April 30, 2008
WTF?
Hank Dagny (nice name) finds an appalling article called "Is 'early' retirement ... well, unpatriotic?"
When I hear my fellow baby boomers gleefully talk about their plans to retire ASAP, head for the Tuscan hills or otherwise continue their lifelong quest for "self-actualization," I have to bite my tongue.
It's not that I'm all work and no play. But there's just something -- lots of things -- wrong, in general, with retiring at 55, 62 or even 65. I would go so far as to call it profoundly selfish and unpatriotic.
For individuals, working longer can mean more income and savings and something to bequeath to one's children. For the nation, if millions of us worked until 67 instead of 62, Americans' wealth and consumption would increase appreciably, fueling stronger economic growth.
That added income would provide about $800 billion in additional tax revenue and reduce government benefit costs by at least $100 billion in 2045, according to Urban Institute calculations. This alone would cut the projected deficit in 2045 by 159 percent.
Well then, call us unpatriotic, because my husband's goal is to retire from the Army at 42 and be retired. Done. Finito. I don't know if that will stick because he might get bored being at home, but at the rate he's planning now, he will have the option of making it so.
And I dare some communist to say that what he's doing is "unpatriotic." He doesn't have to keep working an additional 25 years so he can fund social welfare programs. It's his responsibility to provide for himself and his family, nothing more. And as much as we've scrimped and saved and done without for the past six years so that we have the financial flexibility to do whatever he wants when he retires, I'll be damned if someone says that he has to work longer to help out deadbeats who didn't scrimp and save and do without.
Yes, we're selfish. I daresay the US would be a better place if everyone were a little more selfish, taking care of their own needs and doing what needs to be done to maximize profits and reach their goals. The Invisible freaking Hand.
Blood. Boiling. Calm. Down.
Posted by: Sarah at
04:55 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 372 words, total size 2 kb.
1
"Yes, we're selfish. I daresay the US would be a better place if everyone were a little more selfish, taking care of their own needs and doing what needs to be done to maximize profits and reach their goals."
Bingo Sarah!
Posted by: tim at April 30, 2008 05:34 AM (nno0f)
2
It's funny - we've never considered retiring early, but not because of some misplaces sense of funding other people's food stamps.
AFG loves his job - so doing his job is what he enjoys doing. He reads about his job when he's home. He plans the different aspects of his job and which path in it he should take.
He would do it until the day he died if he could.
But that's because he gets to do for a job what many people do from their armchairs as a hobby. If he worked in a factory or something I'm pretty sure he'd be out of there as soon as fiscally possible.
Posted by: airforcewife at April 30, 2008 07:48 AM (mIbWn)
3
AFW, I imagine my husband will retire, get bored within a year, and start working again. But I could be wrong...
Posted by: Sarah at April 30, 2008 09:22 AM (TWet1)
4
DH got his 20 year letter the other day, he can officially start drawing a pension. (I am married to osmeone eligible for a pension?)
Holy Crap....
He has no interest in it right now....he likes working, and he loves being in the military...
Maybe later..
Posted by: awtm at April 30, 2008 12:52 PM (f726z)
5
Wow! That's incredibly arrogant to make a blanket statement as to when people should retire. So many people seem to have issues with deciding to retire (as in resisting it) that I never really thought there was an epidemic of early-retirees that is sure to fuel our country's downfall. ;D But, seriously, when to retire is an intensely personal decision. And it's no one's business but the person making the decision.
Posted by: Marine Wife at April 30, 2008 04:28 PM (emmYv)
6
So I guess in this guy's view, the great mystery about the purpose of human life has now been solved.
The purpose of human life is to generate tax revenue for the government.
Posted by: david foster at May 01, 2008 06:12 AM (ke+yX)
7
Unpatriotic? How ridiculous is that. I can think of many things that are unpatriotic, but "when" a person retires from active work is not one of them.
Although many people don't remember, there was no real retirement age until the Nixon era. We were having such economic troubles at the time, he's the one who introduced the "retirement age" of 65.
As for me - I don't know what I'd do if I retired. Be bored out of my skull I think. So, I have no plans to retire but it's not for patriotism, nor is it to keep paying into the system for others - merely for my own peace of mind. heh.
Posted by: Teresa at May 03, 2008 09:33 AM (mMa3+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
DUMB DREAMS
My husband never remembers his dreams (lucky) but I always do. We often laugh at how mundane and stupid my dreams are. For example, last night: The husband and I visited some sort of aquarium museum. In the gift shop, I picked out a quartz that was carved into a turtle and bought it. Afterwards, I realized it was $11, and I panicked. I didn't think it was worth $11, but I was too embarrassed to immediately ask for a refund. And then my husband comes around the corner and sarcastically says, "You could always buy one of these," referring to a little statuette of a mother holding an infant.
Seriously, these are my dreams. Of all the things I could be doing -- flying, commanding a space ship, winning the lottery of free yarn -- I dream about buyer's remorse. And about how mad we are that we don't have a baby yet.
Apparently I'm just as parsimonious and cynical in my dreams as I am in real life.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:11 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I just had to look up the word parsimonious...
Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at April 30, 2008 05:02 AM (irIko)
2
Heh, it's one of those words that stuck with me from high school vocab lessons. Maybe because I knew it'd be useful in describing myself someday...
Posted by: Sarah at April 30, 2008 05:11 AM (TWet1)
3
I have stupid dreams too. I had one the other night that I got into a tearful, screaming fight with my husband because he wanted to watch a particular movie on TV and I didn't want to because the lead actress scares me. I thought he was being mean because he KNOWS she scares me. I woke up shaking my head and wondering why I didn't just go do something else...
Posted by: Ann M. at April 30, 2008 06:18 AM (HFUBt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 29, 2008
THAT'S A PEACH OF A HAT!
I made the
pumpkin version last fall, so yesterday I tried the peach.
These preemie hats are too darned cute.
And I got some great suggestions on yesterday's post that if I have too much yarn, I can give it away, either to newbie knitters or to a good cause. While both of these ideas are admirable, well, I don't think I'm that big of a person. You see, I will spend hours and hours and hours making stuff that I just give away. I make tons of preemie caps, squares for HCC afghans, and gifts for friends, but handing over an unknittedup ball of yarn to someone else? Ouch.
At one of my knitting classes, a woman didn't buy her own yarn. She brazenly asked me if she could just use mine. I had this crummy, old, ugly ball of faded brown acrylic junk in my hand, and yet I went, "Um...well...er...uh...o...kay," and slowly handed it to her. It was crap yarn! It was ugly and awful. But giving it away? It hurt my heart. I would've gladly made something out of it and handed it to her for free, but I have a severe selfishness problem with giving away unused yarn.
Sis B, I'd rather hand you ten bucks to go pick out your own yarn! And FbL, we too make blankets for the VA hospital here in town; I was just going to start one soon. The problem is, a lot of the yarn I have is not stuff that is good for these projects. I have used up most of my washable acrylics on HCC squares; what I'm left with is fancy wools and sock yarn and a ton of baby yarn to be made into preemie caps. But I'll dig.
Maybe I can convince myself to be a big enough person to give away yarn.
Maybe.
Doubtful.
Posted by: Sarah at
08:27 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.
1
That hat is amazingly sweet. It could only look sweeter with a teeny, tiny head tucked into it.
I cannot WAIT to learn how to do this type of knitting magic!!
Posted by: Guard Wife at April 29, 2008 08:43 AM (GPWZ1)
Posted by: awtm at April 29, 2008 12:54 PM (f726z)
3
I love your preemie hats! How sweet the little peach hat is!
