Bailout and Bonuses

I would LOVE for this bill to pass.

I would LOVE for the obnoxious, selfish, irresponsible fat cats on Wall Street to finally shut up and take it like the rest of us are taking it.

I would just LOVE to hear the reaction from the likes of Bank of America, Citi, and the other big boys out there who took taxpayer money and spent it on private jets, office redecorating, and bonuses if the bill passes. Would they reject the bailout money to save their seven-figure salaries? Would they turn around with their tail between their legs and say "yes sir" and "yes ma'am" and start lending money again?

I would just LOVE for this to be more than just big talk and for the government to finally take action against this. It's utterly outrageous and there is no justification for it.

"Broadband" Internet

Up until arriving to Port Douglas, we've had pretty good internet access. No, we haven't been online all day everyday. We would just quickly browse the headlines in the morning and in the evening and every once in a while check our email. It also obviously has allowed me to post these trip diaries.

All that ended in Port Douglas. The place we're staying claims it has "broadband" internet access. You pay for the amount of time you want, they give you an enthernet cable, and you sign-in and start browsing. Well, unfortunately, it ain't that easy.

Weirdly enough, as soon as we plugged the ethernet cable into the laptop and the internet started flowing, the mousepad stopped working, which, as you can imagine, made browsing and clicking and scrolling pretty damn difficult. I was frustrated: I had these three blog posts all written and ready to be published, but I couldn't post them! A few days passed by because we were busy scuba diving and snorkling and visiting a coffee plantation (more on that later!), but we assumed, if we used the two desktops available in the reception area at some point before we left, we'd be fine.

Wrong. I was able to post my trip diaries just fine but for some reason, it won't upload any of my pictures and it takes forever and a day to get to any simple website. So much for broadband.

Anyways, the point of this long-winded message is to tell you that as soon as I can find reliable access I will add pictures to the three posts below. :-)

Overheard

Overheard in the lobby of my building as I was walking back to the office from grabbing a snack:

"So I lost my PNC ATM card. I've been meaning to call someone about that."

Not sure there's anything to add here other than MEANING TO?? HUH????

Some more tidbits I forgot to mention

• Simply saying "we saw Wall-E" to a bunch of Bostonians doesn't mean what it means to the rest of the country. No, I didn't see Wally on the Mass Pike. I saw Wall-E in the movie theater.
• My MIL is starting to worry about the people her kids married: a day after I stabbed myself and spent the morning in the ER, my sister-in-law's husband had a light bulb shatter in his hand and they spent the night in an NYC ER as he got three stitches on his left hand ring finger. Quick, hide the sharp objects from the other in-law kid!
• Driving a Prius means 450 miles = 1 tank of gas.
• The highest point of I-90, the longest interstate in the country, west east of South Dakota is in the mountains of western Massachusetts. (Thanks, DB for the correction.)
  

I stabbed myself...and other interesting tidbits from my weekend in the mountains

Yup, you read that right. I stabbed my left hand on Friday, while we were getting ready for what should have been a beautiful 20-mile bike ride along the quaint little roads of Lee and Lenox, MA, in the heart of the Berkshire Mountains. Instead, Andrew drove like a maniac to the hospital and we spent the morning in the ER.

3 hours, 4 stitches, and a pack of Vicodin later, we took in the sculptures of Daniel Chester French instead, which was actually quite nice. But you really don't realize what you need both hands for until you can't use one, and then you feel kinda helpless. Have you ever tried putting on a seatbelt with your right hand instead of using your left? How about typing? Carrying groceries? Opening up a bottle or turning a faucet? Cutting your food? Yup, Andrew had to cut my food for me Friday night; kinda felt like a baby.

Thankfully, 3 days later, I have most motion back in my fingers though the tip of my middle finger gets numb every now and then. It's really a weird feeling to get pins and needles just at the tip of your finger and not the whole hand. Doc says it may take a while for the feeling to return.

A few random other tidbits:

• When renting cars, don't pay extra for a hybrid car, because they'll just assign it to you anyways. We got to drive a Prius all weekend. It. was. cool.
  
