the country's. I can't think of a single place you could live in Connecticut on that. Maybe you could hope to find a couch to sleep on at someone else's home, and hope they don't charge you rent?

I understand the argument people will make; minimum wage isn't meant to live on, it's for 16-year olds who are working their first job. Maybe that's true, but I believe there's a better way to go about it. Technically, for the first forty-five days (give or take, I'm not an HR person) they don't even have to pay minimum wage.

So how about we make the minimum wage something a person could actually survive on? Connecticut is expensive. Our taxes are high (we have the third highest tax burden of the country, go us!), homes cost a fortune, and land is exorbitant. So make the minimum wage something like $20/hour. Don't think I don't understand what that means though. Believe me, I know that people would argue that that wage would crush small businesses, but I think those people are wrong.

I realize that that is a lot of money; it's a bit over $41,000 before taxes, and I understand that costs three times more per employee than it does now. I can add up the numbers and figure what that would do to our local grocery store (who pays minimum wage) and realize the costs that would add on. I do realize that this would cost billions of dollars across the country and cost large companies like Target and Wal*Mart millions. But that's okay. I don't mind.

For what it's worth, if I ever employ someone, I am going to pay them a fair wage, not minimum wage, and here's why. Do I want someone doing the bare minimum for me? Say I owned a grocery store, does paying my employees minimum wage inspire them to care? There are a lot of theories in running a business, and I don't know any of them, but I know how I'd run mine: I want everyone to care. When I see school pictures from Lifetouch (or any of the other studios) I can tell the photographer doesn't care. The entire process is filled with people who don't care.

Lifetouch could actually use a pre-school photographer right now; let's look at what they want:

Requirements
• High school diploma or equivalent
• Customer service experience strongly preferred
• Excellent communication and interpersonal skills
• Previous experience working with children preferred
• Ability to work with minimal supervision as well as in a team environment
• Willing to work a varied seasonal schedule, including early mornings
• Demonstrate a positive and professional image
• Ability to effectively interact with preschool age children and adults
• Accessibility to reliable insured transportation to reach assigned locations. Vehicle insurance must be current and in compliance with state law.
• Must have a valid driver’s license
• Ability to operate camera equipment
• Ability to travel up to 75 mile radius

First and foremost, they want someone who graduated high school, fair enough. They want someone who has customer service experience. I can see that being useful, but for pre-school kids? I kind of don't think customer service helps you deal with pre-schoolers. Communication and interpersonal skills are great, too, but four and five year olds require far different approaches with regard to interpersonal skills than, say, teenagers or adults. Just sayin'. Finally, they get to working with children. I think this is more important, personally. Children are very fickle, and can see right through you; knowing how to approach them and deal with them is paramount, in my opinion. The next few make sense and are basically par for the course with any job. Eighth on the list is the ability to interact with teachers and students, really? Again, I'd suggest this would be more appropriate at number two or so, certainly not eight. Astonishingly, though, is that second to last is the ability to operate a camera, which unto itself is incredibly vague.

If you think about it, though, you realize what their priorities are. Lifetouch doesn't want to hire photographers. No, photographers are expensive. They want someone who can take a picture the way they tell them to. Notice, they don't look for photography experience, just the ability to operate a camera. My niece is four and can operate a camera; alas, she doesn't have a high school diploma though, their number one priority. It doesn't talk about pay, but I'm going to assume it's not a lot; they're looking for, arguably, the bare minimum.

Think about when you go to retail stores and how unhelpful people are. Sure, you get that one really helpful kid that you always look for (that was me!), but most of the people seem like they could care less, right? Well, why should they? These kids generally get treated like garbage (I've seen it, and it's been me), they need to do the jobs of three people, and they have to deal with customers who are usually upset for a reasons that aren't their fault. So for $8.25 an hour, how much do you think they are going to care? Not much, they just want their shift to end.

Imagine if they were paid $20 an hour though. Yes, it's a lot of money, but I think it's worth it. Consider how expensive training employees is; companies hate having to hire people because of that cost. Most of the time they have to go through the pain that is hiring someone because someone quit or was fired. If a business owner needs to hire someone new because business is going so well, I doubt they'd be unhappy. I bet business owners would treat that process better if it cost them $20 an hour, but more importantly, they'd put more effort in because the quicker their employee can work, the better.

