If it Floats, Flies, or.....

Renting a Boat can be a lot cheaper than owning one!

We made a reservation to travel thought the Burgundy region of France next year.  We are renting the boat shown above, through "Le Boat" - a boat rental agency in Europe.  For a week's journey, it will cost about $3800, which is a lot of money, but divided by four people, not that much.  And of course, they have smaller, cheaper boats (some under $2000) if were were traveling in a smaller group.

Bear in mind that the cost of storing and insuring my last boat ran about $3500 a year, and suddenly $3800 doesn't seem like such a bad deal.   And I don't have to wax this boat.  And if you have ever waxed, by hand, a 30-foot boat, you will know what I mean.

A pilot friend of mine told me, "If it flies, floats, or fucks, rent it!"  And yes, that is misogynist, and yes, ladies, these are the sort of things that your husbands say when they are "out with the boys".

While I am not sure about the last one, owning a boat is a very expensive proposition.  And part of this expense is the fact that, unless you are using it constantly, it just sits around gathering dust (literally) and dry-rotting.   Much of the expense in running our boat was induced by the fact it sat for long periods of time, getting a musty smell and just sitting.   Machinery does not like to sit and even the fuel in the gas tank will turn to varnish if not used (adding Sta-Bil helps, but a better approach is to not let a boat sit).

In Europe, oddly enough, you can easily rent boats - they have fleets of them.   Perhaps our European cousins are smarter than us - or perhaps they don't have the cash to let a $200,000 boat just sit idle for months on end.

You can rent boats all over Europe, through Le Boat, or go on a narrowboating holiday in the UK through Alvechurch.

In the US, it is somewhat harder to do, although some boat rental agencies do exist.  For example, at the Holly Bluff Marina, you can rent houseboats and tour the St. John's river.  Or you can rent a canal boat on the Erie Canal in New York State.

It is more fun to own a boat?  Well, it can be, if you live on a lake, or if you like to fish, and you go every weekend.   However, when boating is more infrequent - say less than once a month - the cost of owning a boat, versus renting one, starts to look bad.

And by cost - I mean overall cost, in terms of storage, insurance, fuel, maintenance, and that big Daddy of them all - depreciation.

Renting a boat can be a good way to figure out if you really want to buy one.  You may find that after renting a boat that you really get the bug out of your system.

If it floats or flies..... rent it!

That's What Friends Are For.....

 This is a television show, not real life.  Understand the difference between the two.

In America, many folks, particularly women, view friendship as a nearly holy thing - something to be preserved at all costs, no matter how abusive a friendship can be. We are all too willing to divorce our spouses at the drop of a hat ("He left the toilet seat up") but we hang on to toxic relationships, it seems, for life, no matter how destructive they are.

To some folks, my attitude might sound crass. "Friends are for life!" they say, simultaneously buying into and feeding on the myth that is perpetrated. But in many instances, you need to walk away from relationships that are toxic or damaging, otherwise your own life will be scarred or destroyed - literally.

A related problem with friends is what I call the "Friends" problem - people who think they need to maintain superficial relationships with several (sometimes dozens) of friends - like on the Television show of the same name - at the expense of maintaining an intimate relationship with one person. But I'll get to that later.

And note that when I say "friends," I am talking about close relationships with people, not passing acquaintances, co-workers, or folks you hardly know. I am talking about people you invite to your house on a regular basis (and vice-versa) as well as dine with and entertain with. I am not talking about the guy in the next cubicle that you occasionally go to lunch with and that's it. Although the ideas here can also be applied to work situations and acquaintanceships as well.

Are you in a toxic relationship with your friend or friends? Consider these factors:

1. Is your friend a drug addict?

2. Is your friend an alcoholic?

3. Is your friend mentally ill? (this includes disorders such as OCD, hoarding, and the like)

4. Is your friend perpetually putting themselves in peril and expecting you to bail them out?

5. Do you find yourself "helping" your friend with aspects of their personal or work life with no reciprocation?

6. Does being with your friend make you anxious, nervous, depressed, or angry? Does the idea of visiting them do the same? Do you end up complaining about them to other friends?

If you can answer consistently "YES" to one or more of these questions, you may be in a toxic relationship. Note that I say "consistently" as we all can be a burden to our friends on occasion. But then it becomes a chronic thing, a consistent thing, then it is no fun to be your friend. Let's explore these questions in more detail.

1. Is your friend a drug addict?

If your friend is a drug addict, chances are you'll become one, too. It is a nice fantasy to think you can be friends with someone who does drugs while you remain sober and straight. But it doesn't work.

You can't hang out with someone who smokes pot and not smoke pot with them. You can't have a friend who is a crack addict and not be one yourself.  Drug users like to hang out with fellow drug users. Relationships with people who use drugs are strained, when you do not use the drugs as well, as you end up being mystified by their behavior and confused by their actions.

And oftentimes, drug friends end up getting into heavier and heavier drugs, as well as into more and more trouble (See, The Marijuana Trap) often dragging you along for the ride.

Drug use is a dead end, and if you can't see that, we really have nothing to discuss here. Search elsewhere on the web for a blog to read, as nothing I say will make sense to you.

And I know this issue firsthand. I had "drug friends" when I was younger. When I finally realized that drugs were not making me happy and gave them up, my drug friends were not happy, and kept trying to draw me back into the lifestyle.

While I was working all night to pay my way through college, they would hang out at my house and drink beer and smoke pot on the front lawn, wondering where I had been. I would come home to dozens of empties neatly stacked on the hood of my car, long with roaches (marijuana cigarette stubs).

In a way, it was touching that they wanted me to be their friend that badly. But in another way, it was scary that my being sober and working was a threat to them.  They had to pull me back to their level, lest I shatter their world-view of how things are supposed to go.  I realized that in order to find my own happiness, I would have to move on and move away.   And moreover, once we stopped doing drugs together, we had very little in common.


2. Is your friend an alcoholic?

If your friend is an alcoholic, chances are, you'll become one, too, eventually.  Drugs and alcohol are the same thing.  Alcohol is a drug, of course, and abuse of alcohol is drug abuse.

