I have to post on this.
Legal Analysis (This will be short, I am very tired).
Commercial speech is a lesser protected form of speech, using the intermediary level of review, where the state must show an important government interest (this really means nothing), and the restriction is substantially related to that interest (this really means nothing). Cases are all over the place on this type of thing. One thing that is certain is that the government can prohibit false or misleading information from commercial speech.
Another wrinkle here is the public forum. Once the government opens up a forum to speech, it can't discriminate based on the speech. However, it can still regulate the manner of the speech.
The better suit here would be an Equal Protection claim. Discrimination based on religion is subject to strict scrutiny, and basically always fails. In fact, I am not sure if there is a single case where religion based laws have survived (I haven't done any research on the topic). The adverts were only pulled from Jewish communities, which is clearly unconstitutional. However, the vodka company lacks standing to bring the suit. If I was a 14 year old boy in that neighborhood, I would be in federal court tomorrow.
However, this solution would force the MTA into an all or nothing position, where it would either have to let the ads run in Jewish areas, or pull them all together.
All that said, Rabbi Shea Hecht told Fox that he has great respect for the First Amendment, but believes he also has a right to travel through his neighborhood with his children and not be offended. Basically, he says that he has great respect for the First Amendment, but only as far as he wants it to go... I nominate this guy for asshole of the night (which I am pretty sure he doesn't believe is protected under the 1st Amendment).
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Help
Does anyone know of any good libertarian blogs out there? I don't have the time to find any right now, but am interested in expanding my reading list. Any interesting finds would be appreciated.
Thanks
Thanks
Stocking Up On The Onesies and Twosies
I tend to keep a decent amount of most staples and things we usually eat around. Ya know flour, rice, pasta, pancake mix, beans, sauces, canned stuff, cereal and all that. However I think it is almost impossible to really have EVERYTHING. If you don't have a truly obsessive compulsive set meal schedule for every single week it just won't work. There is always a thing or two you will find yourself missing.
Here is a technique I use to try and fill those gaps for things we infrequently use. If I have to run to the store to pick up something and has a reasonable shelf life (if just in the fridge/ frozen) I pick up a spare or two.
Today I found myself running to the store to get Hollandaise sauce so we can make Eggs Benedict for dinner. We thought we had some but apparently not so much. Yeah I know you can make the stuff from scratch but we like the 80 cent package just fine and it is way easier. So instead of picking up one I got a few packets. We don't eat the stuff all the time but next time we will have it.
Just a thought. Also as another though check out the cool stuff our friends at Directive21 have to offer.
Here is a technique I use to try and fill those gaps for things we infrequently use. If I have to run to the store to pick up something and has a reasonable shelf life (if just in the fridge/ frozen) I pick up a spare or two.
Today I found myself running to the store to get Hollandaise sauce so we can make Eggs Benedict for dinner. We thought we had some but apparently not so much. Yeah I know you can make the stuff from scratch but we like the 80 cent package just fine and it is way easier. So instead of picking up one I got a few packets. We don't eat the stuff all the time but next time we will have it.
Just a thought. Also as another though check out the cool stuff our friends at Directive21 have to offer.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Liberalism on the March
So the UN has come out with a report that the US dollar is unstable (who would have thunk it), and should be replaced as the international standard. CNN did a story on it which is a must read.
The focus of the entire article is about how the new international currency system will aid in the redistribution of wealth (most likely from us). Am I the only one who is freaking out, although not surprised?
Thoughts?
The focus of the entire article is about how the new international currency system will aid in the redistribution of wealth (most likely from us). Am I the only one who is freaking out, although not surprised?
Thoughts?
State Rights (in a nut shell)
The other day I posted a guest post about the new gun case from the Supreme Court. I drive my tractor in pearls... Asked, "Do the people of the state have the right to run their state as they see fit?" The answer to the question is no. Here is how we got there.
Article IV, Clause 2 of the Federal Constitution states that federal law is the "supreme Law of the Land." This created the american hierarchy of law. At the top is the US Constitution. Anything which violates the US Constitution is void. Next is Federal law. Anything, except the US Constitution, which violates Federal law is void. Next, State Constitutions, which can only invalidate state law, and finally state law. It is important to note that Federal law can invalidate state constitutional provisions. For example, if California decided to amend its constitution to make controlled substances legal, controlled substances would still be illegal under federal law, and thus, illegal in California.
For a long time, this was not really a problem. First, the Federal Constitution only applied to the Federal government. If a state law violated the 1st amendment right to free speech, and the state constitution didn't have a free speech right, the law was fine. With the passage of the 14th Amendment, Federal Constitutional provisions started being held against the states. Technically, limitations of the free speech of citizens, by a state, violates the 14th Amendment, not the 1st amendment.
The second protection of state rights was that the Federal government didn't do much. The fed has limited power under Article I, section 8 and 9. One of the big debates was whether to have the Bill of Rights at all because, under the limited federal power, Congress couldn't infringe on any of those rights anyway.
Things when to shit in the 1930s. First, the Supreme Court, in the move known as the "Switch in Time that Saved Nine," started granting the Federal government unlimited power to do whatever they wanted, under the Commerce Clause (Art. I, Sec. 8). Suddenly, the government could regulate everything, and it did. The more areas which the federal government passed laws in, the fewer areas states could have any say. This is the situation we find ourselves in today.
In short, if California decided to pass a constitutional amendment banning firearms, it would be void as unconstitutional. If Idaho passes a constitutional amendment forbidding any firearm restriction, it would invalidate state law, but federal law would still be enforceable.
At the end of the day, this is all our fault. We, as Americans, constentially ask the federal government to fix what we think is a problem in a place we don't live. This article basically sums it up. At the end of the day, people in New York are trying to tell people in California how to live, and the only way they can is through the federal government. The problem with this idea is that people in California can force people in New York to live a certain way. Right now, the federal government, and the federal constitution, is deep in a battle over who gets to tell us all how to live. This wasn't how it was supposed to happen, but thats how its playing out.
Article IV, Clause 2 of the Federal Constitution states that federal law is the "supreme Law of the Land." This created the american hierarchy of law. At the top is the US Constitution. Anything which violates the US Constitution is void. Next is Federal law. Anything, except the US Constitution, which violates Federal law is void. Next, State Constitutions, which can only invalidate state law, and finally state law. It is important to note that Federal law can invalidate state constitutional provisions. For example, if California decided to amend its constitution to make controlled substances legal, controlled substances would still be illegal under federal law, and thus, illegal in California.
For a long time, this was not really a problem. First, the Federal Constitution only applied to the Federal government. If a state law violated the 1st amendment right to free speech, and the state constitution didn't have a free speech right, the law was fine. With the passage of the 14th Amendment, Federal Constitutional provisions started being held against the states. Technically, limitations of the free speech of citizens, by a state, violates the 14th Amendment, not the 1st amendment.
The second protection of state rights was that the Federal government didn't do much. The fed has limited power under Article I, section 8 and 9. One of the big debates was whether to have the Bill of Rights at all because, under the limited federal power, Congress couldn't infringe on any of those rights anyway.
Things when to shit in the 1930s. First, the Supreme Court, in the move known as the "Switch in Time that Saved Nine," started granting the Federal government unlimited power to do whatever they wanted, under the Commerce Clause (Art. I, Sec. 8). Suddenly, the government could regulate everything, and it did. The more areas which the federal government passed laws in, the fewer areas states could have any say. This is the situation we find ourselves in today.
In short, if California decided to pass a constitutional amendment banning firearms, it would be void as unconstitutional. If Idaho passes a constitutional amendment forbidding any firearm restriction, it would invalidate state law, but federal law would still be enforceable.
At the end of the day, this is all our fault. We, as Americans, constentially ask the federal government to fix what we think is a problem in a place we don't live. This article basically sums it up. At the end of the day, people in New York are trying to tell people in California how to live, and the only way they can is through the federal government. The problem with this idea is that people in California can force people in New York to live a certain way. Right now, the federal government, and the federal constitution, is deep in a battle over who gets to tell us all how to live. This wasn't how it was supposed to happen, but thats how its playing out.