Anywhere I have ever worked, training has been an afterthought. They stick you in front of a computer, or have you listen to a CD, or watch a video. That's hardly effective training. It's like going to college. Book knowledge is great, but the real learning is the first six months on the job (from what I hear, I wouldn't know). You had better believe anyone I hire, will be trained by me. I want to know them and I want to trust them. An employee for your company represents you; would you want that person to honestly care, or be there for spending money, because that's what minimum wage is at its current rate.

At this point, I've discussed why I would pay someone a fair wage, but am I right? Moral obligations to your fellow man aside, what about financially? It is awfully expensive to be a human being sometimes, you know. Maybe I am a dreamer, and what I envision in my mind is utterly wrong, but this is how I see it.

I live in Woodbury, it is a small, but affluent town. We have a lot of elderly people here and probably more antique shops than I can count. But let's pretend it's your town. Think of all the business and workers in your town, think of the people spending money. Imagine they all made $40,000 minimum. Most who retail jobs shop where they work. It's convenient because they are there all the time and they know where everything is. Plus, I bet if they were paid well, they'd like the store more (and care about being there more). There are a lot of little shops here in Woodbury. We have a really awesome indie toy store, Geppetto's, but it's expensive. That is, I can't afford it, unless I really think the recipient will appreciate the gift. But I'd rather shop there than K-Mart. Actually, I wouldn't buy a toy from another store (unless it was similar in style). I do this because their toys are well constructed and will last, unlike those from most stores.

There's a grocery store here too. It's different than your average grocery store, though. There are two checkout lanes, they use a wood stick for an order divider. They offer local produce, and local handmade items. I can buy chocolate goat milk there (yum!), along with all kinds of spices and baking goodies I've not found elsewhere. But I can't afford it, although I really wish I could. I want to give them my money (and indeed I sometimes do), but just not enough of it.

I could do a lot with $40,000 a year, though. Combined with Krissy, we'd make no less than $80,000 pre-tax. That's a number I like, and it's just above the number surveys have shown is what it takes to make people happy. (Technically the survey is $75,000 a year per person). We could do a lot with that money, we could, you know, actually live a life. We could, and would, spend money at local businesses. We would buy handmade crafts from local (and not-so-local, thank you Etsy) crafters. We might go out to eat at one of the few nice local places once a week instead of cooking. Ayla's is good for lunch, too. What I'm trying to say is that we would inject a lot more money into the economy, specifically, the local economy. So while it may cost businesses more to pay $20 per hour, in the long run they will reap the benefits.

I wonder what's better for the economy, money circulating or sitting in stocks. Does it really help small businesses when people own billions of dollars in stock? I'm pretty sure if we all had more money, we'd be likely to spend it, no?

Good For Youth?

Something that I think might be even more important, though, is for the younger workers. Teaching kids financial sense aside, a higher minimum wage is common sense. There's no denying that we've become indebted to credit card companies. But what might surprise you is that student loan debt has surpassed that of credit card debt.

Americans owe some $826.5 billion in revolving credit, according to June 2010 figures from the Federal Reserve. (Most of revolving credit is credit-card debt.) Student loans outstanding today -- both federal and private -- total some $829.785 billion

Yeah, we have a combined $1,656,285,000,000 (that is, one trillion, six hundred fifty six billion dollars) in debt between the two. Considering also that 84% of students had credit cards in 2009 with an average debt of $3,173, maybe having the option of saving is a viable one. I figure even working part-time, a student could feasibly save quite a bit before school, and work some during school part-time as well. I don't see how slapping graduating college students with anywhere from $50,000 to $400,000 in debt is a good idea. Perhaps a better, more honest, minimum wage could alleviate some of that. (The larger problem of tuition costs and banks shelling out awful loans could use a revamp, too).

Good For The Elderly?

I've had the pleasure of working with some amazing older folks. Granted, some were a bit ornery and obnoxious, but most of them were happy people who I'm glad to have worked with. But I don't think we ought to have people working until they die. I'm all in favor of people working because they want to, but they shouldn't have to work to pay bills at seventy or eighty.

Let's face it, the older we get, the more our health, and that of our loved ones, suffers. Healthcare is, regrettably, far too expensive. Social Security isn't exactly an amount one can live on, so we have to use savings. Healthcare can obliterate savings in a matter of months to a few years. Increasingly, people are working longer than they have to just to survive. What if those older people, instead of making a paltry $8 or $9 per hour made over twice that. They are capable, and work harder than most people I've worked with. And, hey, they may even enjoy going to work, too.