Posted by: sharona at April 29, 2008 01:26 PM (BeRta)
4
Very cute!
And you make such wonderful stuff, I wouldn't feel bad at all about not give it away.
Posted by: Butterfly Wife at April 29, 2008 02:46 PM (YkizZ)
5
*heehee* Perfectly understandable.
Posted by: FbL at April 29, 2008 09:49 PM (rW1/8)
6
I have *got* to get a picture of Emma wearing her preemie hat sent to you
. She is wearing it now!
Posted by: Kate at April 30, 2008 03:41 AM (576n8)
7
I had to giggle! Has Erin told you about ''my stash?''
Posted by: debey at April 30, 2008 06:09 AM (nNfOh)
8
Good thing my apt is small or I'd have more yarn, too. Just need to finish some other projects so I can get on with a Soldiers' Angels crocheting project that I promised to help with....
Love your blog! I haven't been here in a while and wondering why not. Duh.
Posted by: Lisa in DC at April 30, 2008 06:16 PM (7NvA/)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 28, 2008
DEPLOYMENT, TAKE 2
I kept
this Butterfly post in the back of my mind for a long time, knowing I'd reference it later because it mirrors my situation.
But this is not all that dissimilar to the incident that happened in the fall. Back then, I complained I couldn't cry about it. This time I cried and cried. This difference this time I think has to do with the fact that I do not think of him as being in all that dangerous of place, well, at least compared to where he was. At his last assignment, I think I had an enormous barrier in place to deal with this kind of thing. But once he took the new assignment, and I settled in to the day-to-day officeness of it all, I let that wall down.
Whenever people like my husband's grandma or his friend's wife started to get that worried look as they hugged my husband for the last time, he just smiled at them and reassuringly said, "If I told anyone in the Army where I am going, what I will be doing, and how long I will be there, no one would feel sorry for me. So you don't need to worry about me; I have an enviable deployment!"
His last deployment, not so much.
I wonder how this time will be different. Last time, the only experience I knew was weeks without contact, no phones at his location, two intense trips to Najaf, every third week living off the FOB, and no hot food for the first six months. His deployment was on the rough(er) end of the spectrum, but I don't remember feeling overly scared. It just was what it was; it was the only deployment I knew.
And sometimes now I get worried because this one is even more relaxed. I don't feel nervous or scared at all about his leaving. I don't feel like he's preparing for war this time. But then my mind plays tricks on me and I start to wonder what if something happens like happened to Butterfly Wife, where the husband's "day-to-day officeness" is interrupted by danger? Honestly, I have thought more than once how stupid it would feel if my husband were killed on his "easy" deployment instead of his prior hard one. But stuff like that happens, even to soldiers with the jobbiest jobs.
I hope he spends the entire time bored out of his mind.
And close to a phone.
Posted by: Sarah at
11:49 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 417 words, total size 2 kb.
1
We used google talk like it was going out of style the second time.
And I do feel ya.
Posted by: airforcewife at April 28, 2008 01:30 PM (mIbWn)
2
{{Hugs}} Bored is good.
Posted by: Guard Wife at April 28, 2008 05:53 PM (BslEQ)
3
Bored is good. But hearing my husband being miserable at being bored was pretty hard. I would eventually get relieved when he would get 'un-bored' just so he didn't have that particular tone to his voice.
Posted by: wifeunit at April 28, 2008 06:09 PM (BOdNw)
4
I hope he's bored and near a phone the whole time, too.
Posted by: Ann M. at April 29, 2008 05:15 AM (HFUBt)
5
Amen! to bored and near the phone.
Posted by: Tibby at April 29, 2008 05:38 AM (S/Fac)
6
Wifeunit said it well - deployment boredom is such a double edged sword. I found myself seriously battling inside. I, his wife and the lonely partner who wanted him home safely so that we could enjoy our lives together, wanted him to be BORED to TEARS. I'd have happily sent a box of books every day if that were the case.
Then I would hear how useless he was feeling due to that boredom, how quiet it was, how he wished he were contributing more with his specific skills. He was miserable at times due to the boredom. I hated that, too. Sometimes more than I hated the danger during the previous deployment.
It was often hard finding a balance between the wife who wants him happy and the wife who wanted him home ...
The phone part, I whole heartedly agree.
I'll be thinking of you.
Posted by: Stephanie at April 29, 2008 08:08 AM (kzbE/)
7
That was our last deployment. While Stretch complained about his job satisfaction (or lack therof), I would listen and be supportive. But I was secretly relieved that his biggest risk was a papercut. Like Stephanie said, it's a difficult balance: wanting them to be happy and wanting them to be safe (and at home!).
Posted by: Marine Wife at April 30, 2008 04:34 PM (emmYv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
STASH
Knitters with a big stash will completely grok
this:
So that's where I am today. At least in my head. Remembering how I felt when I bought this stuff. Remembering what I planned on making with it. Remembering all the emotions I was sure I'd feel when the projects were finished. Beating myself up for never getting around to starting the projects. Beating myself up for not even winding the yarn yet. Beating myself up for beating myself up for all the projects I wanted to make but never got around to.
My friend learned to knit and crochet right when her husband left for Iraq. A year later, she had a serious obsession. She made her husband come over to my house to see my stash so that hers would look small by comparison. Her husband was a bit stunned by my skein collection; my husband just shrugged his shoulders and sighed.
I've been making a conscious effort to use up yarn I already own, but somehow the stash keeps growing. Sometimes is grows slowly, as when I find one lonely ball of mustard yellow on sale for 60 cents that can be used to make HCC squares. Other times it grows in leaps and bounds: one of the ladies in my charity group has been ridding her stash of yarns that bother her arthritic hands, and every two weeks she brings me a new big bag of yarn for me. So even though my stash is growing mostly due to free yarn, it's still starting to overwhelm me.
It takes several hours and about 1.5 oz of yarn to make a preemie cap; thus, bags of yarn every two weeks will take me ages to work through. But somehow I have this stupid mental image that I will use up everything I own someday, and then dust my hands off and go buy more.
Working through my stash is like digging in sand.
Posted by: Sarah at
08:02 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I'm this way with my scrapbooking supplies. (Note to self: organize and put away your scrapbooking stash before Sarah steps foot in this house!)
Oh, well. That's what hobbies are about, I suppose, and as inexpensive as the supplies can be, they mulitply fast!
Posted by: Guard Wife at April 28, 2008 10:02 AM (BslEQ)
2
I promised myself a while ago that I would not buy any more yarn until I had all of my projects with specific yarns completed. So ABW and I walked into the thrift store the other day and found a HUGE bin of Rowan wool yarn for $1.75/skein (brand new, with tags). We went a little crazy. And I felt guilty the whole time. There was a point right before I got to the register that I almost put them back. But I couldn't part with the scrumptious colors I picked out, even though I had no current ideas for the yarn. Hey! Maybe I'll make some wool soakers with the pattern you sent...(I already have three projects on the needles that haven't been touched in weeks). Argh.
Posted by: Erin at April 28, 2008 10:52 AM (y67l2)
3
Well... there's always junior knitters who may or may not be pregnant and may or may not be headed into a deployment and may or may not lust after yarn every time they enter a hobby lobby or michael's who may or may not appreciate your passing on some of the stash to them.
Not that I know anybody who may or may not fit those criteria.
Nope.
Nobody.
Posted by: Sis B at April 28, 2008 11:18 AM (0ZS+T)
4
To Erin's defense she really did almost put it back. I told her to keep it. I couldn't let her put back her measly couple of balls of yarn when I......gulp.......bought 34.
