I haven't really stayed in the loop on this honestly. I knew there was some movement to repeal the Washington Domestic Partner law, but I didn't follow the details. Until today.I just read that two gay rights groups have partnered together to publish the names of those who sign Referendum 71. Why? The article stated that these groups have done this in other states so that members of the groups can contact signers to "discuss" the issue.
What does "discussing" entail, I wonder. Are they going to wear rainbow hoods and burn triangles on my lawn.
I will go on record here as saying that I support traditional marriage, one man, one woman. Why? Because I believe that the institution of marriage was created by God, not by men and therefore cannot be changed. Regardless of what it is called, I don't believe God recognizes a same-sex "marriage." (Bring on the hate mail) BUT, I am concerned for civil rights of everyone in our country. I think people should be able to designate anyone they want to make medical decisions for them or receive their assets when they die. I oppose all forms of bashing, gay or otherwise. I can disagree with someone, even on fundamental issues about which I am passionate, and still show respect and seek justice for everyone.
I have alot of friends, who disagree with me on this issue. I can handle being friends with people I don't agree with. True discussions of conflicting viewpoints have been tremendously beneficial in my life. I have been challenged, educated and moved when I come to understand another's perspective. I think most of the people I'm friends with can handle diversity in relationships as well.
I may never have signed Ref. 71, mostly out of laziness. But just now I looked up the sponsoring organization and sent an email requesting a petition. Not out of hatred, but in defiance of the attempt to intimidate voters into silence. And I would be just as outraged if this were coming from the other side of the issue. If I learned that any cause I supported was treating the opposition this way, they would lose my support.
"Discussing" is one thing and you all know I never shy away from any "discussion" on any matter. I am curious, once my name lands on the list, however, what form this discussion will actually take. If I'm wrong and all I receive is respectful letters asking me to consider another viewpoint, then I'll eat my 10pt. Times New Roman words.
I have a feeling that this may actually backfire for these groups. I suspect there are alot of people like me who will not surrender our guaranteed right to express our opinions or to vote our consciences. I think publicizing the names will make their job alot harder, because I suspect this fear tactic will cause the list to grow, not shrink.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
Hollywood Hypocrisy
If you have watched any movie in the theater or on DVD in the past year, you have surely seen the new public service ads for honesty. They show hardworking dolly grips and gaffers (at least we know what they do now) doing their jobs and imploring views not to pirate movies on the internet. The appeal to conscience is clear, the message even clearer, "Downloading Pirated Movies is Stealing!"
I applaud appeal to conscience and the ads are entirely true, so no complaint from me there. My problem is the inconsistency of logic. This is an industry that is almost entirely based on selling immorality in all its forms. The actors appearing in these ads are the same ones who go on talk shows and scream about the "Christian Right" trying to force their morality on everyone else. So here is my PSA to the entertainment industry on what they can do to reduce movie pirating:
1. Recognize that movies do impact culture. Your moral code shouldn't begin when someone's ripping you off, but when you create, produce and profit from filth that impacts viewers. You want to change the way people think about right and wrong, start in the editing room.
2. Be logically consistent. Either there is an absolute morality, based on the laws of God, or there isn't. The prohibition to steal (movies, anyway) is the only one of the Ten Commandments you want to accept. If there is no God, then there is no absolute morality. Everyone can do whatever they feel like doing and it doesn't matter who it hurts, because, life is meaningless.
3. The shield of legality won't work either. Arguing that stealing is wrong because it's illegal is weaker than a Lindsey Lohan movie. Your industry should know better than any that laws change constantly, that's why you contribute so much money to politicians. So what if stealing pirated movies is illegal? Doing drugs, driving drunk, contributing to the moral decay of minors is illegal too, but that's everyday life in the movie business.
I confess here on my blog, that I have watched pirated movies. I can honestly say I've never downloaded them because I; a) don't know how b) my husband won't give me admin rights to the computer and c) my moral code (based on those antiquated stone tablets given to Moses) says its wrong. I am challenged though, that I don't want to be a hypocrite, so I won't watch pirated movies any more. I won't lecture others who do (I learned from Hollywood to live and let live, after all), but I'll set my standards a little higher. If it means I watch fewer movies, that's OK, because even though I'll miss those hard hitting PSA's I'll still know right from wrong.