I saw this happen with my Mother, who was a full-blown alcoholic.   She chased friends away, as they got tired of her drunken 3 AM phone calls and visits.  You can't be close friends with a boozer, as they will make your life difficult.

But if you like to drink, being friends with drunks can be hard as well.  They will always want to have that "one more drink" and encourage you to drink more than you'd like.   I have several friends like this, and while they are nice people and all, my body cannot physically stand the amount of booze they want to consume.

The option of "not drinking" or "drinking less" doesn't work, either.   It is no fun to be hanging out with a group of loud drunks unless you are one of them.  It is less than "no fun" - it is actually painful.

There is also the ancillary problem of watching boozer friends slide down that road to oblivion, which can be painful to watch.   Like the Marijuana Trap, the booze trap prevents people from making rational decisions about their lives, and as a result, they tend to end up in bad places and bad situations.  If you care around such people, it can be painful to watch this process.

And prevent it? Ha! You can't stop the boozer from drinking just as you can't stop the pothead from smoking. "Interventions" and the like are largely useless gestures that only make the intervener feel better about themselves (and they often backfire, by providing attention to the addict for the wrong type of behavior).

The only way I have found to deal with the boozer friend is to have maybe one or two drinks with them and then say "Gee, look at the time, gotta run!"  But even that is difficult.

If you are hanging out with drunks as friends, ask yourself why.


3. Is your friend mentally ill? (this includes disorders such as OCD, hoarding, and the like)

This is a tough one. Mental illness is no laughing matter, and most of us are simply not equipped to deal with it. Like drug and alcohol addition, mental illness causes people to do weird and unexplainable things, which can strain a friendship if not outright break it. Some mentally ill people can also be dangerous, if off their medication. The impulse is, of course, to try to be friendly and helpful to a mentally ill person. But if you are not equipped to handle such issues, your help may indeed backfire, and their issues may cause you great distress.

I have written before about hoarding disorder, which is a form of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Being friends with a hoarder is a nightmare. Again, you think you are "helping" them by cleaning up their messes, but when you return days later, it is all back the way it was, only worse.   Don't waste your time trying to clean up after a hoarder. The only thing I think you can do is back away slowly, or at most, meet them on neutral territory.

Now, I know that sounds crass and selfish. But you have to preserve your own emotional well-being.  If being with a person who is mentally ill makes you anxious, depressed, angry, or nervous, then in effect, it is making you mentally ill as well.  How is that helping either of you?  It is just spreading the misery around.

I had a friend who was a hoarder (well, is a hoarder) and after visiting his house of horrors, I would be depressed for days at a time. He was a nice fellow, young, college educated, but he had garbage everywhere in and around his house. Not only that, the house was dirty. It was sad to see such a nice person fall off the edge of the world like that. I tried to help him organize this things, but that turned out to be a big mistake. Not only did I spend hours at a time doing this, I would be chagrined to find everything I did was "undone" at the next visit.

You can't "help" a hoarder, period. So don't try. Leave it to the mental health professionals. Eventually, such folks will have to be institutionalized, or the Fire Marshall will come clean out their house. But it is not your job to "fix" them - not at the expense of your own emotional well being.

Remember what I said about the Unwritten Social Contract? You have a duty to take care of yourself first, not because it is selfish, but because you don't want to be a burden yourself to others. So preserving your own mental sanity is very important. Hanging around people who make you depressed is not a very good idea.

And you know what?  Maybe when people discover their behavior is driving all their friends away, they may have some incentive to change it.   Maybe.


4. Is your friend perpetually putting themselves in peril and expecting you to bail them out?

This is what I call the "Perils of Pauline" scenario. Your friend creates a situation entirely of their own making, and then calls you to bail them out.

For example, a friend of mine was moving from her apartment. She had over a month to prepare, get boxes, get packed, find a truck, and mover her stuff. Instead, on the day she is scheduled to move, she calls in a panic and wants help.

I end up finding a rental truck after hours of searching. It was small and worn out. I get back to her apartment and find that nothing is packed. We end up throwing things in boxes and trash bags, and since the truck is small, we have to make several trips. It is nearly midnight by the time I get home, exhausted, from "helping my friend move."

I don't mind helping a friend move, but that was abusive. She had a responsibility to take care of herself and plan her move and have her things ready to go. Instead, she squandered her time on self-loathing and television (redundant, I know) and then waited until the last minute, hoping friends would bail her out. She felt bad about it of course, which in turn fed more of her self-loathing.

This sort of scenario happens again and again with some folks, and if you find yourself once again "saving" a friend from a situation they themselves created, maybe it is time to find new friends. If a friend creates a deadline situation for themselves and then completely blows it off and expects you to "help out" at the last minute, is that really being a friend?


5. Do you find yourself "helping" your friend with aspects of their personal or work life with no reciprocation?

This is an interesting one and not that as uncommon as it may seem. A friend runs a business and gets behind on their work. They call their other friends asking them to "help out" with a "rush order."   So you run over there to help and end up spending 8 hours of your Saturday doing something that your friends are getting paid for.

How much of a doormat do you want to be?

Business is business. If you want to run your own business, fine. Run it. Take control and get to work. But you can't run a business and then blow off the entire "running the business" end of it, and then expect your friends to work, at a moment's notice, for free or reduced wage, to "help out". You don't ask them to come to your office and file papers, do you? Of course not.

Confusing employment and friendship is always a recipe for disaster. If your friend's business is failing because they don't do the work, you can't "save" them by doing it for them - not without driving yourself crazy in the meantime.

Some folks were not meant to run businesses. Or, they need to learn some painful lessons in order to obtain self-discipline. If you "bail them out" again and again, they will never learn those lessons.

Similarly, helping a neighbor clean out their garage, house, car, kitchen, basement, etc. because they have let it deteriorate to the level of shithole is not "helping" your neighbor, particularly when your own chores are going undone at the same time.  I had one friend repeatedly ask me to help clean their house, with their logic being "Well, your house is already so clean" that I didn't need to clean it further - instead my efforts should be directed toward their stack of dirty dishes.