(but some of mine were only 75 cents a skein!)
No excuse, no excuse.....
just don't ask me to count my needles.....
I'm off to knit...wait....I'm cutting quilt squares.....tomorrow I knit.
Posted by: ABW at April 28, 2008 11:50 AM (Y3JJK)
5
Shoot, Erin and ABW, no need to gulp...if I had been there, I would've fought you for the yarn myself. I sure don't need 34 new balls, but I would've taken them in a heartbeat, and maybe punched you out if you tried to get me to share.
Posted by: Sarah at April 28, 2008 11:53 AM (TWet1)
6
I've been talking to a company that may be donating yarn to Soldiers' Angels. When I talked to the crochet team about it, the team leader was so excited. She said that most of the knitters and crocheters (who usually make blankets for the VA) are retired and can't afford to buy as much yarn as they would use if they had the opportunity. So... perhaps I could help you find a good home for all that yarn...?
Posted by: FbL at April 28, 2008 12:58 PM (rW1/8)
7
OMG, can I just say that I hate you all. And I mean that in the nicest way possible. I lost my whole stash in the stupid Nor'Easter flood on April 07' and have been aquirring some stuff here and there. If I saw that sale I'd beat you all off with a stick for that yarn.
There's too many knitters here in Philly to really be able to get good sale stuff, it's always picked over.
Posted by: Mare at April 29, 2008 09:44 AM (EI19G)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 27, 2008
THE WAR ON PRIME TIME TV
I'm often dismayed and annoyed with TV storylines involving the GWOT; they usually involve soldiers who kill innocents, loot Iraq, and blame it all on the war. Friday's
Numb3ers was no exception.
One of the main characters of the show got out of the Army to join the FBI. In this episode, the FBI was searching for a Marine whose family had been kidnapped because he wouldn't give his fellow Marines the whereabouts of $1 million stolen in Iraq. (Yep, it's the Three Kings storyline again.) Here's the conversation they had:
Marine: They're gonna kill my family. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Force recon taught me that.
FBI: Playing the "bad war badass" is not going to get your family back.
Marine: What do you know about bad wars? Chasing bin Laden in '01 don't compare to what's going on now.
FBI: Yeah, I've heard the stories.
Marine: (mocking) You've heard the stories. Talk to me when you've seen woman and children blown up by a 50-cal, or a school after a mortar attack, or a man tortured by your own guys until he begs you to kill him. You fought the bad war when it was good.
This seemed like Hollywood bullcrap to me, so I had a long talk with my husband about it. In his experience, he has never heard conversations like this about Afghanistan being a "good war" but Iraq being a "bad war." And 50-cal bullets work in Afghanistan too; I am sure some soldier in Afghanistan has made a kill that bothers him. This just smelled like projection to me: someone in Hollywood thinks Afghanistan is more justified than Iraq and writes that dialogue into the script.
Heck, everyone in Hollywood is projecting. I can't even list how many episodes of shows like Cold Case, Law & Order, CSI, Without a Trace, etc, have plotlines that seem like stereotypes gone horribly wrong. Everyone has PTSD, and the number of people who return from Iraq and murder their recruiter, journalists, or other soldiers from their platoon who are about to blow the whistle on cover-ups of massive Iraqi murders, well, it's just staggering. If this had happened even once, I think we'd have heard of it in the past seven years. It's all Hollywood exaggeration, and sadly they're exaggerating our soldiers and Marines into killers, thieves, and mental cases.
Later on in the show, thankfully this exchange happens between the two FBI agents:
Colby: What Porter said about me fighting the good war, there's truth to that. When I got pulled out of the field by military intelligence, I left a lot of guys behind.
David: And a lot of them went to Iraq...
Colby: I read the names in the papers, guys I knew, I heard about friends who came home messed up physically and messed up in the head
David: Where I grew up, people were messed up by a lot of things, a lot of it out of their control. It didn't make them any less culpable for their actions.
They're talking about the context of crime, but this point can be extended much further. War is ugly. But so is rape, abuse, incest, drugs, and a host of other things that people are exposed to on a daily basis. Soldiers watch their friends get killed, but sometimes in this messed-up world we live in, children watch their parents get killed. Wives watch their husbands murdered in front of them. Life is not only brutal on the battlefield.
Last night I finished reading The Airman and the Carpenter. The NJ state executioner thought Hauptmann was innocent, but he had to pull the switch anyway. I had never thought about executioners before, but I'm sure on occasion they have to take a life they're not comfortable with taking. But they do it. Does it haunt them? I don't know; we never hear about executioner PTSD. Nor do we hear about doctor PTSD, though I'm certain the ER is a horrifying place to work. I bet they see more people dying in a week than my husband did in an entire year. But they're not portrayed on TV as mental cases who are going to kill their fellow doctors for money.
I've been holding in a complaint for a long time because it is a delicate subject, but I'm going to air it now. There are people out there with PTSD, and they need help. I am glad that there is awareness and that they can get the help they deserve. I know it's real. But there's a nagging part of me that rues the fact that the more emphasis we put on PTSD -- the more we talk about detection and diagnosis and how widespread it is -- the more civilians expect that everyone who's been deployed is messed up in the head. And the more of these storylines we're going to get on movies and TV, which just reinforces civilians' belief that everyone has PTSD.
My husband reminded me of the time we went to The Mariners' Museum and his cousin asked cautiously if he would be OK sitting in on the video presentation of the battle of the USS Monitor because it had simulated cannon fire. It was nice of her to be concerned, but my husband just had to chuckle. He had been jittery for the first few weeks of being home, but by then he had been home for two and a half years. But she knew about PTSD and thought it affected everyone who's been deployed. She was worried about my husband and wouldn't accept his reassurance. She kept asking me if he was OK, no I mean really, is he OK, you can tell me.
Yes, he's OK. Most people are. Some do have PTSD, but most of them won't go on to murder or pillage. They need to see a doctor; what they don't need is Hollywood making them out to be ticking time bombs on every TV show and movie ever made about Iraq.
Why can't we have any storylines where someone comes home from Iraq and then sacrifices to save a life? That's happened, you know. Or where someone survives a murder attempt and helps bring the killer to justice, as Airman King did?
There's heroism among returning servicemembers. But for some reason that never makes it into TV plots.
Posted by: Sarah at
05:24 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1085 words, total size 6 kb.
1
Suggested reading: "True Crime" by Andrew Klavan. I don't usually read mysteries/crime novels, but this is exceptional. It's about a seemingly-hackneyed subject: the innocent man condemned to death--but Klavan makes it work very well. The prison warden, like the executioner you mention, has serious doubts about the guilt of his prisoner.
There was a movie made from the book, but the plot was changed in ways that didn't make sense.
Posted by: david foster at April 27, 2008 07:25 AM (ke+yX)
2
We had the tv on friday night while this show was on, I was on the laptop (surprise surprise) and my own personal marine was ironing of all things his cammies. We heard the line that you mentioned and both our heads shot up. We just looked at each other and flyboy said, "Oh good, political commentary". I could see him tense up. He went on to complain about how the crazies always have to be military of some sort as if there arent a. enough good military folks to show but we all know that wouldnt be interesting and b. that there surely is no shortage of nonmilitary crazies.
sorry for the ramble i get so worked up over this bs.
Posted by: lea at April 28, 2008 05:53 AM (NJQf+)
3
When you said, "But there's a nagging part of me that rues the fact that the more emphasis we put on PTSD -- the more we talk about detection and diagnosis and how widespread it is -- the more civilians expect that everyone who's been deployed is messed up in the head."
