Alright, since the past couple years of resolutions have been a bust, I am taking on a new approach to resolution-ing. The following "resolutions" are not my 2011 resolutions but my life resolutions. I understand that these things will probably always be a struggle.
1.) Drink the recommended amount of water each day
2.) Maintain a workout level so any new apparel is purchased for fashion and not flabbiness
3.) Eat more whole foods
The following things are my actual 2011 Resolutions
1.) Complete a triathlon in under 1:45:00
2.) (re)Learn enough French to comfortably navigate us through our corporate retreat
3.) Learn enough Spanish to know what passer-bys are saying.
4.) Blog atleast once a month
This isn't the wittiest post I have ever tapped out and I will try to work on that too--but it isn't a resolution.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Well, That Sucked
Wow, well, what can I say? 2009 sucked for resolutions.
1. I did not blog more, in fact, I didn't blog in almost 2 years. Fail. Epic Fail.
2. I did not go to the gym on a regular basis. That's it, no excuse.
3. We did eat out less. However, when we did eat out we upped the price point and quality which meant we also upped the amount we ate. But we also upped the quality of groceries. All and all not a total failure.
4. I did take and pass my NCIDQ. What now bitches?
So, not a total loss on 2009.
2010 you ask? I have no effing clue what my resolutions were, but let's recap the successes:
1.) Began working with a personal trainer twice a week for 9 months. Although actual weight loss was low, muscle tone and pants fitting was achieved.
2.) Took and passed my EDAC making me the third person in New Mexico to earn this certificate.
3.) I ran a sprint Triathlon in 2:03:52 and totally kicked ass in the swim portion.
So, as we say goodbye to 2010 we will say that my resolutions were to participate in a sprint triathlon, fit in to my previously too snug clothes and take and pass my EDAC. Which makes me an effing rock star. Stay tuned for resolutions for 2011.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Let's try Not to Screw These Up
The following are my New Year Resolutions:
Resolution number 1 was also a resolution for 2008. Although not my strongest effort, I think I did a decent job of getting blogs up every so often but I would like to do better this year.
Resolution number 2 came about around May of 2008 when I observed a curious situation beginning with my pants… i.e. they didn’t fit. An attempt was made (prepare for incoming excuses) but between moving to ABQ, renting a room smaller than a dorm room from one of Jason’s friends, working on the house, and generally not having a “routine” thwarted all efforts to get on a gym schedule. This shall change in the 2009 because I cannot by new pants!
Resolution number 3 is also part of resolution number 2. In the past 6 months Jason and I have spent almost $1,000 on food, $100-200 of which was groceries… that’s bad. In addition to the cost, it hurts the waist line (and the hips and thighs and the double chins, etc.)We used to cook all the time together, share portions are restaurants and that worked well for us until, of course, May. However, soon we will have our own kitchen (with a dishwasher) to cook in and we plan to do a lot of cooking—anyone have a great recipe?
Resolution number 4 is already underway. NCIDQ is the national certification for interior design qualifications and is the exam which measures a designers minimum competency and is similar to the architect’s ARE exam, which qualifies them to actually BE an architect. I have applied and been accepted to take the exam and thus registered (and paid) for my exam on April 3rd and 4th in Denver, Colorado. I have a study guide and D/P/S also has study materials which I will break in to beginning in February.
Alright, those are my resolutions… let’s see how I do.
Happy Belated New year all!
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Think McCain and Vote Obama.
McCain has something right in the campaign. His slogan "Country First" should be aimed directly at the people of which Obama's tax cuts leave out. Take a little mathenatical walk with me...
