I'm going to file for divorce

So many reasons.  The main one, I think, is that he is a narcissist.  Everything else flows from that.  The constant need to blame me for everything that ever goes "wrong."  The accusation that I "don't do anything" towards cleaning the house. (For the record, yes, the house is a wreck.  Neither of us does much to fix that.  But his overblown idea that he does "everything" is right in line with the narcissistic personality disorder.)  His complete refusal to listen.  His rude, condescending, mocking attitude and words whenever I try to talk to him about our marital issues.  His repeating things over and over and over unless/until you concede that the thought was brilliant just so you don't have to listen to it again.  His constant bragging about how great he is at his job (teaching sixth grade) mixed in with occasional disturbing stories about how he said something mean to some kid, "but I told him they'd never believe him because I'm the teacher so they'll believe me."  Ugh.  What did I ever see in this guy?

God help me.  Divorce is hell.  Divorcing a narcissist is hell on steroids.

I don't deal well with stupid people, part 3

So LM's daughter (LMD) got her driver's permit recently.

I took LMD out to begin teaching her the basics of driving.  We found a nice empty parking lot next to a pretty-much-abandoned strip mall in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area.  There are lots of pretty-much-abandoned lots here lately, given the economic downturn, which (although it is finally starting to improve) has left many businesses bankrupt.

This pretty-much-abandoned strip mall had one tenant remaining:  [Unnamed Midwestern State] University.  Why that University has a branch here, I have no idea.  Perhaps it is trying to compete with "University of Phoenix," which seems to have opened branches in pretty much every state.  Anyway, there were no cars in a whole huge section of the lot, and about 8 cars in another section of it.

We started in the section with no cars.  After quite a while of driving around, practicing turning, stopping, turning the other way, stopping with the tires on exactly this line or that pothole or that crack in the road, accelerating gently, accelerating gently, turning sharply, stopping quickly, trying to run over that piece of paper, turning gradually, stopping slowly and smoothly, etc...  I was running out of fun ideas...  I thought it would be fun to try driving around real cars and perhaps try parking

So we did.

And LMD parked next to a car on her left.  Then parked next to a car on her right.  She did a great job both times -- right between the lines, no problem.  So I had her park between two cars.  Then, as she was about to back out of the space, she got a shocked look on her face as she looked past me through the passenger side window:  "Mom!  Mom!  Look!

There was a security guard standing next to the car.  I rolled down the window.

Security Guard ("SG"):  What are you doing?

[Seriously?  It isn't obvious?!?  Whatever...]

LM:  Practicing driving.

SG:  Well, you can't do that here.

LM:  Why not?  It's a public parking lot.

SG:  Well, I can't have you driving around my students' cars.  If you crash into one of them, that would not be good.

LM:  First of all, she's not going to hit a car.  Second of all, I'm insured, so if she does hit one, we'll fix it.  I promise.  It won't be a problem.

SG:  No.  You can drive over there (pointing to totally empty lot) if you want, but not here.

[Thinking:  "Says you and what army?  Who made you emperor of all you survey?"]

LM:  We did that already.  She's got the hang of driving around nothing.  She needs to practice around things now.

SG:  Well, you can set up some traffic cones over there if you like.

LM (sarcastically-enthusiastically):  Oh, that would be cool!  Do you have some of those?

SG:  No.

LM:  Oh... well, that makes two of us.  (Rolls window up.)

LMD (in a shouted-whisper tone of voice):  (MOM!  STOP!  YOU SOUND JUST LIKE GRANDPA!!)

... I guess I come by it honestly.  At least I didn't ask if he had the authority to call someone with authority, as grandpa would have done.

Again, I felt a little bad afterwards. He was just doing what he perceived as being his job, even if he was overstepping his bounds a bit. I didn't feel as bad as I did after my unfortunately snarky encounter with the clueless lady at the church that I wrote about last week. But not as justified as I felt after being a little mean to the clueless and overeager Adobe sales rep.  Sort of somewhere in-between.

Because yes, he was overstepping his bounds.  It's not like there were any spaces marked "reserved for __ University students"--so presumably any drunk or otherwise piss-poor driver could come park anywhere in the lot, next to "his" student's cars, so why pick on us?!?  (At least this particular novice driver was being supervised by a very-experienced driver who previously has taught others to drive buses!)  Answer:  because he thought he had the power to do so and he was bored sitting around doing nothing.  And he had that air of "I've think I've got power and I'm going to use it even though I really don't have the right to do so" that just irritates the crud out of me.

So there you have it.  Judge me if you must.  The short story is, "I don't deal well with stupid people."

I don't deal well with stupid people, part 1

Here is the ridiculous discussion I had with the Adobe Sales Representative last year, when I needed to have .pdf editing software.*  I had tried calling the 800 number but could not get through the answering-machine “tree” to find a live person.  So I tried the live-chat function on the Adobe website.  The chat is edited to make it shorter and eliminate some unnecessary “filler,” but is otherwise an accurate transcript that I copied and pasted when I finished chatting with the Adobe rep, because of its sheer absurdity. I wanted to be able to look back and laugh.  And often, I do.

*Note that I subsequently purchased “Cute PDF” software, which was only $49 and works great (much better for my uses than the far-more-expensive Adobe software, which we have at my new job).

Chat Transcript (I tried not to be snarky.  I think I was mostly successful.):

Thank you for contacting Adobe Sales. My name is Priscilla. How may I help you today?
Priscilla: May I have your first name please?

LM: LegalMist

Priscilla: Hi LegalMist.

LM: I am interested in buying Adobe Acrobat.  However, I looked it up online and it does not list compatibility with MS Vista operating system. Will it work with Vista?

Priscilla: Acrobat XI Pro is not compatible with Windows Vista.

LM: Acrobat X was compatible with it. Is that one still available and supported?

Priscilla: I am sorry, Acrobat X is the older version software, hence it is not available for purchase.

LM: The computer is only 5 years old.  Can you let me download Acrobat X for free?  Or is there some "fix" for Acrobat XI to make it compatible with Vista?

Priscilla: I am sorry, since Acrobat X is an older version software, it is not available for download.  You need to upgrade your operating system.

LM: But my operating system is fine and works great for everything else I do. So why would I pay a bunch of money to "upgrade" it when it doesn't need to be upgraded, other than for your program? Why is Acrobat not compatible with Vista? What problems or issues will arise if I just download it?

Priscilla: I am sorry, since Vista is an older version OS it is not compatible with all the new software.

LM: But Acrobat XI is compatible with XP, which is even older than Vista.

Priscilla: I am sorry  for that.

LM: Will you give a discount on Acrobat XI equivalent to the amount I have to pay to "upgrade" my OS so I can buy it?  Also, do you know what problems or issues will arise if I just try to download it anyway?

Priscilla: Just to confirm, do you have any older version of Acrobat?