Unfortunately, I don't see this ever happening. Minimum wage has stayed the same for fifty five years once adjusted for inflation, but the cost of living has skyrocketed. Minimum wage is supposed to combat poverty, but politicians who decide minimum wage don't have to worry about ever earning such a pitiful wage. Maybe they should.

Perhaps having public service jobs pay minimum wage could make a difference. Public service is, after all, a service, not a career. (FYI: most members of congress are actually millionaires). At minimum wage, politicians wouldn't be doing the job for the money, but for the people they represent. It's hard for me to imagine that a millionaire can understand my plight and where I am coming from on a daily basis.

For what it's worth, poverty, in Connecticut, is defined as $21,027 for a married couple with two children. I'm not even going to address how ridiculously low that is. I actually kind of wrote about it here, with some caveats. First, the numbers I used are for a married couple with no children. Second, I used $40,000 in annual salary, almost double the poverty level. My question is, if a married couple in Connecticut can't survive on $40,000 a year, then how can we expect a family of four to survive on $21,027?

Be Kind.

Tax Cuts Don't Always Result In Paying Less Taxes

It really bothers me that the tax cut deal will actually increase taxes on poor people. It's kind of ironic, considering that of all the people who could use the money, they are the only ones who will pay more.

I don't think billionaires need the million-upon-millions of extra dollars. Sure, for the poorest, taxes may only go up by a very small amount, but that very small amount is a much larger percentage of their income. (Fun Fact: The Walton Family would save over 23 billion dollars with the estate tax portion alone. That doesn't even include the income tax portion.)

Anyone making $20,000 or less a year, or married couples making $40,000 or less will actually pay more taxes this upcoming year. Beyond being unfair, it just doesn't make sense. Consider that in Connecticut $20,000 is already hard enough to live on. A married couple making only $40,000 for the most part cannot survive.

Let's do some simple math:
$40,000 a year equals $769.23 a week for two people pre-tax.
Taking out takes would leave that couple with around $30,600 a year or $588.46 a week.

That brings us to around $2,353 a month. Let's pay some bills and, hopefully, buy some groceries.

Rent: $1,000 ($1,000)
Electricity (Second highest in the nation): $100 ($1,100)
Internet: $$40 ($1,140)
Cell Phones: $60 ($1,200)
Car Insurance: $200 ($1,400)
Car Payments: $350 ($1,750)
Gas: $160 ($1,810)
Groceries: $160 ($1,970)
Monthly necessities: $100 ($2,070)

That leaves about $300 a month leftover, and I am sure I am forgetting things. Of course this doesn't include buying new clothing, gifts, entertainment, or other necessities. Nor does it include renter's insurance, property insurance for two cars (probably $750-$1,000), or other random miscellany. This doesn't include doctor's appointments, prescriptions, car repairs, or other unforeseen circumstances.

Perhaps most importantly though, this offers no room whatsoever in a budget to actually save money for a future. This doesn't include having children and their associated costs. This doesn't account for buying furniture or anything else like televisions or kitchen gadgets.

Fact is, in Connecticut, a couple cannot live on $40,000 dollars just as a single person can't live (on their own) on $20,000. It just doesn't add up. At best, you'd spend exactly what you take in, living week-to-week praying that nothing goes wrong. No chance at having a family and no chance to save towards a future. No vacations or getting sick.

But these are the only people who will pay more taxes; the people who can afford it the least. To call the fact that the very richest of Americans would pay less goes so far beyong a slap in the face. It kind of feels more like a door mat. But not a nice, fuzzy new one; no, an old ratty one they just want to throw away. That's us: garbage.

To Middle-Aged People: Ignorance Isn't Bliss

Let me begin by apologizing if you are middle-aged and this does not apply to you. If you are not afraid of technology, then I salute you; you are my kind of person. By no means am I lumping any group of people together, other than the group of people who pride themselves on their ignorance. That said, I hope you read and enjoy, nonetheless; maybe you will feel my pain. I'm sure we all know a few of these types of people.

Ignorance Is...Well, Ignorant

You know the maxim, "Ignorance is bliss"? It's total crap. Really, when is ignorance ever bliss? Sure, for the person who is ignorant, it's kind of nice, but they are ignorant, so why should that count for enough to coin a phrase? No, ignorance isn't bliss, because the rest of us, unfortunately, have to put up with it. But what's even worse, is sometimes we have to defend it. Oh, don't hold it against her, she's just ignorant. Well, maybe she should be educated. (For what it's worth, I didn't intend to suggest with that statement that women exclusively are ignorant, I just needed a gender and it came out, if you are offended, change "she's" to "he's" and "her" to him.")