You are a family making $250,000 take home a year. Let's say in 2005 you bought a $345,000 home at 5.75% interest with a 30 fixed loan. Your loan payment, if you put 15% down is $1750.72 before PMI, utilities, etc. With all the dealings lately, you've been getting nervous. Homes in your neighborhood won't sell, there is even talk of a few forclosures and your neighboor who bought a similar house at the same time you did, just sold for $245,000! Holy crap! That's a 30% depreciation! (I know that this is possible because the house we just bought was 345K in 2005 and we bought it for $245K.) That is a $100,000 LOSS over three years. You had been counting on the value to rise, you hadn't choosen this neighboorhood for the schools and had planned to move in 2010 to get your kids to the schools of your choice! Ahhhh!
No fear, Obama has a plan that will raise your taxes and save your house. WTF? Obama's plan is to give a tax cut for families filing with an AGI of $95,000 or lower, keep taxes where they are for those with $95,001 to $249,999 and raise taxes for $250,000 or higher families--how is that going to help me you say. Tis an outrage! I already pay 35% in taxes, this isn't fair!
Have I mentioned what the tax increase would be? 2%. 2 percent of $250,000 is $5,000. Now, $5,000 is not a small chunk of change--2% for me is $880--I know that money is a difficult thing to part with, especially when you are already feeling the pinch of the bad economy. However, think about it like this:
In addition to cutting wasteful spending (as both parties want to do) Obama wants $5,000 more a year from you in order to revive the economy. Not fair again you say! I've done my part, paid my mortgage, and all I am seeing is falling home prices and plummeting 401Ks! But listen to McCain "What's good for the Country is good for you". Chances are whatever you do to make your 250K is middle class dependant. Fair? If the middle class is doing well, your business makes more and you get raises. More money--hooray! However, when the middle class is doing poorly we all suffer. Even the economy. That is what is going on right now.
Normal middle class families are not able to make ends meets. Befuddled with all that's happened with the financial crisis, the economy is fragile and the middle class needs help. The best way to help is to provide government assistance from job creation, to mortgage programs, to straight out stimulas packages. Those things require money. So, let's call that $5K a year an investment in the middle class.
An investment in the middle class would mean more people working (economy up). An investment in the middle class would mean more spending (economy up). An investment in the middle class would mean less people are losing their homes (economy up). If more people are working, there is more money to be spent. The more money spent, the more profitable businesses are, the more profitable businesses are, the more money for more jobs and more raises! Hooray!
But most of all, it would affect the housing crisis. If John and Susie down the street don't sell for 20% loss but actually LOSE their home, your home price will take a bigger fall than 20%. If John and Susie get some government assistance to keep their home, it's in your best interest. Let's say the tax cut lasts for Obama's presidency and the next, that's $5K a year for 8 years. That's $40,000. That's a rough number to deal with. You know what's more rough? The 30% or $100,000 your home has already tumbled. With a stable middle class home prices will rise again and you won't end up owing more on your house than it's worth--something everyone is at risk for, not just those with sub-prime or ARM loans.
So, to end our mathematical journey, at the end of 2016 you've paid $40,000 more in taxes than you would have if the tax laws stayed the same. However, your home price stabilized and you sold it at cost in 2010. You didn't come away with the profit you hoped, but you did get your kids to the schools you wanted. You walk away with a total loss of $40,000 over 8 years. The possibility of not stabilizing the middle class and re-energizing the economy could have cost you at least $20,000 more--see below.
Let's say under McCain you got a 2% tax break, so over the next 8 years you made $40,000 more than today's taxes. However, $40,000 for every 250k and over ended up putting a burden on the economy and although your home price stayed where it was in 2008, you ended up selling for a loss of $100,000. Thus, making your total loss $60,000 at the end of 2016.
The chart version for the visual learners.
Obama McCain
-$345,000 house purchase price in 2005 -$345,000 house purchase price in 2005
+$345,000 house sale price in 2010 +$245,000 house sale price in 2010
-$40,000 tax increase from 2008-2016) +$40,000 tax increase from 2008-2016
-------------------------------- --------------------------------
-$40,000 total profit/loss -$60,000 total profit/loss
So all you fiscally conservative high earners, when you go to the polls, think McCain and vote Obama.