Author's Note: In reference to the above letter b) (my husband won't give me admin rights to the computer), that is not technically true since I have admin rights on my computer, just not on the computer that stores our pertinent financial information, etc. I, in no way meant to imply that my husband is some sort of ogre for denying me these rights on the main computer. In fact, I have never actually asked for them and don't even want the responsibilty of knowing the admin password as one day I might be tempted to use it to install some fabulous free-ware which would open up some back door, trojan horse, spyware, hard-drive deleting monster into our midsts. And for all of you who don't know this already, you should always create user accounts even for yourself and only use those accounts (without admin rights) to surf the internet. That's my PSA .
I applaud appeal to conscience and the ads are entirely true, so no complaint from me there. My problem is the inconsistency of logic. This is an industry that is almost entirely based on selling immorality in all its forms. The actors appearing in these ads are the same ones who go on talk shows and scream about the "Christian Right" trying to force their morality on everyone else. So here is my PSA to the entertainment industry on what they can do to reduce movie pirating:
1. Recognize that movies do impact culture. Your moral code shouldn't begin when someone's ripping you off, but when you create, produce and profit from filth that impacts viewers. You want to change the way people think about right and wrong, start in the editing room.
2. Be logically consistent. Either there is an absolute morality, based on the laws of God, or there isn't. The prohibition to steal (movies, anyway) is the only one of the Ten Commandments you want to accept. If there is no God, then there is no absolute morality. Everyone can do whatever they feel like doing and it doesn't matter who it hurts, because, life is meaningless.
3. The shield of legality won't work either. Arguing that stealing is wrong because it's illegal is weaker than a Lindsey Lohan movie. Your industry should know better than any that laws change constantly, that's why you contribute so much money to politicians. So what if stealing pirated movies is illegal? Doing drugs, driving drunk, contributing to the moral decay of minors is illegal too, but that's everyday life in the movie business.
I confess here on my blog, that I have watched pirated movies. I can honestly say I've never downloaded them because I; a) don't know how b) my husband won't give me admin rights to the computer and c) my moral code (based on those antiquated stone tablets given to Moses) says its wrong. I am challenged though, that I don't want to be a hypocrite, so I won't watch pirated movies any more. I won't lecture others who do (I learned from Hollywood to live and let live, after all), but I'll set my standards a little higher. If it means I watch fewer movies, that's OK, because even though I'll miss those hard hitting PSA's I'll still know right from wrong.
Author's Note: In reference to the above letter b) (my husband won't give me admin rights to the computer), that is not technically true since I have admin rights on my computer, just not on the computer that stores our pertinent financial information, etc. I, in no way meant to imply that my husband is some sort of ogre for denying me these rights on the main computer. In fact, I have never actually asked for them and don't even want the responsibilty of knowing the admin password as one day I might be tempted to use it to install some fabulous free-ware which would open up some back door, trojan horse, spyware, hard-drive deleting monster into our midsts. And for all of you who don't know this already, you should always create user accounts even for yourself and only use those accounts (without admin rights) to surf the internet. That's my PSA .
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Guardians of Virtue
A few weeks ago my daughter, who is a hair stylist, had a hair show. It was the “final exam” for her year long apprenticeship in the trendy salon she works for. I knew the style of the show would be funky and hip and not wanting to appear as the un-funky, un-hip mother, I searched my closet for something purchased since we started writing 20 before the current year. I figured black was the best choice, so I put on black tights, boots, blouse and skirt with a long black sweater/coat. I was rocking the middle aged emo-look. We attended the event and about halfway through I realized that the black skirt was a little short. It hadn’t been that short when I bought it (quick calculation = 1998). Perhaps I had been five or 20 pounds lighter then and it didn’t have quite as much area to cover. Hmmm.