• If you bought take-out Chinese and drove 2.5 hours to your destination and forgot that the food was still in the car because you couldn't smell it, chances are the food has no taste.
  
• Corollary to the above point: kosher Chinese in MD ain't that bad compared.
  
• Even in Western Massachusetts, just miles from the NY border, they love their Red Sox.
• Supermarkets in Western Massachusetts, even though no Jews live there year-round, have more kosher food than supermarkets in DC, where Jews live year-round.
• Never use a sharp knife to try to separate food items that are frozen together. Chances are, you will hurt yourself.
• Massachusetts has more Priuses (Pri-ii? Pri-a??) on the road then the entire MD-DC-VA area.
• Still can't my rings off my finger. And my finger tip is still numb.
• Did I mention that hybrid cars are cool?
  

Olympic Torch Relay

Sports Illustrated is reporting that Olympic organizers in England are considering a British-only torch relay for the 2012 Games. Given the protests and scuffles from this year's relay for the Games in China, they haven't ruled out the possibility of skipping the world-wide relay tradition.

Does the UK have a human rights issue we don't yet know about?

The polls weren't wrong. DUH.

Let’s put this to bed right now: the polls were not wrong. The reporting of the polls were wrong. Here are some numbers from polls taken between January 4-7th (thank you to Keith Olbermann for pointing this out):

Fox News: 32% for Obama
NY Times: 35% for Obama
Rasmussen: 37% for Obama
WNBC/Marist: 36% for Obama

Those numbers basically hit the nail on the head for Obama’s results, right?

But what about Hillary’s numbers? Well, the NY Times poll also reported 9% of Democrats “undecided” and 28% “not definite”. Fox News reported 12% “don’t know.” And, here’s the kicker: WNBC/Marist reported that 23% of Obama supporters and a whopping 30% of Edwards supporters were “not firmly committed.”

“Not definite” and “undecideds” and “not firmly committed” seems to have helped Hillary, without a doubt.

Does this not prove that the polls weren’t as wrong as everyone is saying? Seems like the media is just infatuated with the top line numbers that can cause a big splash and don’t bother turning the page to see what else the polls are showing. I have my own issues with polling and all the hype and attention the polls get before an election. But this was not a polling error.

I think it’s time to put this to bed and move on to the next hot thing to talk about. As long as it has nothing to do with crying.

Innocent until proven guilty...

...But not in the court of public opinion.

Once your name finds its way into a steroid allegation, you're screwed for life, unless you somehow dig up evidence to clear your name from the mud.

It's sad, but it's the way of life. And that's why I have no sympathy for the players named in the Mitchell Report. How does that make sense? Because a huge fraud was perpetrated here, by everyone involved: the players, first and foremost. The owners and other baseball employees who turned a blind eye, the commissioner (who somehow thinks he's exonerated now that the report was released), and the media. Everyone ignored it. And everyone must pay the price for keeping the ol' boys club circle closed to protect each other's bottom line.

I'm not saying the Mitchell Report is perfect. Far far from it. The only evidence in there is circumstantial and based on the words of two guys who are facing federal charges and two MLB players (Jason Giambi and Frank Thomas). But every time they encountered a new name, the committee called the player and gave him a chance to speak. Once these guys got the phone call, they knew that their names would appear in the report but they ignored it. They decided to protect each other instead of protecting themselves, their reputations, and their families. Of course they probably felt under attack and they probably didn't want to give the investigation any credence. But this is it. This will be how history remembers the Steroid Era of Baseball. Right or wrong.

Look at Jason Giambi- he was implicated, testified at a grand jury hearing, and publicly apologized. Did he want to do that? Of course not. But his reputation is in tact. He's seen as a guy who stood up, admitted his mistakes, and moved on. Do you hear anyone booing him anymore? No one cares about Giambi anymore. But we're still talking about Bonds. McGwire. Sosa. And the whispers about Roger Clemens will now be spoken out loud, simply because his name showed up in the report. No one is going to care whether or not the report is based in pure fact or conjecture. A future Hall-of-Famer was named and now he's guilty in the court of public opinion.

