I don't watch a lot of TV. I never listen to commercial radio anymore. But I do like to watch the local news at 10, and, on occasion, a football game. Not a huge fan, but it's enjoyable sometimes, and it is cool when you live in a city that has a good team.
So, last night, while watching the Denver Broncos trash the San Francisco 49'ers (during which game Peyton Manning broke the all time NFL record for touchdown passes), I was assaulted at every commercial break:
"Fracking is good--vote against this fracking ban"
"Fracking is bad--vote for the fracking ban"
"My opponent is a fascist warmonger who wants to kick your granny out in the street and infect her with Ebola, take her to the hospital, then shove her out a window. Vote For Me"
"My opponent is a socialist nazi who wants to take away every cent you've ever earned and give it to smelly brown people, almost all of whom are illegals. Vote For Me!"
After a couple of rounds of this abuse, I got tired of it, but still wanted to watch the game. So I turned the sound down, and turned on "Metal Express" on the internet radio. Heavy metal music actually goes better with football than the endless insipid commentary, anyway. As long as you can still see the bodies crunch in HD.
Then it occurred to me--I shouldn't have to do this. I already voted, dammit!
Your political ads have no effect on me--I already voted!
Denver has had mail in elections for 12 years now, and Colorado has mandated it now for all counties. This, of course, has Republicans and other right wingnut types quite distressed that illegal aliens will register under dozens of aliases so they can vote numerous times for Democrats who will pass legislation ensuring that said illegals live a life of luxury on the public dime without working.
The fact that neither of these things ever comes to pass never changes the narrative.
Anyway, back to political ads (as much as $50 per second!). I thought--"Hey! Comcast can push movies and pro wrestling to my house on demand--whenever I want them--if I ever should--so why can't they block content on demand?"
Well, you know they could if they wanted to.
They should be required to. Colorado also has a system for tracking mail in ballots--mine just arrived at the Denver Election Commission this morning. I can actually prove that I already voted!
This should mean mandatory blocking of all political ads to my cable box. Unless told otherwise--there may be some sick individuals who enjoy seeing the same dozen ads every commercial break.
'Cause I already voted!
While they're at it, they should also be required to block ads for races in other districts, even if you never vote. I can't vote for either candidate in the 2nd District, because I live in the 1st. Those ads can't sway me, either--'cause I can't vote for either clown!
I demand my on demand political ad blocking NOW! Not just for me, but for everyone else who...ALREADY VOTED!
Ending Police Brutality--Hit 'Em Where It Hurts
We're undergoing an epidemic of police violence in this country. The brutality continues to follow the victims of it to the jails where they are held post arrest, and then to prison if they are convicted. Many incarceration facilities in this country make Gitmo look like a country club. People are beaten to death, die of frostbite in unheated solitary confinement, suffocate in restraints, and are tortured, sometimes dozens at a time. Usually for very minor infractions, such as possibly exhibiting the slightest resistance. Or even behaviors that are not resistant at all, just perceived that way by zealous jailers and police. Police are increasingly beating people on the street, and even shooting unarmed people on the chance that they might be armed and dangerous.
Many, perhaps a majority, of the victims of these crimes are either mentally ill or otherwise disabled. Less than immediate compliance with a "lawful order" can easily land you in a body bag.
Increasingly, it's the police and the jailers who are armed, dangerous and deranged.
What to do?
Obviously, filming the police is becoming more common. I see such video several times a week on the local news that I watch. The problem with this as a long term solution is that people tend to forget isolated incidents, and many people are sympathetic to the police. Many people see police beating a young black or Latino man, and automatically assume that he was a "gang banger" who had it coming.
Then most of the time, citizen complaints are met with some sort of review that lets the offending officers off the hook, after enough months have passed for the incident to fade from public memory. Or maybe you live in a jurisdiction where the sheriff or chief of police is an elected official, accountable to nobody but voters who may be, of a majority, racist "law and order" types who love to see police and jailers brutalize "gang bangers" and "illegals".
None of this ever seems to have a lasting effect. Police departments don't really need to sweep any of it under the rug in most places, they are so certain of their impunity. As they become better armed and see few of their peers punished, police tend to become more and more aggressive.
Sometimes communities react. Here in Denver CO, the community was so horrified by some incidents in the 90's that a referendum made it to the ballot, which passed overwhelmingly. It created a "community review board" to investigate incidents of police (but not jail) brutality. Not surprisingly, the committee tends to get stacked with people sympathetic to law enforcement, even including former LEO's (acronym for Law Enforcement Officer). Many cases are simply dismissed, with only the most egregious cases getting any action at all.
Even then, the Denver Police Department rarely ever actually enforces recommendations made by the board. Even when the board uses its rarely used power to terminate police, they are usually rehired by the Department, courtesy of an indifferent Internal Affairs Bureau and one of the last very strong unions.
What to do, then?
One thing that helps to some degree is to have the top law enforcement officials be appointed by, and answerable to, the mayor or other elected official that is not otherwise connected to law enforcement. As the uproar gets louder over recent incidents here, the mayor has fired one chief of police and two county sheriffs (in Denver, the Sheriff oversees the jails and executes eviction warrants and other administrative duties). He's scrambling to cover his ass every week it seems, as more videos get played on the news.
But it's not the news reports that got his ass in gear. It's pressure from the Denver City Council, along with very bad poll numbers. Our municipal election is next spring.
Why is the City Council breathing down the mayor's neck? Money. The Council has had to approve about $13 million in settlements for police and jail brutality lawsuits over the past 10 years. Nerves were already beginning to fray over all of these expensive settlements that a cash strapped city was having to pay.
Then last month, 10th Federal District Court judge John Kane "dropped the big one". He approved a $3.25 million settlement in a lawsuit filed by a man who was brutally beaten in the Denver City Jail:
http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_26266070/denver-pays-millions-settle-abuse-claims-against-police
As you can probably imagine, victims of jail brutality are lining up at the Federal courthouse with their hands out. Lawyers are readily accepting such cases, now that the floodgates have been opened.
In the past, such lawsuits have brought about incremental changes.
"No Knock" search warrants were banned here after a 2001 settlement for an incident where non uniformed police broke into the wrong home and shot a man who, understandably, thought he was the victim of a home invasion. This also brought and end to the use of military style "uniforms". Even the Denver SWAT unit has uniforms that clearly identify them as police. We don't have any MRAP's or tripod mounted machine guns here. The City Council banned such weapons and vehicles as a result of the same lawsuit.
Filming the police and the jailers helps a lot. Another incident brought about the use of security cameras all over the city and county jails. Some of that footage was quite useful to the inmate who sued and won the seven figure judgement.
Suing the police is even more effective, though. Especially if the victim wins. Cities and counties all over the country are short on cash, and all of the free MRAP's in the world won't put another penny in their coffers. Even if the city wins, the legal costs can be enormous, especially if they have to fight a Federal suit.
Hit 'em where it hurts. The pocketbook, the budget. Money talks.