After her hair show (which went fabulously), I stopped at the store to pick up some things Walking through the store, I kept getting looks. Not the “wow, nice outfit” looks, but more the “what on earth is that woman doing wearing that outfit" up/down looks from other women. My first thought was of course defensive. “I was at a hair show,” I wanted to announce, “I fit in there.” Then another thought occurred to me.
I often see women giving other women these once over looks of disapproval. I sort of always chalked them up to jealousy when another woman looks better than they do. But I wasn’t looking particularly good and as I thought about it, I realized it was universal to all women seen as inappropriately dressed. I’ve given that look to my own daughters and countless other young women at the mall wearing can only be classified as beach attire.
Instead of getting defensive, I thought about it. Whatever the motive, the sisterhood was sending me a message; “Girl, go home and change!” What if we as women willingly submit ourselves to one another in these matters? At the risk of sounding like a 1950’s home-ec text, we should serve as guardians of one another’s modesty.
We all have moments of delusion in the dressing room or bathroom where everything is all sucked and tucked in and we think, “I look gooood,” only to be appalled later by some picture taken from the side when we weren’t tucked or sucked. Or maybe we aren’t appalled because we really like the attention garnered by pushing the envelope of appropriateness. This is where we need our sisters to speak the Truth. We need those who will say, “that is too short/low/high/tight/transparent,” whatever. And then we need to listen without defensiveness.
I know that if my mom had been at my house when I walked out in that ensemble, she would have given me the look (possibly while trying to stop the tears of laughter). Mom wasn’t here, but the women I ran into at the store were filling her shoes. I took heed, went home and put on pajamas. Then I hung that skirt in the back of my closet where it isn’t allowed out until it fits like it did in 1998. Or better yet, maybe I should go shopping and get some clothes from this decade. I’ll make sure to take some girlfriends with me when I shop and I will listen when they “look.”
After her hair show (which went fabulously), I stopped at the store to pick up some things Walking through the store, I kept getting looks. Not the “wow, nice outfit” looks, but more the “what on earth is that woman doing wearing that outfit" up/down looks from other women. My first thought was of course defensive. “I was at a hair show,” I wanted to announce, “I fit in there.” Then another thought occurred to me.
I often see women giving other women these once over looks of disapproval. I sort of always chalked them up to jealousy when another woman looks better than they do. But I wasn’t looking particularly good and as I thought about it, I realized it was universal to all women seen as inappropriately dressed. I’ve given that look to my own daughters and countless other young women at the mall wearing can only be classified as beach attire.
Instead of getting defensive, I thought about it. Whatever the motive, the sisterhood was sending me a message; “Girl, go home and change!” What if we as women willingly submit ourselves to one another in these matters? At the risk of sounding like a 1950’s home-ec text, we should serve as guardians of one another’s modesty.
We all have moments of delusion in the dressing room or bathroom where everything is all sucked and tucked in and we think, “I look gooood,” only to be appalled later by some picture taken from the side when we weren’t tucked or sucked. Or maybe we aren’t appalled because we really like the attention garnered by pushing the envelope of appropriateness. This is where we need our sisters to speak the Truth. We need those who will say, “that is too short/low/high/tight/transparent,” whatever. And then we need to listen without defensiveness.
I know that if my mom had been at my house when I walked out in that ensemble, she would have given me the look (possibly while trying to stop the tears of laughter). Mom wasn’t here, but the women I ran into at the store were filling her shoes. I took heed, went home and put on pajamas. Then I hung that skirt in the back of my closet where it isn’t allowed out until it fits like it did in 1998. Or better yet, maybe I should go shopping and get some clothes from this decade. I’ll make sure to take some girlfriends with me when I shop and I will listen when they “look.”
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Home Buying
Just a note to say that buying a house is alot of work. All the faxing and documenting. I think I really like home shopping so much better!
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Letter to WA Senator Patty Murray
I sent this letter to Patty Murray after I received her response to my previous email telling me why she supports the "bailout plan."
Ms. Murray,
Thank you for your response. I understand the challenge you face as you try to keep the economy on track, but hold people accountable for their choices. Let me share our situation to explain why I don't support the bailout.
