Now that I maintain only one email address, I am actually on top of my bulk mail/spam and am able to delete it every day (amazingly, I only get 2 - 8 pieces of spam a day). One piece caught my eye and I actually opened it. The subject was "Custom Santa Letters." My first thought was that someone was proposing to help create letters TO Santa from your child. Kind of like college essay prep, I thought to myself. Poor Joey doesn't write a very convincing letter yet, and wouldn't it be nice if someone could help him organize his thoughts and make sure he gets everything he wants put down on paper in coherent fashion. But that didn't make much sense unless the site was actually preying on that elite group of 6 year olds with not only their own computer access but their own credit cards (after all, what parent would fork out good $ to write a letter that would compel the parent to buy even more Christmas presents?).
Feeling a little paranoid about what would happen to my computer if I actually opened a piece of junk mail, I took a deep breath and entered the site. Aha! This isn't about letters TO Santa. It's about making sure your child gets a convincing letter FROM Santa. I didn't know that Santa was supposed to be writing back - I always figured that he's too busy making toys at his shop at the North Pole and he just shows up with the stuff. Right? Well apparently not. Santa writes back, and in order to convince your discerning kindergartner, you need to have one written by someone else for $9.99 - they'd never be fooled by your lame efforts. Personalized with your child's name! Signed by Santa himself! Includes your child's hometown! Sent with a Holiday Stamp! Postmarked from the North Pole! Wow! My child's name and hometown! Who would have thought of that? In any case, I didn't click on the "Order now" button. But I can't help wondering about what kind of parent would.
12 December 2008
11 December 2008
dinner parties
There is nothing better than having friends over for dinner. Having two people is best -- you get to actually talk to your guests. After years and years of inviting people over for dinner, I still haven't mastered the art of actually having good conversations when there are more than 4 guests. And even 4 can tax my conversational abilities. I just end up having too much work to do getting everyone's dinner on the table. One would think that now that I am not working, I could pull off a fabulous dinner party where the guests arrived to me sitting in my living room having a cocktail and a canape, listening to soft music and relaxing after having the entire meal prepared and ready to go, table set, child fed, toys put away, appetizers sitting at the ready --- but it hasn't happened yet.
I guess I need more practice devoting an entire day to a dinner. But that doesn't seem likely to happen. My day pulls me in too many different directions (to be expanded upon in further posts, I'm sure), not to mention that I would feel absolutely horridly guilty for spending an entire day on a dinner party. For now I'll just focus on saving that 3 minutes I invariably spend calling my mom to ask her how long to cook a particular cut of meat. For the 18th time. Maybe, now that I'm not working, I can actually write that part down.
I guess I need more practice devoting an entire day to a dinner. But that doesn't seem likely to happen. My day pulls me in too many different directions (to be expanded upon in further posts, I'm sure), not to mention that I would feel absolutely horridly guilty for spending an entire day on a dinner party. For now I'll just focus on saving that 3 minutes I invariably spend calling my mom to ask her how long to cook a particular cut of meat. For the 18th time. Maybe, now that I'm not working, I can actually write that part down.
more auto bailing
Having grown up in a very pro-union household, I have not been able to be completely against the auto bailout. Not only am I opposed to the idea of giving the auto companies the opportunity to declare bankruptcy and invalidate their labor contracts (remember Continental Airlines in 1983?) but I have a problem with saddling the auto workers with what would come in a bankruptcy proceeding/labor contract re-negotiation given that Big 3 policy, strategy (not to mention profits) have not been emanating from the labor side of the operations. One could argue that labor should have leaned harder on management to think about rising oil prices and how enormous profits made from selling giant SUVs might be at least partially put toward R&D and then marketing efforts on more efficient vehicles as a hedge against inevitable oil price increases, but it is hard to blame workers who make on average 1/100th of what the CEO makes. For that outrageous pay, the exec team should be actually innovating, strategizing and, oh, how novel, designing cars Americans actually want to buy.
Here's something to think about -- average annual CEO pay is $10.5 million, 369 times the average worker pay of $28,310 (I am not suggesting that a union autoworker makes onlyk $28k a year, but . In 1970, before the big runup, the multiple was 28:1, a ratio that would make today's average worker pay $374,800. Put another way: If CEO pay were frozen now, it would take workers 66 years of 4% annual raises to get back to 1/28th of what the boss makes.
Data: Kevin J. Murphy, University of Southern California; CEO pay rounded and based on S&P 500 companies; worker pay, Bureau of Labor Statistics; ratios rounded to nearest whole number
Big 3 CEO pay is more than the average cited above. Here's some info about what they actually do make: http://www.thekarmareport.com/about/big-3-executive-compensation-for-taking-the-automotive-industry-to-the-brink-of-bankruptcy/. Again, I am not going to blame the autoworker who makes about $28/hour in cash wages (plus nice benefits I'll admit) for the mess their companies are in.