(In a way, this is like the friend or family member who asks to borrow money, on the grounds that "well, you have so much of it!"   Same twisted logic at work!)

But of course, my house doesn't magically clean itself.  And by "helping" my friend in their personal life, I was merely neglecting my own in the process.  Such abuse is not friendship.  Walk away from someone who wants you to work for them as a slave.


6. Does being with your friend make you anxious, nervous, depressed, or angry? Does the idea of visiting them do the same? Do you end up complaining about them to other friends?

This is pretty self-explanatory, and it is your brain's way of telling you it is unhappy.  If you plan a visit with a friend and then get anxious, explore in your mind why you are anxious.   If their visits leave you feeling depressed and washed out, ask yourself, why?

True friendship shouldn't be that way. It should be organic, and relaxing, and free and easy. Yes, visiting can be somewhat stressful in any situation. But if you find yourself "freaking out" about visiting a particular friend, then something is not right.

Again, you have a duty to yourself to protect your own emotional well-being. (See, Emotional Vampires) and if someone is making you unhappy, then don't hang out with them, or at the very least, limit your contacts to a confined and controlled setting, both in terms of place and time.

* * *

Friendship should be a natural and organic thing. It should "feel right" and not be based on guilt or other negative emotions. Walk away from the urge to "help" friends who don't need your helping. It is a fine thing to help a friend in need, but it is a dangerous thing to have only needy friends.

At the beginning of this blog, I also touched on a secondary issue, the "Friends" effect. I think that television show and similar shows tend to promote this idea that a person should have lots of fairly close friends, often at the expense of a more intimate relationship. This could also be called the "sitcom" effect, as a similar phenomenon is present in Seinfeld as well. The main characters seem to avoid intimate relationships - or such relationships are short and break easily, in favor of a more superficial friendship with a small social group.

(Think about it - on Seinfeld, Jerry's girlfriends were guest stars who barely lasted one episode each.   he ultimate in intimate relationships was posited as the most superficial, while the friendship between the four main characters was characterized as central). 

Please note, that Friends and Seinfeld are television shows not real life. Taking your social cues from television is never a good idea (See, Kill Your Television). It is no surprise that marriages and long-term relationships are dying out in this country, as television actively promotes the idea of breaking up or living single. Think about it - how many television shows, from the 1960's onward, featured broken homes, divorced couples, people living single, or the like? It is an interesting phenomenon.

And I think people do get their normative cues from television. How else can you explain the SUV craze?

I have a number of friends who have a "social circle" very much like on a sitcom television show. They Twitter and Facebook and e-mail and Instant Message and cell-phone their friends constantly, maintaining a large number of very superficial relationships (typical message, "Waassup?" and typical response, "Hey, wass happening?") while at the same time avoiding intimacy.

With such a "social circle", true intimacy is nearly impossible. You cannot maintain a circle of half-dozen to a dozen to 20 or more of these superficial friendships and also have an intimate relationship or marriage with one person. Simply stated, a marriage takes up all of your time.

Many bachelor men realize this phenomenon. A friend gets married and they never see him again. He has no time to "hang out" with his buddies and drink beer and watch television sports. He has to spend time with his wife and children, or working to support them. Or, at least he should.

And in many respects, this explains the divorce rate. We are told, by the television, that a man can "hang out" at his favorite bar ("Where everyone knows your name") and neglect the primary relationship in your life. Not surprisingly, most people walk away from such marriages or relationships, as there is no "there" there. It is not that they hate or despise each other, merely that there is no relationship to begin with - no Love. And that is sad, because Love is the meaning and essence of life itself.

The superficial circle of friends is fine for High School or College. But eventually, you have to grow up and live your life by yourself. And having a mate or partner in life is more important than being "popular" or having a large number of friendships. As I have stated before, you really only need one good friend. Put all your eggs in that one basket and then take really good care of that basket.

You will get old. Things will get harder. Having someone to plan and spend the rest of your life with is more important that having a drinking buddy. Letting friendships dominate your life at the expense of an intimate relationship is, I think, a big mistake.

But then again, what are friends for?

Originally published September 11, 2009.  Edited and Revised July 1, 2012

Early Bird Specials!

Restaurant Pricing is very elastic, and early bird specials are proof of this.

When we lived in Pompano Beach, we used to make fun of the old people, lining up at 4:30 for their "Early Bird Specials!" at the local restaurants.  But of course, as retirees on a fixed income (who were basically passed out by 8:30) such specials made a lot of sense to them.

And you can find some great restaurant deals, if you are willing to look for them.  And no, I don't mean on Groupon or some other stupid bullshit.

I just had a nice lunch at the Grand Dining Room and the Jekyll Island Club - the same dining room J.P. Morgan (of Match Game fame, not) once dined at.

Not too shabby, for $12.50

The club offers special discounts on occasion, including a lunch special for $12.50 which includes soup or a salad and a predetermined entree.  We had a lovely salmon, which was broiled until it was crisp on the outside, and tender and flavorful on the inside, topping a small bed of rice.   Wash it all down with their House Label Demi-Sec Champagne (one must always have Champagne, or at least a good Cava) and lunch for two is about $50, plus tip - about 35% off what we would have ordinarily paid.

Usually, we consider it a good sign if the liquor bill exceeds the food bill, which it almost was, here.  We also used one of our huge stacks of 10% off coupons (no expiration date, including liquor, thank you Dodi) which allowed us key lime pie for dessert, for free.

Of course, this pales in comparison to the manager's reception at the lobby bar, where drinks are $1.25 twice a month this year, to celebrate the 125th anniversary of the club.  Free Hors d'Ouvres as well.  You can bet we are not missing that!

But other restaurants have "specials" that are really good deals, and you don't need Groupons to get them.

La Grotta is a very upscale Italian Restaurant in the Buckhead section of Greater Atlanta.   It is fine dining at its best, and a three or four-course meal there, with wine, can run into the hundreds of dollars (oh, but it is so worth it!).   We can't afford to eat like that every day.  But on the other hand, they offer a "stimulus package" prix fixe dinner for $24.95 which is one heck of a bargain.  And that includes a glass of wine!