LM: No, all I have is the Adobe reader. But I find myself needing some of the capabilities of Acrobat.

Priscilla: Could you tell me the tasks that you wish to accomplish using this software so we can get you the right product?

LM: I want to be able to scan documents into my computer and assemble them along with other computer-created documents and then make the whole thing into a PDF/A file so it can be filed with the Court.  Also, I'd like to be able to use the redaction feature and the "bates-stamp" / page numbering feature.

Priscilla: Are you interested in working with images or creating flyers or logos?

LM: No. I have no interest in creating logos or designs or flyers.  Just legal documents. I'd also like to be able to edit .pdf's

Priscilla: Based on the tasks performed by you, I recommend that you purchase Creative Cloud subscription, as you will get all the Adobe software and also you will get Acrobat XI Pro.

LM: Is Creative Cloud compatible with Vista?

Priscilla: I understand your concern, however I can get you Creative Cloud single App for $19.99 per month only. You can install the application on 2 systems. Either both Mac’s or Windows or 1 on Mac and the other one on Windows.

LM: Does it work with Vista, though?

Priscilla: With single App, you will get Acroabat XI pro with all the upgrades and updates for free.

LM: But does it work with Vista?

Priscilla: I am sorry, it is not compatible with Vista.

LM: Well, then it does me no good. I have Vista, remember?

LM: Let's go back to my prior question: Can I buy Acrobat XI with a discount in the price to reflect the cost of "upgrading" my OS (even though I don't need to upgrade other than to use your program).

Priscilla: I am sorry,we do not have any discounts available.

LM: So there is nothing you can do to help me, then?

Priscilla: With single App, you will get the software at a low monthly cost of $19.99 per month only.  This is the best option available to purchase the software.

LM: But you told me that single App is not compatible with Vista, so I don't care about it being the "best option" for purchasing the software; it won't work with my computer. Ok, well can you at least answer my other prior unanswered question, which is, what problems or issues will arise if I try to install it even though it is incompatible with Vista.

Priscilla: I am sorry, Acrrobat XI Pro as individual product or with Cloud, it is not compatible with Vista.

LM: You said that already, but you still have not answered my question, which is: What problems or issues will it cause if I attempt to install it?

Priscilla: You will not be able to install the software on Vista.

LM: So it simply won't install?

Priscilla: Yes, you are correct.

LM: Priscilla, you have finally answered all my questions. I have to say I am not impressed, though. You tried several times to sell me the "single App" despite knowing that I have Vista, and only later told me that it was incompatible with Vista. What good would it do me to buy it? I can't use it, apparently! I guess I simply cannot purchase your products and will have to look elsewhere.

Priscilla: I am sorry, however Acroabat XI Pro is not compatible with Vista.
Priscilla: I wish I could help you with that.

********

Seriously, I cannot believe how hard she tried to sell me a product that she knew full well I cannot use.

My advice?  Buy “Cute PDF.”  It works great, is less expensive than acrobat, and as far as I can tell, it is compatible with just about every OS (although I don’t use Apple computers, so I can’t vouch for that one). And avoid Adobe chat.  They are useless.  Worse than useless, a total waste of time.

Divorcing this narcissist will be hell on steroids...

No one gets married thinking they will get divorced.

Well, maybe some people do, but then they are fools.

But let me give you some free advice:  Before you get married, think about how a divorce would go, if it were to come to that, sometime in the distant future.  And then don't marry anyone who you would not want to have to try to divorce.

I knew from the beginning that my then-boyfriend could be mean and vindictive if he felt he had been "wronged."  I watched him treat others badly and seek petty revenge when he felt they had treated him badly.

But I was in love, and so was he, and at the time, we were nice to each other.  He was fun to be with, creative, smart, funny, adventurous, romantic...  We both thought we would be friends forever, regardless of what else might happen between us.

We were wrong.

We have tried marriage counseling.  It helped, marginally, for a while.  The counselor would tell us both things that we should work on to improve our relationship.  But instead of taking the counselor's advice and applying it to himself, my husband too often used it as a weapon against me, as in "The doctor said you are supposed to ____" or "are not supposed to ___" -- all the while, not working on the issues the counselor had asked him to work on.  He wouldn't take seriously the "couples exercises" the counselor assigned -- the ones in the book designed to build trust and understanding.  He would say they were "silly" or "goofy" and he didn't want to do them.  If I pushed the point, he would give short or flip answers to the questions asked.  I gave up.

Eventually, I gave up on the marriage. I got tired of giving and not feeling appreciated or loved.  The constant criticism is just too much to bear. I guess a part of me felt like, if he was going to criticize constantly, he might as well have something to criticize.

At this point, we are not friends, and we are not lovers.  There is open hostility, snide remarks made in front of the kids, and a complete lack of communication about many issues.  It is time to end this marriage.

It is not good for me.  It is not good for him.  It cannot possibly be good for the kids.

And yet I dread it, because I know he will be manipulative, vindictive, and downright mean.  He thinks I have treated him badly.  I think he is wrong, but it doesn't matter what I think.  I know what is coming.

I have assisted so many others through this process.  I have seen the damage a manipulative, vindictive, and mean person, with the "right" ("wrong?") lawyer, can inflict on a soon-to-be-ex-spouse, on the kids, on the family as a whole.

I do not want my kids to be in this crossfire.

But the only way through to the other side, to peace and the potential for real happiness, is a divorce.

A Call for Common Sense and an Ability to See Shades of Gray

I am adamantly opposed to people sexually abusing children.  The idea of some creepy 45 year old having sex with my 10 or 14 year old kid just gives me the willies.

That said, there are varying degrees of sexual "abuse," different types of abusers, and some people convicted of sexual offenses who, in my opinion, should not have been convicted at all.

For example, a 45 year old woman who engages in sexual conduct with a 10 year old child obviously deserves a big punishment.  By contrast, a 20 year old woman who on one occasion kisses and fondles a 15 year old teen who is sexually promiscuous, appears to be older, told her he was 18, and was "coming on to her," deserves less punishment, if any at all.  In many states, both types of "offenders" would be punished.

As another example, if teens have sex with their teen boyfriends / girlfriends, it seems to me that neither one should be convicted of a sexual offense.  But in many states they can be, and are, convicted.

Granted we may not like the idea of our teens having sex, but in some cultures, teens routinely marry and become parents -- it's not exactly unnatural, and absent some evidence of coercion by one or the other, it seems really unfair to convict one and deem the other a "victim" (and based on what, exactly?  A year or two age difference between them?  Whichever one's parents called the cops first?)  when it is most likely that they both were happy to engage in the act!

And in other circumstances, the alleged "abuser" may be the victim of other abuse, such as when a child who is sexually abused by his parent then sexually abuses a younger sibling.  Perhaps treatment instead of incarceration might be a better idea.

