My parents gave me a book a while back. (A looong while back.) The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey. I looked at it, and it was interesting, but I never read it. However, I didn't get rid of it either. So here, a few years later, I decided to read it, when I realized that, with student loans and car loans and everything else, my husband and I are totaling about $30k in debt. That scares the pants off me, because I know how easy it is for something to upset the balance of day-to-day life and send you into a budgeting tail spin. So I decided to take it for a read.
I wasn't raised with the best financial sense, or any, really. About the time I should've been learning about money management, either at home or from my parents (which would've been a disaster anyway..), I was living more or less on my own, and I dropped out of high school not long after. Like a lot of late teen/early 20-somethings, my idea of being good with my finances was being able to buy bread and milk after paying my bills at the end of the month. I never had anything to spare. Once I got married and had two incomes to work with, my husband and I got better about our money and were able to put away savings, which we would occasionally clean out for a large purchase and then build back up slowly. Then we discovered the credit card.
Credit cards are the devil. I believe this entirely. It's a system that lets people spend money they don't have, so they can pay it back incrimentally for the rest of their lives. The idea of a person without credit card debt is mind boggling, much like the idea of not having a car note or a mortgage. I've always been leery of large, recurring charges, and have never paid more that $300 a month for a car loan. My first financed car was only $140 a month. Still, I convinced myself that it was ok to trade my car in for a brand-new sedan, a beautiful shiny blue thing that just screamed 'You know you want me.' We weren't upside-down on my old Focus, so we traded her in and bought this blue beauty. My car payment went up to $270 a month, and I now have a $17k car loan, and I hate it. Not the car, but the weight of the debt that came along with it.
I pay all the bills for my household, so I'm the one who really feels the weight of our debts, and I got tired of it. I remembered my finance book, and I decided to read it. I was ready to hate it, to disbelieve it, to deny it, but I admit, I'm hooked. It's not a scheme, though it is rather subversive in that it describes how to turn your financial situation around and live WITHOUT DEBT. It's hard to imagine, right?
Our tax return came in, and I've written up a budget with it included, and if my husband and I are solid on our committment to curtail our spending and stick to it, we'll have $10k paid off by July. I don't know the totals yet for the whole year, because I haven't gotten that far, but I'm pretty serious about making it happen. I want to cut up my credit cards. I want to hack and slash my student loans. And I want to destroy my car note. I want to owe nothing and be able to buy things outright. And I want to start saving for a house. Crazy dreams, right? But with it, it can happen.
I'm not trying to sell the book, exactly. More the idea behind it, that people can live without credit and without debt. It's possible. Imagine the stress that could be taken away if you were living to live with the bare minimum and pay off your credit cards, your loans, your car, and even your mortgage. It's an exciting prospect.
My husband isn't really feeling the same push I am to get out from under our debts, but he trusts me to go with it. I'm hoping he'll get fully on board once he sees how much we were putting towards them. I figure as long as he gets his occasional toy and the internet and electricity doesn't get cut off, he'll be happy. Men are simple like that.
If you're interested, here's the link.
https://www.mytotalmoneymakeover.com/
Finance isn't just for nerds anymore.
TxT
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
The Silly Case of Teenagers Having Rights
This is a good one. I promise.
I'm pro-choice. Always have been. It's nobody's damn business what any woman does, medically or otherwise, with her body. I don't want people telling me I can't have tattoos or MUST have a child. It's not their life, it's not their business, and it's not their problem.
That being said, this article caught my interest, with the headline blip reading, Pregnant Teen Wins Abortion Battle. Here, have a look-see. It certainly wasn't what I was expecting, and I'm ashamed to admit it occurred in Texas. Yes, I live in a very RED state, but I like to think we're not THIS stupid.
Now, to clarify, I'm not saying the initial judgment of preventing the family from forcing the girl to have an abortion was stupid. She's an idiot, it's a fact, but I feel it would be horribly traumatizing for her to be forced through a medical procedure, ANY medical procedure, that she was not willing to consent to.