And I immediately thought about ADHD. So many children are diagnosed with ADHD even when they may just be acting like children. For some reason, we have to put a label on people and now we're doing it with children. Suddenly everyone, young and old, are on anti-depressants....
Anyway, it was just another topic that sprang to mind. I completely agree with you. The television, internet and various media forms all interfere with our lives in unfortunate ways when it doesn't have to be that way. It would be nice to see more positive news about the GWOT or life in general so we're all not perpetuating more depression!!
Posted by: Tonya at April 28, 2008 11:53 AM (KV0YP)
4
Back in Civil War days, what we now call PTSD was called "soldier's heart."
Seems more human, somehow.
Posted by: david foster at April 28, 2008 12:38 PM (ke+yX)
5
Do people really think doctors and other professionals that deal with intense things (For lack of a better expression...) don't get PTSD?
Because my experience is that ER doctors DO get PTSD, as do CPS workers, cops, therapists, Domestic Violence advocates, Sexual Assault advocates, crime victims and on and on it goes...
In those fields, it is sometimes labeled as secondary trauma or vicarious trauma, or just PTSD.
But PTSD isn't something that just happens to soldiers in wartime. I'm wondering why so many people think that... that baffles me.
Posted by: Crys at April 30, 2008 10:09 AM (dqGUK)
6
I agree that some people come back with PTSD, but agree with your assessment that it isn't as rampant as we are told. I know a guy who went over (well, a lot of guys, but one in particular) who was a real screw up before he joined - didn't take responsibility for his actions, immature, etc.
Well, he was in a pretty famous photo while he was there, and when he came back he went a little nutso and it made the news again. The thing is, the stuff he did when he came back was some of the same crap he was pulling before he ever joined the Army - but now it was all being blamed on PTSD.
I just don't always buy it. I think that some people want to be irresponsible and need someone (or something) else to blame.
Sorry for my rant, this whole topic just gets me going...
Posted by: Kahne at May 06, 2008 06:01 AM (8/Y1L)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 25, 2008
THE SUCKER TAX
Neal Boortz was talking about the lottery earlier today as I drove home from the commissary, and I couldn't believe my ears. He said he had read a study a while back that said that 50% of respondants said they planned to use
lottery winnings to retire. I've been searching and cannot find this study, but I did find
this:
Twenty-one percent of those surveyed said a lottery would be the most practical strategy for accumulating several hundred thousand dollars, and that percentage was higher among lower-income people, with 38% of those who earn less than $25,000 pointing to the lottery as a solution.
Some Americans "both greatly overestimate their chances of hitting a lottery jackpot, and greatly underestimate their ability to build six-figure wealth by patiently making regular savings contributions over time," said Stephen Brobeck, executive director of CFA, in a telephone press conference.
Knock me over with a feather.
This ties in nicely with a blog post AirForceWife sent to me yesterday. FrugalDad wrote a blog post called Language of the Perpetual Poor, which contained this gem:
If you are ever around a gas station on Friday night you see them lined up at the counter forking over $20 of their hard-earned paycheck for their chance at financial glory. And just try telling them that $20 a week in a mutual fund averaging 8% growth for 30 years adds up to $130,000. Who can afford to invest in mutual funds?
So there you go, there's your six figures. Shoot, you'd be better off putting the money in a coffee can, as one commenter said she started doing instead of going on on the office pool.
In searching for these shocking lottery statistics, I also came across this anecdote to put it all in perspective:
"'Suppose you have one friend in Canada. If you put the names of everyone in Canada in a hat and draw one name at random, you are 2.5 times more likely to draw your friend's name than you are to win the Big Game,' according to Cal State-Hayward statistics professor Michael Orkin."
Heh.
A big problem is that people are so mathematically ignorant that they don't even understand these odds. Here's how bad it is:
The study also identified a strong relation between financial literacy and retirement planning. Persons who understood finances more were more likely to take charge and plan for their retirement. Financial literacy was judged on the basis of being able to answer simple financial questions including:
“If the chances of getting a disease are 10 per cent, how many people out of 1,000 would be expected to get the disease?” Answer: 100. (Percentage of people answering correctly: 84.)
“If 5 people all have the winning number in the lottery and the prize is $2 million, how much will each of them get?” Answer: $400,000. (Percentage of people answering correctly: 56.)
“Let’s say you have $200 in a savings account paying 10% per year interest. How much would you have in the account at the end of two years?” Answer: $242. (Percentage of people answering correctly: 18.)
This is just basic stuff, people. Yikes.
There are only two tricks to investing for long-term financial success: early and often. The lottery doesn't enter into it.
Posted by: Sarah at
07:03 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 549 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Yep. I figure I win a dollar every time I don't buy a lottery ticket. Though when the 'rollover' jackpots get big enough the statistics do swing over to the buyer's side. A little.
Posted by: Glenmore at April 25, 2008 02:02 PM (suPXr)
2
Good grief. No wonder these folks are scared of having their retirement be their responsibility. Where I'm clamoring for the government to let me keep more of my money so I can invest as I see fit, these doofuses are out trying to win the friggin' lottery?! Moronic. Imbecilic. A cycle that will continue unless the control of our $ can be wrestled from the clenches of government and we can actually teach people how to be responsible for themselves and their financial wellbeing.
Posted by: Guard Wife at April 26, 2008 01:43 PM (boSOD)
3
Hi there,
I was catching up on some of your posts, (I havn't been around for awhile) and I was reading about Charlie and the cat. I have both at home, plus other creatures as well. Long story short, I thought you might get a giggle and an uplift from this. It is at youtube. It is called An engineers guide to cats.
Keep your chin up. It will happen for you one way or another. It doesn't really matter how it happens, you will be a great mom.
Cindy
Posted by: cindy at April 26, 2008 04:25 PM (jKLs/)
4
"$200 in a savings account paying 10% per year interest. How much would you have in the account at the end of two years?” (Answer: $242)..18% answered this correctly.
This seems too bad to be true, even given the awful state of public education. I wonder if $240 (which is what you get if you ignore compounding) counted as a right answer, or if you had to get the $242.
Posted by: david foster at April 26, 2008 04:53 PM (ke+yX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
WELL PUT
An
astute observation on how Obama and Clinton are tearing the Democrats in half:
Also, heard from a smart conservative strategist a day or so ago... this is what happens when your party is made up of groups that want government to do things for them (and spend time and resources) vs. when your party is made up of groups that want government to get off their backs and go away.
Government dollars, even with high tax rates, are finite. Sooner or later, a dollar has to be spent on either environmental protection or worker retraining programs, on scholarships or on expanding Social Security, on government-run health care or foreign aid, on infrastructure programs or on open space preservation. Sooner or later, a Democratic leader can only split the difference so much, and more resources will go to one instead of the other. Someone will feel shortchanged, resentments will build. Besides money, there's the finite resource of time, focus, and energy of lawmakers.
Posted by: Sarah at
04:00 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 167 words, total size 1 kb.
1
You know, I recently did some research on this whole mess, and while I was searching I found myself at the Democratic National Committee website. If you've never looked, it's fairly funny. There's not a picture or a news story about Clinton or Obama on there. It's all pictures of McCain and how awful he is. I'm not sure why anyone would ever want to elect someone on a platform of "anti" but that's just what the democrats are after. No wonder this congress is the lowest rated in a trillion years!