The collateral consequences of a conviction follow a person for life, in many cases.  People are required to register on those "sex offender lists" for the rest of their lives. 

Registering causes all sorts of nightmares for the registrants.  They can't live within certain distances of schools, day care centers, and other places where kids congregate, which severely limits their options for where to live.  In many states, they are not even allowed to walk within a certain distance of these places, which severely limits their movements, affecting everything from how they get to work or the grocery store  -- is there even a public bus stop they are allowed to wait at?  Is there a route to that bus stop from their home that doesn't take them past the school?  Can they even take a job at that place if it is too close to a school? -- to whether they can even attend church (do kids attend?  Probably can't go, then).

Many landlords won't even rent to known sex offenders, again severely limiting their ability to find a place to live.

Many employers can't or won't hire known sex offenders, severely limiting their ability to find a job.

Moreover, the registries are public, which means anyone who wants to target a sex offender list registrant can easily find their photo and address online.  Registrants are often subjected to harassment, thefts, vandalism, assaults, or worse - up to and including murder.

All of this might -- I said MIGHT, not would -- be acceptable if this were their only punishment.  But it's not. This all occurs *after* the offender has been released from prison.  In other words, they have supposedly served their time, and should be allowed to get on with their lives, but they can't.

All of this also might -- I said might, not would -- be acceptable if the list were reserved only for the worst offenders -- those who had actual sexual intercourse with young children, those who forcibly raped their victims, or who were substantially older than their victims and should have known better, or some other way of determining the relative "evil" of their crime.

But is this lifetime of punishment really merited for a 20 year old who touches a 16 year old's breast, after she told him she was 18?  Or what about the 13 year old who is sexually abused by his mother or father and acts out by sexually abusing his 11 year old sister?  Should he really be subjected to a lifetime of punishment?  Or should we maybe, just maybe, try some sort of counseling and give him a second chance? 

And should someone who is now 70 and has been married to his wife for 30 years and hasn't so much as looked askance at a teenager still be suffering the consequences of a conviction for having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend when he was 20?  Isn't there some point at which we say, enough's enough, he's so totally not likely to reoffend, let's let him off the list?

In most states, though, once you're on the list, there is no way off the list.  And that seems fundamentally awful to me, especially for those whose offenses might be considered relatively "minor."  (Again, for the truly heinous offenses, I have no problem with the equivalent of a lifetime of punishment, and for really minor "non-offense" offenses, I think they shouldn't have to register at all...  but for the offenses in between, it seems to me that a lifetime on the sex offender registry is often out of proportion to the crime alleged and to the likelihood of recidivism, and that there ought to be a way off the list.)  Shades of gray, people.

Even worse, the lists are so overcrowded that they don't even help.  They are supposed to allow people to be aware of the sex offenders in their neighborhood, town, or city, so that they can make sure their kids avoid them.

As a parent, I have looked at these lists.  One problem with them is that the very limited description of the offense of conviction does not allow you to even determine whether the person was a 20 year old convicted of having sex with his 17 year old, very willing girlfriend (and thus probably not actually dangerous) or a 45 year old creep who forcibly raped a 12 year old.  Another problem is that the sheer number of registrants makes it impossible to actually protect your kids from them.  It would be impossible to memorize all of their names, photos, and addresses and would be ridiculous (and likely would cause more psychological harm than it would prevent) to try to make your kids memorize them all and avoid them...  Especially when so many of the registrants are, in fact, extremely unlikely to reoffend and/or were convicted of offenses that should not, in my opinion, have been labeled criminal acts.  If the lists were shorter, they MIGHT be more useful.

Here is an article that says it better than I could, because it comes from a first-hand perspective, rather than my more theoretical view as a lawyer. 

Check it out. Then let me know what you think.

If you look up "Obtuse" in the dictionary, her picture is there...

Here is two minute snippet of how my deposition went on Wednesday.  (The facts have been changed to protect the guilty.)

If the witness would have simply answered "yes," "no," or "I don't know" to my questions, we could have been finished in about 3 hours.  Instead, she acted like this, and it took 6 hours:

* * * *

Me:  While Mr. X worked for you, did Mr. X receive training in Y?

Witness:  I have no personal knowledge of that.

Me:  Do you have any kind of knowledge, other than personal knowledge, regarding whether Mr. X received training regarding Y?

Witness:  No.

Me:  So would it be fair to say that you do not know whether Mr. X received training in Y while he worked for you?

Witness:  Well, I have no personal knowledge about that.  

[Editor's note:  her emphasis, not mine!]

Me:  Is there some kind of knowledge other than personal knowledge that you do have regarding whether Mr. X received training in Y while he worked for you?

Witness:  No.

Me:   So then, if you have no personal knowledge and no other kind of knowledge, do you have any knowledge about it at all?

Witness:  Well, I have no personal knowledge about it.

Me:  When I asked you whether Mr. X received training in Y while he worked for you, is there some reason that you could not simply respond "I don't know" or "I don't have any knowledge about it"?

Witness:  I'm just trying to make things clear.

Me:  It would make things very clear if you could simply answer "yes," "no," or "I don't know" to my questions.  Do you think you can do that, so that things will be more clear and so that we can finish this deposition in a reasonable amount of time?

Witness:   OK.

[Editor's note -- she's already not complying...]

Me:  Did Mr. X receive training in Y while he worked for you?

Witness:  I have no personal knowledge about that.

* * * *

Holy crap.  

Can you spell   "I-N-T-E-N-T-I-O-N-A-L-L-Y   O-B-T-U-S-E"  ?

Forget Depression.... Telecheck SUCKS!

Thanks to everyone for your kind words on my "Depression sucks" post. Nothing quite like anger and frustration to get me past depression, though, and onto the next phase.

So today I made copies for two clients at Office Max. I wanted to write a check to pay for the copies, using my business checking account.

The check was declined.

Confused, I called my bank. The bank verified the amount of funds in my account, which exactly matched the amount I had written in my checkbook register, and far exceeded the amount of the check I was writing to Office Max (a pretty measly $156, actually).

So, Office Max ran the check again.

Declined again.

Office Max uses a company called "Telecheck" to determine whether they should accept a particular check. Apparently, if Telecheck allows them to accept a check, Telecheck will guarantee payment of it.

So they called Telecheck, who said, essentially, "try it again." So, they ran it two more times, still declined.

Telecheck would not give Office Max any reason why it was declined, so Office Max gave me the number to call.

After a lengthy menu tree and entering all sorts of data, I was finally connected with a live person, who told me the check was declined because that check number had been "used too many times."

"Well, that's because Office Max ran it through the system 4 times," I said -- "and two of those times were after you advised them to 'try again.'"

"Oh," she replied, "and also because you don't have a history of using any checks on that account through a Telecheck merchant."