So where does all this talk of pay leave me? I still hate the bailout. But I don't want to see labor taking the biggest hit in all this. I guess I have some more reading to do (and I suppose I don't need to worry too much -- Dems in Congress are not about to forget the unions for the moment . . . . )
Here's something to think about -- average annual CEO pay is $10.5 million, 369 times the average worker pay of $28,310 (I am not suggesting that a union autoworker makes onlyk $28k a year, but . In 1970, before the big runup, the multiple was 28:1, a ratio that would make today's average worker pay $374,800. Put another way: If CEO pay were frozen now, it would take workers 66 years of 4% annual raises to get back to 1/28th of what the boss makes.
Data: Kevin J. Murphy, University of Southern California; CEO pay rounded and based on S&P 500 companies; worker pay, Bureau of Labor Statistics; ratios rounded to nearest whole number
Big 3 CEO pay is more than the average cited above. Here's some info about what they actually do make: http://www.thekarmareport.com/about/big-3-executive-compensation-for-taking-the-automotive-industry-to-the-brink-of-bankruptcy/. Again, I am not going to blame the autoworker who makes about $28/hour in cash wages (plus nice benefits I'll admit) for the mess their companies are in.
So where does all this talk of pay leave me? I still hate the bailout. But I don't want to see labor taking the biggest hit in all this. I guess I have some more reading to do (and I suppose I don't need to worry too much -- Dems in Congress are not about to forget the unions for the moment . . . . )
auto bailing
I had wondered for the past couple of days what would happen with this -- well, we the people are going to give ("loan") the automakers a ton of money, and we are then going to let them sue us (in Washington, California and several other states) to prevent state clean air/emissions standards from going into effect. This seems totally absurd to me.
Effort to limit air-quality lawsuits dropped from auto bill
Rob Hotakainen McClatchy Newspapers
last updated: December 10, 2008 11:14:28 PM
WASHINGTON — Jobs took priority over the environment Wednesday on Capitol Hill.
After getting ensnared with an effort to give a $15 billion bailout to the automobile industry, California's air-quality standards took yet another blow when congressional Democrats tried to sidestep a fight with the White House.
Democrats abandoned a plan that would've barred car companies from pursuing lawsuits against California and other states that want to implement tougher tailpipe emission standards.
Backers of California's efforts wanted to attach the plan to the bailout bill, but opponents said it would further hurt the profitability of car manufacturers. The White House threatened to veto the bill if Democrats wouldn't yield.
Under the Federal Clean Air Act, California has the right to set its own vehicle-emissions standards but needs a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency to do so. The White House consistently has opposed the waiver, angering environmentalists and California lawmakers.
Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, who's chairwoman of the Senate's environment committee, said car manufacturers "should embrace the waiver" instead of fighting California, but she's expecting President-elect Barack Obama to sign it and does not want Congress to address it now.
"My own view is at a time like this, with — with unemployment wreaking havoc in our country, this is not the time to jeopardize 3 million jobs," she told reporters Monday at a news conference. "By the way, those of you who are from California, 200,000 jobs are directly related to the Big Three."
The language prohibiting lawsuits against California was included in the bailout bill as of late Tuesday night. A high-ranking Democratic aide close to the negotiations between Congress and the White House, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the aide wasn't authorized to speak about the bill publicly, said it was removed when it became clear the president wouldn't sign the bill.
The aide said Democrats ultimately decided the matter was largely symbolic because Obama is backing the California waiver and is likely to approve it early next year.
Democratic Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, said the proposed auto bailout offered an opportunity to get California's waiver approved. And he said that auto companies need to stop litigating against states that want to improve air quality.
Markey said that recovery for the automobile industry should require "a change of culture, a culture that answers challenges with innovation rather than lobbying and litigation." Markey authored legislation that resulted in the current fuel economy standards of at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
Effort to limit air-quality lawsuits dropped from auto bill
Rob Hotakainen McClatchy Newspapers
last updated: December 10, 2008 11:14:28 PM
WASHINGTON — Jobs took priority over the environment Wednesday on Capitol Hill.
After getting ensnared with an effort to give a $15 billion bailout to the automobile industry, California's air-quality standards took yet another blow when congressional Democrats tried to sidestep a fight with the White House.
Democrats abandoned a plan that would've barred car companies from pursuing lawsuits against California and other states that want to implement tougher tailpipe emission standards.
Backers of California's efforts wanted to attach the plan to the bailout bill, but opponents said it would further hurt the profitability of car manufacturers. The White House threatened to veto the bill if Democrats wouldn't yield.
Under the Federal Clean Air Act, California has the right to set its own vehicle-emissions standards but needs a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency to do so. The White House consistently has opposed the waiver, angering environmentalists and California lawmakers.
Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, who's chairwoman of the Senate's environment committee, said car manufacturers "should embrace the waiver" instead of fighting California, but she's expecting President-elect Barack Obama to sign it and does not want Congress to address it now.