The Patriot Microchip
The implant is specifically designed to be installed in the forehead.
When properly installed it will allow the implantee to speak to God.
It comes in various sizes:
The exact size of the implant will be selected by a well-trained and highly-skilled technician.
The implant may or may not be painless.
Side effects, like headaches and nausea, are temporary.
Some bleeding or swelling may occur at the injection site.
Please enjoy the security we provide for you.
Best regards,
Constitutional Gun Rights in Plain English (Guest Post)
McDonald v. City of Chicago is a complex constitutional law case that probably takes two semesters of Constitutional Law, a semester on American legal history from the antebellum period to the present, and a 30 min. lecture on the outlay of the current case to fully understand. Hell, the Court’s opinion was 214 pages long. That’s a short book, written for the legally trained, on a single case. So instead of the full explanation, here’s the “what you need to know” version.
A while back, the District of Columbia passed a new gun control law. It made it illegal to have ammo in your gun at all times. It also demanded that the gun have a trigger lock or disassembled at all times (take your pick). Finally, you could not exit your household with a gun. In other words, if someone started breaking into your house, then you would have to either remove the lock or reassemble your gun, then load it, and finally shoot it from inside your house. Hopefully, the guy breaking in wouldn’t have killed you by then. So this new gun control law was effectively a prohibition on guns.
In 2007, a brilliant lawyer by the name of Alan Gura sued the District of Columbia, claiming that this law was in violation of the 2nd Amendment. In 2008, Gura stood before the Supreme Court and explained why he thought the Court had to strike down this law as unconstitutional. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court agreed with Gura. D.C. v. Heller is the name of the case, and it stated that while the government can regulate guns, it cannot effectively prohibit them. The “conservatives” and Kennedy all thought if the 2nd Amendment was to have any sort of meaning as a constitutional provision, the D.C. law would have to go.
The liberals disagreed. Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter all agreed that there was virtually no support in American history for the right to own a gun. (No, I’m not making this up – the liberal justices really believe that American legal history and the words of the 2nd Amendment do not support any right to gun ownership, or at least in any form that you or I understand it.) This ruling however, only applied to the Federal government, not the states, so the case had a pretty limited effect at the time.
Fast forward two years. Alan Gura stands before the Supreme Court again, arguing that Chicago’s gun laws, almost exactly the same gun control laws as in D.C. v. Heller, have to go. The crucial question in this case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, is whether D.C. v. Heller applies to the states. Whether a provision of the Constitution applies directly to the states is a complex legal question. In one sentence, the question in McDonald was: ‘Whether the right to arms is properly numbered among those that are so “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” as to justify a high and proud place in the legal realm of “ordered liberty.”’ (To fully understand this statement, you pretty much need a law degree. It’s that annoying)
Today, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision said yes to that question. In other words, gun control laws like in D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago are unconstitutional, whether the federal government or the states write them. Gun regulation however, is still fine. The government cannot effectively prohibit gun ownership or use, but it can place some regulations on these acts. For example, its fine of the government says that you have to wait 7 days to buy a gun or that you cannot buy an Abrams tank. But if the government said that you have to keep your guns unloaded at all times, then the courts will strike it down.
This is what you need to know. There’s some other stuff about the Privilege and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, but since it didn’t win, you don’t need to know about it.
A while back, the District of Columbia passed a new gun control law. It made it illegal to have ammo in your gun at all times. It also demanded that the gun have a trigger lock or disassembled at all times (take your pick). Finally, you could not exit your household with a gun. In other words, if someone started breaking into your house, then you would have to either remove the lock or reassemble your gun, then load it, and finally shoot it from inside your house. Hopefully, the guy breaking in wouldn’t have killed you by then. So this new gun control law was effectively a prohibition on guns.
In 2007, a brilliant lawyer by the name of Alan Gura sued the District of Columbia, claiming that this law was in violation of the 2nd Amendment. In 2008, Gura stood before the Supreme Court and explained why he thought the Court had to strike down this law as unconstitutional. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court agreed with Gura. D.C. v. Heller is the name of the case, and it stated that while the government can regulate guns, it cannot effectively prohibit them. The “conservatives” and Kennedy all thought if the 2nd Amendment was to have any sort of meaning as a constitutional provision, the D.C. law would have to go.
The liberals disagreed. Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter all agreed that there was virtually no support in American history for the right to own a gun. (No, I’m not making this up – the liberal justices really believe that American legal history and the words of the 2nd Amendment do not support any right to gun ownership, or at least in any form that you or I understand it.) This ruling however, only applied to the Federal government, not the states, so the case had a pretty limited effect at the time.
Fast forward two years. Alan Gura stands before the Supreme Court again, arguing that Chicago’s gun laws, almost exactly the same gun control laws as in D.C. v. Heller, have to go. The crucial question in this case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, is whether D.C. v. Heller applies to the states. Whether a provision of the Constitution applies directly to the states is a complex legal question. In one sentence, the question in McDonald was: ‘Whether the right to arms is properly numbered among those that are so “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” as to justify a high and proud place in the legal realm of “ordered liberty.”’ (To fully understand this statement, you pretty much need a law degree. It’s that annoying)
Today, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision said yes to that question. In other words, gun control laws like in D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago are unconstitutional, whether the federal government or the states write them. Gun regulation however, is still fine. The government cannot effectively prohibit gun ownership or use, but it can place some regulations on these acts. For example, its fine of the government says that you have to wait 7 days to buy a gun or that you cannot buy an Abrams tank. But if the government said that you have to keep your guns unloaded at all times, then the courts will strike it down.
This is what you need to know. There’s some other stuff about the Privilege and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, but since it didn’t win, you don’t need to know about it.
Monday, June 28, 2010
New Years Resolutions IPR #2
My goals for this year.
Personal:
1. Pay more attention to my wife.
2. Travel a lot.
Personal Stuff:
3.
Financial:
4.
5.
6.
7.
+I do not have any direct goals when it comes to saving money aside from those above. Depending on how Wifey's job goes (how many hours she gets) saving for the much needed reliable car might take 2-3 months or as much as 8 months. If the car gets purchased earlier we will be able to save more, in part because it means we would be making more.
Skills:
This one got replaced by brewing some beer.
Preparedness Stuff :
Gun Stuff:
12.
13.
14.
15.
16. A few more spare parts and at least one AR15 full bolt carrier group.
Food Rotation:
17. Get a pressure canning setup and can something. In reality we will almost certainly can more than one thing but it is a very clear is you is or is you ain't goal all the same.
18.
And Just To Get To An Even 20......
19. Get a subscription to Backwoods Home Magazine and otherwise work on my self sufficiency/ preparedness library.
20. Join a gun rights organization.
I would say my goals start at the top in terms of priority and work more or less downward from there. I put more small stuff on here than last time. I tried to outline everything I would like to purchase which costs over a couple hundred bucks. That is mostly because I am trying to purchase stuff in a more dispassionate manner and plan ahead.
Time for discussion. Things are going pretty well. All the more expensive goals have been met. I don't think the canning is going to happen. We would have to order everything including jars and have it shipped here. That really takes any cost benefit out of the thing and would in fact make it cost us money. Not something I am willing to do in that situation.
The brewing kit is here I am just at an awkward busy time so won't be able to brew for about a month. Really wish I could do it this weekend but putting it into a secondary ferment and then bottling has a pretty specific time line. Some spare parts and the silver should be easy enough. Given that gold might have officially gone insane I'm just going to buy silver anyway.
Our big push right now is paying off my student loan. I don't think it is quite going to happen this year but it will be close. Also I have some other ideas and am working some stuff. A IIIA bullet proof vest and maybe some sort of an optic might be my future.
Oh yeah and click on my advertisers links and buy lots of their stuff.
Thoughts?
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Single Income Household Again
So I am back to being our sole breadwinner. I am fairly good at the card game I play with the degenerate gambling addict alcoholic baker so we will be OK. All funning aside it isn't a big deal. To be honest we never really incorporated Wifeys earnings into our overall situation so it is fine. Instead of just increasing our lifestyle we put that money toward areas that were important to us. We were able to get the new reliable vehicle a lot faster than otherwise and a few other things to boot.