"Um... let me get this straight.... you're not going to let Office Max accept my check because you've never accepted a check from me before? Do you ever accept checks from anyone?!? How does anyone get that first check accepted?"

"Well, you have to write smaller checks at Telecheck merchants first, and build up a credit history with us."

(WTF?!?!? I thought) "Let me speak with a manager, please."

I explained that I have had this particular business checking account for over a year, and have never bounced a check. I never bounced a check on my account at my prior bank, either.

Plus, it's a BUSINESS account! And my law license can be jeopardized if I bounce checks! Heck, at the Post Office (I LOVE the Post Office) they never even ask for ID with my checks because they reasonably assume that most lawyers won't bounce their checks!

And I'm trying to run a business, here. The amount of goods or services I purchase isn't dictated by some whim, but by what items my business needs to run and/or the number of copies I NEED to make for my clients. In other words, I'm not "pleasure shopping" for fun, I'm writing checks for necessary amounts.

The Telecheck manager informed me there was no way to override it. They can't call my bank and verify the funds and recommend that Office Max accept the check. They can't look at my history with other accounts or other businesses and recommend that Office Max accept the check. They can't use common sense and figure out that a law office might need to write reasonably large checks (This one was actually only $156) rather than a bunch of little checks, and that a law office is pretty unlikely to bounce a check, and recommend that Office Max accept the check. No... if I want to write checks at Office Max, I have to waste my time trying to write a series of checks for smaller amounts, and then Telecheck will think about whether they should accept any of those checks.

So, Telecheck may be nice for the merchant, but is a nightmare for the average person or business owner.

So I called Office Max and asked if there is any way they can simply accept the check and take it straight to their bank and deposit it -- skip Telecheck, in effect. Answer: no. It's corporate policy and they have armored trucks that pick up their checks and deposit them. There is nothing they can do.

So I will have to make a trip to the bank to take out cash, and take the cash to Office Max to pay for the copies. That's an hour out of my day on Monday that I really don't have time for.

And then, after telling me there was nothing she could do to help me, the Office Max manager had the gall to ask me for free advice on her divorce!! I wanted to tell her I'd help her exactly as much as she helped me, but instead I referred her to a useful website.

I am now annoyed with both Telecheck and Office Max. If Office Max won't accept my check and simply take it to their bank (skip Telecheck for God's sake!!), even after they personally spoke with my banker who verified the funds in the account, then I will simply have to go to Staples for my business copies and supplies from now on.

Like the Post Office, Staples accepts my checks with no questions asked.

Yay for Staples!

Credit Card Companies Are Not Your Friends

While surfing the internet last week, I ran across a pretty creepy article.

In case you were still under the delusion that your credit card company, or any of its representatives, actually cares about *you*....

Click here to read the New York Times article.

It is chilling, really, to read about how the credit card companies have invested tons of money to train people to *act* as if they care about you, and to use psychological profile information against you, so that they can suck as much money as possible out of you while you feel "grateful" for their "kindness."

Example: Even when the collection agent knows the company would settle for $10,000, he uses psychological manipulation to sucker the poor schlub into paying $12,000.

Example: The "kind" woman at Bank of America (I'll call her "Vampiress" here) so thoroughly convinces the poor woman whose husband just deserted her, leaving her to try to raise two kids and pay the huge credit card debts alone and on a virtually non-existent income, that Vampiress is "just like her" and understands her situation and actually cares about her, that the woman becomes devoted to paying B of A and pays the entire $28,000 balance (half of which was probably interest and fees, rather than actual borrowed money). Vampiress, meanwhile, never informs the poor woman that B of A would readily have cut her debt in half and reduced the (probably near 30%) interest rate if only she would ask. And of course the woman never asked, because she didn't want to "hurt" Vampiress's feelings.

And -- they are using information about *what you buy with the card they have issued you* to determine whether you are a "good" or "bad" credit risk -- and to raise your rates accordingly if you buy things they think indicate you are a bad risk. For example, if you buy beer at particular bars, your credit rate likely will increase. On the other hand, use your card to buy home repair items, and they figure you are a good risk and leave your rates alone. I guess technically it's not an "invasion of privacy" since you're using their card to buy the stuff and so they are only looking at their own records, but... wow. Seems like they ought, at least, to be required to inform you about what things you buy might make your interest rate go up!!

After reading the article, all I can say is:

Holy crap, people! Credit card companies are NOT your friends! Nor are any of their employees or representatives!

The companies are evil blood-sucking leeches, whose only goal is to suck every penny out of you that you will pay. The people they hire to pretend to befriend you are doubtless down on their luck, too -- or else they are also evil. I can't imagine any other reason why anyone would sit through the training described in the article and not run screaming from the building instead of consenting to work for such guileless monsters.

Your best option? Use the cards as much as you like, but pay the balance every month, faithfully. Never roll over a balance to the next month.

What if you owe money on several cards and can't pay the balances in full? Call all the companies and ask them to reduce your interest rates. Some will, some won't, but it never hurts to ask. Then, focus on repaying the cards as quickly as possible. Credit card interest is the worst kind. It's generally not tax-deductible, and often the rate increases based on one late payment -- or even based on one late payment to a different credit card company!!

What if you owe lots of money on lots of cards and have no hope of ever fully re-paying the balance (or at least not within some reasonable amount of time, such as 5 years)? What if you are starting to feel that at least half the money you owe them is amounts they have tacked on in interest charges and late fees for those times when you paid a day or two late -- or paid a different bill late? For that situation, I have the following public service announcement:

Remember, credit card debt -- unlike child support, alimony, and student loans -- is unsecured debt that is dischargeable in bankruptcy.

So, if you are having even some minor difficulty paying your credit card bills, consult a bankruptcy attorney. Get a realistic assessment of your options. If it looks like your financial troubles are unlikely to improve in the very near future, or if it appears that, even when you get a job and/or start making more money, you still may have trouble with those ridiculously high credit card interest rates, you probably want to file bankruptcy. Don't be afraid. Just do it.

Do it now, *before* you are behind on your mortgage and car payments and haven't bought clothes for 3 years and have drained your retirement account, all to try to keep up with those ever-increasing card payments with their ridiculous fees and exorbitant interest.

Do it now, *before* you default on the cards for a year and get sued and potentially allow the credit card companies to reduce the debt to a judgment, which can then be secured by a lien on your home.

Do it now, *before* you send thousands of dollars to the evil credit card companies that you could have been putting into your retirement account or your kids' college funds.

Just do it.

Remember: The Credit Card Companies Are Not Your Friends.

In most cases, when you file bankruptcy you can keep your house and car and all or nearly all of the money in your retirement accounts, as well as most or all of your stuff, and you will get rid of that ridiculous credit card debt so you can go back to buying clothes for your kids and making your mortgage payment without raiding your retirement accounts.

Look into it now. Before the credit card companies successfully lobby Congress to make it harder for you to get those leeches off your neck.