You are a family making $250,000 take home a year. Let's say in 2005 you bought a $345,000 home at 5.75% interest with a 30 fixed loan. Your loan payment, if you put 15% down is $1750.72 before PMI, utilities, etc. With all the dealings lately, you've been getting nervous. Homes in your neighborhood won't sell, there is even talk of a few forclosures and your neighboor who bought a similar house at the same time you did, just sold for $245,000! Holy crap! That's a 30% depreciation! (I know that this is possible because the house we just bought was 345K in 2005 and we bought it for $245K.) That is a $100,000 LOSS over three years. You had been counting on the value to rise, you hadn't choosen this neighboorhood for the schools and had planned to move in 2010 to get your kids to the schools of your choice! Ahhhh!
No fear, Obama has a plan that will raise your taxes and save your house. WTF? Obama's plan is to give a tax cut for families filing with an AGI of $95,000 or lower, keep taxes where they are for those with $95,001 to $249,999 and raise taxes for $250,000 or higher families--how is that going to help me you say. Tis an outrage! I already pay 35% in taxes, this isn't fair!
Have I mentioned what the tax increase would be? 2%. 2 percent of $250,000 is $5,000. Now, $5,000 is not a small chunk of change--2% for me is $880--I know that money is a difficult thing to part with, especially when you are already feeling the pinch of the bad economy. However, think about it like this:
In addition to cutting wasteful spending (as both parties want to do) Obama wants $5,000 more a year from you in order to revive the economy. Not fair again you say! I've done my part, paid my mortgage, and all I am seeing is falling home prices and plummeting 401Ks! But listen to McCain "What's good for the Country is good for you". Chances are whatever you do to make your 250K is middle class dependant. Fair? If the middle class is doing well, your business makes more and you get raises. More money--hooray! However, when the middle class is doing poorly we all suffer. Even the economy. That is what is going on right now.
Normal middle class families are not able to make ends meets. Befuddled with all that's happened with the financial crisis, the economy is fragile and the middle class needs help. The best way to help is to provide government assistance from job creation, to mortgage programs, to straight out stimulas packages. Those things require money. So, let's call that $5K a year an investment in the middle class.
An investment in the middle class would mean more people working (economy up). An investment in the middle class would mean more spending (economy up). An investment in the middle class would mean less people are losing their homes (economy up). If more people are working, there is more money to be spent. The more money spent, the more profitable businesses are, the more profitable businesses are, the more money for more jobs and more raises! Hooray!
But most of all, it would affect the housing crisis. If John and Susie down the street don't sell for 20% loss but actually LOSE their home, your home price will take a bigger fall than 20%. If John and Susie get some government assistance to keep their home, it's in your best interest. Let's say the tax cut lasts for Obama's presidency and the next, that's $5K a year for 8 years. That's $40,000. That's a rough number to deal with. You know what's more rough? The 30% or $100,000 your home has already tumbled. With a stable middle class home prices will rise again and you won't end up owing more on your house than it's worth--something everyone is at risk for, not just those with sub-prime or ARM loans.
So, to end our mathematical journey, at the end of 2016 you've paid $40,000 more in taxes than you would have if the tax laws stayed the same. However, your home price stabilized and you sold it at cost in 2010. You didn't come away with the profit you hoped, but you did get your kids to the schools you wanted. You walk away with a total loss of $40,000 over 8 years. The possibility of not stabilizing the middle class and re-energizing the economy could have cost you at least $20,000 more--see below.
Let's say under McCain you got a 2% tax break, so over the next 8 years you made $40,000 more than today's taxes. However, $40,000 for every 250k and over ended up putting a burden on the economy and although your home price stayed where it was in 2008, you ended up selling for a loss of $100,000. Thus, making your total loss $60,000 at the end of 2016.
The chart version for the visual learners.