We owned a home a few years ago. Our payment was high enough that it took two incomes to make ends meet. We have a son with special needs and it became clear to us that he (as well as our older children) needed a parent at home full time. I left my job, we sold our home and decided to rent until we could afford to pay a mortgage on one income. That was right before the housing market increased dramatically. Just a year later, my husband's income increased and we started to look at homes to purchase. Because of the housing market inflataion, created by loose lending restrictions and low interest rates, home prices were out of reach for us. We met with several lenders who offered us all of the types of mortgages included in the bailout: interest only, ARM, 50 year. We refused to purchase a home that was not affordable on a 30-year fixed rate with one income. We tightened our belt and began to save. My husband started commuting to work by bicycle and we shared one paid off car. We don't have cable television, take elaborate vacations or use credit cards unless necessary. We had two children in college at the same time and received some financial aid, although not enough because we are middle class. We took out minimal parent loans, our daughters took out loans and we cut back to make large monthly payments to the University.
After renting for five years, we have been able to save $7,000 so far toward a down payment on a home. The median home price in Pierce County where we live is around $255,000. At the rate we are going, we will not have 20% down for years to come. We had hope, however, because we knew the bubble would have to burst. Home prices are too high for the average income in our area to sustain. We made wise choices, cut back and saved anticipating that when prices dropped we would be able to buy a home with 5% down with a mortgage program we found. Did I mention we have excellent credit, because we pay all of our bills ontime and have a great debt to income ratio?
So, I hope you can understand, why we are more than a little frustrated by the bailout plan. We bought the financial advice books and followed the plans. We got out of debt, lived within our means and saved. But that isn't good enough. From our perspective, the market needs to deflate, so that prices become realistic for families like ours. Instead, buying up bad debt will serve to devalue the dollar (making our paltry savings worth even less) and keep home prices artificially high. If we, not having a background in finance and economics can understand this, what is wrong with our leadership that they can't?
Today, I called my real estate agent and said, "I'm done waiting for a responsible time to buy a home." So I guess the bailout will work. Consumers like us who were doing things "by the book" will throw in the towel and take out debt beyond what we can really afford. I guess that's the only way to buy a home and we don't need to worry. If we can't pay our bills, Uncle Sam will come to the rescue.
Sincerely,
My Toe Mama (Insert my real name here)
NOTE TO MY TOE READERS:
I doubt I will actually do anything irresponsible because I just can't. Large financial purchases make me nauseous, stupid ones make me too ill to sign papers. I am seriously looking at homes though, because I think the bailout is going to devalue the dollar, making prices soar across the board.
Ms. Murray,
Thank you for your response. I understand the challenge you face as you try to keep the economy on track, but hold people accountable for their choices. Let me share our situation to explain why I don't support the bailout.
We owned a home a few years ago. Our payment was high enough that it took two incomes to make ends meet. We have a son with special needs and it became clear to us that he (as well as our older children) needed a parent at home full time. I left my job, we sold our home and decided to rent until we could afford to pay a mortgage on one income. That was right before the housing market increased dramatically. Just a year later, my husband's income increased and we started to look at homes to purchase. Because of the housing market inflataion, created by loose lending restrictions and low interest rates, home prices were out of reach for us. We met with several lenders who offered us all of the types of mortgages included in the bailout: interest only, ARM, 50 year. We refused to purchase a home that was not affordable on a 30-year fixed rate with one income. We tightened our belt and began to save. My husband started commuting to work by bicycle and we shared one paid off car. We don't have cable television, take elaborate vacations or use credit cards unless necessary. We had two children in college at the same time and received some financial aid, although not enough because we are middle class. We took out minimal parent loans, our daughters took out loans and we cut back to make large monthly payments to the University.
After renting for five years, we have been able to save $7,000 so far toward a down payment on a home. The median home price in Pierce County where we live is around $255,000. At the rate we are going, we will not have 20% down for years to come. We had hope, however, because we knew the bubble would have to burst. Home prices are too high for the average income in our area to sustain. We made wise choices, cut back and saved anticipating that when prices dropped we would be able to buy a home with 5% down with a mortgage program we found. Did I mention we have excellent credit, because we pay all of our bills ontime and have a great debt to income ratio?