* * * * * *

The foregoing should not be construed as legal advice, nor as advertising for any particular attorney or for attorneys in general. It is, instead, practical advice based on my own particular observations about the evil-ness of credit card companies.

Screw them, before they screw you.

And then learn to live within your means and quit using those credit cards!! After all, you really shouldn't have run them up in the first place....

Ta-tas Matter

Back in the early days, B.L.S. (Before Law School), I worked a clerical type job.

The other clerk (I'll call her Fannie, because that was not her name) had bodacious ta-tas; mine are merely adequate.

Fannie was incompetent. Blindingly, ragingly incompetent. Not just "couldn't do her job" incompetent, but "actively destroyed work done by others" incompetent. As an example, she was supposed to enter some data into a database one day. Not only could she not do that correctly, but she ended up accidentally deleting everything else that had been in the database. The computer repair guy spent hours and hours trying to recover everything. At least once a week she had some sort of problem with her computer. Every day, the boss had to spend at least an hour explaining some procedure or another to her. He didn't mind so much, though. It gave him a chance to stare at those bodacious ta-tas in the (always) very low-cut and tight shirt.

By contrast, I showed up, did my job well, got great compliments from everyone I spoke to on the telephone, and managed never to destroy work done by someone else, or to make the computer guy have to waste entire days trying to fix my errors. Whenever I did have a question (rarely), I'd ask one of my co-workers. I tried asking the boss once, but he glared at me and said I should figure it out for myself because it's "not rocket science."

Fannie was late -- often hours late -- at least three times per week, and would call or sometimes just show up hours late, with wild excuses every time.

Each excuse individually would have been a reasonable excuse for being late - flat tire, power went out and alarm clock didn't work, sink flooded, dog escaped, transmission quit, bus was late, locked her keys in the car, lost the keys to her car, her mother called to say her aunt Matilda died, her aunt Matilda died ("Again?" "Oh, no, that wasn't Aunt MAtilda last month, that was Aunt BAtilda! Isn't it funny how my Mom and Dad had sisters with similar names?") ... but honestly, nearly every day it was something. That woman had more "emergencies" than anyone else I've ever known. The boss would always say, "Oh, that's ok, I understand."

I had some sympathy for her tardiness, even though it annoyed everyone else. I have a tendency to be 5 minutes late everywhere I go, too -- I always think I can accomplish more in a given amount of time than is really possible, and I always think there shouldn't be any traffic, even though I know there will be. At that job, though, I carpooled with some folks who were very punctual, so I managed to arrive every day at least 15 minutes early.

Until one day we really did have car trouble -- something minor, I forget what it was, but we had to stop and one of the guys fixed the problem on the spot and we drove on -- and so instead of being 15 minutes early we arrived one minute early.

As I walked in the door, the boss called me over. He lectured me about how I really ought to try to arrive early and not be breezing in right at 8:00, because really I should be sitting down and working already, not hanging my jacket and stashing my purse.

I laughed because I literally thought he was joking. He glared at me and lectured me about how serious he was and how important it is to be on time, especially since part of my job involved answering the telephone and we open for business at 8:00 a.m. and on and on ... and on and on ... and then the kicker: I ought to take my job more seriously, like Fannie!

I searched his face for some sign that he was in fact kidding, so I could come back with a smart-ass remark like, "No problem, I'll be sure to show up by noon tomorrow." But no, he was seriously annoyed.

So I lost it. I told him I was one minute early, I wasn't late, that I would have been "actually working" by 8:00 a.m. after hanging my jacket and setting my purse down, BUT FOR THE FACT THAT HE JUST SPENT 5 MINUTES lecturing me because I was "only" one minute early. I explained that I'd have been 15 minutes early as usual but for the fact that we had car trouble -- WHICH WE TOOK CARE OF AND STILL MANAGED TO BE ON TIME TO WORK -- that my time prior to my scheduled 8:00 a.m. work time was my time and it was none of his business what I did with my time and that IF it ever happened that I was actually late, he could then feel free to lecture me, but UNTIL THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED, he really ought to save his lectures for Fannie the problem child and effing LEAVE ME ALONE.

I turned and walked away, set my purse down and answered the ringing telephone with an exceedingly pleasant, "Good morning, how may I help you?" and studiously avoided looking his direction at all.

I knew he was extremely peeved at me for "talking back," but I really didn't care at that point. I knew my time there would be short-lived. The next eval would not be pretty. I immediately began looking for another job, and left within a month.

So never let anyone tell you bodacious ta-tas don't make a difference in the workplace. They do. They definitely do.

Stupid Blogger

So I hadn't written anything since April 20. Then I finally posted something Wednesday. I checked in yesterday to look at comments and surf around a bit, and Blogger wouldn't let me read the comments or even log on.

And now today the post and comments are just gone.

Stupid Blogger!

So, thanks to those who commented, but sadly, I didn't get to read your words...

My Wednesday posting wasn't one of my better ones, so no great loss for mankind there. But I was reading some great posts on other blogs Wednesday night; I hope those aren't gone, too.

I love technology and computers. But it sure sucks when they malfunction.

Stupid Blogger.


**********

UPDATE:

The post has reappeared, but so far the comments have not....

Mosquitoes Suck

I was rudely awakened this morning by an evil mosquito biting my LEFT EYELID.

Damned bloodsucking bastard.

* * * * *


.... worse than attorneys....

Regarding Same-Sex Marriage

One of those facebook blurbs caught my eye and I thought I'd post it here, too:

So, let me get this straight . . . Charlie Sheen can make a "porn family," Kelsey Grammer can end a 15 year marriage over the phone, Larry King can be on divorce #9, Britney Spears had a 55 hour marriage, Jesse James and Tiger Woods, while married, were having sex with EVERYONE. Yet, allowing same-sex marriage is going to destroy the institution of marriage? Really?

Re-post if you are proud to support equal rights.

Some Things I Just Don't Understand

I'm sure no one could have missed the latest headlines about Charlie Sheen's drinking problems, alleged abusive behavior, rehab issues, and off-the-wall remarks and rants about his co-stars in Two and a Half Men, the studio & network execs, writers, producers, etc., in which he calls many of them losers and complains about them trying to control his life, and so forth.

In response to Charlie's off-screen antics, the network cancelled the remainder of the season of Two and a Half Men. (No huge loss for mankind, really. The show has some funny lines, but it has no redeeming social value whatsoever and it's a typical, predictable sit-com. Of course, like Nip/Tuck, something about that total lack of social value is part of its charm for me!)

Sheen has been acting like a jerk, probably drinking too much, and now, he's literally ranting. He sounds nuts when you listen to him. But he has a point.

Have any of you actually watched Two and a Half Men?