My first problem with this whole situation was the judge's decision that it was the girl's RIGHT to have the car and the cell phone. It was claimed that "her parents had taken away her phone, pulled her out of school, forced her to get two jobs and took away her car in an effort to "make her miserable so that she would give in to the coercion and have the abortion."" You know what it sounds like to me? It really sounds like the parents were trying to OPEN HER STUPID EYES to reality. With a baby, guess what? You can't go to school. You will need two jobs without an education. You probably won't be able to afford a phone. And the car? I'd bet my ass that it was their car, not hers.
Like many noters asked... when did having a car and a cell phone become a right, especially for a snotty teenager? Taking away things that parents have purchased and allowed their children to use has been, in my understanding, a historically used method of discipline and punishment. Maybe I just got that wrong and my parents weren't aware of my 'rights' under the law? Damn, should've sued them for my car. You know, the one I had a right to, without paying for the car, the gas, the insurance, and the maintenance.
My second and much larger problem with this scenario is the judge's decision that the girl's parents will be liable for half of the medical bill once she gives birth UNLESS the girl marries the father of the child. This is really kind of sick. It's punishing the parents for something they didn't want, didn't do, and tried to prevent, and it's pushing the girl into getting married at age 16 to another 16 year old, and both of them obviously aren't very bright, considering they couldn't even follow the picture directions on a condom wrapper.
I get it, the judge was pro-life, the girl didn't want to be forced into having an abortion, whatever. Why not settle with the parents for the child being put up for adoption? Why would any supposedly educated person support the idea of a 16-year-old girl and her 16-year-old boyfriend getting married and having a child? This whole case is insane. Perhaps the parents went about it a little harsher than would be preferred for the situation, but really?
If the teenage girl thinks she's prepared and capable of bringing a baby into the world and carrying for it, let her try, but if she wants to be seen as an independent adult, don't force her parents to care for her and pay for it. She shouldn't have it both ways. Either she needs her parents and should be required to listen to them and follow their rules and punishments, or she can do this herself and they should be allowed to wash their hands of the situation. Harsh, but what is she learning by having a judge order her parents to care for her and give her everything she wants? If you don't like what someone tells you, sue them and let the judge tell them they have to listen?
Crazy world..
TxT
I'm pro-choice. Always have been. It's nobody's damn business what any woman does, medically or otherwise, with her body. I don't want people telling me I can't have tattoos or MUST have a child. It's not their life, it's not their business, and it's not their problem.
That being said, this article caught my interest, with the headline blip reading, Pregnant Teen Wins Abortion Battle. Here, have a look-see. It certainly wasn't what I was expecting, and I'm ashamed to admit it occurred in Texas. Yes, I live in a very RED state, but I like to think we're not THIS stupid.
Now, to clarify, I'm not saying the initial judgment of preventing the family from forcing the girl to have an abortion was stupid. She's an idiot, it's a fact, but I feel it would be horribly traumatizing for her to be forced through a medical procedure, ANY medical procedure, that she was not willing to consent to.
My first problem with this whole situation was the judge's decision that it was the girl's RIGHT to have the car and the cell phone. It was claimed that "her parents had taken away her phone, pulled her out of school, forced her to get two jobs and took away her car in an effort to "make her miserable so that she would give in to the coercion and have the abortion."" You know what it sounds like to me? It really sounds like the parents were trying to OPEN HER STUPID EYES to reality. With a baby, guess what? You can't go to school. You will need two jobs without an education. You probably won't be able to afford a phone. And the car? I'd bet my ass that it was their car, not hers.
Like many noters asked... when did having a car and a cell phone become a right, especially for a snotty teenager? Taking away things that parents have purchased and allowed their children to use has been, in my understanding, a historically used method of discipline and punishment. Maybe I just got that wrong and my parents weren't aware of my 'rights' under the law? Damn, should've sued them for my car. You know, the one I had a right to, without paying for the car, the gas, the insurance, and the maintenance.