You're name is in this report and you feel you're innocent? Well then, open your mouth and say so. And confront your player colleagues and force them through public shaming and peer pressure to step up and take responsibility for their actions and for sullying the names of every player who played in this era. Wishful thinking, I know, but again, I have little sympathy.

Bad Business Decision of the Day

We've been doing a lot of research into flat panel TVs, since we have this nice big wall in front of our couch that would be just the perfect setting for TV viewing pleasure. We've looked into the differences between LCD, plasma, and DLP, decided what size we wanted, how much we wanted to spend, and narrowed the search down to a few different brands, based upon level of support, quality, and user reviews. Andrew then spent the weekend scouring the ads for good deals, and found this from Frys, a West Coast electronics chain: a Samsung 42" plasma, a $1500 set, for $900. And, to boot, it came with free shipping!

We didn't want to buy the TV without seeing the picture in person, so, on our drive back down to DC yesterday, we stopped at Best Buy and liked what we saw. During the drive, we decided to stop in Delaware, just in case we found something else we wanted, so that we could take advantage of the free shipping. Also, it couldn't hurt to see if anyone would match the price we found online.

We walked into a Circuit City with online ad in hand. Turns out, CC was selling our set for $1199. I approached a salesman and asked him if they would match the price we found at a competitor out West; he asked his manager, and his manager said yes! We were psyched. The guy walks us over to the Samsung, writes down the model number, and takes our online ad, to ring up the purchase. 5 minutes later, he returns with a change of heart: they will match the $900 price but will have to add what overnight shipping would cost (~$198) if we were to purchase the TV from Frys.

Wha?? I looked at the guy and pointed out that ground shipping was free, so we wouldn't actually pay any shipping on the TV. He countered with the fact that we want to take home the TV today from CC, so in essence, it's overnight shipping. So, we said thank you for trying, but we'll just buy the TV online, thank you very much.

Logically, his argument makes sense, but how much does it make sense when stores are trying desperately to keep their share of customers away from cheaper, online purchases? We walked into Circuit City with the intent of dropping at least $900. We were willing customers who would probably have bought a movie or two while waiting in line to buy the TV. But we walked away, in the same position we were in when we walked through their doors- we have $900 to spend on a TV, but instead of spending it (and perhaps more) at CC, we're spending it online, from the comfort of our own home, without the hassle of loading and unloading the car with a 42" TV. I don't care that I have to wait a few weeks for the TV to arrive, no skin off my back; but CC just lost yet another customer to the internet.

Invasion of the chocolate bugs

For the last few months, we would notice just one or two little bugs moseying along in our kitchen near our stovetop. We got rid of them quickly and wondered where they were coming from. We usually wouldn't leave food lying around and kept the area relatively clean. Mostly, there were some papers and a small box in the corner area of the countertop. These little buggers would show up every now and then and keep me confused.

Then last night, as I was cleaning up, I saw a few more. I was in cleaning mode, so I started to clear off the counter, and lo and behold, I lifted a piece of folded paper that had been sitting in its exact place for who-knows-how-long, and found: a partially unwrapped bar of chocolate, which I hadn't seen for quite a while.

And then it hit me: it says wonders that we've had a cleaning service clean our apartment every other week for the last few months and the folded paper and other little stuff we had sitting in that corner was never once lifted to clean underneath. What on earth am I paying them for if they are only going to clean the areas of my home that don't have any "stuff" on it?? I understand not wanting to disturb clutter on a desk, but they would always clean up our table and make neat piles of all the mail. So why not the kitchen??

Ugh.

I gotta hand it to the little buggers, though- after all this time, they didn't bother us anywhere else. All they wanted was that chocolate. But then again, would we all be happy if our world consisted of one big bar of chocolate?

Political Ads

Can someone please explain to me the difference between the Moveon "Betray-Us" ad and the Swift Boat lies from the 2004 campaign? How about the Max McClellan ads? If there is no difference- if you think that all three ads were, at the least, not in good taste, why does one deserve a vote in the Senate condemning it and the others do not? Why does our President call one "disgusting" but uses the others to help his own campaign?