For those who have missed it, it's about a 40-something extremely wealthy guy named Charlie who lives in Malibu and doesn't have to work much for his money and therefore spends most of his time drinking, partying, and seducing a different woman each night, and sometimes more than one a day. His divorced, down-on-his luck younger brother (Alan) moved in with him, and Alan's son lives with them part-time, too, as part of the custody arrangements. Charlie is pretty decent to the kid, if not exactly a great role model.

The star of the show is Charlie Sheen (his stage name - birth name is Carlos Estevez), a 40-something extremely wealthy guy who lives in California and doesn't have to work much for his money and therefore spends most of his time drinking, partying, and sleeping with women. He has kids, and he's pretty decent to them, although he's not exactly a great role model. Sound familiar?*

In other words, Charlie Sheen basically plays himself in the show.

How is it that the show's producers and network executives are offended when their star acts like the show's character off-stage? I mean, if the show were about a kindly priest, I could understand how Charlie's off-screen antics might offend some viewers.

But, hello? Is anyone who watches the show actually offended by Charlie's alcoholism or drunken rants? I doubt it.... so leave the guy alone. Let him be a drunken idiot if he wants to be. I mean, I don't condone the behavior, and if I were his ex-wives, I'd be seeking sole custody of the kids, but hey, I'm not his ex-wife and I never have to interact with him and so I really don't care if he acts like a jerk off stage!

And as long as he's doing his job (and most accounts said he was), why should his bosses care if he acts like a jerk in his off hours? Heck, they've scripted the jerk for his work hours. Maybe they should just follow him around during his off hours with a camera and save some production costs!

Another thing I found ironic is everyone's gushing about how "talented" Charlie Sheen is, as evidenced by the show's popularity. I'm not saying Charlie isn't talented (even if I thought it, I wouldn't say it, because I'd hate to get sued by a multi-millionaire), but I will say I don't see how his performance on the show Two and a Half Men proves he's talented. He's basically playing himself, isn't he? How does that demonstrate acting talent?

Just my two cents. What do you think?

_____
* Footnote 1: I don't think Sheen has a divorced, down-on-his-luck younger brother or nephew living with him, though. Last I heard Emilio Estevez, Charlie's older brother, was doing just fine, as was his other brother Ramon. And the on-screen Charlie has no kids of his own (at least none that he knows of or recognizes as his). So the analogy is not exact. But still, the character on the show is basically a slightly more articulate and cleaned-up-for-tv version of the real life immature party-boy.

I Will Never Buy a Toyota Highlander

Hate is too mild a word for how I feel about those Toyota Highlander commercials with the kid who looks down his nose at other people's cars and feels sorry for the kids who have to ride in them.

Honestly, what a snob!! What an entitled, judgmental little yuppie brat!

Who the hell lets their kid dictate what kind of vehicle they drive anyway? And then puts up with snide comments from the back seat?

Shouldn't they be explaining to that little brat that it is simply wrong to judge other people based on the car they drive? That some people might not be able to afford - or simply might not choose to waste money and gasoline for - a giant new SUV with all the bells and whistles so that their (apparently only) child can ride in the lap of luxury? That kids should just be thankful they're riding instead of walking, and that they shouldn't criticize adults' decisions regarding what kind of car they drive??

Oh, wait, I forgot. The parents are probably judgmental snobs, too.

Ugh. If that's how your kids turn out when you buy a Highlander, I'll be sure I *never* buy one.

What commercials do you hate, and why?

* * *
For those of you who haven't seen it, click here to see spoof of one of the commercials. (I can't bear to link to the actual commercial.)

I Am Sad This Week

Some lunatic shot a bunch of people in Tucson, Arizona, outside of a Safeway store, at U.S. Rep. Gabriella Giffords' "meet and greet" type event this past weekend.

Rep. Giffords was shot in the head, but survived. She remains in the hospital. Her doctors are "optimistic," hopeful for a full recovery, but of course with a head wound you can't be sure for a very long time. Everyone who knows her (and I know several people who know her) knows that she is a warm, wonderful woman, who absolutely did not deserve to be shot in the head and to suffer such a horrible injury.

Gabe Zimmerman, an assistant to Rep. Giffords, was shot and killed. I didn't know him, but all accounts state he was a wonderful person. He clearly died too young, at age 30.

Federal District Court Judge John Roll, Chief Judge for the District of Arizona, was also shot and killed. Like many judges, he earned an LL.M. at the prestigious University of Virginia Law School. As you may know, U.Va. is LegalMist's undergrad alma mater. Everyone who knows him (and I know several people who know him) knows that he was a warm, wonderful man, who absolutely did not deserve to die so soon.

A nine year old girl, Christina Green, also was shot and killed. She had just been elected to the student council at her school and was excited to meet her state representative. According to at least one report, she was also the only girl on her school's baseball team. I didn't know her, and I don't know anyone who knew her, but she sounds extraordinary and, by any measure, a nine-year old absolutely did not deserve to be shot and killed.

Dorwin Stoddard, a 76 year old man, died while protecting his wife. He dove to the ground to cover his wife, who was shot in the leg three times. The pair had been high school sweethearts, reunited in retirement after their respective spouses had died. Again, I didn't know him, but he sounds like a true hero and a gentleman. He absolutely did not deserve to die. She did not deserve to be shot, nor did she deserve to lose her loving husband.

Phyllis Schneck, a retiree with a winter home in Tucson, also was shot and killed. By all accounts, she was a kind person who spent much time volunteering at her church. Another wonderful person, dead for no reason.

Dorothy Morris, another retiree living in Tucson also died. Her husband, George, was shot twice and remains in the hospital. He, too, had tried to shield his wife from the bullets. Like the Stoddards, they had been high school sweethearts. However, instead of being recently reunited, they had been married for 50 years. Again, by all accounts, they were kind and decent people. They did not deserve to be shot. She did not deserve to die. He did not deserve to lose her.

Many others were injured in the shooting incident. I am sure none of them did anything to deserve it.

So I am sad at the terrible loss of lives and for the suffering of the injured. I am sad for the families of those who died or were injured, and the inevitable increase in fear the community must face. I am particularly sad for the families and friends of those who died; they didn't even get a chance to say goodbye.


*******

Representative Giffords was trying to do a good thing. She was trying to meet her constituents, maybe talk to them a little about their concerns. She wanted to hear them, to listen to what they wanted.

And yes, I'm sure she wanted some good PR, too. A little self-promotion now and then is necessary if you're a politician. It's the kind of interaction, though, that should be encouraged in this country. I'd like to think that, in this country, all of our leaders want to listen to our concerns and interests, and that it is still possible to talk to our leaders directly -- that they are not walled-off from society at large.

But if people make it too dangerous to interact with the public, our leaders will be forced to stop. How can it possibly help anyone's cause, in this country, to destroy that?

That makes me sad, too.