Posted by: KBG at April 25, 2008 06:03 AM (8/Y1L)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
THE FARCE OF THE CENTURY
I wrote over at SpouseBUZZ about my
pre-deployment stress. With the fertility and my husband leaving, I have not been at peak mental performance lately. So how could I make it worse? How about reading the most stressful and awful book I've ever picked up.
I found the book The Airman and the Carpenter: The Lindbergh Kidnapping and the Framing of Richard Hauptmann for fifty cents at the Goodwill. I thought I'd grab it and learn a little about the Trial of the Century.
I can't read this book for more than a chapter at a time. I cry too much. I get knots in my stomach and shortness of breath. I cry out in anguish and my husband has to ask me what they did this time. When I set the book down at night, I rant endlessly to my husband. I pace the room, I raise my voice, and I can't calm down.
I've even dreamt about Charles Lindbergh.
The Trial of the Century was a joke. It was a farce and a disaster. They executed an innocent man because they had no better suspect. Everyone who took the stand lied. Flat out lied: cops, expert witnesses, Lindbergh himself. God, how this book has made me hate Charles Lindbergh. They planted evidence, coached witnesses, tricked Hauptmann into damning himself, destroyed documents and evidence that exonerated him, and laid out a boatload of perjury as the truth.
And Hauptmann lost his life.
This website does a pretty good job of laying out the absurdities of the case and lining up the questions that Hauptmann's defense lawyer should have asked. Only he didn't, because he too thought Hauptmann was guilty. So throughout the entire trial, he only spent 40 minutes conferring with his client.
This book has gotten me in such a tizzy that I can't stand it. I find the whole thing so disgusting and reprehensible. I can't even recommend the book because it's too painful to read. I'm glad I learned about it, but it literally makes me sick to my stomach to read it.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:06 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Here in New Jersey the case has always been of great interest. A lot of people made names for themselves, including the lawyers. I worked at law firm that one of the lawyers in the case helped establish and this case was always pointed at as "the big one". Imagine that, lawyers making money and everyone else getting screwed.
Posted by: Padraig at April 25, 2008 03:19 AM (CrA9t)
2
Thought I don't doubt the awfulness of the book and your righteous (and reasonable) response, consider that maybe you're funneling some of your pre-deployment emotions into the book...
Just a thought...
*hugs*
Posted by: FbL at April 25, 2008 04:53 AM (rW1/8)
3
Likely one of the first and most memorable cases where celebrity eroded the justice system.
Posted by: Guard Wife at April 25, 2008 05:32 AM (h6nYc)
4
You should read "The Innocent Man" by John Grisham. I started reading it with no idea what the book was about, and was shocked to find out it's based on a true story.
Posted by: MC at April 25, 2008 06:46 AM (2rnKP)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 24, 2008
HOVERING
Just this morning, I was thinking about
that mom who got arrested for leaving her child in the car while she put money in the Salvation Army bin. I watched a mom strap her kid into the car at Walmart, take her groceries out of her cart, and then leave the cart right in the middle of the parking lot instead of pushing it to one of the cart corrals. I hate when people do this! But I got to thinking, would she get in trouble for leaving her child unattended as she put her cart away? That's the same distance as it was to the Salvation Army bin.
I seriously thought about this all day, about moms who don't stray from child's side. I thought a lot about my own childhood, and about CaliValleyGirl's (she should regale you with tales of her childhood independence), and about leaving a child alone in the car for a few moments.
So I was fascinated to find this article this evening:
Would you let your fourth-grader ride public transportation without an adult? Probably not. Still, when Lenore Skenazy, a columnist for the New York Sun, wrote about letting her son take the subway alone to get back to her Manhattan home from a department store on the Upper East Side, she didn't expect to get hit with a tsunami of criticism from readers.
"Long story short: My son got home, ecstatic with independence," Skenazy wrote on April 4 in the New York Sun. "Long story longer: Half the people I've told this episode to now want to turn me in for child abuse. As if keeping kids under lock and key and helmet and cell phone and nanny and surveillance is the right way to rear kids. It's not. It's debilitating—for us and for them."
I honestly think it's cool that she let her kid ride the subway. I was only a little older than he when I rode my bike to school, an event which I immortalized when I previously wrote about letting kids have freedom:
On my last day of fifth grade, my mom let me ride my bike to school. Some of my friends who lived closer to the school got to ride their bikes often, but we lived in a neighborhood that was further away and so I was a bus-riding kid. (Oh, and every day my brother and I walked down the street to the bus stop and waited alone.) But finally my mom said I was old enough to earn the right to ride my bike to school. I just google mapped it, and it seems I rode roughly two miles. And I felt SO COOL. I was one of the big kids now. I was independent. I had Done Something Awesome. And without a helmet.
My mom and I talked about that not too long ago. She says looking back she can't believe all the parents let their kids ride bikes to school. And she's not sure she'd let me do it today. Even she has a hard time remembering when cartoon characters didn't need helmets.
I needed to ride that bike to school. Heck, I still remember it. As a crowning achievement, as a milestone, as a step on the way to Growing Up. The thing that scares me is wondering if I will be able to let my kids take those steps too.
The Newsweek article says this:
Back in 1972, when many of today's parents were kids, 87 percent of children who lived within a mile of school walked or biked every day. But today, the Centers for Disease Control report that only 13 percent of children bike, walk or otherwise get themselves to school.
My husband is pretty adamant that we won't be driving our kid to his bus stop. And likely we won't have to; the local bus stop seems to stop every 100 feet to let a new kid out right in front of his house. We want to have a relaxed and groovy approach to parenting. (Ha, the last thing Sarah is is relaxed and groovy.)
Of course, these feelings are all theoretical. I want to be a cool, independence-fostering mom. But I've also been plagued by hovering thoughts.
I know a couple, they tried for eight years to have their daughter. She was born dangerously premature, and she ended up being their only child. She's now 30, and when I think about how hard it was for them to have this child, I wonder how they ever let her leave the house. How did they let her ride a bike or start driving or go to college? How did they ever let her out of their sight? She was irreplaceable. Literally.
Since having a baby has proven so hard, I can imagine it will be even harder to let my kid become independent. I will have to really work at not smothering the kid.
I will have to remind myself how I felt when I rode that bike to school. My kid needs to feel that too.
UPDATE:
Oh good heavens: I Left My Son in San Francisco.
Posted by: Sarah at
12:29 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 862 words, total size 5 kb.
1
I know a couple, dear friends, who had never thought to get pregnant, thought it wasn't possible, who after 15 years of marriage were surprised with a wonderful baby girl. They were (and are) such good parents. You would have thought they too would be hoverers, they were not. They were both former school teachers, well grounded with being around many nieces and nephews and knew the value of raising a child who could, and did, become an independent person. This child received her MA last year, secure in her self, with an independent way of thinking no hovered over child could ever have attained. I often wonder what will become of those children whose mommy's, and it is usually mommies, have deprived them of being an independent person.
By the time you have yours you will have had enough time to figure out how you want to do it, but it never turns out exactly like we think it will.
Posted by: Ruth H at April 24, 2008 03:12 PM (hBAQy)
2
I hover more than I thought I would, but it's also child specific. The boy, just yesterday, tried to jump off our upstairs porch. He was actually indignant when AFG spanked his butt in front of God and Everyone. So I won't let him so much as outside without another kid I know to be a tattletale.
The #3 girl, I'd leave her home for a weekend NOW, and she's only 7. She's just uber capable. She did her own laundry last week. Sorted the reds and pinks out and everything.
But #2... Yeah. She forgets to put her socks on before her shoes. And although I know she has to learn, it's rather hard to let her do things on herself when I know that common sense isn't her strong point.
You just can't predict.