Many, perhaps a majority, of the victims of these crimes are either mentally ill or otherwise disabled. Less than immediate compliance with a "lawful order" can easily land you in a body bag.
Increasingly, it's the police and the jailers who are armed, dangerous and deranged.
What to do?
Obviously, filming the police is becoming more common. I see such video several times a week on the local news that I watch. The problem with this as a long term solution is that people tend to forget isolated incidents, and many people are sympathetic to the police. Many people see police beating a young black or Latino man, and automatically assume that he was a "gang banger" who had it coming.
Then most of the time, citizen complaints are met with some sort of review that lets the offending officers off the hook, after enough months have passed for the incident to fade from public memory. Or maybe you live in a jurisdiction where the sheriff or chief of police is an elected official, accountable to nobody but voters who may be, of a majority, racist "law and order" types who love to see police and jailers brutalize "gang bangers" and "illegals".
None of this ever seems to have a lasting effect. Police departments don't really need to sweep any of it under the rug in most places, they are so certain of their impunity. As they become better armed and see few of their peers punished, police tend to become more and more aggressive.
Sometimes communities react. Here in Denver CO, the community was so horrified by some incidents in the 90's that a referendum made it to the ballot, which passed overwhelmingly. It created a "community review board" to investigate incidents of police (but not jail) brutality. Not surprisingly, the committee tends to get stacked with people sympathetic to law enforcement, even including former LEO's (acronym for Law Enforcement Officer). Many cases are simply dismissed, with only the most egregious cases getting any action at all.
Even then, the Denver Police Department rarely ever actually enforces recommendations made by the board. Even when the board uses its rarely used power to terminate police, they are usually rehired by the Department, courtesy of an indifferent Internal Affairs Bureau and one of the last very strong unions.
What to do, then?
One thing that helps to some degree is to have the top law enforcement officials be appointed by, and answerable to, the mayor or other elected official that is not otherwise connected to law enforcement. As the uproar gets louder over recent incidents here, the mayor has fired one chief of police and two county sheriffs (in Denver, the Sheriff oversees the jails and executes eviction warrants and other administrative duties). He's scrambling to cover his ass every week it seems, as more videos get played on the news.
But it's not the news reports that got his ass in gear. It's pressure from the Denver City Council, along with very bad poll numbers. Our municipal election is next spring.
Why is the City Council breathing down the mayor's neck? Money. The Council has had to approve about $13 million in settlements for police and jail brutality lawsuits over the past 10 years. Nerves were already beginning to fray over all of these expensive settlements that a cash strapped city was having to pay.
Then last month, 10th Federal District Court judge John Kane "dropped the big one". He approved a $3.25 million settlement in a lawsuit filed by a man who was brutally beaten in the Denver City Jail:
http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_26266070/denver-pays-millions-settle-abuse-claims-against-police
As you can probably imagine, victims of jail brutality are lining up at the Federal courthouse with their hands out. Lawyers are readily accepting such cases, now that the floodgates have been opened.
In the past, such lawsuits have brought about incremental changes.
"No Knock" search warrants were banned here after a 2001 settlement for an incident where non uniformed police broke into the wrong home and shot a man who, understandably, thought he was the victim of a home invasion. This also brought and end to the use of military style "uniforms". Even the Denver SWAT unit has uniforms that clearly identify them as police. We don't have any MRAP's or tripod mounted machine guns here. The City Council banned such weapons and vehicles as a result of the same lawsuit.
Filming the police and the jailers helps a lot. Another incident brought about the use of security cameras all over the city and county jails. Some of that footage was quite useful to the inmate who sued and won the seven figure judgement.
Suing the police is even more effective, though. Especially if the victim wins. Cities and counties all over the country are short on cash, and all of the free MRAP's in the world won't put another penny in their coffers. Even if the city wins, the legal costs can be enormous, especially if they have to fight a Federal suit.
Hit 'em where it hurts. The pocketbook, the budget. Money talks.
Obama Totally Sucks
Part 1 of a multi-part series of indeterminate length
Back when I was younger, I used to think that President Obama was maybe sort of an OK guy, and certainly better looking than either John McCain or Sarah Palin. I looked at him and said to myself "This guy doesn't suck nearly as bad as George Bush".
I guess I was wrong, though. As has been pointed out to me many times, George Bush is whiter and more Christian than Obama. The same people also point out to me that Obama is also a socialist, which right away makes him a very bad person.
But there are other people who ascribe to a very different view. They ardently believe that Obama sucks, and sucks worse than Bush, but not because Obama is less white or Christian than Bush. They say that Obama is even worse than Bush, because they expected Bush to be a tyrannical fascist. They expected, or at least hoped, that Mr Obama would be the second coming of SuperFDRMan.
But alas, here we are, just months into his second term, and Obama still has not started a war in Europe or had Japanese people rounded up and forced to live in concentration camps. Therefore, since he isn't as great as SuperFDRMan, and refuses to behead George Bush and Jamie Dimon and display their heads on pikes on the White House lawn, then he is obviously a fascist.
All of which confuses me. Obviously, Obama sucks. But I can't think of any other political figure in human history that sucked so much that he was both a socialist and a fascist. Then I got to thinking--both sides have it wrong. Obama doesn't suck because he's a socialist. He doesn't suck because he's a fascist.
He sucks so badly because, in reality, he is a sociofascist.
Not only that, he is an Islamosociofascist, which sucks even more. Don't believe me? I can prove it!
Look at that. Proof beyond any doubt. If you can't look at that flowchart and see immediately the overwhelming evidence of Obama's Islamosociofascism, then you probably suck, too.
Finally, I recently uncovered evidence of Obama's sickest crime against humanity. In the 70's and 80's, he was very influential in the music world, and championed the horrible practice of using the cowbell in rock music.
If only the Blue Oyster Cult hadn't listened to him, today's America wouldn't suck nearly so badly.
Obama truly sucks. But most of you reading this don't seem to understand the true reasons for his suckiness. Now you know. Go forth, and spread the true word.
Back when I was younger, I used to think that President Obama was maybe sort of an OK guy, and certainly better looking than either John McCain or Sarah Palin. I looked at him and said to myself "This guy doesn't suck nearly as bad as George Bush".
I guess I was wrong, though. As has been pointed out to me many times, George Bush is whiter and more Christian than Obama. The same people also point out to me that Obama is also a socialist, which right away makes him a very bad person.
But there are other people who ascribe to a very different view. They ardently believe that Obama sucks, and sucks worse than Bush, but not because Obama is less white or Christian than Bush. They say that Obama is even worse than Bush, because they expected Bush to be a tyrannical fascist. They expected, or at least hoped, that Mr Obama would be the second coming of SuperFDRMan.
But alas, here we are, just months into his second term, and Obama still has not started a war in Europe or had Japanese people rounded up and forced to live in concentration camps. Therefore, since he isn't as great as SuperFDRMan, and refuses to behead George Bush and Jamie Dimon and display their heads on pikes on the White House lawn, then he is obviously a fascist.