Even your neighborhood restaurant (and by that, I don't mean some faceless tasteless corporate chain) has good deals.   Catch 228, a local bar and seafood restaurant has an "Oyster Happy Hour" from four to six PM where raw or steamed Oysters are 50 cents apiece and beers are as little as a buck.   Wild Georgia Shrimp are enormous, and served with a Buffalo-like sauce.  You really can't beat that - and it isn't expensive.

And of course, we have the Driftwood Bistro, which serves "down home" Southern Georgia cooking, with wine priced at $10 a bottle, with entree.   You really can't go wrong with stuffed collards or shrimp n' grits, washed down with a serviceable bottle of Pinot Noir.   At $10 a bottle, why bother ordering cocktails?

The point is, you can eat out, responsibly.  And by that, I don't mean eating out five nights a week (and ordering pizza the other two nights) and using restaurants as your kitchen.  You do have options.

This is not to say it is a bad thing to splurge once in a while.   But the key words are "once in a while".  Restaurant eating should be a very special and unique experience.   Sadly, for most Americans, it is a refueling stop at a forgettable chain restaurant, and another $49.95 slapped into their credit card, and another Styrofoam container of pasta rotting in the trunk.

It needn't be that way.

How to End Up Living In Your Parent's Basement.

While owning your own home is not the "American Dream" neither is living here.

A young man sent me a rather snotty comment the other day, to the effect that he was really rich, and his Dad made lots of money, so why not have Dad co-sign a loan for him?  After all, his Dad told him it was time he had a new car!

Very hard to parse - but if you are really rich, they you don't need someone to co-sign a loan - you could just pay cash.  If not, you are not really rich.   Being reliant on your parents for money and loans, well into your 20's is never a good idea.   They will continue to treat you as a child, and you will never grow up.  The sooner you can break free of this mentality, the better.

Why?  Because this is how kids end up living in their parent's basement, literally or figuratively speaking (attics and bedrooms count, too!  As does that apartment over the garage).  And I see this kid headed towards his parents' basement in short order, unless he takes another tack.

I have known a number of friends of mine who end up living with their parents, well into their 30's, 40's , and even 50's.   And I know a lot of parents who have "boomerang kids" living in their basements as well.   So I have seen, firsthand, this happen to maybe a couple of dozen people.   And there is a pattern that emerges.

How does this happen?   There are a number of factors at work:


1.  Parents enjoy controlling their children's lives:  I wrote about this before in the Parent Trap, how parents will bitch and moan about their boomerang kids, but secretly enjoy the continual control and manipulation and lording over their children's ruined lives.   So long as their children never grow up, the parents can kid themselves that they are not getting old and going to die.

And let's face it, it is fun to be a parent - to be an absolute dictator in your home and have people to control and manipulate.  And a boomerang kid fits the bill, perfectly.

The young commenter tells me that his Dad decided it was time that the son got a new car.  While that might be appropriate at age 16 or 18, when you are first learning to drive, when you are graduating from college, it really isn't Dad's decision to make - when you are paying for it with your own money.  Hey, if Dad is that rich, it should be a graduation gift, right?

But the idea of a Dad saying, "Gee, son, I've decided that you need to go into debt to buy a car" is idiotic.  And it is controlling to the Nth degree.

Make your own decision - and pay for it with your own money, not borrowed money.


2. Parent who like having kids around:  One Father explained to me that he didn't mind having his son live in the basement, as they liked to spend their Summers in Florida, and their son would watch the house and walk the dog for them, and do odd chores.

It is like having your own live-in handyman and butler - or Concierge.  He will pick up your dry cleaning, be there when the cable man or the appliance repair man comes, sign for those FedEx packages, and just generally be a warm body on site, so you don't have to worry about the house being broken into.

Plus, as they age, many parents find comfort in having an adult child around, as they will take care of them, and call 911 when they have the inevitable stroke.   And I suppose this is not a bad arrangement, but it does mean that the child is sacrificing their own lives for the parents, in a creepy Grey Gardens kind of way.

And what about the child's life and ambitions?   Well, in many cases, they didn't have many to begin with - or they are sacrificed on the altar of drugs, as we shall see.


3.  Children enjoy being pampered and fed:  I worked for a man once who had three dependent children, all well into their 30's.   We were talking about a case once, and the phone rang.   It was his daughter, who lived in an Apartment that he paid the rent on, and drove a car he had paid for.   Her complaint was that the car he had bought was now two years old and he needed to buy her a new one!  He said, "Maybe next year, dear!"

This flabbergasted me.  As a young lawyer, trying to make the payments on a car was staggeringly difficult, and here was this adult child being handed one new one after another - never realizing how difficult it would be for them to buy one on their own (and this is why giving away cars to kids is a bad idea, even if you can "afford" it - they don't appreciate it).

But of course, his kids, well-pampered, would never cut the umbilical from Dad and set out on their own.  And as you might expect, they were all "problem kids" who had one reason or another why they could not get ahead in life - and be perpetually reliant on Dad.   They did it because they could.

On a smaller scale, many middle-class kids like the basement-bong-lair lifestyle, as they get to drive Mom's car (but never put gas in it or change the oil) and get all the free food they can eat.  They pay no rent, pay no utility bills, and pay no property taxes.

It is a pretty sweet deal.   You can work at a "Slacker" job for a half-a-day and spend your entire paycheck on concert tickets, beer, and pot.   Why bother even trying harder that that?

Of course, for some of us, this was a phase we went through at age 16, back when the drinking age was lower.  But by age 18, I realized that working slacker jobs, living at home with Mom and Dad, and driving Mom's car was kind of lame.  Others have fewer qualms about it.


4.  Marijuana:   Drugs of all kinds play into this, from beer to methamphetamine.  But Marijuana fosters the kind of insular nesting that causes a young person (particularly young men) to want to nurse at Mother's teat for just a few more decades.

Marijuana makes you want to stay at home, hunker down, and spend countless hours watching television or listening to music.  It is a comfort drug, even if the place it takes you to is ultimately uncomfortable.

Many, if not all the "kids" I know living in Mother's basement are using pot.  And most of them are Men.