Posted by: airforcewife at April 24, 2008 04:46 PM (mIbWn)
3
I obviously live under a rock because I had not read that story about the mom who left her daughter in the car. I have done similar things myself with my kid sleeping in the backseat. It's hard to wake a sleeping little one.
Not hovering, though, is tough, and my daughter is still quite small and needs a fair amount of that yet. I'm not sure how I'll do when she's bigger. I have quite a vivid imagination and can tell you in nightmarish detail my worst case scenarios. I hope I will be able to put my fears aside, what sometimes helps is watching her assert her growing independence.
What's always amazing to me is how different each mother's "hovering standard" is. I know people view me alternately as careless (I allow her to play in our fenced backyard in her sandbox alone for a few minutes) or overprotective (I am one of those moms who doesn't want to let her more than about 10 ft from me on a public playground). The biggest thing I think I've learned about being a parent is that you just have to do what's best for you and your child. Everybody's got an different opinion on what's best.
Posted by: dutchgirl at April 24, 2008 04:56 PM (+usWx)
4
If I can suck it up and let go of my AF boy (man), you will have no problem raising a free thinking independent child like yourself.
Posted by: Vonn at April 24, 2008 05:01 PM (gNLi0)
5
For the love of mike, that kids folks are *still* paying his rent and for his groceries. She filled out his college applications and wrote his essay for him? No wonder he screwed up. Trust me the helicopter thing is backfiring big time on these kids. Companies don't want to hire them. And in this economy that is not a good thing. Sure they can pay them less, but they'd rather have someone more responsible who they know is going to show up and do the job.
I work with a lot of young interns who don't know how to do basic stuff like cook, do laundry, or use spell check.
Relaxed and groovy eh? What have you done with Sarah? J/K you guys are going to be awesome parents.
Posted by: Mare at April 25, 2008 04:35 AM (EI19G)
6
What if she got her daughter out, slipped in the sleet, cracked her head open and had to go to the hospital. And then she ended up with the flu? All of that could have been avoided if she had left her in the car!!!
I was always scared to leave my girls in the car while putting up my cart, but I would put them in last. Unload the groceries, take the cart and the kid to the cart area, then carry or let the kid walk back to the car. They usually liked the extended ride in the cart.
That said, I would have probably done the same as the Chicago mom.
Posted by: Amy at April 25, 2008 05:08 PM (2BV6j)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
TORTILLA REALIZATION
The last time my husband left, it was
buying shampoo that made me realize he was leaving. This time it was tortillas.
I pack lunches for my husband to eat at work, and usually I make him wraps. As I bought a ten-pack of tortillas today, I realized that that's all he'll need. There are about ten more work days until he's gone.
Boy, that hit me like a ton of bricks. It snuck up on me fast. The shampoo realization came four months ahead of time. This time I've been a lot more distracted.
Posted by: Sarah at
08:37 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Vonn at April 24, 2008 09:11 AM (gNLi0)
Posted by: vonn at April 24, 2008 09:11 AM (gNLi0)
3
Mine was red bull. He lives on the crap I cant stand it. I bought a big pack and only once I got it home and in the fridge did I realize that a lot of it was going to be sitting around. for a while.
hang in there
Posted by: lea at April 24, 2008 09:38 AM (NJQf+)
4
Man! Leave it to tortillas. We're here to listen...or, well, read anyway. {{Hugs}}
Posted by: Guard Wife at April 24, 2008 09:54 AM (boSOD)
5
ouch, that is coming fast
I hope you enjoy those last days... somehow my dh and I always manage to fight as if that will make the disengaging easier. I wish some good memories for you both before he goes.
Posted by: dutchgirl at April 24, 2008 10:29 AM (+usWx)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 23, 2008
MAGKNITS
I finished my
Magknits t-shirt yesterday, and I am loving it. I already have plans to make another.
It's not easy to take a photo of yourself with the camera timer and try to get the dog to look cute, your new sweater to look cute, and to not look like you have a bald spot. Two outta three ain't bad, right?
Posted by: Sarah at
04:38 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Loving that t-shirt!!! I all three look great.
Posted by: Guard Wife at April 23, 2008 05:18 AM (BslEQ)
2
I'm dropping words apparently...I think all three of you look fantastic.
Posted by: Guard Wife at April 23, 2008 05:18 AM (BslEQ)
3
My husband used to work for a paycheck advance company. For many it was helpful and no one was forced to take out a loan. At one point a politician decided the military should not be charged the current rate and made the rate to low for the company to make money. They would lose money at the rate required. So what did the company do? Stopped loaning money to soldiers. The net effect? No loans when they may have needed it.
Posted by: Amy at April 23, 2008 03:17 PM (dgUV8)
Posted by: Amy at April 23, 2008 03:18 PM (dgUV8)
Posted by: Erin at April 24, 2008 03:31 AM (y67l2)
6
That is so cute. I might have to make one. I'm trying to find a local source for soysilk at the moment.
Posted by: Mare at April 24, 2008 05:25 AM (EI19G)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
KNOCK IT OFF, GOVERNMENT
John Stossel echoes a point I was trying to make via email to Sis B:
Politicians love a "crisis." John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama all think that the government should bail out homeowners who can't pay their mortgages. When they say the government should do this, they mean the taxpayers, including those who are paying their mortgages. They also think the government should regulate the lending and investment industries further.
Why?
Because "crisis" justifies making government bigger.
It's why we now have a global warming "crisis" and in previous years we had "crises" over avian flu, the Y2K threat to computers, imaginary cancer spikes caused by pesticides, killer bees flying up from Mexico, and uncontrolled population growth leading to a "Population Bomb" that will bring "riots and mass starvation" by the year 2000.
In my email, I mentioned the HBO series John Adams and remarked how deeply it struck me when John Adams told Congress that it wasn't his place to give his opinion when they were deadlocked. Imagine any politician today saying it's not his place to give his opinion! Nowadays, politicans tie millions of dollars to their opinions and give both out freely. And imagine telling our early presidents that they need to help people pay for their homes or stop the spread of disease. No way that was the government's job back then. But it sure is now. Hurricane hit your city? Free trailers for everyone. And here's a voucher to go buy a new Gucci purse.
The term "predatory lending" just gets my goat. Forced lending? Ha. You can't make someone borrow money from you. If you make $30,000 a year and bought a $400,000 house, it's no one's fault but your own. I wish John Adams could be here today to stare incredulously at those people's faces and tell them to get real.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:48 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 318 words, total size 2 kb.
1
The problem with the media and politicians overblowing crises is that when a real crisis appears, it will not be getting the attention it needs. You know, like the little boy who cried wolf.
I, too, don't understand predatory lending and don't think the government should bail anyone out of it. Whatever happened to "Caveat emptor"?
Posted by: Sis B at April 23, 2008 04:41 AM (0ZS+T)
2
About "predatory lending," on the one hand I agree that people are idiots for biting off more than they can chew. However, it also annoys me that credit card companies and mortgage brokers etc. don't loan out their money responsibly. In fact, they purposely give credit to people they KNOW won't be able to pay back on time, because that is how they earn money in late fees. They purposely give a mortgage to a family who really can't afford that kind of house, because they can get higher interest rates that way.
I do think it's a two way blame street, and I don't believe that those in debt are victims. However, I do think it's atrocious that those who actually understand finances etc, purposely abuse this knowledge and do not educate their customers. They hide the nasty details and only advertise the good details. If you are in business, your aim should be to serve your customer in the best possible way. It shouldn't be to screw them over...however that is what credit lenders do. So in my opinion, if your success is based on how many people you can screw out of money, that isn't good business.