All of which confuses me. Obviously, Obama sucks. But I can't think of any other political figure in human history that sucked so much that he was both a socialist and a fascist. Then I got to thinking--both sides have it wrong. Obama doesn't suck because he's a socialist. He doesn't suck because he's a fascist.
He sucks so badly because, in reality, he is a sociofascist.
Not only that, he is an Islamosociofascist, which sucks even more. Don't believe me? I can prove it!
Look at that. Proof beyond any doubt. If you can't look at that flowchart and see immediately the overwhelming evidence of Obama's Islamosociofascism, then you probably suck, too.
Finally, I recently uncovered evidence of Obama's sickest crime against humanity. In the 70's and 80's, he was very influential in the music world, and championed the horrible practice of using the cowbell in rock music.
If only the Blue Oyster Cult hadn't listened to him, today's America wouldn't suck nearly so badly.
Obama truly sucks. But most of you reading this don't seem to understand the true reasons for his suckiness. Now you know. Go forth, and spread the true word.
Cannatabulous!
First off, I'd just like to say--enough with the "Rocky Mountain High" jokes already.
I'm sure that everybody has heard by now that Colorado just passed an amendment to its constitution, Amendment 64, that more or less legalizes cannabis in Colorado. Even more than it is already.
It's time. It's time to move forward, away from the War On Drugs. We just passed, by a healthy margin, a poorly worded, confusing constitutional amendment just because it legalized cannabis.
It's time. Public sentiment is on the move. It has happened with medical cannabis already in about a third of US states so far.
It's time to put this on the ballot in all 50 states.
We are definitely a weed friendly state. Maybe the altitude does have something to do with it. We were among the first states to decriminalize cannabis possession. In other words, it's a civil, rather than a criminal, offense, similar to a traffic offense. For close to 40 years now, possession of up to 60 grams is a petty offense, and you can pay the fine by mail like with a speeding ticket.
In fact, the speeding ticket will cost you more. It's a more serious offense here to drive 15 mph over the speed limit than it is to have a cereal bowl full of weed on your dining room table.
Until now.
Now, apparently, it's not even a civil offense anymore. Or is it? Or isn't it? For sure it isn't a crime if the cereal bowl has an ounce or less of weed in it. Beyond that, I'm really not sure. Check out some of the language:
(3) Personal use of marijuana. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW, THE FOLLOWING ACTS ARE NOT UNLAWFUL AND SHALL NOT BE AN OFFENSE UNDER COLORADO LAW OR THE LAW OF ANY LOCALITY WITHIN COLORADO OR BE A BASIS FOR SEIZURE OR FORFEITURE OF ASSETS UNDER COLORADO LAW FOR PERSONS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER.
(a) POSSESSING, USING, DISPLAYING, PURCHASING, OR TRANSPORTING MARIJUANA ACCESSORIES OR ONE OUNCE OR LESS OF MARIJUANA.
(b) POSSESSING, GROWING, PROCESSING, OR TRANSPORTING NO MORE THAN SIX MARIJUANA PLANTS, WITH THREE OR FEWER BEING MATURE, FLOWERING PLANTS, AND POSSESSION OF THE MARIJUANA PRODUCED BY THE PLANTS ON THE PREMISES WHERE THE PLANTS WERE GROWN, PROVIDED THAT THE GROWING TAKES PLACE IN AN ENCLOSED, LOCKED SPACE, IS NOT CONDUCTED OPENLY OR PUBLICLY, AND IS NOT MADE AVAILABLE FOR SALE.
(c) TRANSFER OF ONE OUNCE OR LESS OF MARIJUANA WITHOUT REMUNERATION TO A PERSON WHO IS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER.
(d) CONSUMPTION OF MARIJUANA, PROVIDED THAT NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PERMIT CONSUMPTION THAT IS CONDUCTED OPENLY AND PUBLICLY OR IN A MANNER THAT ENDANGERS OTHERS.
(e) ASSISTING ANOTHER PERSON WHO IS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER IN ANY OF THE ACTS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPHS (a) THROUGH (d) OF THIS SUBSECTION.
See, what I take away from that is that it could still be a crime to have more than an ounce of weed. But wait--there's more:
(4) Lawful operation of marijuana-related facilities. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW, THE FOLLOWING ACTS ARE NOT UNLAWFUL AND SHALL NOT BE AN OFFENSE UNDER COLORADO LAW OR BE A BASIS FOR SEIZURE OR FORFEITURE OF ASSETS UNDER COLORADO LAW FOR PERSONS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER:
(a) MANUFACTURE, POSSESSION, OR PURCHASE OF MARIJUANA ACCESSORIES OR THE SALE OF MARIJUANA ACCESSORIES TO A PERSON WHO IS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER.
(b) POSSESSING, DISPLAYING, OR TRANSPORTING MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS; PURCHASE OF MARIJUANA FROM A MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY; PURCHASE OF MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS FROM A MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY; OR SALE OF MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS TO CONSUMERS, IF THE PERSON CONDUCTING THE ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED IN THIS PARAGRAPH HAS OBTAINED A CURRENT, VALID LICENSE TO OPERATE A RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE OR IS ACTING IN HIS OR HER CAPACITY AS AN OWNER, EMPLOYEE OR AGENT OF A LICENSED RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE.
(c) CULTIVATING, HARVESTING, PROCESSING, PACKAGING, TRANSPORTING, DISPLAYING, OR POSSESSING MARIJUANA; DELIVERY OR TRANSFER OF MARIJUANA TO A MARIJUANA TESTING FACILITY; SELLING MARIJUANA TO A MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY, A MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY, OR A RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE; OR THE PURCHASE OF MARIJUANA FROM A MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY, IF THE PERSON CONDUCTING THE ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED IN THIS PARAGRAPH HAS OBTAINED A CURRENT, VALID LICENSE TO OPERATE A MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY OR IS ACTING IN HIS OR HER CAPACITY AS AN OWNER, EMPLOYEE, OR AGENT OF A LICENSED MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY.
(d) PACKAGING, PROCESSING, TRANSPORTING, MANUFACTURING, DISPLAYING, OR POSSESSING MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS; DELIVERY OR TRANSFER OF MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS TO A MARIJUANA TESTING FACILITY; SELLING MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS TO A RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE OR A MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY; THE PURCHASE OF MARIJUANA FROM A MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY; OR THE PURCHASE OF MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS FROM A MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY, IF THE PERSON CONDUCTING THE ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED IN THIS PARAGRAPH HAS OBTAINED A CURRENT, VALID LICENSE TO OPERATE A MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY OR IS ACTING IN HIS OR HER CAPACITY AS AN OWNER, EMPLOYEE, OR AGENT OF A LICENSED MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY.