My second and much larger problem with this scenario is the judge's decision that the girl's parents will be liable for half of the medical bill once she gives birth UNLESS the girl marries the father of the child. This is really kind of sick. It's punishing the parents for something they didn't want, didn't do, and tried to prevent, and it's pushing the girl into getting married at age 16 to another 16 year old, and both of them obviously aren't very bright, considering they couldn't even follow the picture directions on a condom wrapper.
I get it, the judge was pro-life, the girl didn't want to be forced into having an abortion, whatever. Why not settle with the parents for the child being put up for adoption? Why would any supposedly educated person support the idea of a 16-year-old girl and her 16-year-old boyfriend getting married and having a child? This whole case is insane. Perhaps the parents went about it a little harsher than would be preferred for the situation, but really?
If the teenage girl thinks she's prepared and capable of bringing a baby into the world and carrying for it, let her try, but if she wants to be seen as an independent adult, don't force her parents to care for her and pay for it. She shouldn't have it both ways. Either she needs her parents and should be required to listen to them and follow their rules and punishments, or she can do this herself and they should be allowed to wash their hands of the situation. Harsh, but what is she learning by having a judge order her parents to care for her and give her everything she wants? If you don't like what someone tells you, sue them and let the judge tell them they have to listen?
Crazy world..
TxT
Friday, February 8, 2013
Melissa McCarthy
A friend said she was going to go see Identity Thief later tonight. I expressed my own interest, because I had seen the commercials, and I think Melissa McCarthy and Jason Bateman are both hilarious. I decided to look it up and see what buzz was going on, and I found this article.
Apparently, a movie critic decided to play a game of name-calling over Ms. McCarthy's weight. I'm completely lost on how her size, shape, or whatever it is that offended him has absolutely anything to do with her acting abilities or her performance in the movie. Her performances have always had me rolling with laughter, on TV and in movies. She's a riot, though that might not be why I respect her as much as I do.
Hollywood can be a vicious, cruel place for anyone who doesn't fit the mold, and the mold was definitely broken when they made Ms. McCarthy. She is a lovely, talented, hilarious woman who is completely outside the normal bounds of what Hollywood accepts, and I admire her tenacity and courage for taking on a career and an industry that so obviously and so strongly favors the young, the thin, and the gorgeous. Legs that go for miles, a single-digit waist, and a fashion-model face are basic requirements for getting anywhere as an actor, but she did it, carving out a place for herself in the entertainment industry, this woman who looks like she could be your neighbor, your teacher, or your mom.
Does she play upon her size? Sure. Is it any different than a curvy starlet taking on a part that involves nudity or sex appeal? Not a bit, in my opinion. We all have our own strengths and talents, and she plays up every talent she was born with and then some. She brings life to characters that wouldn't have the same depth and honesty if played by anyone else. She makes taboo topics approachable, things like comfort eating and difficulty with managing weight loss while also trying to keep the rest of your life on track. She's taking 'fat' off the four-letter-word list and reflecting the image and reality of a majority of American women and making us all laugh our asses off while she does it.
Does she make a poor role model by somehow glamorizing obesity? Nope. That's complete crap. Let's face it, people: some of us are fat. Some of us aren't. How is her acceptance and success with her body type as bad as or worse, in any way, than size 0 models that young (and not-so-young) girls try to emmulate through insane dieting, overexercise, and developing eating disorders? She embraces her beauty, her talents, and yes, her fat, and she has made a rocking career out of it.
Perhaps her former director Paul Feig said it best... "For his catty and school bully name-calling of the supremely talented Melissa McCarthy, I cordially invite Mr. Rex Reed to go f--k himself."
TxT
Apparently, a movie critic decided to play a game of name-calling over Ms. McCarthy's weight. I'm completely lost on how her size, shape, or whatever it is that offended him has absolutely anything to do with her acting abilities or her performance in the movie. Her performances have always had me rolling with laughter, on TV and in movies. She's a riot, though that might not be why I respect her as much as I do.