However, like I mentioned before, I don't feel too sorry for those who have been screwed over, because no one put a gun to their head to take that credit, and usually they were in no need for any credit before they took it.
And in no way should we bail out any one, because there is no lesson learned...and why should someone be allowed to stay in their 4000 square foot McMansion, while my husband and I exercised fiscal responsibility and have a much smaller house? It sends the wrong message. And both the lenders and the lendees need to learn a lesson here.
Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at April 23, 2008 04:43 AM (U2RJu)
3
I'd say we have a crises of stupid people in this country.
Posted by: tim at April 23, 2008 10:22 AM (nno0f)
4
My husband used to work for a paycheck advance company. For many it was helpful and no one was forced to take out a loan. At one point a politician decided the military should not be charged the current rate and made the rate to low for the company to make money. They would lose money at the rate required. So what did the company do? Stopped loaning money to soldiers. The net effect? No loans when they may have needed it.
Posted by: Amy at April 23, 2008 03:19 PM (dgUV8)
5
A lot of the problem with housing is due to that fact that just about everybody believed, until a year or so ago, that houses would appreciate in price at 10% per year, more or less forever. If this had been true, it would have made sense to max out your borrowing. But it wasn't true, and indeed couldn't have been true. But there were very, very few stories, in the general media or even in the business media, raising red flags on this.
One of the porblems with crisis orientation is that people get so preoccupied with the *current* crisis or fad that they can't see the next problem or opportunity coming.
Posted by: david foster at April 24, 2008 03:33 AM (ke+yX)
6
Is it wrong of me to be thankful for the stupdity of others?
Should I feel guilty about watching, waiting, reading, investigating all in hopes of making the best possible home purchase for me and my family?
OH wait....I'm an American and with that comes freedom to make my own choices, not read junk mail and NOT believe everything the media and society would like me to believe is the NORM.
As I remember the "American dream" was 2.5 kids, a dog and a house with a white picket fence. I don't remember seeing any small print stating the house had to be a minimum of 3500 sq. ft. on 2+ acres and exceed my income.
It's early and my thoughts are all over the place, but man that felt good!
Posted by: Vonn at April 24, 2008 07:18 AM (gNLi0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 22, 2008
NICE
Lileks is a gem:
You know, it may be hard to find a candidate who doesnÂ’t belong to a church whose leader delivers eyebrow-singing speeches on the evils of America and also built a house Jim Bakker would approve, and it may be hard to find a candidate who doesnÂ’t move with ease in the same social circles as some people who bombed the Pentagon, but it canÂ’t be that hard to find one who doesnÂ’t do both.
Speaking of gems, my husband's ego grew about two sizes after the previous post. Now he's walking around the house talking about how great he is.
Posted by: Sarah at
06:33 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 106 words, total size 1 kb.
April 21, 2008
ONE LUCKY WIFE
Once again, I have the perfect set-up to rave about my husband. The internet makes it too easy, I swear.
John Hawkins found the most horrific article about why men don't do housework. Now there's room for complaining about my husband and his violent toothbrushing (the man brushes his teeth so hard that he sprays everywhere, showering the bathroom in white spots), which I have been known to gripe about on the phone with certain valley girls from Cali. But this article, it's just too much.
And yet everyone acts as if Jeremy deserves some kind of medal just for making a run to the supermarket. No one has ever suggested that I’m a heroine for doing the things every mother is expected to do. I admit that my husband helps out more than many men, but here’s another news flash: It isn’t because he’s such a fabulously enlightened being. Left to his own devices, he would doubtless park himself in front of the TV like some sitcom male-chauvinist couch potato while I did all the work. The reason Jeremy “helps” as much as he does (an offensive terminology that itself suggests who’s really being held responsible) is simple: He doesn’t have a choice.
Wow.
OK, I'll say it. My husband does deserve a medal for helping me around the house. I do most of the housework, and I'm darned lazy at it. Right now I am blogging in the middle of the day with election coverage on the TV, and I just set down my crochet project to pick up the laptop. La-zy. I did do several loads of laundry earlier, cleaned out my husband's dresser drawers, took out the trash, weeded the front flowerbeds, and unloaded and loaded the dishwasher. But really, I still had time to watch two Laws & Orders, make a preemie hat, talk on the phone with Erin, my mom, and my mother-in-law, and eat several pieces of candy on the sofa. The fact that my husband helps make dinner, change the sheets, and load the dishwasher is indeed a sign of his sainthood. Because he woke up at 0430 this morning to spend more than 12 hours at work and then will come home to study for an economics final.
I'm the one who would doubtless park myself on the sofa all day, watching cop dramas and knitting to my heart's content. I clean up the house because I don't have a choice. It's my job since I don't have a job. And once he deploys, I won't have anyone around to shame me into doing housework. The house will probably be a disaster. Charlie sure ain't gonna pull his weight.
I'm lucky my husband puts up with piles of yarn, laundry, and dirty dishes at all. He could easily chew my butt for not working harder around the house while he's at work all week and getting his MBA on the weekends. But he doesn't care, as long as food's on the table and his socks are clean. And he'd have every right to ask me to do more. The oven needs cleaning, as do the windowsills.
I am the one who counts my blessings around here.
My husband is a dream.
Posted by: Sarah at
12:16 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 546 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Lazy housewomen (I'm not a wife) of the world, unite!
Posted by: Anwyn at April 21, 2008 01:32 PM (dzxw9)
2
See...the funny thing is, if this woman changed the oil in their car, she would believe she deserved a medal and accolades too. However, she doesn't seem to think that Jeremy deserves any props for doing his chores...it's like she acts like he doesn't do ANYTHING in their relationship. I mean, does he maybe pack the car, when they go on a roadtrip? Book their travel plans? Hook up their new DVD player? Figure out the digital sprinkling system? I mean, there have got to be loads of things the guy is doing that she is too blind to see, because she "takes them for granted", just as he might be doing with her housekeeping...
Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at April 21, 2008 02:15 PM (U2RJu)
3
I've never wanted to have a wife who did not have her own career. I've always wanted to be in a marriage where we would each juggle our jobs, housework, the kids, everything.
That being said, if one of the partners is not currently employed, then the other partner has every right to expect the vast majority of the housework to be done by that unemployed person.
She may be right. She may contribute more to the relationship than her husband. However, it seems unlikely to me that if he works and she doesn't, and if he contributes (whether through intimidation or through generosity) around the house, that the disparity is so great to be worthy of a newspaper column telling the world how bad her husband is.
It sounds to me that they need to get some counseling to get an outside perspective.
Posted by: Rob Howell at April 21, 2008 06:19 PM (eRTMi)
4
I am the housekeeper by default, too, for the same reason--I happen to be here. My frequent bouts with domestic laziness never gets comments either, like you, and also promotes the hubby to rock star status. Lucky for me, he has an immense amount of patience.
The DH has his chores and I thank him every time he does them, just so he knows that I notice and appreciate that he does it in addition to working, taking online college courses, and now coaching little league. Rock stars, I tell you!
Posted by: Ann M. at April 22, 2008 11:07 AM (HFUBt)
5
As usual, the Bible has something to say here: "...for no man ever hated his own flesh."
If my wife is doing nothing but chores all day and I don't lift a finger to help even though it's not my responsibility and my work/chores are done, then I know better than to go fondle her breasts and grab her rear and expect her to hop in the sack with me when she's finished (cuz women are so turned on by that, anyways).