We are now going to be a one income family for the foreseeable future. Wifey is going to do the domestic engineer gig. It has some real advantages. Basically the amount of available time we as a domestic unit have for home stuff has increased greatly. Simply put because she is at home instead of working close to full time she can do all sorts of stuff. For instance when she isn't working she can bake bread and not just normal bread but french bread, English muffins, etc. Also instead of us spending almost a whole weekend day on grocery shopping and laundry she just does that stuff during the week. Now instead of me needing to worry about doing a lot of household stuff after work it just gets done. Best (of all in my opinion) is that she can make those great dinners we love that are too preparation intensive to happen when she gets home from a long work day.
I would like our upcoming child and its siblings to spend their early years at home with Wifey, not in day care. To have a mom who can do all those fun projects and day trips that really only work if she is at home. We will not have the same stuff as folks who have two regular incomes. Then again when looking at our goals and values I would rather for the near future we have a bit older less shiny cars, less fancy electronics and older furniture than somebody else raising my kids.
Why am I talking about this? Well first writing a regular blog is hard so sometimes you go for a base hit. Secondly part of this blog is chronicling my life. More importantly this is a key point to me. Sometimes I am redundant. I will try to work on not writing essentially the same post over again but will continue to belabor key points.
Now I am not saying every family should strive to have a one income household or that it is the best situation. There are lots of dynamics in play (personalities involved, earning power, goals, interests, etc) and it matters far less what decision you make than that it is the decision you as a family want to make. The key point is that you can make choices to have the life you want! I have heard folks talk about how it is impossible to support a family on one income. They want to have momma at home with the kids but just don't see it as possible. These folks fail to see that all they need to do is adjust their lifestyle to what that single breadwinner can bring in. It might not be easy but it is simple. Like just about everything else in life if you can pay the price you get to go on the ride.
As your friend I want to tell you that you can have the life you desire. To empower you to make the hard choices that let the good things happen. Seriously figure out what is important to you and how to make it happen then JUST DO IT!
We are now going to be a one income family for the foreseeable future. Wifey is going to do the domestic engineer gig. It has some real advantages. Basically the amount of available time we as a domestic unit have for home stuff has increased greatly. Simply put because she is at home instead of working close to full time she can do all sorts of stuff. For instance when she isn't working she can bake bread and not just normal bread but french bread, English muffins, etc. Also instead of us spending almost a whole weekend day on grocery shopping and laundry she just does that stuff during the week. Now instead of me needing to worry about doing a lot of household stuff after work it just gets done. Best (of all in my opinion) is that she can make those great dinners we love that are too preparation intensive to happen when she gets home from a long work day.
I would like our upcoming child and its siblings to spend their early years at home with Wifey, not in day care. To have a mom who can do all those fun projects and day trips that really only work if she is at home. We will not have the same stuff as folks who have two regular incomes. Then again when looking at our goals and values I would rather for the near future we have a bit older less shiny cars, less fancy electronics and older furniture than somebody else raising my kids.
Why am I talking about this? Well first writing a regular blog is hard so sometimes you go for a base hit. Secondly part of this blog is chronicling my life. More importantly this is a key point to me. Sometimes I am redundant. I will try to work on not writing essentially the same post over again but will continue to belabor key points.
Now I am not saying every family should strive to have a one income household or that it is the best situation. There are lots of dynamics in play (personalities involved, earning power, goals, interests, etc) and it matters far less what decision you make than that it is the decision you as a family want to make. The key point is that you can make choices to have the life you want! I have heard folks talk about how it is impossible to support a family on one income. They want to have momma at home with the kids but just don't see it as possible. These folks fail to see that all they need to do is adjust their lifestyle to what that single breadwinner can bring in. It might not be easy but it is simple. Like just about everything else in life if you can pay the price you get to go on the ride.
As your friend I want to tell you that you can have the life you desire. To empower you to make the hard choices that let the good things happen. Seriously figure out what is important to you and how to make it happen then JUST DO IT!
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Rourke Snagged A Cool Interview
Our buddy Rourke interviewed Dr. Bruce D. Clayton the author of Life After Doomsday. It is pretty interesting and I added the book to my amazon wish list.
Home Finances 101
When I asked what your goals were our friend Sam included learning more about micro/ home finances. It seems like this is a good time to talk about home finances. I know a little bit about this concept. While I am not 50+ and financially comfortable (yet!) I am in some ways more fiscally prudent and capable in this arena than many older folks. This is one of those things that some people seem to get at a young age, others a bit later in life and some just never get it.
A couple of things to be up front about.
1) I have drank the Dave Ramsey cool aid. I wouldn't give him all my money and then follow the guy to a compound in the jungle but for the most part I have bought in to his ideas. [I say for the most part because I would be inclined to keep the first baby step worth of money in cash and while paying off the visa at 19% makes sense I might be inclined to get more of an emergency fund (say a month or two's expenses) prior to the full on snow ball.]
2) Also I think far too many people see budgets in the wrong light. They see it as somebody trying to impose a real penny pinching and rigid lifestyle onto them. Personally I see a budget as how we decide what to do with our money instead of saying "where did all my money go". If you want to have a $5 super grande mochawhackachoca latte every day I think that is a poor choice but it is entirely your decision. Just put it into your budget so you know how much it adds up to and where that money is going.
As for how to manage your money there are a lot of different methods. Sort of like the division of labor in a marriage there are about as many methods as there are couples. Just because it works for one person doesn't mean it will for another. What fails miserably for one will work great for another. This is more of an art of finding what works for you than a science.
Dave Ramsey suggests a budget that literally allocates every penny which comes in. This system uses envelopes for the cash that goes to each area. Your $180 for groceries goes in one envelope $90 for electricity in another, etc. You only spend what is in the envelope on a given area and thus you stay within the intended plan. This is about as extreme as you can go in terms of budgets.
The other extreme would be having no budget. I know only one person who is successful ( difficult to define but he never had money problems and continually lived well below his means and saved) with what basically amounts to no budget. He is just a real simple person with very minimal needs and modest desires. He lived comfortably on a pretty typical rather physical semi skilled job making $10 an hour or so. A couple years later after getting into a skilled trade that paid close to 3 times that much his lifestyle didn't change much. [ He also had a true entrepreneurial multiple streams of income mentality and executed one of the most creative and smart alternate housing ideas I have seen. Those are however stories for another day.] It worked for him but doesn't really seem to work for other folks.
I would say as a general guideline the more significant your money problems or desired improvement the more strict your budget should be both in terms of planning more specifically and cutting the fat. If you have a lot of debt AND your expenses are out stripping your income then a pretty rigid budget is essential. If you face a significant income change and have to adjust to that harsh new reality then every penny counts. If you just want to save a bit more or just keep some track of where your money is going then a less stringent budget may suit your needs. If you are doing fine then having your budget be more of a broad plan might work.
We do not have a strict budget parse. We take the money we want to save for various purposes or make principal payments out when a paycheck comes in. Other than that we pay our couple bills and just sorta go with it. We generally eat out about twice a week and have a rough idea how much can be spent on various stuff. Sometimes we spend a bit too much and the checking account gets low then we tighten up some.
Upon reflection it might be more accurate to say that the formality of our budget sort of ebbs and flows as needed. When we got married and had no money but needed pretty much everything things were tight things and thus pretty formalized. Over time things loosened up some. In general right after we move (which is a lot) we watch it pretty closely for 2-3 months as the new expenses of that living situation get figured out.
I consider a budget as a living thing. Instead of being a rigid plan you must stick to it is every evolving. If you find that the amount you planned for something (say the electric bill) doesn't work you have to adjust things elsewhere to balance the scales.
So we have established that pretty much everybody needs some sort of a budget. I find that they need to be written down in some form or another at least at the stage of inception. If you are real old school a simple piece of paper will work though excel makes for easy changes and the auto sum feature is sure nice. I have found that if you are willing to take the time to figure it out Mint.com is very useful. That brings us to the next point. Also to help my finances click on an ad now and then.