(e) POSSESSING, CULTIVATING, PROCESSING, REPACKAGING, STORING, TRANSPORTING, DISPLAYING, TRANSFERRING OR DELIVERING MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS IF THE PERSON HAS OBTAINED A CURRENT, VALID LICENSE TO OPERATE A MARIJUANA TESTING FACILITY OR IS ACTING IN HIS OR HER CAPACITY AS AN OWNER, EMPLOYEE, OR AGENT OF A LICENSED MARIJUANA TESTING FACILITY.
(f) LEASING OR OTHERWISE ALLOWING THE USE OF PROPERTY OWNED, OCCUPIED OR CONTROLLED BY ANY PERSON, CORPORATION OR OTHER ENTITY FOR ANY OF THE ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED LAWFULLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPHS (a) THROUGH (e) OF THIS SUBSECTION.
Apparently, you can buy and sell tons of weed if you have a store to sell it in and get a license. I don't see any weight limits there. This amendment is one legal clusterfuck. It reads like it was written by a committee of lawyers at an all nighter at a MMJ dispensary.
Of which there are already many. Here is the full text of the law, which has already made some of Colorado's best legal minds explode:
There are so many questions right now, and so few answers. What will the Federal government do now? They've been tolerating Colorado's medical marijuana for years, dispensaries and all. But now, it looks like the dispensaries will be able to sell it to any adult, even if they don't have a medical card. Will Uncle Sam, Eric Holder and President Obama still stay back now that it's not just medical?
The 10th District has been pretty weed-friendly so far as well. But will it continue to be, now that the industry is being de-linked from medical use?
Lots of questions, and few answers yet.
But one thing is for sure. Cannabis prohibition can be ended in this country. Politicians won't do it, so it will have to be done at the ballot box. One city at a time, one state at a time, just like with medical.
It's time.
I'd like to congratulate those who live in Washington as well. Two in one night!
Now I'm going to have to find out how I go about getting one of those licenses to operate a marijuana testing facility.
_______
_______
The First Presidential Debate of 2012--An Epic Historical Event
Epic. Just epic.
I wonder what it was like?
Once I realized that both candidates' opening statements were actually the scripts to their latest campaign commercials, I started channel surfing.
I watched an episode of The Toy Hunter. Pretty silly.
So I went downstairs to do maintenance work on my backyard nuclear power plant. Then I finished my latest batch of VX.
Hobbies are good to keep your mind active.
So is good weed, so I smoked some. Maybe I should have tried watching the tail end of the debate afterwards. It might have made me forget that both candidates were just spewing well-rehearsed talking points.
Now the first debate is over. How was it? The consensus seems to be that Obama didn't do well, and that Romney did, in fact, bother to show up.
When's the next debate? I want to miss that one, too.
I might watch the Biden-Ryan debate just for the real possibility that hilarity might ensue. Too bad we can't vote for Vice President separately. If you could, then I might just run for Vice-President.
After all, people run for Lieutenant Governor or Deputy Mayor. Not only that, but, as everybody knows, the Vice President is just a muzzle flash away from the Presidency.
Which is why John McCain is lucky that he lost in 2008. His Veep might have "accidentally" shot him with a rifle from a helicopter. I think that the Vice President's hunting helicopter is designated Air Force Eleventy. Biden uses his for beer runs.
I hope that Chelsea Clinton and Jenna Bush win their respective parties' nominations in 2016. I'd watch that debate.
Chelsea: "Under my tax proposal, top marginal rates would be increased by twenty five basis points, and everybody whose income is more than $100 million a year would be subject to a 0.0001% surtax on the next $100 million. By imposing these tax increases and cutting military spending by $50-$100 each year, the budget should be balanced sometime within my successor's second term"
Jenna: "Taxes are boring! We shouldn't have any. If we didn't have taxes, then everybody would, like, have a job. It's like, y'know, DUH! That's what my dad says, and he used to be President."
Jenna would probably lose the debates, but win the election. After all, who would you rather share a pitcher of margaritas with--Jenna or Chelsea? Jenna wins that one hands down. Chelsea would nurse one margarita for two hours, then leave early because she "Has a very busy day tomorrow". Jenna would get slammed and you just might get lucky.
When Thomas Jefferson debated John Adams during the 1796 campaign, Larry King asked them about their stances on universal health coverage.
Jefferson responded: "It is only right and just that those who cannot pay their barbers to lance boils, let blood or apply blisters, should receive some governmental assistance so that they may avail themselves of these vital services in their time of need. I also favor a prescription drug plan that would cover the cost of up to a 90 day supply of leeches."
Adams countered: "Such statements are madness! Why, if we give people money to get their boils lanced, then the next thing you know, we'll be knee deep in seditious aliens! Think about it! I should also like to point out that, although my opponent may be quite wealthy, he is still just a hick from Virginia."
Playing the "illegals" card probably won Adams his 71-68 vote Electoral College squeaker.
I think I've strayed from my original point here.
All I really want is for somebody who watched the debate to let me know what it was like.
'Cause I just can't stand to watch.
KFC And "Honey Sauce"--Corporate Greed In Its Least Tasty Form
I recently went to KFC, or, as it was known in another day and age, "Kentucky Fried Chicken" for lunch. I was waiting for a scrip to be filled, and the KFC is right next door to the pharmacy. I can hear the jokes already...
I rarely ever eat at KFC, even though fried chicken is one of my favorite foods. I just don't happen to like theirs very well, and my wife doesn't like fried chicken at all. So I eat at KFC once every few years or so.
I ordered some chicken that came with 2 not very good sides and a biscuit. I went over to the condiment area to get some honey for my biscuit. Instead of honey, there were packets labeled "Honey Sauce".
I rarely ever eat at KFC, even though fried chicken is one of my favorite foods. I just don't happen to like theirs very well, and my wife doesn't like fried chicken at all. So I eat at KFC once every few years or so.
I ordered some chicken that came with 2 not very good sides and a biscuit. I went over to the condiment area to get some honey for my biscuit. Instead of honey, there were packets labeled "Honey Sauce".
"Honey Sauce"? Really? They can charge me over $5 for two pieces of chicken with glue-like mac 'n cheese, watery cole slaw and a pasty biscuit, but they can't give me 9 grams of actual honey to go with it? 'Cause that's how much "honey sauce" there is in one of those packets. "Honey Sauce" that, according to the packet, is 7% real honey? That's 2/3 of a gram of honey, mixed with mostly corn syrup.
9 grams. Over at Dutch Gold Honey's website (they of the Honey Bears), I can buy a 60 pound pail of honey for $181, including shipping. That works out to about $.06 for the 9 grams. Six cents! At retail! How much does it cost to put 9 grams of honey in one of those fancy plastic packets? I don't know.
But how much less could 9 grams of "honey sauce" cost than the real thing? Are they saving maybe four cents or so per packet by giving us fake honey? Were KFC's going out of business because people were taking too many real honey packets? Jeeziz! They could at least hoard them behind the counter like they do at McDonald's. Of course, if you ask for ketchup at McDonald's, the kid behind the counter usually gives you like a dozen packets of it.
Maybe that was the problem. Generous employees + greedy customers="Honey Sauce".