Hollywood can be a vicious, cruel place for anyone who doesn't fit the mold, and the mold was definitely broken when they made Ms. McCarthy. She is a lovely, talented, hilarious woman who is completely outside the normal bounds of what Hollywood accepts, and I admire her tenacity and courage for taking on a career and an industry that so obviously and so strongly favors the young, the thin, and the gorgeous. Legs that go for miles, a single-digit waist, and a fashion-model face are basic requirements for getting anywhere as an actor, but she did it, carving out a place for herself in the entertainment industry, this woman who looks like she could be your neighbor, your teacher, or your mom.
Does she play upon her size? Sure. Is it any different than a curvy starlet taking on a part that involves nudity or sex appeal? Not a bit, in my opinion. We all have our own strengths and talents, and she plays up every talent she was born with and then some. She brings life to characters that wouldn't have the same depth and honesty if played by anyone else. She makes taboo topics approachable, things like comfort eating and difficulty with managing weight loss while also trying to keep the rest of your life on track. She's taking 'fat' off the four-letter-word list and reflecting the image and reality of a majority of American women and making us all laugh our asses off while she does it.
Does she make a poor role model by somehow glamorizing obesity? Nope. That's complete crap. Let's face it, people: some of us are fat. Some of us aren't. How is her acceptance and success with her body type as bad as or worse, in any way, than size 0 models that young (and not-so-young) girls try to emmulate through insane dieting, overexercise, and developing eating disorders? She embraces her beauty, her talents, and yes, her fat, and she has made a rocking career out of it.
Perhaps her former director Paul Feig said it best... "For his catty and school bully name-calling of the supremely talented Melissa McCarthy, I cordially invite Mr. Rex Reed to go f--k himself."
TxT
Monday, February 4, 2013
Ghost of a King
So a while back, I had read that somewhere in England a parking lot was being excavated in hopes of finding the remains of an English king who had died in battle and had been buried in secret. In the unlikeliest of places, they found human remains bearing similar physical traits, such as scoliosis.. I thought this was all fascinating, because really, what are we if not creations of our history?
Today, I read that the remains had been identified positively as King Richard III, the last of the Plantagenet line of royalty. They were able to track down a current living relative of the king's sister and identify him through mitochondrial DNA. Here's the articlar:
http://news.yahoo.com/experts-remains-englands-king-richard-iii-105948025.html
Honestly, I find it fascinating. I love historical fiction, but the truth is often more intriguing. Fiction is distant from reality, if only by a faint line in our minds. History, however, is amazing in its intensity and twisted stories. It's said that it really is written by the winners, and it really makes you wonder about the stories told of the short-lived rule by Richard III. They say he murdered his nephews, the Princes in the Tower, to secure his rule, and he was touted as a cruel, deformed man. In truth, he did have scoliosis, but Shakespeare likely took more than his share of artistic license.
His remains tell of his demise and the humiliation that was rumored, and now proven, to follow, and I wonder what else the ghost of a king will reveal. History is written by the winners, and the losers are condemned to loathing, fear, distaste, and a story of half-truths. I hope that a clearer picture of who he was, how he lived, and how he died will clear some of the murk of history and legend that surrounds his name.
What other wonders of history lay hidden beneath something so bland as a parking lot?
TxT
Today, I read that the remains had been identified positively as King Richard III, the last of the Plantagenet line of royalty. They were able to track down a current living relative of the king's sister and identify him through mitochondrial DNA. Here's the articlar:
http://news.yahoo.com/experts-remains-englands-king-richard-iii-105948025.html
Honestly, I find it fascinating. I love historical fiction, but the truth is often more intriguing. Fiction is distant from reality, if only by a faint line in our minds. History, however, is amazing in its intensity and twisted stories. It's said that it really is written by the winners, and it really makes you wonder about the stories told of the short-lived rule by Richard III. They say he murdered his nephews, the Princes in the Tower, to secure his rule, and he was touted as a cruel, deformed man. In truth, he did have scoliosis, but Shakespeare likely took more than his share of artistic license.
His remains tell of his demise and the humiliation that was rumored, and now proven, to follow, and I wonder what else the ghost of a king will reveal. History is written by the winners, and the losers are condemned to loathing, fear, distaste, and a story of half-truths. I hope that a clearer picture of who he was, how he lived, and how he died will clear some of the murk of history and legend that surrounds his name.