In order to know if you are actually following your planned budget you will need to track expenses to some degree. Following through is essential, otherwise a nice written budget is a moot point (see I finally got that right. If you Grammar Nazis keep at it sooner or later all of my bad habits will get fixed). Otherwise you will not know if you are meeting your intended plan at all, let alone in specific areas. As with anything else it is difficult to fix something you don't know is broken. Knowing you spent $200 too much this month is not helpful. Knowing you spend $50 too much on food, $40 too much on clothes and $60 too much on entertainment is quite helpful. You could use the envelope system or keep receipts and tally them up, maybe using Mint.com. Could be that your banks online system is good enough to do the job or you could even write everything down in a little notebook (thought that seems like a hassle which means most folks won't actually do it).
I find that going along with a budget comes having mid and long term financial goals figured out. Short and mid term goals flow naturally with a budget because you are allocating money towards them or planning to allocate money towards them. Maybe you are working the baby steps or trying to save for a vacation or whatever. Of course some goals like paying off debt are probably better decisions than others like saving for a jet ski but the point is that if it isn't in the budget it isn't getting funded. As for longer term goals you might not be funding it currently but if there isn't some plan to fund it in the future it probably falls more into the wish category.
What have you done in terms of family budgeting that has worked? What have you tried that has failed?
A couple of things to be up front about.
1) I have drank the Dave Ramsey cool aid. I wouldn't give him all my money and then follow the guy to a compound in the jungle but for the most part I have bought in to his ideas. [I say for the most part because I would be inclined to keep the first baby step worth of money in cash and while paying off the visa at 19% makes sense I might be inclined to get more of an emergency fund (say a month or two's expenses) prior to the full on snow ball.]
2) Also I think far too many people see budgets in the wrong light. They see it as somebody trying to impose a real penny pinching and rigid lifestyle onto them. Personally I see a budget as how we decide what to do with our money instead of saying "where did all my money go". If you want to have a $5 super grande mochawhackachoca latte every day I think that is a poor choice but it is entirely your decision. Just put it into your budget so you know how much it adds up to and where that money is going.
As for how to manage your money there are a lot of different methods. Sort of like the division of labor in a marriage there are about as many methods as there are couples. Just because it works for one person doesn't mean it will for another. What fails miserably for one will work great for another. This is more of an art of finding what works for you than a science.
Dave Ramsey suggests a budget that literally allocates every penny which comes in. This system uses envelopes for the cash that goes to each area. Your $180 for groceries goes in one envelope $90 for electricity in another, etc. You only spend what is in the envelope on a given area and thus you stay within the intended plan. This is about as extreme as you can go in terms of budgets.
The other extreme would be having no budget. I know only one person who is successful ( difficult to define but he never had money problems and continually lived well below his means and saved) with what basically amounts to no budget. He is just a real simple person with very minimal needs and modest desires. He lived comfortably on a pretty typical rather physical semi skilled job making $10 an hour or so. A couple years later after getting into a skilled trade that paid close to 3 times that much his lifestyle didn't change much. [ He also had a true entrepreneurial multiple streams of income mentality and executed one of the most creative and smart alternate housing ideas I have seen. Those are however stories for another day.] It worked for him but doesn't really seem to work for other folks.
I would say as a general guideline the more significant your money problems or desired improvement the more strict your budget should be both in terms of planning more specifically and cutting the fat. If you have a lot of debt AND your expenses are out stripping your income then a pretty rigid budget is essential. If you face a significant income change and have to adjust to that harsh new reality then every penny counts. If you just want to save a bit more or just keep some track of where your money is going then a less stringent budget may suit your needs. If you are doing fine then having your budget be more of a broad plan might work.
We do not have a strict budget parse. We take the money we want to save for various purposes or make principal payments out when a paycheck comes in. Other than that we pay our couple bills and just sorta go with it. We generally eat out about twice a week and have a rough idea how much can be spent on various stuff. Sometimes we spend a bit too much and the checking account gets low then we tighten up some.
Upon reflection it might be more accurate to say that the formality of our budget sort of ebbs and flows as needed. When we got married and had no money but needed pretty much everything things were tight things and thus pretty formalized. Over time things loosened up some. In general right after we move (which is a lot) we watch it pretty closely for 2-3 months as the new expenses of that living situation get figured out.
I consider a budget as a living thing. Instead of being a rigid plan you must stick to it is every evolving. If you find that the amount you planned for something (say the electric bill) doesn't work you have to adjust things elsewhere to balance the scales.
So we have established that pretty much everybody needs some sort of a budget. I find that they need to be written down in some form or another at least at the stage of inception. If you are real old school a simple piece of paper will work though excel makes for easy changes and the auto sum feature is sure nice. I have found that if you are willing to take the time to figure it out Mint.com is very useful. That brings us to the next point. Also to help my finances click on an ad now and then.
In order to know if you are actually following your planned budget you will need to track expenses to some degree. Following through is essential, otherwise a nice written budget is a moot point (see I finally got that right. If you Grammar Nazis keep at it sooner or later all of my bad habits will get fixed). Otherwise you will not know if you are meeting your intended plan at all, let alone in specific areas. As with anything else it is difficult to fix something you don't know is broken. Knowing you spent $200 too much this month is not helpful. Knowing you spend $50 too much on food, $40 too much on clothes and $60 too much on entertainment is quite helpful. You could use the envelope system or keep receipts and tally them up, maybe using Mint.com. Could be that your banks online system is good enough to do the job or you could even write everything down in a little notebook (thought that seems like a hassle which means most folks won't actually do it).
I find that going along with a budget comes having mid and long term financial goals figured out. Short and mid term goals flow naturally with a budget because you are allocating money towards them or planning to allocate money towards them. Maybe you are working the baby steps or trying to save for a vacation or whatever. Of course some goals like paying off debt are probably better decisions than others like saving for a jet ski but the point is that if it isn't in the budget it isn't getting funded. As for longer term goals you might not be funding it currently but if there isn't some plan to fund it in the future it probably falls more into the wish category.
What have you done in terms of family budgeting that has worked? What have you tried that has failed?
Friday, June 25, 2010
The Military and Survivalism
Suburban Survivalist wrote something today that hit close to home. Not like a low blow or anything but more of a darn I should think more about that. So I did some thinking.
I guess I do what I do. They might be a truck driver or a loan shark or an insurance adjuster but people are sort of where they are; generally for some kind of reason. In some ways my overall situation would be easier if I was an insurance adjuster but well I am not. The good parts of my job are that I have learned all sorts of cool nasty things. Without getting into excessive details I do for a living what many survivalist types claim to somehow have mastered from a downloaded PDF manual or two. While lots of folks pay money for ammo and range time I stay familiar and comfortable with my rifle of choice by just showing up at work. The kind of stuff some people pay a lot of money to do I just do for work; even better instead of some guy who has shot in a couple competitions and owns some nicely pressed 5.11 pants (I've gone to the sites of a lot of schools and read the instructors bio's. There are at least a dozen schmoes for every one who is legit) doing the instructing it is guys who get into gun fights for a living.
Of course with anything there are down sides. This job moves us all over the country and even the world. I would live in the inland northwest but well I do this for a living so I don't. My schedule is just short of completely ridiculous. 60-70 hours is a normal average week. If something is going on more like 80 is not abnormal. Then there are the times I randomly leave home. For numerous reasons leaving home station for a month or two a year when not deployed is probably pretty normal. Also if you have not been following the news we are fighting a couple wars so we deploy a lot.
Suburban Survivalist brought up the point of leaving our families when we go to the various sandy hell holes for long periods of time. To be honest I am not too worried about this. Maybe it is because I am more of an economic collapse/ slow slide/ regional SHTF sort of guy than a full on Mad Max type. In any case Wifey will either be in a military community or with family. Really military bases/ communities stick together and if we are anything the military is full of paranoid people who have legitimate and thorough worst case scenario plans for all kinds of situations. Seriously we have whole groups of people whose entire jobs are to think of crazy things that could maybe happen and then we prepare for them. Admittedly that money isn't a concern helps greatly. A rigid hierarchy full of well trained individuals and a ton of guns and ammo probably helps too. If Wifey is with family she is in a good situation, especially since her crazy husband stockpiles stuff.