Obama McCain
-$345,000 house purchase price in 2005 -$345,000 house purchase price in 2005
+$345,000 house sale price in 2010 +$245,000 house sale price in 2010
-$40,000 tax increase from 2008-2016) +$40,000 tax increase from 2008-2016
-------------------------------- --------------------------------
-$40,000 total profit/loss -$60,000 total profit/loss
So all you fiscally conservative high earners, when you go to the polls, think McCain and vote Obama.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Great bad Joke
What's the difference between a pitbull and a hockey mom?
You can't neuter a hockey mom.
You can't neuter a hockey mom.
Because She Hates Them
Below is an article, "Why Feminists Hate Sarah Palin" and it is the basis of the following blog.
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB122143727571134335-lMyQjAxMDI4MjExNzQxMzc3Wj.html
First of all, I don't read the Wall Stree Journal, it's a little too partisan for me. I do my best to read non-partisan news and reject articles that are clearly slanted--unless provoked.
I wouldn't have even come in contact with this mess of an article if the subject of my last blog hadn't sent an email with this article out in mass, including Jason. Let's note though, that after reading my last blog (how did she even get to it? Whole 'nother Oprah) she send a text to Jason demanding he never speak to her again because I was "crazy", "mean and bitter" and "obviously intimidated" by her... doesn't she know verbal restraining orders work both ways? Anyway....
The poorly written article tries to snare feminists in a Catch 22 by not supporting a woman working her way to the top because of her politics, atleast that is what I got from my reading of it. It insinuates that feminists have turned their back on Sarah because she's "too good at having it all". No, feminists applaud that. Sister, if you can do it all, then good for you! They also applaud the fact that her husband stands behind her and provides the support she need be as successful as she is. The article, however, goes too far and says: "Here, the great woman is out in front and the great man provides the support. Isn't that real feminism?" Eff no it isn't! A great woman can be a great woman because she is a great woman, not because she has someone, specifically a man behind her! Not every woman chooses a partner, or chooses not to have a partner and not everyone of those partners are men! Every woman should be able to pursue the life she wants regardless of socioeconomic or marital status. If you have someone by your side, that is awesome for you, but no one should be constrained by their marital status to success.
The article touches on, but fails to take a stance on (or even make any valid point) that Sarah is against instituionalized day-care and throws her support behind tax breaks for in-home care. Question: why only support one? Why can't we do both? Not everyone wants their kid in day care but not everyone has the luxury of affording in-home care, whether it be a partner or a outside provider. If you are a single mother who loves their children but wants a career as well, day care my be your only option. A true feminist doesn't punish women for being single parents or even two workng parents by only providing aid to "in-home care".
As I have been saying all along, I have no problem with Sarah Palin's story as a woman. I think that she is an inspiration that if you work hard you can achieve what you are working for. She's not perfect and that helps show that you don't have be a perfectly manicured Michelle or Hillary to be an inspiration to young women--or even liberal! However, when your politics intefer with others to achieve their dreams you are not a feminist. Feminism is a sisterhood and to deprive any other woman her right to be a mother, make family planning choices, pursue an equally compensated job as a man's, or ANYTHING else makes you decidely against feminism, even if you have a great story. So why my friends do feminists hate Sarah Palin? Because she hates them.
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB122143727571134335-lMyQjAxMDI4MjExNzQxMzc3Wj.html
First of all, I don't read the Wall Stree Journal, it's a little too partisan for me. I do my best to read non-partisan news and reject articles that are clearly slanted--unless provoked.
I wouldn't have even come in contact with this mess of an article if the subject of my last blog hadn't sent an email with this article out in mass, including Jason. Let's note though, that after reading my last blog (how did she even get to it? Whole 'nother Oprah) she send a text to Jason demanding he never speak to her again because I was "crazy", "mean and bitter" and "obviously intimidated" by her... doesn't she know verbal restraining orders work both ways? Anyway....