Of course, this is the same chain that switched to artificial "mashed potatoes and gravy" to save space and labor. They did this after the Colonel sold the chain to Seagram's, but before he died. He was known to be something of a hothead, so his frustration over the mashed potatoes probably killed him. He only lived to 90. I wonder how much fried chicken the good Colonel ate?
I'm sure he never ate any "Honey Sauce". Did you know that 1 packet of "Honey Sauce" has as many calories as one of the biscuits? Really. They both weigh in at 70 calories.
Real honey has about 30 calories per 9 grams.
"Honey Sauce" indeed. Popeye's still gives you real honey packets. They also have real mashed potatoes and their fried chicken rocks! I think I'll go back to driving the extra mile.
'Cause I can't think of a less tasty manifestation of corporate greed than "Honey Sauce", fake mashed potatoes and mediocre chicken for five or six bucks.
By the way, in case anybody's wondering, the "Honey Sauce" is just as bad as the "mashed potatoes".
John Roberts And The Interstate Commerce Clause
Did you ever take a civics or government class? Not enough Americans have. Otherwise, the Supreme Court decision regarding the Affordable Care Act would be seen in a different light than what most pundits and commentators are currently painting it as.
This is not just a matter of the Chief Justice simply changing sides for one decision. This is not the story of a Supreme Court Justice suddenly developing a fondness for social programs. It's not a matter of extortion, or big business money. Not even a ploy to see if Glen Beck's head would explode. Although that would have been nice.
No. This was a matter of preserving the power of the Federal government, a government in which he holds a key and powerful position.
Those who did take one of those civics or government classes might remember going over something frequently referred to as the "Twelve Powers of Congress". Also known as Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. This section delineates exactly what areas of law that Congress has the power to legislate.
Sort of, anyway. One of the problems with having a constitution as short as ours is is that there's a lot of squishy language in there, written in 18th century legalese. So maybe it's not all as clear as it could be.
The Twelve Powers of the US Congress:
*Impose and collect taxes
*Borrow money
*Regulate interstate and international commerce
*Set immigration and naturalization law and policy
*Coin money, and establish punishment for counterfeiting currency
*Establish post offices and roads
*Provide for registry of patents and copyrights
*Constitute lower Federal Courts
*Define and provide punishments for piracy, treason, and crimes against other nations
*Declare war, raise armies, provide and maintain a navy, establish military law, call up militias, and organize them to the extent needed for Federal purposes
*Run Washington DC
*Make laws to do all of this
Did you see how I bolded "regulate interstate and international commerce"? This is sometimes referred to as the Commerce Clause, Interstate Commerce Clause, or just ICC for short.
It is very likely the most abused clause in the entire constitution, because Congress passes tons of laws that have nothing to do with any of the other powers, but somehow have something to do with interstate commerce. To help this process along, Federal courts have even ruled that intrastate commerce is really interstate commerce, due to some sort of "butterfly effect" or something.
Really. A farmer was fined for growing too much wheat, since the Federal government set limits on wheat production during WW2 to drive up wheat prices. Apparently, Congress didn't think that bread was expensive enough.
The farmer contended that the extra wheat was for his own use on his own farm. To feed his animals, family, and help. As such, it never entered commerce at all, either interstate or intrastate. But Federal courts upheld the fine and the law, contending that the extra wheat that he grew and ate was somehow depressing wheat prices in other states.
This case, Wickard v Filburn (1942), opened up the floodgates for the Federal government to exercise its power over pretty much anything, anywhere, anytime. All they had to do was say that it affected interstate commerce, and the Supreme Court had more or less defined everything as being somehow related to interstate commerce.
What followed, of course, was a plethora of laws that, in my opinion and that of many others, have squat to do with interstate commerce, and really nothing to do with Congress' other powers, either. Some are benign or even beneficial, like the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Others are immensely destructive, like the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.
Aside from Roberts, the other four authoritarian conservative justices were willing to invalidate the law entirely, using the fact that Congress has no such power to force people to buy insurance. To be sure, such a law certainly has nothing to do with post roads or patents.
Or even interstate commerce, really, since insurance is state regulated and insurance companies are technically barred from doing business across state lines. I might even write a lengthy piece in the future as to that second matter.
As much as Roberts might have liked to have joined his conservative colleagues in invalidating a commie sociofascist law, he certainly didn't want to invalidate most of his own power, either. That would suck for him. Because doing so would be to overturn decades of precedent of using the ICC to justify almost anything and everything that Congress wants to do.
So he joined the four centrist/liberals, and ruled that Congress damned well could do this. Under the taxation clause. This ruling sidesteps any use of the ICC at all, and safely preserves the power of Congress and the rest of the Federal government to do any damn thing they want to.
I was sort of hoping that he'd join the rest of the RATS (TAKS?). As much as I'd hate to see the Civil Rights Act challenged in court after the evisceration of the ICC, I would have really loved to see the inevitable challenge to the Controlled Substances Act. Plus at least another third of the US Code.
It would have been tumultuous and entertaining. It would have clogged the courts for years. It would have had many consequences, good and bad, intended and unintended.
Ultimately, it would have restored the Federal government to its true scope of power. In theory at least.
It would have been wild and woolly. But the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court switched sides to keep it from happening. At least he's interested in preserving one job.
His own.
That's my theory, anyway. Makes sense to me.
This is not just a matter of the Chief Justice simply changing sides for one decision. This is not the story of a Supreme Court Justice suddenly developing a fondness for social programs. It's not a matter of extortion, or big business money. Not even a ploy to see if Glen Beck's head would explode. Although that would have been nice.
No. This was a matter of preserving the power of the Federal government, a government in which he holds a key and powerful position.
Those who did take one of those civics or government classes might remember going over something frequently referred to as the "Twelve Powers of Congress". Also known as Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. This section delineates exactly what areas of law that Congress has the power to legislate.
Sort of, anyway. One of the problems with having a constitution as short as ours is is that there's a lot of squishy language in there, written in 18th century legalese. So maybe it's not all as clear as it could be.
The Twelve Powers of the US Congress:
*Impose and collect taxes
*Borrow money
*Regulate interstate and international commerce
*Set immigration and naturalization law and policy
*Coin money, and establish punishment for counterfeiting currency
*Establish post offices and roads
*Provide for registry of patents and copyrights
*Constitute lower Federal Courts
*Define and provide punishments for piracy, treason, and crimes against other nations
*Declare war, raise armies, provide and maintain a navy, establish military law, call up militias, and organize them to the extent needed for Federal purposes
*Run Washington DC
*Make laws to do all of this
Did you see how I bolded "regulate interstate and international commerce"? This is sometimes referred to as the Commerce Clause, Interstate Commerce Clause, or just ICC for short.
It is very likely the most abused clause in the entire constitution, because Congress passes tons of laws that have nothing to do with any of the other powers, but somehow have something to do with interstate commerce. To help this process along, Federal courts have even ruled that intrastate commerce is really interstate commerce, due to some sort of "butterfly effect" or something.