Either way I am pretty confident that her (and the upcoming Walker Texas Ranger's) needs will be met and she will be safe. I would certainly like to be there and would likely improve the overall situation but all ego aside I am not sure quite how much.
I suppose it is like any other situation. If the start point isn't what you like then figure out how to get to a place you do like.
I guess I do what I do. They might be a truck driver or a loan shark or an insurance adjuster but people are sort of where they are; generally for some kind of reason. In some ways my overall situation would be easier if I was an insurance adjuster but well I am not. The good parts of my job are that I have learned all sorts of cool nasty things. Without getting into excessive details I do for a living what many survivalist types claim to somehow have mastered from a downloaded PDF manual or two. While lots of folks pay money for ammo and range time I stay familiar and comfortable with my rifle of choice by just showing up at work. The kind of stuff some people pay a lot of money to do I just do for work; even better instead of some guy who has shot in a couple competitions and owns some nicely pressed 5.11 pants (I've gone to the sites of a lot of schools and read the instructors bio's. There are at least a dozen schmoes for every one who is legit) doing the instructing it is guys who get into gun fights for a living.
Of course with anything there are down sides. This job moves us all over the country and even the world. I would live in the inland northwest but well I do this for a living so I don't. My schedule is just short of completely ridiculous. 60-70 hours is a normal average week. If something is going on more like 80 is not abnormal. Then there are the times I randomly leave home. For numerous reasons leaving home station for a month or two a year when not deployed is probably pretty normal. Also if you have not been following the news we are fighting a couple wars so we deploy a lot.
Suburban Survivalist brought up the point of leaving our families when we go to the various sandy hell holes for long periods of time. To be honest I am not too worried about this. Maybe it is because I am more of an economic collapse/ slow slide/ regional SHTF sort of guy than a full on Mad Max type. In any case Wifey will either be in a military community or with family. Really military bases/ communities stick together and if we are anything the military is full of paranoid people who have legitimate and thorough worst case scenario plans for all kinds of situations. Seriously we have whole groups of people whose entire jobs are to think of crazy things that could maybe happen and then we prepare for them. Admittedly that money isn't a concern helps greatly. A rigid hierarchy full of well trained individuals and a ton of guns and ammo probably helps too. If Wifey is with family she is in a good situation, especially since her crazy husband stockpiles stuff.
Either way I am pretty confident that her (and the upcoming Walker Texas Ranger's) needs will be met and she will be safe. I would certainly like to be there and would likely improve the overall situation but all ego aside I am not sure quite how much.
I suppose it is like any other situation. If the start point isn't what you like then figure out how to get to a place you do like.
Kevin Costner fighting the Oil Spill?
Seriously? The article seems quite legit but definitely goes in the truth is stranger than fiction category. I genuinely don't even know what to say about this.
Borrowers Exit Troubled Mortgage Program
Here is a snippet "As more people leave the program, a new wave of foreclosures could occur. If that happens, it could weaken the housing market and hold back the broader economic recovery.
Even after their loans are modified, many borrowers are simply stuck with too much debt -- from car loans to home equity loans to credit cards.
"The majority of these modifications aren't going to be successful," said Wayne Yamano, vice president of John Burns Real Estate Consulting, a research firm in Irvine, Calif. "Even after the permanent modification, you're still looking at a very high debt burden.""
Now for some thoughts. I see this sort of program as putting a band aid on a gun show wound. A nice idea but really not a solution. I see two groups of people who could possibly benefit from this. The first are people who could fundamentally afford their mortgage but just had a job loss or income change for awhile that left them behind. However my uninformed opinion is that these sort of people have usually been able to work something out anyway. The second group are people who can afford the principal but upcoming or recent change from the "teaser rate" to the adjustable rate will be too much for them. It seems like these days it is often in the banks best interest (versus repossessing the home and sitting on it or selling it at a steep loss) to figure out how to get these people into a fixed rate loan they can afford.
However for most of the people who are in trouble with their mortgages I just can't see a way for them to be able to make it without "adjusting the terms" significantly. In other words unless the bank is willing to say "We know you borrowed 300k but lets call it 210" they aren't going to be able to make the payments. Not surprisingly banks kind of want people to actually honor the deal they made.
Without getting into the reasons why they did it or making value judgments or playing the blame game (sort of like when you come to a party with a half gallon of great booze there is at least a shot for everybody) many people bought homes, or borrowed against their "equity" to such a point, they simply could not afford. I recall a story on NPR of a woman in NYC who bought an apartment for something like 300k. Her payment was going to be almost 2k a month and she took home $2,400 a month. There is simply no way she could possibly afford that. Even at zero percent that is almost her entire paycheck.
Also so many people have such a high debt load that what would be an affordable mortgage isn't. Maybe they did not let their housing costs get over about 1/4-1/3rd of their take home which I believe is the rule of thumb. However they also have 2 large car payments and huge visa bill and 3 store cards and a personal loan so their total amount of debt is just way too high.
I don't think we are going to return to a semi normal housing market until a lot of people are out of houses they simply can not afford. The faster we get these people out the faster we will see the actual bottom of the market. People who are sitting on money or are getting into a place where they can afford to buy a home will be able to find some deals be they on an investment rental, a vacation place or a primary residence. There will be some pain but the market will correct itself and get to an honest place.
I find there are two types of people when it comes to pulling off band aids. There are the kind who want it to hurt a little bit gradually with time to relax in between small pulls and the kind who want to just rip it off and be really uncomfortable for a second or two then have it over with. Personally I am in the get it over with and rip the band aid off camp.
Even after their loans are modified, many borrowers are simply stuck with too much debt -- from car loans to home equity loans to credit cards.
"The majority of these modifications aren't going to be successful," said Wayne Yamano, vice president of John Burns Real Estate Consulting, a research firm in Irvine, Calif. "Even after the permanent modification, you're still looking at a very high debt burden.""
Now for some thoughts. I see this sort of program as putting a band aid on a gun show wound. A nice idea but really not a solution. I see two groups of people who could possibly benefit from this. The first are people who could fundamentally afford their mortgage but just had a job loss or income change for awhile that left them behind. However my uninformed opinion is that these sort of people have usually been able to work something out anyway. The second group are people who can afford the principal but upcoming or recent change from the "teaser rate" to the adjustable rate will be too much for them. It seems like these days it is often in the banks best interest (versus repossessing the home and sitting on it or selling it at a steep loss) to figure out how to get these people into a fixed rate loan they can afford.
However for most of the people who are in trouble with their mortgages I just can't see a way for them to be able to make it without "adjusting the terms" significantly. In other words unless the bank is willing to say "We know you borrowed 300k but lets call it 210" they aren't going to be able to make the payments. Not surprisingly banks kind of want people to actually honor the deal they made.
Without getting into the reasons why they did it or making value judgments or playing the blame game (sort of like when you come to a party with a half gallon of great booze there is at least a shot for everybody) many people bought homes, or borrowed against their "equity" to such a point, they simply could not afford. I recall a story on NPR of a woman in NYC who bought an apartment for something like 300k. Her payment was going to be almost 2k a month and she took home $2,400 a month. There is simply no way she could possibly afford that. Even at zero percent that is almost her entire paycheck.
Also so many people have such a high debt load that what would be an affordable mortgage isn't. Maybe they did not let their housing costs get over about 1/4-1/3rd of their take home which I believe is the rule of thumb. However they also have 2 large car payments and huge visa bill and 3 store cards and a personal loan so their total amount of debt is just way too high.
I don't think we are going to return to a semi normal housing market until a lot of people are out of houses they simply can not afford. The faster we get these people out the faster we will see the actual bottom of the market. People who are sitting on money or are getting into a place where they can afford to buy a home will be able to find some deals be they on an investment rental, a vacation place or a primary residence. There will be some pain but the market will correct itself and get to an honest place.