What other wonders of history lay hidden beneath something so bland as a parking lot?
TxT
Friday, February 1, 2013
Ammo Shortages
So this blog wasn't really supposed to be political, but I'm seriously aggravated over the nationwide ammunition shortages. It's nearly impossible to buy .22LR ammo right now, which is a huge pain, since it's the cheapest to shoot. I really enjoy plinking with my Mark III at the range, and now that I've tried out my husband's 10/22 Ruger rifle, I'm completely in love with it. Easy to handle, quiet, practically no kick. It's shooting to the nth degree.
I guess we were lucky to even find some. The closest Academy was out. We ended up buying some from a small private store on the west side of El Paso, and were lucky to get some 9mm ammo as well. I don't understand the ammunition shortage, from an intellectual perspective. Do people really think that ALL guns are going to be banned? Why are people stocking up like WWIII is about to break out?
Yes, there is a lot of talk about restricting SOME guns. None of those guns use 9mm ammo. I'm sure there are some politicians with pipe dreams of completely illegalizing guns, but let's be honest, America loves her some guns. We were born of a bloody revolution and are loathe to forget it, no matter that it was over two centuries past. Violence is embedded in the very foundation of who we are, and I don't think illegalizing guns will make any amount of difference. Our guns are not going anywhere.
Either way, why is handgun ammo being bought up like it's going out of style? Are people so ridiculously paranoid and sucked in by the hype that they think they have to hoard ammo for pending civil war? Ugh. I find it moronic.
Let's face it: we are not going gunless. Like many people, I wouldn't support it. I support more open education of guns, instead of the meek fear we've been instilled with. We hate what we fear, and we fear what we don't know. Before I owned and regularly handled guns, I would have been alarmed, at the very least, if I noticed someone was carrying one in public in their purse or under their shirt. Now, with ownership and education, I would be more likely to ask them about what model they used and how it handled. More wide-spread education of guns would lead to less stupidity surrounding them, at least in theory. I admit, there are a LOT of stupid people out there, and even education cannot purge the herd of all of them.
It's well-documented that severe gun bans result in an increase in crime. Don't believe it? Check here. http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp This site is, as far as I can tell, unbiased and scrupulous in their reporting, and they report on much more than gun control. Love it or hate it, the facts speak for themselves. Get educated.
TxT
I guess we were lucky to even find some. The closest Academy was out. We ended up buying some from a small private store on the west side of El Paso, and were lucky to get some 9mm ammo as well. I don't understand the ammunition shortage, from an intellectual perspective. Do people really think that ALL guns are going to be banned? Why are people stocking up like WWIII is about to break out?
Yes, there is a lot of talk about restricting SOME guns. None of those guns use 9mm ammo. I'm sure there are some politicians with pipe dreams of completely illegalizing guns, but let's be honest, America loves her some guns. We were born of a bloody revolution and are loathe to forget it, no matter that it was over two centuries past. Violence is embedded in the very foundation of who we are, and I don't think illegalizing guns will make any amount of difference. Our guns are not going anywhere.
Either way, why is handgun ammo being bought up like it's going out of style? Are people so ridiculously paranoid and sucked in by the hype that they think they have to hoard ammo for pending civil war? Ugh. I find it moronic.
Let's face it: we are not going gunless. Like many people, I wouldn't support it. I support more open education of guns, instead of the meek fear we've been instilled with. We hate what we fear, and we fear what we don't know. Before I owned and regularly handled guns, I would have been alarmed, at the very least, if I noticed someone was carrying one in public in their purse or under their shirt. Now, with ownership and education, I would be more likely to ask them about what model they used and how it handled. More wide-spread education of guns would lead to less stupidity surrounding them, at least in theory. I admit, there are a LOT of stupid people out there, and even education cannot purge the herd of all of them.
It's well-documented that severe gun bans result in an increase in crime. Don't believe it? Check here. http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp This site is, as far as I can tell, unbiased and scrupulous in their reporting, and they report on much more than gun control. Love it or hate it, the facts speak for themselves. Get educated.
TxT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)