The poorly written article tries to snare feminists in a Catch 22 by not supporting a woman working her way to the top because of her politics, atleast that is what I got from my reading of it. It insinuates that feminists have turned their back on Sarah because she's "too good at having it all". No, feminists applaud that. Sister, if you can do it all, then good for you! They also applaud the fact that her husband stands behind her and provides the support she need be as successful as she is. The article, however, goes too far and says: "Here, the great woman is out in front and the great man provides the support. Isn't that real feminism?" Eff no it isn't! A great woman can be a great woman because she is a great woman, not because she has someone, specifically a man behind her! Not every woman chooses a partner, or chooses not to have a partner and not everyone of those partners are men! Every woman should be able to pursue the life she wants regardless of socioeconomic or marital status. If you have someone by your side, that is awesome for you, but no one should be constrained by their marital status to success.
The article touches on, but fails to take a stance on (or even make any valid point) that Sarah is against instituionalized day-care and throws her support behind tax breaks for in-home care. Question: why only support one? Why can't we do both? Not everyone wants their kid in day care but not everyone has the luxury of affording in-home care, whether it be a partner or a outside provider. If you are a single mother who loves their children but wants a career as well, day care my be your only option. A true feminist doesn't punish women for being single parents or even two workng parents by only providing aid to "in-home care".
As I have been saying all along, I have no problem with Sarah Palin's story as a woman. I think that she is an inspiration that if you work hard you can achieve what you are working for. She's not perfect and that helps show that you don't have be a perfectly manicured Michelle or Hillary to be an inspiration to young women--or even liberal! However, when your politics intefer with others to achieve their dreams you are not a feminist. Feminism is a sisterhood and to deprive any other woman her right to be a mother, make family planning choices, pursue an equally compensated job as a man's, or ANYTHING else makes you decidely against feminism, even if you have a great story. So why my friends do feminists hate Sarah Palin? Because she hates them.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
The origin of Pride
Jason just received a text message from one of this ex-girlfriends exclaiming:
"I love Palin! I am so happy to be a woman!"
My friends, for the first time in history I was literally speechless. Jason showed me the text message and I could neither say nor do anything. I wanted to vomit--I literally felt like someone had punched me square in the gut.
It's not that I didn't know this girl was conservative (conservative may be mild) or that I thought she would have not supported Palin (she's a female Dentist, so she isn't totally antiquated) but to think that someone hung the pride of their femininity on someone like Palin makes me sick.
This is not a sexist blog, this has nothing to do with ability--women are just as qualifed as men in all aspects for all jobs. This is about one female disrespecting all females and calling it female pride.
I am not a staunch Democrat. I am not a staunch Conservative. I fall in the "Moderate" territory and I can respect that everyone has their own beliefs that dictate their lives. I do not just respect that, I welcome that! Everyone has their own truth and it is these individual truths that make us all unique and beautiful. What I do not think is beautiful and what I can not respect is one person telling another person how they should live their life. I do not find anything about Sarah Palin beautiful or respectable. Palin has not only consistently voted Pro-Life and against comprehensive sexual education, but she wants to COMPLETELY overturn Roe vs. Wade. Pro-Lifer's must understand that making abortion illegal will not make abortions go away.
Remember Dirty Dancing? Abortions will become back alley procedures, done by Doctor's whose licenses have been revoked for performing such procedures or quacks seeing a need and filing it. Women will go in droves to Mexico and Canada whose standards may or may not meet the standards of our own. There will be no way to ensure the safety or correctness of the procedure and many WILL incur permanent damage to their reproductive systems, many WILL become ill from infection and many WILL die. Not to mention, if women do get the procedures done and do become ill or injured during, the insurance companies won't cover the hospital bill to heal those woman because they had an illegal procedure done.
Not only will there be dangerous abortions procedures, but there will be many more unwanted babies born. That's more babies born to teenage girls who leave their newborns in dumpsters and toilets. That's more babies born to women unable financially or without the personal resolve to raise them, leaving the women to drop them off at hospitals, police and firestations all over the country. Sure there is adoption, but is that what we want? Orphangaes full of children, children going in to the foster system (I have yet to hear anyone rave about their childhood in the Foster system).