5. Mental Illness:  This is another aspect of the scenario, and folks who suffer from this often are not "at fault" for the situation.    If you cannot survive out on your own, due to debilitating mental illness, living with your parents might be one solution.   But of course, it may be unfair to the parents, who may have thought about retiring and traveling, and now realize they have to care for their child perpetually.

I know two people who are in this situation - with serious mental illnesses, and it seems to be working out well for all parties, at least for the time being.  What will happen when the parents pass on, is a good question.

But on the other hand, mild mental illnesses - mostly depression - combined with drug use, is often a factor in many of these stay-at-home kids.



6. Economic Adversity:  Very few cases are due to true economic adversity.  Often the kid says he can't afford to move out - but then again, he really isn't applying himself or trying to get ahead.   In many cases, the kid's real plan is to wait for Mom and Dad to die, inherit the house (and a small amount of money) and then try to live off of this.

On the other hand, in some instances, newlyweds (including my own parents) or kids right out of college, are forced to live with their parents, until they can land a job and afford to move out.  Usually, this is a transitory situation that lasts a few months or years only - not a long-term situation.

Today, many are bouncing-back to Mom and Dad's basement because of student loans or, in one case I know of, mortgage debt.   While you can't get out from under student loans though bankruptcy, you can duck mortgage debt more readily.  So I don't understand the latter.

Of course, the student loan thing can be avoided as well, as I have written about in the past.  Today on NPR is another weepy piece about a young woman who decided to become a nurse.  To do this, she went to an Ivy League school, then to nursing school, and rang up $140,000 in debt.   Talk about not doing the math on the payback!

They claim she has monthly payments of close to $1200 on these loans, but fortunately for her, she can move to an apartment of her own and has a good-paying job.  And of course NPR says she will never realize "the American Dream of Home Ownership".  For the record, granite counter-tops and stainless steel appliances were never the American dream.   The American dream is to be able to pull yourself up by your bootstraps and make something of yourself, regardless of your economic background, ethnicity, or whatever.

The American Dream, however, does require that you make wise choices.  And spending $140,000 to get a nursing degree is not a wise choice.   An Ivy League school is not necessary for such a career.  She would have been better off at a cheaper State School - and borrowing a lot less money.

So no, I do not "feel sorry" for her - she made bad choices.  And she is able to pay back the loans over time.  And you'd be surprised how little $140,000 seems in about 10 years or so.  Hell, I never thought I'd pay back $38,000.  But today, it seems a laughable amount.

 Others choose to move back in with Mom and Dad, particularly if they can't find a job right away.  Some never find a job in their chosen field, and end up with this perpetual mortgage to pay, for four years of good times at Party-U.  It is sad.

But if you do get a job, and your plan is to take that rent money you would have been paying and aggressively pay down your loans, living a few years with your parents is not such a bad thing.

And in some cultures, this is expected.  A young man lives with his parents, works for a living, banks his paycheck until he has enough saved to go out on his own.   This is not a bad plan.  Unfortunately, today, this is not the plan many are following.   They move back home with Mom and Dad and never save a dime and never leave.

When I say they are living with their parents into their 50's, I am not kidding.  I know several this age.  So a word of caution to you parents out there.  If your kid moves into the basement, ask yourself where this is going.  They may be there a very, very long time - perhaps the rest of your life.

And it is sad when I meet people for cocktails and they tell me about their kid living in the basement, and I ask them how old the kids is, and they tell me "52" and I have to say, "Gee, that's my age."   That makes me very sad.

If your kid does move back in, make sure it is part of an economic plan not just an open-ended commitment.  Charge them rent, if necessary, if they won't save money on their own.  Put that money in a savings account, and maybe it could be a nest egg for them when they leave - and give them an incentive to leave.  Just a thought.

And for God's sake, make sure they are not smoking pot.

* * * 

So what is the harm in living with your parents?  Perhaps in a few select cases, none.  But for most young people, living with your parents places you in stasis and prevents you from getting ahead in your own career or in forming your own family.  It is hard to land a mate when you live with your folks.  Women in particular are not going to be impressed that you are living in your parent's basement.  It marks you as a loser, economically, and in most cases, they are right.

It becomes a trap.  You end up hanging out with your slacker friends - also living in their parent's basement, complaining about your slacker job, and that "bitch" of a girlfriend "who only cares about money".   And you say this to each other in-between bong hits.

And ten years goes by - maybe 20 or 30, and you realize that you have really never lived your own life.   You've never done anything with your education, never realized the joy of doing a job that you are good at and paid well for.   Hell, you've never even been on vacation.   You have, however, smoked an impressive amount of pot.

And your declining years may turn into a horrific nightmare.  Once the parents die, you may end up with an inheritance - or maybe not.   The parental home, even if you inherit it, will cost thousands of dollars a year to maintain and pay taxes on.  Unless they left you enough money to live on, you will have to sell it.

And not surprisingly, a lot of basement-dweller troglodytes end up squandering such inheritances in short order.   And since they worked odd jobs or under-the-table, their Social Security may be small or non-existent.  I know one bounce-back kid in his 50's (a kid, right?) who is looking at retiring on SSI, which is basically welfare.

It is, in short, a one-way trip to homelessness.

Even if your parents leave you a ton of dough and you can live off it the rest of your life, what does this say about you as a person?   That you never even tried?   Inherited wealth is always suspect and problematic.  Not many people today are impressed by it.

Just South of us is Cumberland Island, which the relatives of Andrew Carnegie settled many years ago.  They built impressive mansions, to be sure.  But the money they were spending wasn't theirs, it came from Brother Andrew, who made the family fortune.   Not surprisingly, many of those mansions lie in ruins today, and the family wealth has basically dissipated.  It takes no talent to spend money, and only a fool is impressed by inherited wealth.   It speaks nothing of the character of the person - and if the person accomplished nothing on their own in life, they really have no character.

And that is the interesting thing about boomerang kids - they often come from "good homes" - wealthy or at least middle-class homes.  They often have had great educational opportunities, and everything they could basically ask for.  And maybe that is the problem - they are not challenged.