So, I hope you can understand, why we are more than a little frustrated by the bailout plan. We bought the financial advice books and followed the plans. We got out of debt, lived within our means and saved. But that isn't good enough. From our perspective, the market needs to deflate, so that prices become realistic for families like ours. Instead, buying up bad debt will serve to devalue the dollar (making our paltry savings worth even less) and keep home prices artificially high. If we, not having a background in finance and economics can understand this, what is wrong with our leadership that they can't?
Today, I called my real estate agent and said, "I'm done waiting for a responsible time to buy a home." So I guess the bailout will work. Consumers like us who were doing things "by the book" will throw in the towel and take out debt beyond what we can really afford. I guess that's the only way to buy a home and we don't need to worry. If we can't pay our bills, Uncle Sam will come to the rescue.
Sincerely,
My Toe Mama (Insert my real name here)
NOTE TO MY TOE READERS:
I doubt I will actually do anything irresponsible because I just can't. Large financial purchases make me nauseous, stupid ones make me too ill to sign papers. I am seriously looking at homes though, because I think the bailout is going to devalue the dollar, making prices soar across the board.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Economic Plan
I admit to being limited in my understanding of the economic meltdown. I am trying to read and listen and gain a better grasp of it. Until then, I have to rely on people with smarter brains than mine. I try to read and listen to people I trust. Dave Ramsey, author of Money Makeover and a number of financial resources had this economic plan on his website. I think it is a great first step:
The Common Sense Fix
Years of bad decisions and stupid mistakes have created an economic nightmare in this country,
but $700 billion in new debt is not the answer. As a tax-paying American citizen, I will not support
any congressperson who votes to implement such a policy. Instead, I submit the following threestep
Common Sense Plan.
I. INSURANCE
a. Insure the subprime bonds/mortgages with an underlying FHA-type insurance.
Government-insured and backed loans would have an instant market all over the
world, creating immediate and needed liquidity.
b. In order for a company to accept the government-backed insurance, they must do two
things:
1. Rewrite any mortgage that is more than three months delinquent to a
6% fixed-rate mortgage.
a. Roll all back payments with no late fees or legal costs into the
balance. This brings homeowners current and allows them a
chance to keep their homes.
b. Cancel all prepayment penalties to encourage refinancing or
the sale of the property to pay off the bad loan. In the event of
foreclosure or short sale, the borrower will not be held liable
for any deficit balance. FHA does this now, and that
encourages mortgage companies to go the extra mile while
working with the borrower—again limiting foreclosures and
ruined lives.
2. Cancel ALL golden parachutes of EXISTING and FUTURE CEOs and
executive team members as long as the company holds these
government-insured bonds/mortgages. This keeps underperforming
executives from being paid when they don’t do their jobs.
c. This backstop will cost less than $50 billion—a small fraction of the current proposal.
II. MARK TO MARKET
a. Remove mark to market accounting rules for two years on only subprime Tier III
bonds/mortgages. This keeps companies from being forced to artificially mark down
bonds/mortgages below the value of the underlying mortgages and real estate.
b. This move creates patience in the market and has an immediate stabilizing effect on
failing and ailing banks—and it costs the taxpayer nothing.
III. CAPITAL GAINS TAX
a. Remove the capital gains tax completely. Investors will flood the real estate and stock
market in search of tax-free profits, creating tremendous—and immediate—liquidity in
the markets. Again, this costs the taxpayer nothing.
b. This move will be seen as a lightning rod politically because many will say it is helping
the rich. The truth is the rich will benefit, but it will be their money that stimulates the
economy. This will enable all Americans to have more stable jobs and retirement
investments that go up instead of down.
This is not a time for envy, and it’s not a time for politics. It’s time for all of us, as Americans, to
stand up, speak out, and fix this
The Common Sense Fix
Years of bad decisions and stupid mistakes have created an economic nightmare in this country,
but $700 billion in new debt is not the answer. As a tax-paying American citizen, I will not support
any congressperson who votes to implement such a policy. Instead, I submit the following threestep
Common Sense Plan.