Really. A farmer was fined for growing too much wheat, since the Federal government set limits on wheat production during WW2 to drive up wheat prices. Apparently, Congress didn't think that bread was expensive enough.
The farmer contended that the extra wheat was for his own use on his own farm. To feed his animals, family, and help. As such, it never entered commerce at all, either interstate or intrastate. But Federal courts upheld the fine and the law, contending that the extra wheat that he grew and ate was somehow depressing wheat prices in other states.
This case, Wickard v Filburn (1942), opened up the floodgates for the Federal government to exercise its power over pretty much anything, anywhere, anytime. All they had to do was say that it affected interstate commerce, and the Supreme Court had more or less defined everything as being somehow related to interstate commerce.
What followed, of course, was a plethora of laws that, in my opinion and that of many others, have squat to do with interstate commerce, and really nothing to do with Congress' other powers, either. Some are benign or even beneficial, like the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Others are immensely destructive, like the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.
Aside from Roberts, the other four authoritarian conservative justices were willing to invalidate the law entirely, using the fact that Congress has no such power to force people to buy insurance. To be sure, such a law certainly has nothing to do with post roads or patents.
Or even interstate commerce, really, since insurance is state regulated and insurance companies are technically barred from doing business across state lines. I might even write a lengthy piece in the future as to that second matter.
As much as Roberts might have liked to have joined his conservative colleagues in invalidating a commie sociofascist law, he certainly didn't want to invalidate most of his own power, either. That would suck for him. Because doing so would be to overturn decades of precedent of using the ICC to justify almost anything and everything that Congress wants to do.
So he joined the four centrist/liberals, and ruled that Congress damned well could do this. Under the taxation clause. This ruling sidesteps any use of the ICC at all, and safely preserves the power of Congress and the rest of the Federal government to do any damn thing they want to.
I was sort of hoping that he'd join the rest of the RATS (TAKS?). As much as I'd hate to see the Civil Rights Act challenged in court after the evisceration of the ICC, I would have really loved to see the inevitable challenge to the Controlled Substances Act. Plus at least another third of the US Code.
It would have been tumultuous and entertaining. It would have clogged the courts for years. It would have had many consequences, good and bad, intended and unintended.
Ultimately, it would have restored the Federal government to its true scope of power. In theory at least.
It would have been wild and woolly. But the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court switched sides to keep it from happening. At least he's interested in preserving one job.
His own.
That's my theory, anyway. Makes sense to me.
Progressive Democrats, Now And Then
"Progressive" commentators frequently invoke the Great Depression, FDR, and the "Money Party" (I love it when alleged progressives keep invoking a quotation from one of the players that brought us this mess in the first place), when trying to account for all of the evils in the world and the fact that the government hasn't solved all of their problems. Things were different during the Great Depression, during the reign of FDR.
Damn right. The Great Depression was a much different situation than today's. More importantly, FDR didn't do anything in a vacuum. He didn't wave any magic wands and just make the depression end. He had to deal with a mostly non-compliant Congress, and anything he accomplished (much of which was illusory anyway) only happened because the legislators in Congress passed bills, most of which he didn't introduce.
Democrats (but not all of them) voted for the bills that created what we have of a social safety net. Republicans voted against them. Just like now.
Even then, CCC and WPA combined didn't end the depression. They shaved about 1% off of the unemployment stats. The depression ended because the big ass war that FDR had been jonesing for his entire political career finally appeared. Japan lifted us up by attacking us. The resulting military buildup was paid for through increased taxes, but they were paid for as much by the middle class as the wealthy. The flip side of the high taxes was that the middle class ended up paying higher taxes as well. You will now probably now tell me that they got more in return then for their high tax burden.
Bullshit. If anything, they got less. No TANF, no WIC, no food stamps, no SSDI (even after SS was enacted, which the middle class pays for almost exclusively), no EIC, no Child Tax Credit, no education credits or Pell Grants...nothing much except the soup kitchens that had already been there for a couple of decades.
The gains that were made through expanding social programs (most of which did not happen during FDR's 14 years in office) all happened as a result of narrow legislative victories. Almost all of the very close margins went more or less along party lines. SS, Medicare, etc.--all were passed by the efforts of progressive Democrats. They always face an uphill battle, but they're successful when there are enough of them and sympathetic centrist and even conservative Democrats, combined with a Democrat in the White House.
Yeah, a Democrat. Does pointing this out make me a party apparatchik? If you think so, you're wrong. It's just reality. All of those social programs listed above? Every last one of them was signed into law by Democratic Presidents. FDR, LBJ, Carter and Clinton. Yes. Even Bill Clinton. Every last one was passed when Democrats controlled at least one House, but mostly when they controlled both. Every last one passed by a narrow vote. A few more Republicans in the House at any one of those times, and, well...no Social Security to even argue over.
Some say that there are no more Democrats like that, but theyre wrong. People are people. There are still Wall Street lawyers who really do care about the less fortunate. That was the only private sector job that obscenely wealthy FDR ever held. Today, that would be a disqualifier. Same with being obscenely wealthy and doing nothing with your life other than the pursuit of power in politics. Bye, bye JFK and RFK. You'd probably dismiss anyone who was an obscenely wealthy real estate developer, too. Like LBJ.
So the progressive Democrats of today get dismissed for having resumes quite similar to the greatest heroes of the liberal pantheon. People like, in my neck of the woods, Andrew Romanoff (law professor, corporate attorney), Ken Gordon (lawyer, professional politician), Jared Polis (venture capitalist, wealthiest member of Congress) and Mark Udall (scion of a political dynasty that spans the Rockies).
If we had more progressive Democrats in there, we might just have a better health care bill, along with other goodies, maybe even including military spending cuts, new social programs, and increased taxes on the wealthy. All of the politicians listed above are Democrats, and they're all in favor of just those policies. But there aren't enough of them. A big reason for that is that not enough "progressives" support them. Almost all of them got in with narrow victories, and wouldn't be there or have been there without progressive votes, and...the campaign donations of the wealthy and big business. Except for Gordon.
If there ever is another FDR-like champion of the people, few progressives would recognize him anyway. They wouldn't vote for a Wall Street lawyer.
He'd also need a Democratic majority in at least the House to get anything done. Which would require the support of progressives in every district in the country.
Support that they don't get from a lot of "progressives" because, oh, horror of horrors, there's...money involved in politics! I'll tell you, there wasn't any money influence in politics in the 1930's and 40's!
No Wall Street lawyers, either.
You Just Might Be A Loser
A loser is someone who blames all of their problems on people and institutions over which they lack control. It's a convenient way of avoiding taking personal responsibility for any of your own misfortune. 'Cause if nothing's your fault, then there's no way to fix anything. If there's no way to fix anything, then nothing can get better.
And you keep losing. You're a loser.
Now, in the grand tradition of the late Jeff Foxworthy--wait--you say he's not dead yet? Oh well. Anyway.
You just might be a loser if:
You think that the government could fix all of your problems, if only it would.