Or maybe it is all the pot they smoke.  I think the latter.

Peel-Off Plastic Protective Shipping Covers

Most electronics, appliances, and even cars, come today with plastic protective shipping covers, to keep parts from getting scratched.   Remove these before putting the product into service.

A reader asks, in response to my posting on membrane switch appliances:

"How can I fix bubbly plastic control panel on my microwave?  It looks like the clear plastic outer layer is peeling off!"

Answer:  Remove it.  It is a plastic shipping cover, not intended to be used when the product is in service.

This may sound stupid to many of you, but I see this all the time, particularly with older people.

I was at my Dad's house once, and his remote control had all this scotch tape on it.  "What is this?" I asked.  And he replied, "The damn remote control is falling apart, the plastic is peeling off and I put Scotch tape on it it to fix it!"

With one swipe, I peeled the entire cover off, at which point he gasped, "You've broken it!"

I sighed, "No Dad, that is the protective shipping cover, to keep it from getting scratched.  You are supposed to remove it when you took the TV out of the box, just as you take the Styrofoam packing off the television as well."

He still didn't believe me.

The point of this film is to keep plastic parts from scratching, so people don't return things under warranty, due to scratches from handling and shipping.  You could leave it on, I suppose, but it is not a part of the equipment, just packing material, and eventually, it will peel off by itself, as happened to my Dad, and the reader.

Some manufacturers tried making this film blue, so that people might recognize that it is indeed a shipping material, not part of the product.  Yes, believe it or not, they were getting returns and warranty calls when people complained that "the clear plastic is peeling off my microwave!"

This blue film is commonly used on stainless steel sheets and appliances, to protect the surface from scratches and fingerprint etching during assembly, handling, and shipping.  It is meant to be removed before use, hence the blue color.

But the blue color backfired, as people would see it in the showroom and say, "I don't want a blue microwave!  That would clash with my kitchen!"  Or they would get the microwave home and complain that it was not the white model they ordered, but blue.

You can't win. 

Other manufacturers have put little peel tabs on one side, with the notation, "Peel Off".   And of course, usually, the instruction book has these instructions as well, but not always.

It is kind of sad, really, that people are so technically illiterate in a technological world.  We live in a Cargo Cult society, really, where a bunch of primitive apes run around examining the technological relics handed down to them by the Gods.

So, to answer the question posed by the reader, if the plastic film is falling off, chances are, it was a shipping film, and you were supposed to remove it when the microwave was unpacked.

Like, duh.

Laws and Rules

Most folks talk about the Law, without really knowing what it means.

In the debate over the new health care law, people complain that there is "uncertainty" in the new law.  This is not really true - the law has been enacted and anyone can read and interpret it, and smarter minds than you and I have done just that.  The notion that because it is more than 1,000 pages long that "no one has read the whole thing" is nonsense.   Washington Lawyers can read that while they sit on the can.

What creates "uncertainty" is that the law stipulates that appropriate government agencies will implement RULES to implement the law, and right now, we are not sure what some of these rules will be.

What is the difference between a Law and a Rule?  A lot.  And this is why when people say, "The Rule of Law" many Lawyers laugh.   They are two vastly different things.

Well to begin with, our government is administered through a layer-cake - a wedding cake, if you will - of the Constitution, our Laws, Rules, Procedures, and case law.  Each has a different role to play and is played out by a different branch of government.

The Constitution sits atop this wedding cake, providing general guidelines as to the structure of  our government.   A lot of people like to say "Well, the Constitution says this, so we can't do that!" or some such nonsense.  But in reality, the Constitution is not a ten commandments or a Bible - it has only broad outlines of governmental powers and how they interact.  It is up to US (the citizenry, through its elected representatives)  to implement our own laws for our own era - and the founding Fathers realized this.  They did not intend us to stay locked into one mode of operation which was appropriate for the 18th Century.   And this is why the Constitution grants Congress the powers to pass laws - and even allows itself to be amended, if necessary.

By the way, most people have never actually read the Constitution, and claim it says all sorts of things it doesn't. The louder someone screams "unconstitutional" the more likely they are to never have actually read it.  Read it sometime.

Our Laws are the next layer of this wedding cake, and are set forth in the United States Code (USC) which has many sections dealing with different areas of law.  For a Patent Attorney, 35 USC is where we practice, as this portion of the Code deals with Patent Law - in very general terms.

Note that bills are not laws - you will get e-mails from your friends who watch Fox News about how "H.R. 154 is going to take away our guns!" when in fact, it is just a bill proposed by one Congressman, that has never gotten out of Committee.  When someone LIES TO YOU like that, you need to stop listening to them.
While Laws are enacted by Congress, it is up the Executive Branch to enact the Rules to enforce and implement the laws.   These Rules are set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and often interpret the Laws, set forth procedures and standards, and, well, create Rules by which to enforce the Laws.   A Rule cannot negate a law - at least in theory - but only interpret and enforce it.

For us Patent Attorneys, 37 CFR is our Rules Bible - and it sets forth in more excruciating detail, how various matters are to be handled - matters that Congress did not anticipate in great detail.

How are Rules created?  Not by Executive Fiat (and no, I don't mean the new owners of Chrysler).  Rules are Promulgated through one of a number of procedures.  For example, if an agency is contemplating a new Rule, they may ask for suggestions from interested parties, usually by publishing the proposed Rule Change in the Federal Register (always a good read!).   Interested parties can submit their comments, and these, too, are published.  Hearings may be held as well.   Final Rules are then published and implemented.

In other instances, Rules may be promulgated through case law - cases decided by Administrative Law Judges working for the agency.  Weird situations not covered by the Rules or explicitly by the Law are decided, and over time, a body of case law evolves how Rules are enforced.

We used to have a saying at the Patent Office - "You can bend the Rules, but you can't break the Law!"  Simply stated, it meant, that as an agency, we could make Rules - and make exceptions to them - but these Rules could not violate the underlying Law.  So if a Law says that thoughts are unpatentable, we cannot create a Rule that says they are.   However, we can create a Rule stating whether data stored in an electronic memory is a "thought" or not.