Banning abortion is not the answer, comprehensive sexual education and an open door policy regarding safe sex at home IS. But wait, Palin is against that too! Palin is not for women, she is against them. She is for with holding information and medical procedures because of her personal truths--truths she doesn't have to take away from others to hold herself. Only the insecure and unsure require all to abide by their believes in order to legitimize them.
So, when this woman sent Jason that text message, what she said was this:
"I do not respect the bodies or the decisions of my fellow women. I believe the choices of Ms. Palin and my own, should dictate the choices of every American female. I base the pride of my femininity on the disrespect of other women."
Fuck you, Alison and fuck you too Palin. I cannot and will not respect you as a woman for even daring to take these choices away from me. I have never been more angry in my entire life and to think it is all over a text message.
"I love Palin! I am so happy to be a woman!"
My friends, for the first time in history I was literally speechless. Jason showed me the text message and I could neither say nor do anything. I wanted to vomit--I literally felt like someone had punched me square in the gut.
It's not that I didn't know this girl was conservative (conservative may be mild) or that I thought she would have not supported Palin (she's a female Dentist, so she isn't totally antiquated) but to think that someone hung the pride of their femininity on someone like Palin makes me sick.
This is not a sexist blog, this has nothing to do with ability--women are just as qualifed as men in all aspects for all jobs. This is about one female disrespecting all females and calling it female pride.
I am not a staunch Democrat. I am not a staunch Conservative. I fall in the "Moderate" territory and I can respect that everyone has their own beliefs that dictate their lives. I do not just respect that, I welcome that! Everyone has their own truth and it is these individual truths that make us all unique and beautiful. What I do not think is beautiful and what I can not respect is one person telling another person how they should live their life. I do not find anything about Sarah Palin beautiful or respectable. Palin has not only consistently voted Pro-Life and against comprehensive sexual education, but she wants to COMPLETELY overturn Roe vs. Wade. Pro-Lifer's must understand that making abortion illegal will not make abortions go away.
Remember Dirty Dancing? Abortions will become back alley procedures, done by Doctor's whose licenses have been revoked for performing such procedures or quacks seeing a need and filing it. Women will go in droves to Mexico and Canada whose standards may or may not meet the standards of our own. There will be no way to ensure the safety or correctness of the procedure and many WILL incur permanent damage to their reproductive systems, many WILL become ill from infection and many WILL die. Not to mention, if women do get the procedures done and do become ill or injured during, the insurance companies won't cover the hospital bill to heal those woman because they had an illegal procedure done.
Not only will there be dangerous abortions procedures, but there will be many more unwanted babies born. That's more babies born to teenage girls who leave their newborns in dumpsters and toilets. That's more babies born to women unable financially or without the personal resolve to raise them, leaving the women to drop them off at hospitals, police and firestations all over the country. Sure there is adoption, but is that what we want? Orphangaes full of children, children going in to the foster system (I have yet to hear anyone rave about their childhood in the Foster system).
Banning abortion is not the answer, comprehensive sexual education and an open door policy regarding safe sex at home IS. But wait, Palin is against that too! Palin is not for women, she is against them. She is for with holding information and medical procedures because of her personal truths--truths she doesn't have to take away from others to hold herself. Only the insecure and unsure require all to abide by their believes in order to legitimize them.
So, when this woman sent Jason that text message, what she said was this:
"I do not respect the bodies or the decisions of my fellow women. I believe the choices of Ms. Palin and my own, should dictate the choices of every American female. I base the pride of my femininity on the disrespect of other women."
Fuck you, Alison and fuck you too Palin. I cannot and will not respect you as a woman for even daring to take these choices away from me. I have never been more angry in my entire life and to think it is all over a text message.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)