******

According to this web site, and this one, Sarah Palin recently had on her website a map of the United States, with several "targets" marked with rifle crosshairs, each marking the location of a Democratic Congressional representative. Representative Giffords was marked by one of the targets and crosshairs. (The map has since been removed from Palin's web site).

Holy crap, how irresponsible is that?!? And this woman wanted to be VPOTUS?!? Thank God she lost the election. (John McCain showed pretty bad judgment in selecting her as a running mate, I must say...).

NOTE: Like the other writers, linked above, I am not saying Sarah Palin caused the attack or intended that anyone actually shoot or kill anyone on her map. Nor do we know for certain, at this point, whether the attack was politically motivated (although, generally speaking, shootings of politicians at political events tend to be politically motivated). I have no idea whether the shooter even looked at Palin's web site, or listened to Rush Limbaugh, or whatever, so I'm not, at this point, accusing any of the right-wing hatemongers of actually causing the shooting.

What I am saying is that marking people on a map with targets and rifle crosshairs sends a violent message (intended or not), and that the level of political attack rhetoric in this country, especially coming from the right-wing nut jobs like Limbaugh (and now, Palin), is way over the top. It is reckless at best, and downright evil at worst in its potential to incite other right-wing nut jobs to violence. And it has spread to the highest levels of our political groups - it's not just media hacks like Limbaugh any longer; it's the politicians themselves who talk in violent terms.

This makes me sad, too. And more than a little scared for my country.

Fireworks

The Arizona legislature, in its never-ending quest to out-do its predecessor legislatures in sheer stupidity (see here for just one example of said stupidity), legalized the sale of fireworks in Arizona this past year.

Now don't get me wrong; I *love* fireworks. When I was a kid in Florida, we used to burn sparklers and fire off roman candles every Fourth of July and New Year's. It was fun!

But the town where I grew up in Florida gets an average of 50 inches of rain per year -- over 6 inches in June, and over 6 inches in July -- while the town where I live in Arizona gets an average of just over 8 inches per year, with June typically getting almost no rain at all (average, 0.09 inches) and July getting less than one inch, typically toward the end of July when the "monsoon" season starts.

Similarly, my hometown in Florida gets over 3 inches of rain in December and again in January; Phoenix averages just under an inch for each of those months -- and that's the "rainy season."

In short, Arizona is a tinderbox; Florida, not so much. It's one thing to have the professionals setting off fireworks for anyone who wants to come watch. They generally take lots of safety precautions and have plans for how to handle any fire or explosions that might start. But it scares me to think of thousands of people across the state setting off fireworks in their dry desert back yards with no understanding of appropriate safety precautions or what to do if a fire accidentally starts... the potential for disaster is pretty high.

Why our legislature wants to see our State go up in flames is beyond me.

And then there are compliance problems. You see, the legislature made it legal for stores to *sell* fireworks all across the State. However, individual cities and towns can regulate whether it is legal to set off fireworks within their borders. Most cities and towns have banned them. The U.S. Forest Service likewise (reasonably) banned fireworks in the national forests in Arizona.

However, this has caused some confusion, as many retailers sold fireworks to residents who were not legally allowed to use them anywhere in or near the city where they purchased them. And there are criminal misdemeanor penalties (including the potential for jail time, and fairly substantial fines) for violations.

Maybe this won't be too much of a problem for purchasers. Apparently the ban on using fireworks in Tempe wasn't enforced very strictly; we heard lots of them throughout our neighborhood for many hours on New Year's Eve.

Maybe my fears about fires are similarly unfounded. No one in our neighborhood seems to have set his house on fire. Then again, in my neighborhood (an older neighborhood), most homes have green lawns and water-loving trees, and most homeowners actually maintain their water-logged landscapes, so there are not a lot of dried out weeds, lawns, and shrubs; and many of the homes are constructed of cinderblocks or bricks, rather than wood framing. By contrast, other neighborhoods feature somewhat drier desert landscaping or, worse, improperly maintained and dried-out traditional landscaping, with lots of fuel for fires. Still other neighborhoods are situated next to the national forests, with their dry underbrush and lots of fuel for fires.

So, bottom line, it's not a complete tinderbox in my neighborhood, unlike much of the State. I don't feel personally threatened.

But still. It makes no sense to sell fireworks to amateurs when we live in one of the driest and most fire-prone states in the nation. We've lived for years with a fireworks ban for individuals. Why the change? Who thought this was a good idea?

Shouldn't we have a "common sense" requirement for people who want to run for public office?

End o' the Week Rant, Courtesy of United Way

Wednesday's post by Raine, over at "True Confessions of a Single Mother" and SkyDad's comment on the post, reminded me of just how much I dislike United Way. I haven't thought about them for a few years, since I am no longer employed in a workplace that supports this dreadful organization. But, I love a good rant on a Friday morning, so I thought I'd rant a bit.

I agree with SkyDad. I hate United Way.

Generally, United Way collects donations through employee payroll deductions. They may have other ways to collect money, too, but the employee payroll deduction program is the one I am most familiar with. In this sca-- er, I mean, program -- the employee can fill out a form to donate a certain amount per paycheck, and tell United Way what organization to give the payroll contributions to, or alternatively United Way will decide for the employee what other organization to donate the money to. United Way keeps a portion of the donated funds for their administrative expenses.

What is the point of THAT? Why not just skip the middleman and donate directly to your organization of choice? That way, more of your money goes to helping your cause, and less of it lines the pockets of United Way personnel.

But the worst part of the United Way process, in my view, is not the fact that they skim a portion of your contribution to otherwise worthy charities. They claim to investigate the charities and to ensure that the charities themselves are worthy, not scams. If true, then some folks might find that to be a valuable service, worth the cost of a portion of their donation.

In my view, the worst thing United Way does is that they pressure the employees of participating organizations to donate through their payroll deduction program.

I absolutely hated this when I was working full-time as a lowly office assistant making just barely more than minimum wage and supplementing my income by working part-time as a waitress. The pressure from my bosses at the office (who earned over $100,000 per year) to donate was incredible - and WRONG.

Why should my bosses at work tell me when / where to donate money to charity, when they were not even paying me enough to live on and I had to take a second job just to support myself? Why did they even *think* they had that right? What arrogant schmucks.

And if I did want to contribute money to charity (which I actually did, even though I had very little to contribute), I wanted to select just the right charity and also make sure that ALL of my hard-earned money went TO THAT CHARITY, not to United Way executives, who were undoubtedly earning way more than I was at the time.

And yet, the pressure to contribute something to United Way was huge - the employer was aiming for 100% participation among employees and there was daily pressure to sign up for the payroll deduction plan. I'm not sure what the executives were to get if they reached that lofty goal - some sort of bonus, perhaps? Paid for, essentially, by their lowest paid employees? Nice....

Ugh. I hate United Way.

Feel free to argue with me in the comments, but I don't expect that you'll change my mind.