You think that the government causes all of your problems.
You think that TheCorporationsTM are causing all of your problems.
You think that FreeEnterpriseTM would solve all of your problems if only the government would let it "work".
You think that you're not as well off as you'd like to be because rich people and WallStreetTM won't play fair and share nicely with you.
You think that you'd live like a king if only you didn't have to pay taxes.
You think that you, and everybody, would live like at least a prince if only the government didn't spend money on the military.
You think that the government spends almost all of its money giving stuff to WelfareQueensTM and IllegalsTM, so they can live a life of luxury while not working.
You think that you can't find a job because rich people don't want you to have one so they shipped off all of the great jobs (like packing plastic forks and dismantling computers full of heavy metals) to China.
You think that you can't find a job because IllegalsTM are always taking the good ones. Like digging ditches and weeding broccoli patches.
You think that there aren't any jobs because you don't like the jobs that are open.
You think that none of your problems are your own doing.
You think that violent revolt will result in a favorable outcome for you.
You think that camping out in a public park is an effective form of protest.
You think that all of those people camping out in the park should just go get a job.
You think that its OK to give up 'cause the system is totally rigged against you anyway.
You're very likely a loser if you think that political action can never result in favorable change because the system is rigged by Wall Street or the Liberal Media or The Corporations or The Illegals or The MIC or ACORN or...
But if you try, and still don't succeed, then maybe you're not a loser after all.
And you keep losing. You're a loser.
Now, in the grand tradition of the late Jeff Foxworthy--wait--you say he's not dead yet? Oh well. Anyway.
You just might be a loser if:
You think that the government could fix all of your problems, if only it would.
You think that the government causes all of your problems.
You think that TheCorporationsTM are causing all of your problems.
You think that FreeEnterpriseTM would solve all of your problems if only the government would let it "work".
You think that you're not as well off as you'd like to be because rich people and WallStreetTM won't play fair and share nicely with you.
You think that you'd live like a king if only you didn't have to pay taxes.
You think that you, and everybody, would live like at least a prince if only the government didn't spend money on the military.
You think that the government spends almost all of its money giving stuff to WelfareQueensTM and IllegalsTM, so they can live a life of luxury while not working.
You think that you can't find a job because rich people don't want you to have one so they shipped off all of the great jobs (like packing plastic forks and dismantling computers full of heavy metals) to China.
You think that you can't find a job because IllegalsTM are always taking the good ones. Like digging ditches and weeding broccoli patches.
You think that there aren't any jobs because you don't like the jobs that are open.
You think that none of your problems are your own doing.
You think that violent revolt will result in a favorable outcome for you.
You think that camping out in a public park is an effective form of protest.
You think that all of those people camping out in the park should just go get a job.
You think that its OK to give up 'cause the system is totally rigged against you anyway.
You're very likely a loser if you think that political action can never result in favorable change because the system is rigged by Wall Street or the Liberal Media or The Corporations or The Illegals or The MIC or ACORN or...
But if you try, and still don't succeed, then maybe you're not a loser after all.
What I Really Do Tell Unemployed Clients
I wrote another piece kind of paraphrasing some material that I got from a professional association, aimed apparently at advising unemployed high net worth clients. I, and apparently a few others, found much of it to be out of touch with the situations of most unemployed people:
What To Tell Your Unemployed Clients
But I did get to thinking about the advice that I really do give to unemployed clients, which is really pretty standard advice. It's also pretty general, because the most valuable advice are things that are specific to your situation.
Still, there are some general points that anyone of any income level who is currently unemployed, or who might be unemployed in the future (at some point or other, pretty much all of us). This would include:
*Yes, as has been pointed out, all jobs are temporary. Thus is it, thus has it always been. Whether someone is anticipating unemployment or not, I always advise everybody to try to build up savings equal to at least 6 months earnings. Preferably a year. Most people will never get there, but it's a good goal.
*Send resumes to everybody you can find in your field, and think about allied fields as well. I'm always getting resumes from CPA's and lawyers. Guess what? Contrary to what you might think, if I was going to hire an associate, I'd probably go with a lawyer over a CPA. Most people wouldn't guess that, but CPA's are accountants, and what I do has more to do with law than accounting.
*Look for self-employment opportunities. If you're any sort of engineer, commercial artist or professional (among others), then self-employment is most likely your future. Remember that self employment isn't really any more or less secure than employment, but your earnings will be far more variable, and you have to monitor your own tax situation carefully.
You also have to remember, as my dad always says, that every morning when you wake up, you're unemployed. You just have to do it for a while to fully appreciate that. You also have to be a tough boss for yourself. It is tempting to spend the day in a home office wearing a bathrobe, but that's not how you make money. How you do make money depends on what you're doing. But that ain't it.
*Don't worry so much about "qualified" vs "over qualified" vs "under qualified". Just apply for as many jobs as practical (but do try to stay within your skill set, if not specifically your desired field) and attend as many interviews as you can get. The prospective employer will have their own ideas about who they want to hire, and you shouldn't try to guess. You don't have ESP. Just always put your best foot forward. Dress nice, but don't obsess about it, unless you're trying to get a fashion related job.
Do always bear in mind that a lower paying job still pays more than zero. I have seen people turn jobs down, holding out for a better one. They tend to have a lower success rate eventually finding that better job than do the people that go ahead and take that first job offered, even if it isn't great.
Above all, try to be positive, and always project a positive attitude. That's the one thing that people respond to the most. It's also next to impossible to project a positive attitude unless you really do have one. Try.
That's really the best of it that applies to everyone. This is not meant to be comprehensive, just more representative of what most people in my profession (financial planner) would tell the average client. Most of us give a lot more advice than this, and most of it unique to the clients' situation.
If you asked a hundred other financial planners to list tips for this situation, you'd easily get another 100 suggestions. There is no silver bullet, I'm afraid. But some strategies have been shown to be more effective than others.
If you are currently unemployed and looking for work, then I really do wish you the best. The most important thing to remember when trying to reach a goal is to keep trying. That's what "they say", so it must be right. :)
What To Tell Your Unemployed Clients
But I did get to thinking about the advice that I really do give to unemployed clients, which is really pretty standard advice. It's also pretty general, because the most valuable advice are things that are specific to your situation.
Still, there are some general points that anyone of any income level who is currently unemployed, or who might be unemployed in the future (at some point or other, pretty much all of us). This would include:
*Yes, as has been pointed out, all jobs are temporary. Thus is it, thus has it always been. Whether someone is anticipating unemployment or not, I always advise everybody to try to build up savings equal to at least 6 months earnings. Preferably a year. Most people will never get there, but it's a good goal.
*Send resumes to everybody you can find in your field, and think about allied fields as well. I'm always getting resumes from CPA's and lawyers. Guess what? Contrary to what you might think, if I was going to hire an associate, I'd probably go with a lawyer over a CPA. Most people wouldn't guess that, but CPA's are accountants, and what I do has more to do with law than accounting.