I have, in the last five years or so, come across a lot of people who claim to be horrible with technology. Any technology. The number of people who use the same excuse kind of bewilders me. What is even more odd, is that I don't talk to that many people, although I did work at CompUSA. That said, I have never liked the phrase "I'm not good at". We all have things that try us more than others. I have struggled with math for most of my life. Am I no good at it? No. I'm pretty sure if I really applied myself, and had the right person to help me, I could get it. Besides, my trouble was mostly with physics, which is another beast altogether. But technology, computers, et cetera, how do people get away with it?

What is even more...infuriating, is that these people actually pride themselves on their ignorance. How is the inability to operate a cellphone a point of pride for some people? It's kind of like being proud that, as a man, you don't put the seat down, you proudly piss all over it (and the floor). (There you go ladies, there's your redemption from earlier. Are we even now?)

What ultimately bothers me though is that I worry for these people. The future is unavoidable. Five years ago, sure maybe you could get away with this kind of attitude. Cell phones weren't nearly as ubiquitous as they are now, computers could be avoided, Twitter didn't exist, and Facebook still required an e-mail address from certain colleges. But what if they get into an accident? What if something happens to them and they can't get help because they can't make a phone call and proudly never got a cell phone. Maybe these people haven't realized it yet, but pay phones don't exist anymore. I think in my travels across the fine state of Connecticut, I've seen maybe two.

I think that we have lost our way as a people. I think there was a time when people did things for themselves, learning and knowing a bit about everything. I'm not expecting the Renaissance, no, but maybe we can be more than one-trick-ponies. No, that sounds a bit unfair. Maybe we shouldn't be so scared of things that are new. Why do new things scare us?

Why So Scared?

I understand newness is scary; we like the familiar. But isn't there at least some exhilaration to cracking something new? I am not a car guy. Cars really don't interest me. I don't need to drive two hundred miles-per-hour, nor do I need a vehicle with six hundred horsepower. Truth be told, I really want a Vespa. But, if something goes wrong, I'd kind of like to give fixing it a try if it's easy enough. Case in point, a battery died, not on my car, but it died nonetheless. I thought to myself that I'd like to deal with it. Changing a battery isn't rocket science (despite what some people may think), so I figured I'd look up what I needed to know and spent an hour or so fixing it. And you know what? I liked it. Maybe it made me feel a little manly, but most of all I was pleased to do something myself and not have to pay someone else to do it. Am I now a car guy? No, not in the least, but I'm still going to attempt to be one.

As the ranking computer person in my family, and the ranking boy in another, I've found myself on the receiving end of this type of unapologetic ignorance. I have changed quite a few batteries, and screwed things that needed screwing (get your mind out of the gutter, mind you, they were screws). I've carried bags, plugged things in, and opened computer cases and that hardly scratches the surface. It's not that I don't mind helping. Honestly I like helping people. What bothers me the most is when someone asks for help because they don't want to try something. I can't tell you how many times this happened at my jobs. Every single one of them, too.

To be honest, I understand the elderly who don't want to deal with computers. I think that maybe they've earned that right. I'm not going to fault them for their stubbornness, but I know of quite a few elderly people who absolutely love their technology now that they've embraced it. But if you are in your forties or fifties, it kind of boggles my mind to ignore computers and technology as a whole.

Looking Forward

I worry for these people. What happens when you are at your job, which you feel secure in, warrants this technology you so fear? Consider for a moment that jobs are being consolidated. Companies figure why pay two people what one can do? Truth be told, the larger the company the more it seems like they want to consolidate four or five jobs into one, but that's a blog for another date.

Technology isn't going anywhere. Technology is here to stay and evolve, and the longer anyone avoids it, the further behind they find themselves. There are a lot of people who dislike math. Like I wrote before, it's not been my strongest subject in life. But you know who doesn't have problems with math? Mathematicians. It's not because they're geniuses. Sure, I bet many of them are, but I think it's for a different reason. Consider the fact that the people involved in the forward motion of math are mathematicians. They don't need to relearn everything, because they are travelling with math as it evolves. This same is true with computers and technology.