I find there are two types of people when it comes to pulling off band aids. There are the kind who want it to hurt a little bit gradually with time to relax in between small pulls and the kind who want to just rip it off and be really uncomfortable for a second or two then have it over with. Personally I am in the get it over with and rip the band aid off camp.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
What Did You Do To Prepare This Week?
It was a good week for us. We got a great deal on a bunch of knives and machetes. Also we went and finished the New Years Resolutions in terms of Glock and M1A mags. Finally feeling pretty good about the overall magazine situation. Also reading books on Afghanistan which is a prep of sorts. Doing some workouts in my spare time which if not a perfect program is better than nothing.
What did you do to prepare this week?
What did you do to prepare this week?
What Are YOUR Goals
I talk about my goals a lot. I talk about how I decide what they are, working through them as well as when they change or I strait up fail to meet them. It is sort of a way for me to organize my thoughts and goals as well as just chronicling my life.
What are your goals?
I am talking bigger and longer term stuff than the normal weekly life. Maybe you want to get a new significant piece of kit, a gun, pay off debt, get training, really get cranking into food storage or who whose what else.
I am interested in getting to know a little bit more about you and where you want to go. Also this might help spur some new posts on those subjects.
What are your goals?
I am talking bigger and longer term stuff than the normal weekly life. Maybe you want to get a new significant piece of kit, a gun, pay off debt, get training, really get cranking into food storage or who whose what else.
I am interested in getting to know a little bit more about you and where you want to go. Also this might help spur some new posts on those subjects.
An Announcement From Our Advertisers
Our friends at Directive 21 would like you to know that they now stock replacement elements for the cool new Sport Berkley. Also they publish a news letter. Just go to their website and it is on the top right.
Our advertisers support us so we can keep bringing new and interesting stuff to you guys. Product reviews, give away's and the like just don't happen. Click on an advertisers link and check out what they have to offer today.
Our advertisers support us so we can keep bringing new and interesting stuff to you guys. Product reviews, give away's and the like just don't happen. Click on an advertisers link and check out what they have to offer today.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Wanting it bad enough
This is my first ever post from my iPod. It makes for slow typing and a lot of errors. Anyway something occured to me today. Simply put I will steal the Vince Lombardi quote and probably mess it up to boot "it is not the will to win that matters but the will to prepare to win.
It doesn't matter if you want to lose 40 lbs it matters if you can cut calories and start exercising then stick with it for a few months. Wanting to get out of debt is far different than not borrowing another dime, cutting your lifestyle to put as much as you can to getting out of debt.
Be it a berkey filter or a nice rifle, a trim waist or a healthy balance sheet, even the much covetid retreat. Thinking about it you want something is just daydreaming. Think about it you are willing to do what it takes to make something actually happen.
It doesn't matter if you want to lose 40 lbs it matters if you can cut calories and start exercising then stick with it for a few months. Wanting to get out of debt is far different than not borrowing another dime, cutting your lifestyle to put as much as you can to getting out of debt.
Be it a berkey filter or a nice rifle, a trim waist or a healthy balance sheet, even the much covetid retreat. Thinking about it you want something is just daydreaming. Think about it you are willing to do what it takes to make something actually happen.
quote of the day
“I’m a great believer in luck, and the harder I work the more I have of it.”
-- Thomas Jefferson
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
quote of the day
You can’t get good Chinese takeout in China and Cuban cigars are rationed in Cuba. That’s all you need to know about communism.
—P.J. O’Rourke
—P.J. O’Rourke
Walking
I was watching Lost today. Came to a very simple solution that just about every survival type situation involves walking. Maybe you will need to get home even though the road is blocked. Maybe you will be safely at home but want to go to the neighbors to see how they are and what is going on but don't want to burn the gas. If nothing else just doing day to day stuff without ready access to cheap fuel would change things a lot.
I preach physical fitness and I imagine a disturbing percentage of readers ignore me. Maybe being able to run and lift heavy stuff is not something you can see the importance of. However I do think we can all see the wisdom of being able to walk.
Of course being able to walk all day long at a rate of 20 minutes a mile carrying an 80 pound pack would be nice. Realistically if you can walk 4-5 miles with say a 20 pound day pack and not be useless when you get there it would be a darn good start.
I preach physical fitness and I imagine a disturbing percentage of readers ignore me. Maybe being able to run and lift heavy stuff is not something you can see the importance of. However I do think we can all see the wisdom of being able to walk.
Of course being able to walk all day long at a rate of 20 minutes a mile carrying an 80 pound pack would be nice. Realistically if you can walk 4-5 miles with say a 20 pound day pack and not be useless when you get there it would be a darn good start.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Quote of the Day
In order to pass the bar you have to be like "a sheep munching through the meadow." Hey, I know how to do that, I grew up in Communism.
MZ- Law student from Bulgaria
MZ- Law student from Bulgaria
Oil in the Gulf
I haven't really been following the news for the last God knows how long about the oil rig explosion and ensuing leak in the gulf. However, I have noticed a pattern in the news stories which seems to follow every oil leak, train derailment, or mine collapse.
There are four basic stories. There are the "Regulators are Corrupt" stories, the "There Need to be More Regulations" stories, the "Why Hasn't the Government taken over the Cleanup" stories, and the "Congressional Hearing" stories.
Lets start with the obvious paradox: We need more regulation, and those regulators are massively corrupt. More regulation seems like the easy answer to all our issues, and could actually fix things, assuming the regulation actually is on point, and that the regulations actually work (two things which I have never seen any regulations do). However, if those enforcing the regulations are massively corrupt, the regulations are meaningless. For example, lets say there is a law saying that cops, while raiding houses, aren't allowed to smoke a bunch of crystal meth. Most likely a good idea. Now lets say that the guy who enforces that law shows up, and all the cops are, surprise surprise, smoking a bunch of crystal meth. Now rather than enforcing the law, the regulator says "pass me the pipe" and goes away. Does the regulation do anything? Hell no, other than make the people who passed it deny any responsibility once things go south ("Its not our fault, we passed a law! Vote Rep. Asshole!").
Next story that comes out is the "Why hasn't the Government fixed everything" stories. Now, I have a law degree, not a degree in petroleum engineering, but if I had to venture a guess, plugging a leaking oil well, under water, is fucking hard. BP really has no idea how to do it. Then again, neither does the government. These news reports always assume that the government can do something better then a private company who actually deals with these issues. Last time I checked, Obama, like me, has a law degree, not a degree in petroleum engineering. However, good political move Obama. He gets to sit back and criticize what ever BP does. His poll numbers have taken a hit, but think of what would happen if he proved to everyone that he doesn't magically have the answer.
Finally, there are the "Congressional Hearings." I'm not sure what the point of these hearings are, or even if there is a point. They do prove to all of us lowly citizens that our glorious overlords are there for us, and are doing something. Other than that... Not much. They are basically the same as passing new regulations.
Where does this leave us? Congress will pass some new bill, right around election time, tightening regulations in some meaningless way, which won't be enforced do to corruption of regulators. We will see a bunch of televised hearings where Congressmen call the president of BP an asshole, and off camera ask for campaign contributions. Once the well is plugged, Obama will ask for a couple billion dollars in aid for gulf states.
Fuck it, I'm going to go watch some soccer.
There are four basic stories. There are the "Regulators are Corrupt" stories, the "There Need to be More Regulations" stories, the "Why Hasn't the Government taken over the Cleanup" stories, and the "Congressional Hearing" stories.
Lets start with the obvious paradox: We need more regulation, and those regulators are massively corrupt. More regulation seems like the easy answer to all our issues, and could actually fix things, assuming the regulation actually is on point, and that the regulations actually work (two things which I have never seen any regulations do). However, if those enforcing the regulations are massively corrupt, the regulations are meaningless. For example, lets say there is a law saying that cops, while raiding houses, aren't allowed to smoke a bunch of crystal meth. Most likely a good idea. Now lets say that the guy who enforces that law shows up, and all the cops are, surprise surprise, smoking a bunch of crystal meth. Now rather than enforcing the law, the regulator says "pass me the pipe" and goes away. Does the regulation do anything? Hell no, other than make the people who passed it deny any responsibility once things go south ("Its not our fault, we passed a law! Vote Rep. Asshole!").