Agencies also have Procedures as well as Rules, and these procedures set forth the day to day minutiae of how to run the agency.  For Patent Lawyers, these procedures are set forth in the Manual of Patent Examination and Procedure (MPEP), which really is our "Bible" of operations for both Examiners and the Patent Bar.  If you want to know how to prepare a Petition to Revive, don't look to the Law or the Rules, look to the MPEP.  They will tell you what form to use and where to file it.  That sort of thing.

It may sound somewhat arbitrary and capricious.  After all, Congress can enact a Law, and a hostile Executive Branch can somewhat nullify that Law through Rules changes.   And a President can even attenuate a law by dictating priorities for enforcement (i.e., Procedures).  So, for example, Obama promises to leave medical marijuana alone, if it is legalized at the State level, and the DEA backs off.  Later on, he changes his mind, and the DEA starts shutting down medical marijuana dispensaries.   This shows the folly of relying on the Executive branch - what they giveth, they taketh away.

However, if Congress is really pissed about this, they can pass a new law, explicitly revoking the Rule.  On the other hand, if Congress really don't give a shit about trivial details, they will let it slide.  This prevents Congress from micro-managing the various government agencies.

And of course, if a Presidential Administration creates a lot of unpopular Rules and Procedures, they may be voted out of Office.  This also acts as a "check and balance" on Executive power.  And therein lies the irony - many Presidents run for office, arguing they are going to "pass a Law!" when in fact, they can only create Rules and Procedures.   Only Congress can pass laws, and if your Congress is not on your side, they are not going to pass the laws you want.

But there is a huge amount of power in the Executive, in terms of Rules and Procedures, than can, in some instances, effectively negate a law.  It sounds unfair, but it happens all the time.   And this is why it pays to understand, when you vote for a President, where the real power is - not in creating new laws, but in determining how existing ones are enforced.  Rick Santorum vowed, for example, to start a "War on Porn" as Edwin Meese did under Reagan (sending some porno shop owners off to Federal jail and taking all their assets).   He didn't need to change the law to do this, only bring cases in court - and win them, under the vague standard of "indecency" of the time.

Of course, challenges to Rules can also be made in Court, and CASE LAW is another way laws are created.   Courts decide how Rules and Laws are to be interpreted, whether a Rule violates the Law, or whether either violates the Constitution.  Over a period of time (200 years) a body of Case Law develops that defines yet another set of "rules" or "law" that we live under.  For example, when a Cop reads you your Miranda rights, it is not because Congress passed a law saying he had to, or that any Federal Rule says so.  It was a case, brought all the way to the Supreme Court, which decided this.

And Case Law changes over time, despite a nice fiction they use at the Supreme Court, that they never reverse themselves (they do it all the time).  Bowers v. Hardwick ruled that there was no Constitutional right to sodomy.  A few years later, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court held that, well, there is.  So much for our right-wing Supreme Court.  (I hear Justice Clarence Thomas was the "swing vote" in more ways than one!  Just kidding).

Now some folks get all pissed off by this, too, claiming the Court is "Legislating from the Bench" - but in fact, it has been doing so for over 200 years, and this is nothing new.  While a Court is not supposed to create new law, by interpreting the Constitutionality of an existing law, it often ends up doing just that by default.   You could argue that Chief Justice Roberts has created "new law" by stating that a "fine" is a "tax".   And this is a Justice who decries Judicial Activism.

Judicial Activism, by the way, is just a code word for "they decided something against us".   So when the court in Roe v. Wade makes up a rule about trimesters, that is "judicial activism" to those on the right.  When it says "Corporations are people, too!" that is not judicial activism to those on the right, just sound jurisprudence.   When someone starts harping on "judicial activism" your bullshit meter should be pegged.  If not, get it recalibrated.

So what is the point of all this?  Well, first of all, that you should understand how your own government works before spouting off on something.   People who send alarmist e-mails about how a proposed Bill in the House or Senate is going to take away our right to free speech are missing the point.  Bills are not laws.

And with regard to the health care debate, it illustrates how much of the new Law is based on Rules that have yet to be made - and that is where there is some uncertainty in some people's minds.   But Rules are rarely onerous or unreasonable.  Why?  Because if they are, Presidents get voted out of office, people go to court to get them overturned, or Congress passes laws negating these Rules.

So again, being afraid of the new Health Care law is a little premature, until we see how the Rules pan out.   It seems ridiculous to me that any government agency would promulgate immensely unpopular Rules, as they would raise the ire of the citizenry and Congress.

But again, FEAR sells.   And many people are using FEAR to sell things to you - even their own candidacy.

And instead of trying to work within the framework of the new law - pass new laws improving it or amending it - their only response is to junk it entirely, which would set us back to ground zero and accomplish nothing.

This new law has a lot of features that people already like.  Throwing out the whole thing sounds to me like an extremist solution, particularly when the proposed replacement is just a vague set of promises to "fix things".

Sort of like the proposed all-sweeping GOP immigration reform.  "Trust us, we'll fix everything.  How?  We don't want to give that away just yet!"

Sorry, but to me that is being asked to buy a pig-in-a-poke.   No sale!

Should You Be AFRAID of the New Healthcare Law?

Lions and Tiger and Bears!  Oh, My!

As I have noted consistently, FEAR is one of the least trustworthy emotions.   While it may protect you from danger on occasion, in most cases, it simply makes things worse, or prevents you from taking action.

A better approach is to rationally analyze the danger and then take a logical course of action - as opposed to, say, running around in circles with your hands in the air, screaming.

Or, for example, wearing a tri-corn hat and holding a sign showing Obama as Hitler.

Many people are opposed to the new health care law, and when you ask them specifically why, they get amazingly vague.  Initially, it was the "mandate" provision, that we were told was unconstitutional and moreover a "fine" that would throw people in jail.

At least that was an articulation - and a fair one - of a specific part of the act.

But on Thursday, the hand-picked appointee of George Bush - our Chief Justice - who in anyone's book is not a "Liberal" said what in retrospect, appears to be obvious:  This "fine" is a tax by any other name, and Congress can tax anyone it wants to.