Once upon a time, computers were harder to learn than now. Instead of a nice, usable user interface like Windows 7, we had only console screens. Nothing but text. Did you want to plug something in? Well, lots of plugs were proprietary and there were a great many ports on a computer. There are still some remnants left on the back, too. You likely still have a printer port back there. It's, frankly, huge and takes up space. You may have a serial port too, which is much smaller. You may have a floppy drive, too. All of these have been replaced of course to become easier. Most peripherals connect now via USB ports. Fortunately, computers (and most technology) has actually gotten easier to use over time. Computers are actually incredibly easy to use, especially compared to twenty or more years ago. Cellphones, too, are really simple to use. Frankly, I'd hate for something terrible to happen to someone because they couldn't operate a cell phone. So, too, would I hate for someone to lose a job, or be unable to get a job, because they opted to ignore computers.

Looking Back

I remember the beep beep pang whizz of my modem dialing up AOL. I remember the first time I surfed the internet on a decent connection. I remember LAN parties at ten years old. Suffice to say that I am a nerd, a geek, whatever your word of choice for me, I am that. I grew up in a home that wasn't afraid of computers or technology. We had an IBM PS/2, an archaic bit of technology now, but it worked, and I learned on it. To this day I have fond memories of five-inch floppies and the games I played on that machine. As much as I love the new, fancy look and feel of games, I feel that that love is indebted to DOS games and that IBM PS/2.

I remember my brother, Chris, got a computer for Christmas or his birthday one year. Finally, I was moving on up. Yes, it was his computer, in his room, but it was as good as mine. I used it a lot, especially at night. I remember the rise and fall of Napster on that computer, the ever familiar "You've Got Mail" on that computer, and the beginning of my fascination with the internet in general on it. I don't know when it was, but I got a computer eventually, too, from my dad. It's kind of funny in a way, I only got rid of that computer a few years ago. I have a problem discarding computers.

The thing is, I like the environment, I care deeply for it, and I hate to know that I'm hurting it by throwing a computer in the garbage. But my computers have largely been my amigos, so to speak. I've lived through events in my live with them being a part of it. I feel like a lot of my views on life have, at least in part, been formed by my life on the computer.

In The End...

I'm not asking the uninitiated and ignorant people to delve deeply into computers and technology. I don't expect them to understand that everything is ones and zeroes, nor do I want them to understand gates, NAND operations, or the like. No, I just want them to be able to plug one in and turn it on. I want them to be able to take a cell phone and make a phone call. I don't require that they make accounts on Facebook and Twitter (though, I bet a lot of them would like Facebook).  I just want them to try and to realize that, ultimately, computers and all modern technology is precisely that: modern.

I suspect that back in the fifties when televisions were new people weren't so scared. Didn't watching tv together become something of a family event where everyone would gather to watch? It was new, it was exciting! How about microwaves? They were a technological innovation at the time. Cooking food quickly and easily? No need to fire up the oven? Yes, please! But now, all of a sudden, where is this enthusiasm? Aren't the people who are so afraid of modern tech the same who grew up with these innovations? How would they have felt if their parents were afraid of television, and instead held onto their radios like television would be the death of all things good?

Truth is, computers can be daunting. The internet invites us, our humble little selves, in our humble little towns, into the larger, grander world. There are a lot of awful and dangerous things on the internet. There's a lot to fear: viruses, porn, liberals, conservatives, Jesus freaks, atheists, hate mongerers, hippies; they're all there. But that is kind of the beauty of the internet, too. Everyone is represented.

I like vintage things. I like the idea of taking something old but functional and keeping it around. I'd rather reuse something than buy something new. And when I do buy something new, I like it to be something that will last forever. It's very difficult to find that kind of stuff around here though. I also like handmade things. No offense to big corporations, but I like being able to meet the person who made my (fill in the blank), or at the very least being able to talk to them. I don't know where my socks came from, or my pants. Nor do I know who made my television or my mirror. But if I buy hand towels from Etsy or a craft fair instead of K-Mart I feel more of a connection. What I'm trying to say, in an extremely roundabout way, mind you, is that for all the bad that is on the internet, there is an infinite amount of good to counter it. I can now find like minded folks, without having to move to a place like New Haven. But what about those people in the middle of nowhere? Where can they turn? What about gay people who live in fiercely conservative areas? The internet could provide the only solution for them. Sure, there's a lot of hate and controversy on the internet, but there's just as much if not more in real life.

So don't worry. Technology isn't all that scary. And if you need a hand, I don't mind helping you. I'm sure there are others, too, that want to help. All I ask is that you make an effort. That's it, just try. I want you to learn. I want to help you do just that. It's a crazy place out there, but it's the same crazy we're all used to.