I. INSURANCE
a. Insure the subprime bonds/mortgages with an underlying FHA-type insurance.
Government-insured and backed loans would have an instant market all over the
world, creating immediate and needed liquidity.
b. In order for a company to accept the government-backed insurance, they must do two
things:
1. Rewrite any mortgage that is more than three months delinquent to a
6% fixed-rate mortgage.
a. Roll all back payments with no late fees or legal costs into the
balance. This brings homeowners current and allows them a
chance to keep their homes.
b. Cancel all prepayment penalties to encourage refinancing or
the sale of the property to pay off the bad loan. In the event of
foreclosure or short sale, the borrower will not be held liable
for any deficit balance. FHA does this now, and that
encourages mortgage companies to go the extra mile while
working with the borrower—again limiting foreclosures and
ruined lives.
2. Cancel ALL golden parachutes of EXISTING and FUTURE CEOs and
executive team members as long as the company holds these
government-insured bonds/mortgages. This keeps underperforming
executives from being paid when they don’t do their jobs.
c. This backstop will cost less than $50 billion—a small fraction of the current proposal.
II. MARK TO MARKET
a. Remove mark to market accounting rules for two years on only subprime Tier III
bonds/mortgages. This keeps companies from being forced to artificially mark down
bonds/mortgages below the value of the underlying mortgages and real estate.
b. This move creates patience in the market and has an immediate stabilizing effect on
failing and ailing banks—and it costs the taxpayer nothing.
III. CAPITAL GAINS TAX
a. Remove the capital gains tax completely. Investors will flood the real estate and stock
market in search of tax-free profits, creating tremendous—and immediate—liquidity in
the markets. Again, this costs the taxpayer nothing.
b. This move will be seen as a lightning rod politically because many will say it is helping
the rich. The truth is the rich will benefit, but it will be their money that stimulates the
economy. This will enable all Americans to have more stable jobs and retirement
investments that go up instead of down.
This is not a time for envy, and it’s not a time for politics. It’s time for all of us, as Americans, to
stand up, speak out, and fix this
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
The Nanny-nanny-boo-boo Election!
The political insult game is in full swing. Last week, Sarah Palin told a joke at the RNC about hockey mom's being "pitbulls with lipstick." This week Barack Obama said, "you can put lipstick on a pig, but its still a pig."
Let the outrage begin! This is just one of the many "outrages" the campaigns express on a daily basis. How dare they say this or that! I want an apology. All of this outrage, leads me to ask; Are we electing a President of the United States or a Kindergarten Hall Monitor?
Let the outrage begin! This is just one of the many "outrages" the campaigns express on a daily basis. How dare they say this or that! I want an apology. All of this outrage, leads me to ask; Are we electing a President of the United States or a Kindergarten Hall Monitor?
All I can say to the latest round of "outrage" is WHO CARES? So what, Obama made a lipstick jab. So what, Palin mocked Obama's skills as a Community Organizer. GET OVER IT! Can someone, preferably someone running for one of two most powerful political offices in our country, please, pretty please with a cherry on top, grow up and address some actual issues? We have soldiers in the Middle East dying at the behest of our nation. We have taxpayers burdened by an albatross of a tax code. We are in desperate need of a new energy policy. We need to know how our new President and Vice President will handle delicate matters of international diplomacy. Instead of finding out what these candidates will actually do to address these issues, we are subjected to another round of juvenile lipstick insults.
I am open in my support for McCain/Palin because my first choice candidate, Mike Huckabee didn't make the cut. Living in Washington State, most of my neighbors are Obama/Biden supporters. Should I follow the leadership of our nominees and resort to playground insults? Kick my neighbor in the shin, maybe call him a stupid boo-boo head? Wait, he already got kicked, well shot actually, in the leg right about the same time he was losing his hand in Afghanistan when a grenade exploded. This is a guy who probably wants to hear about actual issues. We may differ on who gets our vote, but I'll show him respect and act like an adult. Too bad we can't get the same from the campaign trail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)