"My own view is at a time like this, with — with unemployment wreaking havoc in our country, this is not the time to jeopardize 3 million jobs," she told reporters Monday at a news conference. "By the way, those of you who are from California, 200,000 jobs are directly related to the Big Three."
The language prohibiting lawsuits against California was included in the bailout bill as of late Tuesday night. A high-ranking Democratic aide close to the negotiations between Congress and the White House, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the aide wasn't authorized to speak about the bill publicly, said it was removed when it became clear the president wouldn't sign the bill.
The aide said Democrats ultimately decided the matter was largely symbolic because Obama is backing the California waiver and is likely to approve it early next year.
Democratic Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, said the proposed auto bailout offered an opportunity to get California's waiver approved. And he said that auto companies need to stop litigating against states that want to improve air quality.
Markey said that recovery for the automobile industry should require "a change of culture, a culture that answers challenges with innovation rather than lobbying and litigation." Markey authored legislation that resulted in the current fuel economy standards of at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
Carbonfund Offsets
I received the following in an email today from carbonfund.org:
We're very pleased to announce that through your support, we're now offsetting over 4 billion pounds of carbon dioxide emissions. That's equivalent to the carbon dioxide emissions of over 205 million gallons of gas consumed or the electricity use of 240,000 homes for a year. We reached this important milestone through individual support (we're now over 400,000 supporters strong) and new partnerships.
This is great news, because it was just back in October of this year that they announced reaching 3 billion pounds of offset. I just put up a post from Carbon Neutral Digest that puts some more figures on what 4 billion pounds adds up to. Carbon Neutral Digest is a site that provides an up to date list of all US based carbon neutral organizations and a detailed description of their practices and what is involved with each offset program.
We're very pleased to announce that through your support, we're now offsetting over 4 billion pounds of carbon dioxide emissions. That's equivalent to the carbon dioxide emissions of over 205 million gallons of gas consumed or the electricity use of 240,000 homes for a year. We reached this important milestone through individual support (we're now over 400,000 supporters strong) and new partnerships.
This is great news, because it was just back in October of this year that they announced reaching 3 billion pounds of offset. I just put up a post from Carbon Neutral Digest that puts some more figures on what 4 billion pounds adds up to. Carbon Neutral Digest is a site that provides an up to date list of all US based carbon neutral organizations and a detailed description of their practices and what is involved with each offset program.
10 December 2008
Missing
I am hoping that this blog doesn't become simply a series of posts about cute things my toddler says, as fun as that would be to write. However, I have to include one more entry about something Ari said today. We were driving home from his preschool this evening and he said "Mom, I missed you today, but in a good way." We have talked in the past about this idea of missing each other when he's at school, and I've tried to tell him that I miss him "in a good way" which means that I am thinking about him and how happy he is at school and that missing him doesn't mean I am sad. A fter we got home tonight I took him next door for dinner with our neighbors and their 3-year old son while Evan and I both attended meetings. When he arrived he said to his friend "Jonah, I missed you when you were in Alaska [over Thanksgiving], in a good way." I'm not sure if the "in a good way" meant anything in the context of this otherwise heartfelt statement that he had missed his friend, but I loved that he said it. Then he said "OK, I want to go up and see your trains!" and they ran off with barely a goodbye to mom.
Olig Snush
This is my first post. Inspired by the conversation I had with my 3 year old the other day wherein he described the trains he was creating out of plastic snap-together blocks. Here's what I wrote down at the time:
My son made three engines out of blocks this morning: Ari Pierson Kanter, Blueberry and Olig Snush. Olig Snush had brakes that went down when he tried to go, and pistons that went sideways, and he fell down once a day. But that is all fixed now. It turns out the Olig Snush owns the railroad – he is from England, and he went from England ALL the way back to here [Seattle]. Olig Snush is really old. Blueberry, on the other hand, is a new diesel engine. She’s a girl. All the other engines tease her because they are steam engines and they don’t want her to be a diesel. Blueberry doesn’t like people yelling at her.
I told Ari, my son, that I wanted a tape recorder so that I could keep all of this straight, and he said “Oh, you’ll remember it.” So here I am writing it down. I want to make sure to remember that Ari Pierson Kanter squeaks because he doesn’t have pistons.
I told Ari, my son, that I wanted a tape recorder so that I could keep all of this straight, and he said “Oh, you’ll remember it.” So here I am writing it down. I want to make sure to remember that Ari Pierson Kanter squeaks because he doesn’t have pistons.
Tonight, two days later, Olig Snush is still around. Retooled, and smaller, as are his friends Blueberry and Ari Pierson Kanter, but still chugging around the house.
My husband Evan, who is sitting next to me just said: "Are you blogging next to me? I don't know if I can handle this."
We have taken to bringing our laptops to bed recently. Too much computer time but at least we are sitting in close proximity, rather than at our desks (which are in the same room, but with our backs to one another).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)