But if I go out of my way to regularly help, she knows it's not something I have to do but I do it because I value her as a wife and not as a maid. And quite often it means I get fondled while helping out. And being a man that IS a turn on.
So I enjoy helping with 'her' chores for intrinsic as well as selfish reasons. And the end result is a happier and cleaner household.
Posted by: Lame-R at April 22, 2008 12:03 PM (nt98J)
6
I'm in agreement that she didn't go about this in the right way. I do, however, sense some exhaustion and frustration in her voice that I've felt myself from time to time.
In my lifetime so far, I've been a stay-at-home mom who did 99.8% of everything around the house, even when my husband was home. And, just this week, I finished three years of law school in two years with two kids, a couple of dogs and a household as well. It is not fun to try and pull something like that off for the betterment of your family's bottom line only to realize you still have ALL your household responsibilities whether hubby's on vacation from work or what not. It's even harder after that same husband was deployed for a year and you singlehandedly kept a full-time job, ran the house, etc. and the kids were much younger.
I know it isn't a peeing contest or that someone should be keeping score, but there has to be a balance of some kind agreeable to both or that frustration can turn to resentment and rot a marriage from the inside out.
Posted by: Guard Wife at April 23, 2008 05:26 AM (BslEQ)
7
I think the problem is Leslie Bennetts attitude and emasculation of her husband, rather than her irritation that he is not chipping in enough.
Every family dynamic is different, and she may be run ragged by her job and kids and housework. She also lives in midtown Manhatten and has more than enough money to hire a maid two or three times a week.
So she's also not the best example to set forth of a woman who is oppressed by her husband's lack of cleanliness, she's just the bitchiest example.
Posted by: airforcewife at April 23, 2008 10:02 AM (mIbWn)
8
I suddenly feel the need to give my husband a big hug when he walks through the door at whatever time today. (Rotation began this week)
We both work long hours - yet mine are spent at home in front of a computer and his are spent training soldiers and defending our country. Somehow, he still comes home and sweeps, mops or does a load of laundry all without a harsh word, complaint or even a mumble. He doesn't do it because he has to, but because he wants to.
We take pride in what we have and since WE earned it WE both take responsibility for keeping IT clean.
Posted by: Vonn at April 24, 2008 07:29 AM (gNLi0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
NO GOOD MEDDLERS
I don't understand stuff like
this at all.
Officials with Marriott International have agreed to meet with pro-family leaders to discuss the hotel giant's policy of selling in-room pornographic movies to consumers at some of its properties.
...
The letter stressed that pulling the plug on pornography would be in keeping with Marriott's public statement of "promoting the well-being of children and families."
What a bunch of meddling busybodies. If a businessman alone in his hotel room wants to pay outrageous sums of money to watch a dirty movie, why is it anybody else's business?
I mean, don't get me wrong, buying those movies at a hotel is dumb. They're expensive! Shoot, all in-room movies are expensive. Last week the Red Roof Inn wanted to charge us $5.95 to watch an episode of Dexter. Uh, no. But people have the right to spend their money however stupidly they choose. And if they want to spend it on certain types of movies, that's their business.
I just don't get how offering these movies, for a fee, harms children and families who stay in the hotel. This is like the easiest way to prevent your kid from watching dirty movies. If you share a room, there's no way the kid will see it. If the kids have their own room, you'll know about it immediately the next morning when you settle your bill. That's easier control over your kids than you have at home, where any kid at school can hand your precious baby a DVD to take home and hide.
And they're the easiest thing in the world to avoid. Don't want to watch them? Don't buy them! What a novel idea. Just skip that selection on the menu. It's not like the dirty movies are on every channel for free. That will only happen when you take your kids to Europe on vacation.
This kind of stuff drives me nuts. If you don't like sex/violence/nudity/Nip Tuck on TV, don't watch. Change the channel. But seriously, don't try to pressure advertisers and hotel chains to make it so no one can watch. That's manipulative and pathetic.
Incidentally, one time when I was in like high school or something, my family was at a hotel and tried to order an in-room movie. We hit the button, and the movie started, but something wasn't right: it was grainy, and the music was...funny. And then the name of the movie showed up, and gosh I wish I could remember what it was. Something erotic. Obviously the wrong movie had shown up on the screen. So my mom calls the front desk, but she's left the movie playing while she's dialing. My dad was like, "Uh, I think you might want to stop this from playing," while my younger brothers are shushing him and staring intently at the screen. Ha.
Posted by: Sarah at
07:19 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 481 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Absolutely. I'm not going to pay for this stuff in a hotel room when I can get all hot and bothered watching my hubby walk around in his uniform all geared up (that is way hotter than any porno) -- but what do I care if it's there for someone with too much money and time on their hands?
Isn't there something more pressing to be worried about for these people?
Posted by: airforcewife at April 21, 2008 07:45 AM (mIbWn)
2
This scares me. It's just the beginning.
Posted by: Green at April 21, 2008 08:56 AM (6Co0L)
3
I was probably so flustered I couldn't think straight, probably afraid you kids might see something you shouldn't. Boy, did that backfire!
I'd like to think that the incident didn't affect you for life, but then twenty-some-odd years later you're blogging about it; what's funny is I don't remember it at all! Wonder if the boys remember it; I'll have to ask!
Your Mama
Posted by: Nancy at April 21, 2008 08:01 PM (kIsxr)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
SICK
So apparently that miscarriage art, it was a
hoax. I don't know what is sicker: really inducing your own miscarriage for art, or just pretending you did to get attention.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:37 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.
April 20, 2008
YEP
Via Insty, an excellent
comment on taxes:
Clearly the government wants us to spend ourselves broke and throw ourselves on welfare. Then they will stop fining us every year. They fine us for speeding, for spitting in the streets, for doing things they don't want us to do: they also fine us for improving our property, investing money to grow the economy, saving money; the implications are pretty clear?
Posted by: Sarah at
03:14 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.
April 19, 2008
VACATION KNITTING
I knitted two socks last week on vacation.
Yeah, I never said they matched.
The red one has the StL Cardinals logo on the heel. The black one is made with that fun Tofutsies yarn made out of crab shells. I just really wanted socks made from seafood.
And I imagine someday I will make the partner for each of these socks. But right now, there's work to do. I thought my baby knitting was winding down. Both my cousins had their babies last week, so that only left one more preg lady to knit for. And then I got two wedding invitiations in the mail. And found out someone else is pregnant.
It never ends.
Also in knitting news, while on vacation I went to the Toy and Miniature Museum. I knew that some of Althea Merback's work was there, so I dragged my husband's family to see tiny knitted gloves. This was the sweater we got to see, but there was so much more. It was The.Best.Museum.Evah. (My husband laughed when I said that; "You've been to the Louvre," he joked.) But some statue with no arms has nothing on a six-inch-tall working printing press. Or tiny working musical instruments and cameras. My in-laws are lucky we showed up two hours before closing because I could've spent all day there. And the whole time, I kept wishing I had the AirForceKids or Sir Rowland there with me; they would've loved it.
Posted by: Sarah at
05:12 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 247 words, total size 2 kb.
1
AFKids would have had a GREAT time there!
Posted by: airforcewife at April 19, 2008 05:40 AM (mIbWn)
2
Heck, I would have had a great time there!
Posted by: Green at April 19, 2008 06:05 PM (6Co0L)
3
All that time we were in KC and I never heard of this place. I would have taken all my boys there too. Sounds like fun!
Posted by: Angie at April 21, 2008 08:48 AM (BJEkk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
142kb generated in CPU 0.0321, elapsed 0.1218 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.1008 seconds, 318 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.