So, the act remains.

And today, the fear-mongers are at it again, telling you how horrible this will be for you, without specifically saying why, exactly it is so bad.

And speaking of vague - the GOP has promised to replace this act, with something else that will "fix everything" but when pressed for details, they evade.

It is like Romney's Immigration Reform plan.  He will revoke the Presidential Order signed by Obama and replace it with a comprehensive immigration reform package.  What is in that package?  Wait and See, we are told.  It will fix everything.

But getting back to Health Care, should you be afraid of this act?   Well, no, again, FEAR is just idiotic.

And FEAR is what is being touted.  We are told this will kill off small businesses - and destroy the economy!  How?  Well, vagueness, again.  In the Law, we call these "conclusory statements" - they state a conclusion without making a real argument.  And no, they don't carry the day in Court.  But in the court of public opinion, you can get away with saying just about anything,

We are told that small businesses will go under, forced to buy expensive health care.  But many small businesses employ part-time help, and may be exempt from providing health care for those employees.
For many businesses that employ younger workers, these costs may be trivial.  When I was 40, my health insurance cost $99 a month through Blue Cross.   This is what is going to break the back of small businesses?

But of course, small businesses are not going to be buying plans "a la carte" as I do, as the new health care pools established by the States will allow small businesses and individuals to buy group coverage.

And while this may increase their labor costs, it is hardly a logical conclusion that every small business in America will just close shop.  After all, if it is a cost increase, it is one their competitors are facing as well.  If you have a solid business plan, with a product people want to buy, a slight increase in labor costs is not going to put you under.  It may raise prices, but that's about it.

We are also told that the self-employed will get screwed, and a fake "Association of Self-Employed Persons" is coming out against this.  They claim that someone starting their own company should have the right to be uninsured, so they can plow that $99 a month into their business. 

Huh?  Well, this "Self-Employed" group doesn't represent ME, let me tell you.   Health Insurance for the self-employed is a small nightmare, and this act, if anything, will either (a) not change much for me, or (b) make it marginally easier to shop for plans, and also eliminate that pesky "per-existing condition" problem.

So why is this health care plan a bad thing?  How is it different from what he have today?  While the plan may "force" people to buy health coverage - for themselves and their employees, and may incentivize States to provide more lower income health coverage via medicaid - is this really going to "increase costs" or merely rationalize them?

Today, uninsured people end up bankrupt, if they have staggering medical bills.  And hospitals are stuck with these bills, which in turn are passed on to YOU and your insurance company, which in turn passes them back to YOU in the form of increase health care premiums.

There is no free lunch here, unless we pass a law allowing those who don't pay to DIE on the hospital steps.  And that ain't about to happen.

So the uninsured and under-insured stiff us with their bills.  They clog emergency rooms, which they use as a doctor.  And they refuse to get health insurance, because that $99 a month can buy Cable TV or a Jet Ski or a Harley.  And yes, I know a lot of people who make that decision - that a $10,000 deductible plan is not worthwhile because "It don't pay for nuthin'!" but a recreational vehicle is a better purchase.

This plan would force people to realize that (a) they have to pay for their own health care, and (b) that they are not as wealthy as they thought they were.  In other words, this plan prevents a lot of people from foisting off THEIR health care costs on the rest of us, while they blow by us in their straight-pipe Harley, and right into that left-turning car (and on to the emergency room).

It also funds care for those who really can't afford it - taking them OUT of the emergency room and into an inexpensive medical clinic.  My neighbor was on the board of the local Hospital near Mount Vernon,  He helped establish a medical clinic for the very poor and it worked well.  Preventative medicine is so much cheaper than emergency care.  It cleared the ER of patients looking for doctor care, not emergency care.  And it meant the very poor had real preventive medicine.

The hospital faced an economic crises - they were being overwhelmed by gunshot patients from drive-by shootings and drug deals gone wrong.  These patients - very expensive patients - had no insurance and never paid their bills.  The hospital's solution to "cut the budget" was to eliminate the clinic for the indigent.  The ER was once again flooded and things went from bad to worse.

It is a pattern repeated over and over again in the US.

While there are a lot of things that "could be better" in this law, the GOP fails to put forth anything concrete in response.  And Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney signed into law, a very similar plan, when he was Governor of Massachusetts.

So what is going on here?  Vague threats of disaster.  Cranking up the FEAR.  No concrete counter-proposals.

What did I say about FEAR before?  That marketers use it to get you to buy things you otherwise would not ordinarily buy - guns, alarm systems, whatever.   They want you to be depressed and afraid and SCARED above all.  Because scared people can be stampeded into doing anything - like the way the Indians stampeded Buffalo off a cliff.

In other words, it is all a big LIE - designed to get you all riled up about, well about what, they won't say, exactly,

Sorry, but no sale.  Until they can articulate with specificity what the problem is, it is just a smokescreen.

Of course, they play this angle as the problem.  Senator Rubio, who is allegedly a VP candidate for Romney, has said that the "uncertainty" of the law is suppression economic recovery.  Throwing his hands up and running in circles, while screaming like a little schoolgirl, Rubio says that since everything is in such a state of flux, small businesses just don't know what to do and are not hiring or expanding or hiring as a result.

"All that paperwork!" he cries.

Bullshit.  The law will not be that big of a change as people made it out to be.  The same arguments were made about Social Security when it was first enacted.  The Republicans decried it as the end of the USA as we know it.  50 years later, the GOP has embraced Social Security, as they know that their elderly demographic will vote them down, if they try to cut it.

I suspect the same will happen here.  If this law is given a chance to go into effect, people will find out there is really nothing to be scared about.  When 1/3 of the population actually BUYS an insurance policy, instead of using the emergency room, costs for the rest of us will go down.  Yes, this means Cletus has to pay his own way now, instead of buying yet another Camaro to park in his yard.  I am all broken up about that.

But in terms of a radical overhaul of our country? I don't see that happening.  But then again, you don't get elected to office, by saying everything is hunky-dory.

And that, in a nutshell, is what this is all about - power and politics, and a party out of power willing to say or do anything to get into power.