*Look for self-employment opportunities. If you're any sort of engineer, commercial artist or professional (among others), then self-employment is most likely your future. Remember that self employment isn't really any more or less secure than employment, but your earnings will be far more variable, and you have to monitor your own tax situation carefully.
You also have to remember, as my dad always says, that every morning when you wake up, you're unemployed. You just have to do it for a while to fully appreciate that. You also have to be a tough boss for yourself. It is tempting to spend the day in a home office wearing a bathrobe, but that's not how you make money. How you do make money depends on what you're doing. But that ain't it.
*Don't worry so much about "qualified" vs "over qualified" vs "under qualified". Just apply for as many jobs as practical (but do try to stay within your skill set, if not specifically your desired field) and attend as many interviews as you can get. The prospective employer will have their own ideas about who they want to hire, and you shouldn't try to guess. You don't have ESP. Just always put your best foot forward. Dress nice, but don't obsess about it, unless you're trying to get a fashion related job.
Do always bear in mind that a lower paying job still pays more than zero. I have seen people turn jobs down, holding out for a better one. They tend to have a lower success rate eventually finding that better job than do the people that go ahead and take that first job offered, even if it isn't great.
Above all, try to be positive, and always project a positive attitude. That's the one thing that people respond to the most. It's also next to impossible to project a positive attitude unless you really do have one. Try.
That's really the best of it that applies to everyone. This is not meant to be comprehensive, just more representative of what most people in my profession (financial planner) would tell the average client. Most of us give a lot more advice than this, and most of it unique to the clients' situation.
If you asked a hundred other financial planners to list tips for this situation, you'd easily get another 100 suggestions. There is no silver bullet, I'm afraid. But some strategies have been shown to be more effective than others.
If you are currently unemployed and looking for work, then I really do wish you the best. The most important thing to remember when trying to reach a goal is to keep trying. That's what "they say", so it must be right. :)
What To Tell Your Unemployed Clients
As a few of you know, I am a financial planner. Just for preemptive purposes, this does not automatically make me a 1%'er Wall Street Pig Bankster. I wish. It would be cool to even return to the top quintile. I've never worked at any sort of bank, and any former Wall Street connections are long ago.
Anyway, I do fee-for-advice planning. Most of that sort of business these days is budget coaching to help people avoid bankruptcy court. I see a lot of unemployed, self employed and under employed people. I still see people for life and retirement planning, too, but less of it by the year.
In case you're wondering how people with budget problems can pay me, they're usually sent to me by their attorneys, and I get paid out of a trust fund that is set up for every bankruptcy estate. The courts frequently want to see that someone made a real effort to avoid being there in the first place, and I charge a lot less than credit counseling services do. Sometimes they can't be avoided, though, because the judge can insist that you go to one of them first.
At any rate, I see a lot of unemployed people in the course of my work. I'm even one of them. Owning a business is not the same as having a job.
I belong to a couple of professional organizations. One of them sent me an e-mail today about what to say to unemployed clients. So I read it, and thought that I'd share some of their sage wisdom with you.
Be prepared. Make an honest assessment of your job security, preferably before you become unemployed. If your future with your current employer is in doubt, consider setting aside some extra money.
Now, I don't know about you, but that sounds like excellent advice for someone who isn't unemployed. Frankly, setting aside some extra money is always good advice for anyone who can do it. You never know.
“I tell my clients that most can make a 5% change in their budgets with no lifestyle change,” said Joe Q Blow, principal and wealth manager at Wealthy Pig Wealth Management. “At 10%, then you start making lifestyle decisions.”
Disconnected much? Any drop in income results in "lifestyle decisions" for most people. 5% of $50K is $2500, and I don't know anyone who makes $50K who wouldn't have to change something lifestylewise if they lost $2500/yr income. Besides, that isn't how it's going to work for most people. The drop in income if they're laid off is going to be closer to 100%. That'll force some lifestyle decisions on pretty much anyone.
Mac 'n cheese or spaghetti with "meat sauce"? That sort of lifestyle decision.
“You are far better off paying the minimum on your debt, said Jack Sneed of Sneed and Beestly Advisors. “Try to cut them down to interest only, if possible.” Some who are newly unemployed take their severance checks and pay off credit card and other high-interest debt, but that only limits their options in the long run, Mr. Sneed said. “Cash allows you the flexibility of making choices, and allows you the luxury to discriminate between jobs.”
If I said something like that and a bankruptcy court judge heard about it, well...they wouldn't like it much. Severance checks? What a quaint notion. Flexibility? At this point, people are making minimum payments out of necessity, not strategy. Strategy is for people who still have options.
Don’t give up your gym membership. Baby boomer job hunters in particular need to stay in shape to be marketable, said Mr Blow. Quitting the gym is the worst move they can make, unless they have a lower-cost way of staying in top shape. “Stay well dressed and well pressed,” he said.
I just don't know what to say. Yes, you should always dress as well as you can when job hunting, and no, it doesn't hurt to look buff. But cutting a gym membership might just free up enough money to buy a few groceries. You can always run around the block and do sit ups in front of the TV. I should probably try it.
Jack LaLanne made millions selling big rubber bands for a couple of bucks and showing people, for free, how to do like a million exercises with that and a chair. Then he died without even reaching 100, which shows you what a crock "healthy living" is. George Burns drank, smoked and ate good stuff, and lived to 100. He probably never saw a budget coach, either.
Don’t rule out lower paying jobs
No shit. Most people are aware that a bad job pays better than no job. Most unemployed people would take almost anything offered.
Hire a career coach.
Yes, that's right. If you lose your job, go pay someone else money to give you advice that probably won't help you find a new job anyway. But there's more...
Baby boomers are the most educated generation in history, but they aren’t very good at evaluating the talents and gifts they bring to a job, said Daisy Dingle, director of career and life coaching for Dingle Investment People.
Instead, some resort to unhelpful job-hunt strategies, such as applying for jobs that are a level below their old position, thinking that it will improve their odds. It doesn’t, because there is always another candidate who fits the role better, she said.
“The advice that is thrown out all the time is to get clear about who you are and what you want,” said Daisy. “The problem is people need help getting clear. If you don’t have that, you can network till you are blue in the face and it won’t work.”
WTF? The last guy just told me to go ahead and take a lower paying job. Now this lady says starve until you get your dream job, or at least your old job back.
Okey-dokey.
Not only that, but for most people, "networking" means calling Joe at Radio Shack to see if they need extra help for the holiday season.
So, to recap, this is what I'm supposed to tell unemployed clients:
*Be prepared in advance to lose your job.
*If you didn't prepare, tough cookies.
*Don't change your lifestyle unless your income falls at least 10%.
*Make minimum payments on your credit cards.
*Don't give up that gym membership!
*Consider taking a lower paying job.
*Don't consider taking a lower paying job.
Got that? I just gave you hundreds of dollars worth of bodacious advice from real people in the same business that I'm in, except that they're smarter than I am. They must be. After all, they got published.
I gave you this startling secret advice for free, too. You're welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