I Need a New Job

I am sick to death of litigating against obnoxious attorneys.

I am sick to death of clients who don't pay.

My worst case: a client who hasn't paid since September, with the obnoxious attorney with time issues (a.k.a. "O.A.") on the other side. I receive at least three things in the mail each week in connection with this case. Generally two or three "nasty grams" - i.e., snotty-toned letters from O.A. - plus a motion, subpoena, discovery request, or notice of some sort. And all in conjunction with at least a couple of nasty emails from her, or a reasonably nice email from her legal secretary. All of which requires me to take the time to respond - time for which I likely will never get paid.

I am sick to death of worrying about how to pay this month's round of bills in this crappy economy with clients who can't collect from their clients and therefore can't pay their bills either.... including mine.

(Really. Literally. I've been sick more often in the past year than I have in my entire 40+ other years of existence. And depressed, too. I can't take it any more.)

I need a new job, and I need it now. A job that does not require litigation. A job that pays a regular paycheck. Preferably a job that involves interacting with (reasonably polite) people, but not trying to collect past-due money from them.

Anybody hiring?

I Will No Longer Do Business With Chase Bank

So in 2008, I was traveling a lot and not doing a very good job of keeping up with paying bills on time. I made a few late payments on my Chase credit card, which also serves as the overdraft protection credit line for my business checking account. They raised my interest rate to 21.99 percent on the overdraft protection portion of the account, and 29.99 percent on the credit portion of the account.

Since September 2008, I have not made a single payment late. Not one. Not only that, but I've paid the balance down to just over $1000. Yet two months ago, they raised the interest rate to 29.99 percent on the overdraft protection portion of the account, for no apparent reason.

I called and asked why. They said they were "standardizing the interest rate."

I asked why they didn't "standardize" it at the lower rate. They said that's just not the way it works.

I asked them to lower the interest rate on both portions to something more reasonable than 30 percent. They refused.

Why, I asked? They said they simply "don't have a lower rate to offer."

I submit it's because they want to suck as much money as they can out of the people who actually pay their bills, to subsidize the mountain of bad loans and speculative deals they made over the past decade that are now biting them in the butt.

So I guess they leave me no other options: I'll simply have to pay it off and cancel it, and take my business elsewhere.

I will also have to move my business checking account (they charge $12 a month for that particular privilege), lawyer trust account, and business savings account to a different bank. Why would I want to do business with blood-sucking bastards?

This is a little sad, because I actually like the people at my local branch. They are friendly and professional.

But they work for blood-sucking bastards, so I won't be seeing them anymore.

A Spam Rant, and a SPAM Story

First, the rant:

Lately it seems every time I log on, I have a bunch of "unmoderated comments" to review.

And every time, most or all of them are spam. In the words of Monty Python's Vikings: "Spam spam spam spam...."*

I am so sick of these spammers!!

Note to spammers:

-- I can't read Japanese kanji. Nor Arabic. Nor Russian.

-- I don't need or want to call this number to chat or click that link to get that prescription. (I don't even have the "equipment" that particular prescription goes with!)

-- I don't want to invest my life savings with some numbnut who can't spell and whose best marketing technique involves leaving poorly written spam comments on a post about my grandpa dying, about how I can make "millons" if I'll just click on the link.

It's annoying, and it's stupid. Does anyone click on these links? Does anyone call those numbers? What are these spammers hoping to accomplish?!?

Oh, how I wish they would just go away... I'd wish worse for them, but I'm trying to avoid that whole bad karma thing...


On the other hand (as my Dad, or Grandpa Simpson, sometimes says before launching into a ten volume novel recited from memory)... that reminds me of a story:

When I was in college, my friend - I'll call him Scott, since that was his name - had some goofy housemates (I'll call them Jim and Martin, to protect the privacy of the innocent) and goofy parents. His parents once sent him a box of treats, and in the box were all sorts of wonderful and mostly non-perishable stuff that college students might enjoy. Things like homemade cookies and brownies. Boxes of cereal and Pop Tarts and muffin mix. Cans of soup. Packages of cookies and crackers. Chocolate. And a can of SPAM* brand canned pork product.

Yes, you read that right. SPAM. A staple in every college kid's kitchen, right? Plus, Scott was Jewish, so he technically wasn't supposed to eat pork products. It was very clear that his parents sent it to him as a joke.

It worked. His housemates laughed and teased him mercilessly when he pulled that one out of the box!

So, Scott did what any normal college kid would do. He waited until his housemates were in class and he hid the SPAM in Martin's sock drawer.

Martin had a sense of humor. So, when he found the SPAM a few days later, he put it in the soapdish in Jim's bathroom. And Jim put it in Scott's bed. And Scott put it in Martin's backpack so he'd find it during class. And so on and so on until eventually someone found a small box to put it in, and hid it in the top of Jim's closet.

The guys got involved with other things and sort of forgot about the SPAM.

Until months later, when Jim was looking for a winter sweater or some such, he came across the box and opened it..... "What the...? OH! The SPAM!!"

So, he did what any normal college kid would do... he wrapped the box and gave it to Scott as a holiday gift.

That can of SPAM made the rounds between those three guys for years. Every few weeks or months, someone would find it and surreptitiously hide it or (after they all moved away after college) would wrap and mail it to one of the others. Last I heard, Jim, who was getting a Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics at MIT, received a small can of SPAM as a birthday gift from his best pal across the country....

***********************

* According to Hormel's SPAM website, Hormel does not object to the use of the slang word "spam" to denote unsolicited commercial email (which it calls "UCE") (or, presumably, to denote unsolicited commercial blog comments ("UCBC"?)).

(Well, they might have objected, but as their website makes clear, that battle has been fought and lost already).

However, Hormel explains, one should spell the slang word with lowercase letters, and when spelling the name of the pork product produced by Hormel, one should use all capital letters, like so: SPAM.

Did you know that the original term "spam" to denote UCE came from a Monty Python skit, in which a group of Vikings sang an increasingly loud chorus of "spam, spam, spam, spam...." drowning out all other conversation? (I remember that skit, but I didn't realize that was the origin of the word "spam" to mean unwanted commercial messages ....) As Hormel explains, the analogy to the increasing volume of unwanted, unsolicited commercial email is apt - it certainly drowns out other correspondence. Same with UCBCs, I suppose.

***********************

By the way, if there are any SPAM lovers out there reading this (and I understand there are literally millions of SPAM lovers worldwide!), feel free to tell me all about how much you love your SPAM canned pork products. You likely won't convince me to eat any, but hey, one never knows.... perhaps I'll send a can of SPAM to the most convincing entrant.

And if there are any spam lovers (or spam writers) out there reading this, I don't want to hear about it at all. Just one word for you: DON'T! Don't read, don't comment, and especially, don't leave me any spam!!! (Nor any SPAM, for that matter).

Thank you. Enough said.