Next story that comes out is the "Why hasn't the Government fixed everything" stories. Now, I have a law degree, not a degree in petroleum engineering, but if I had to venture a guess, plugging a leaking oil well, under water, is fucking hard. BP really has no idea how to do it. Then again, neither does the government. These news reports always assume that the government can do something better then a private company who actually deals with these issues. Last time I checked, Obama, like me, has a law degree, not a degree in petroleum engineering. However, good political move Obama. He gets to sit back and criticize what ever BP does. His poll numbers have taken a hit, but think of what would happen if he proved to everyone that he doesn't magically have the answer.
Finally, there are the "Congressional Hearings." I'm not sure what the point of these hearings are, or even if there is a point. They do prove to all of us lowly citizens that our glorious overlords are there for us, and are doing something. Other than that... Not much. They are basically the same as passing new regulations.
Where does this leave us? Congress will pass some new bill, right around election time, tightening regulations in some meaningless way, which won't be enforced do to corruption of regulators. We will see a bunch of televised hearings where Congressmen call the president of BP an asshole, and off camera ask for campaign contributions. Once the well is plugged, Obama will ask for a couple billion dollars in aid for gulf states.
Fuck it, I'm going to go watch some soccer.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Laundry Fun and Wonder Washer Product Review
Somehow or another Wifey and I got to talking about laundry in the context of preparedness about a month ago. I vaguely recalled a guest post on laundry by our pal Sam in the trailer park which has successfully evaded a tornado so I searched till I found it. I got to fiddling around on the Emergency Essentials website and came across the Wonder Washer. Wifey did some research and this seemed like a quality product which fit our needs.
This brings us to a very valuable micro (or small or even big I guess) business lesson. If there is some sort of deal you would like to make always ask. I am not going to even guess what percentage of the time you will get an unexpected "yes" but I can say if you don't ask the "no" rate is 100 percent. Anyway I wrote the folks at Emergency Essentials and they have an ad on our site and I have a Wonder Washer. It came in the mail earlier this week and I just got to really fiddling with it today.
"Assembly" is quite simple. Take the handle and put it onto the square post that sticks out of the side. The directions are pretty simple and take up just part of a standard piece of paper. I decided to test it out by washing a few random pieces of clothing; a pair of shorts and two shirts to be exact. Onto the review.
The Good:
1. It works
2. It is readily affordable
3. Quite easy to use. Just put the clothes, deturgent and water in, screw the lid on and then turn the handle which rotates the unit around in the frame washing your clothes.
4. Pretty compact, about the size of a normal BBQ propane tank
The Bad:
1. The lid seems sort of touchy. You have to get the grooves in the lid to match up with the grooves in the unit and then rotate it till the thing locks into place. Then you have to tighten the lid down with the hand screw on top.
2. If you do not get the lid all the way tight it will spill water while you "wash". Not a big deal, just screw it down until it pretty much won't screw on any more (no visible threads).
3. I followed the directions but the amount of detergent needed seemed a bit too high. I had to really rinse the clothes to get them non soapy. Not a big deal if you are rinsing with warm water in the sink but if water conservation was important it might be. Next time I will use more like 2/3rds of what is advised.
The Ugly:
The part I found most disappointing was that the unit seemed to bounce around as you turn it. The frame is small and narrow while the washer thingie is relatively big and heavy. In order to wash I basically had it on the floor with one knee on the near side of the frame and my spare hand on the other side. If I were to be doing a lot of laundry with the Wonder Washer I would look to clamp it to a table or something so it would be a one handed operation.
All in all I found this unit to be simple, affordable and useful. Sure beats the heck out of dragging our laundry to the river to bang it on some rocks. If we planned to do laundry for a family of 6 on a normal basis then some sort of bigger and more complex washer would be worth procuring. However to just wash an outfit at a time or for emergency use this fits the bill perfectly. We could do some sort of home rigged thing but with the Wonder Washer at the very reasonable price of $49.99 I see no reason to bother. We do need to pick up a mop wringer to help with getting the water out of our clothes after washing but that is an easy fix.
Also included was an Emergency Essentials catalog. They have some really cool stuff so please go check it out.
quote of the day
"If the 20th century taught us anything it is that life is pretty cheap, and that the cheapest form of life, unfortunately is embodied in a refugee. Life is nasty brutish and short for a refugee and you don't want to be in that situation."- Jim Rawles on Coast to Coast Radio
Why Apologize
These
Are good
Are good
JFK'S
Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, was in France in the early 60's when
DeGaule decided to pull out of NATO. DeGaule said he wanted all US
Military out of France as soon as possible.
Rusk responded,
"Does that include those who are buried here?"
DeGuale
Did not respond.
DeGuale
Did not respond.
You
Could have heard a pin drop.
Could have heard a pin drop.
When in England ,
At a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the
Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of
'empire building' by George Bush.
He answered by saying,
Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of
'empire building' by George Bush.
He answered by saying,
"Over the years, the United States has sent many of
Its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom
Beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for
In return is enough to bury those that did not
Return."
Its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom
Beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for
In return is enough to bury those that did not
Return."
You
Could have heard a pin drop.
Could have heard a pin drop.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There was a conference in France
Where a number of international engineers
Were taking part, including French and American. During a break,
One of the French engineers came back into the room saying, "Have you
Heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft
Carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he
Intend to do, bomb them?"
A Boeing engineer
Were taking part, including French and American. During a break,
One of the French engineers came back into the room saying, "Have you
Heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft
Carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he
Intend to do, bomb them?"
A Boeing engineer
Stood up and replied quietly: "Our carriers have three
Hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are
Nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to
Shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to
Feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand
Gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a
Dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and
From their flight deck. We have eleven such ships;
Hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are
Nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to
Shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to
Feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand
Gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a
Dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and
From their flight deck. We have eleven such ships;
How many does France have?"
You
Could have heard a pin drop.
Could have heard a pin drop.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A U.S. Navy Admiral
Was attending a naval conference that included
Admirals from the U.S., English, Canadian, Australian and French
Navies At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large
Group of officers that included personnel from most of those countries.
Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a
French admiral suddenly complained that, whereas Europeans learn many
Languages, Americans learn only English. He then asked, "Why is it that
We always have to speak English in these conferences rather than
Speaking French?"
Without hesitating,
Admirals from the U.S., English, Canadian, Australian and French
Navies At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large
Group of officers that included personnel from most of those countries.
Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a
French admiral suddenly complained that, whereas Europeans learn many
Languages, Americans learn only English. He then asked, "Why is it that
We always have to speak English in these conferences rather than
Speaking French?"
Without hesitating,
The American Admiral replied, "Maybe it's because the
Brit's, Canadians, Aussie's and Americans arranged it so you wouldn't
Have to speak German."
Brit's, Canadians, Aussie's and Americans arranged it so you wouldn't
Have to speak German."
You
Could have heard a pin drop.
Could have heard a pin drop.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AND
THIS STORY FITS RIGHT IN WITH THE ABOVE...
Robert Whiting,
An elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in Paris by plane.
At French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport
In his carry on.
"You
Have been to France before, monsieur?" the customs officer asked
Sarcastically.
Mr. Whiting
"You
Have been to France before, monsieur?" the customs officer asked
Sarcastically.
Mr. Whiting
Admitted that he had been to France
Previously.
"Then
You should know enough to have your passport ready."
The American said,
Previously.
"Then
You should know enough to have your passport ready."
The American said,
"The last time I was here, I didn't have to show it."
"Impossible..
Americans always have to show their passports on arrival in France !"
The American senior
"Impossible..
Americans always have to show their passports on arrival in France !"
The American senior
Gave the Frenchman a long hard look. Then he
Quietly explained, ''Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day in
1944 to help liberate this country, I couldn't find a single Frenchmen
To show a passport to."
You
Could have heard a pin drop.
Quietly explained, ''Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day in
1944 to help liberate this country, I couldn't find a single Frenchmen
To show a passport to."
You
Could have heard a pin drop.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am proud to be of this land, AMERICA
Saturday, June 19, 2010
quote of the day
“is not about business cycles … It’s not about people comparing where they are now to where they were a year ago.”
-Benjamin Friedman
The relevant comparisons are much broader: What opportunities are available to me, relative to those of my parents? What opportunities do my children have? What is the trajectory of my career?
-Benjamin Friedman
The relevant comparisons are much broader: What opportunities are available to me, relative to those of my parents? What opportunities do my children have? What is the trajectory of my career?
Debt N' Why It's Bad
I tend to have a broader concept of preparedness than a lot of folks. I see physical fitness and financial stuff being just as important as sexy things like AK47's and cases of freeze dried foods. In other words if you are a fat slob and have a messy financial situation you are not well prepared even if you have beans, bullets and band aids. Sorry but I keep it real.
I got to thinking about why debt is really bad yesterday. To me there are three major reasons.
The first reason is that debt is promising future money you have not even earned yet. Not necessarily a big deal if things go humming along as usual but what if a job is lost or your income changes? A payment that might not be a big deal when you are working full time at a good job (whatever that is for you) might become a big deal if you get cut to part time or have to take a lower paying job.
The second reason sort of piggy backs along with the first. It is often tempting to pay for something over some time instead of trying to come up with all the cash immediately. Having a $50 payment on a whatever isn't a big deal. However my observation is that for whatever reason pretty quickly people have so many payments (even little ones add up) that it is no longer realistic for them to pay cash for stuff. Kind of a vicious cycle that is easy to slip into and not fun to get out of.
The thing is that for most of us average folks our financial power comes from our salary/ income. The more of our income that isn't already allocated to some junk we got on payments means we have money to put to things we want to do or save. A guy who has 1k a month in money not already going to service debt or meet basic needs (food, shelter, etc) can use that money however he wants. He can also decide on a month to month basis where that money will go. Maybe it is a nice ski trip and a handgun one month and savings the next or whatever. He could use that money to meet whatever needs may come up be they real or perceived. He can also use it to save up to pay CASH for stuff. On the other hand if his neighbor makes the same amount of money but has a car payment and a credit card payment and a home depot card he doesn't have that money to put towards whatever. Thus he can't decide it is a good idea to get a gun this month or save cash for stuff.
So up to this point the issues with debt are first that your situation may change and a comfortable payment will become a real issue. Secondly having most of your money going to service debt leaves little room to do things you want to do be they completely frivolous or super practical.
Lastly people do not generally loan you money because they like you. They are in business to make money by lending you money and getting it back with interest. Credit cards with 10-18% interest will destroy you in a hurry if you get over your head. Servicing the interest alone becomes difficult so hardly anything actually goes toward the principal. Even lower rates really add up if you take the super long payment option. The real cost of a $500 washer paid off over a couple years at 6.99% interest is more than $500. Also at places where you can realistically bargain (of course you can try to bargain anywhere but the guy working the floor at a big box probably has no authority) the position of somebody who needs financing is very weak. Try to buy a five thousand dollar car with cash and you may well get a deal. If you need financing you will pay five grand THEN interest.
Whenever possible pay cash for stuff. If you can't pay cash then if at all possible save and wait until you can pay cash. I am not saying you shouldn't go on nice vacations or have some fun toys but I am saying if you can't pay cash then it probably isn't a good idea. If you are in debt try to get out of it. I still have a student loan and now that the emergency fund is at a comfortable level we are putting a lot of money towards paying it off early. Making an extra 200% principal payment every month will see that debt put to rest around the end of this year. After we get out of debt I can't really see borrowing money except to buy a reasonable home.
Oh yeah and please check out one of our advertisers. They have good stuff and it really helps keep this place going.
I got to thinking about why debt is really bad yesterday. To me there are three major reasons.
The first reason is that debt is promising future money you have not even earned yet. Not necessarily a big deal if things go humming along as usual but what if a job is lost or your income changes? A payment that might not be a big deal when you are working full time at a good job (whatever that is for you) might become a big deal if you get cut to part time or have to take a lower paying job.
The second reason sort of piggy backs along with the first. It is often tempting to pay for something over some time instead of trying to come up with all the cash immediately. Having a $50 payment on a whatever isn't a big deal. However my observation is that for whatever reason pretty quickly people have so many payments (even little ones add up) that it is no longer realistic for them to pay cash for stuff. Kind of a vicious cycle that is easy to slip into and not fun to get out of.
The thing is that for most of us average folks our financial power comes from our salary/ income. The more of our income that isn't already allocated to some junk we got on payments means we have money to put to things we want to do or save. A guy who has 1k a month in money not already going to service debt or meet basic needs (food, shelter, etc) can use that money however he wants. He can also decide on a month to month basis where that money will go. Maybe it is a nice ski trip and a handgun one month and savings the next or whatever. He could use that money to meet whatever needs may come up be they real or perceived. He can also use it to save up to pay CASH for stuff. On the other hand if his neighbor makes the same amount of money but has a car payment and a credit card payment and a home depot card he doesn't have that money to put towards whatever. Thus he can't decide it is a good idea to get a gun this month or save cash for stuff.
So up to this point the issues with debt are first that your situation may change and a comfortable payment will become a real issue. Secondly having most of your money going to service debt leaves little room to do things you want to do be they completely frivolous or super practical.
Lastly people do not generally loan you money because they like you. They are in business to make money by lending you money and getting it back with interest. Credit cards with 10-18% interest will destroy you in a hurry if you get over your head. Servicing the interest alone becomes difficult so hardly anything actually goes toward the principal. Even lower rates really add up if you take the super long payment option. The real cost of a $500 washer paid off over a couple years at 6.99% interest is more than $500. Also at places where you can realistically bargain (of course you can try to bargain anywhere but the guy working the floor at a big box probably has no authority) the position of somebody who needs financing is very weak. Try to buy a five thousand dollar car with cash and you may well get a deal. If you need financing you will pay five grand THEN interest.
Whenever possible pay cash for stuff. If you can't pay cash then if at all possible save and wait until you can pay cash. I am not saying you shouldn't go on nice vacations or have some fun toys but I am saying if you can't pay cash then it probably isn't a good idea. If you are in debt try to get out of it. I still have a student loan and now that the emergency fund is at a comfortable level we are putting a lot of money towards paying it off early. Making an extra 200% principal payment every month will see that debt put to rest around the end of this year. After we get out of debt I can't really see borrowing money except to buy a reasonable home.
Oh yeah and please check out one of our advertisers. They have good stuff and it really helps keep this place going.
Just Wanna Tell Ya
Our loyal friend, patriot and advertiser Rourke from World Info CD has started blogging at Modern Survival Online. Check it out.
Friday, June 18, 2010
quote of the day
"Personal history has shown me that long before TSHTF in a cataclysmic, biblical, Mad Max, zombierific way there’ll be plenty of small scale ‘personal SHTF’ moments….job losses, broken limbs, faulty transmissions, clogged pipes, broken furnaces, uncovered medical treatments, and that sort of thing. The sorts of situations that cant be fixed with an AK47, solar panels and a case of MRE’s. So…being pragmatic….we prepare for those ‘minor’ emergencies as well.
It follows, naturally, that if we’re not plunking down several hundred dollars a month to service debt then we’ve freed up that money to do other things…things we want to do rather than have to do. So…yeah, minimizing debt may definitely open up a few doors."
A Great Sale on Cold Steel Knives
Cold Steel has an awesome July 4th sale going on right now! I ordered 4 "long hunter" knives and 18" spear point machetes. To be honest we don't really need these for anything in particular as our cutlery situation is pretty solid. However for the sake of redundancy (and I suppose potential charity or barter) I have been wanting to pick up some extras. Hadn't planned on doing it now but for these amazing prices it seems like the perfect time. Seriously for a C note we got a bunch of quality machetes and belt knives to just put away.
Too often when it comes to knives people get the impression that to stock up on knives they have to buy some Pakistani or China made junk. While these knives might not be the worlds fanciest they are high quality and very functional tools.
I don't get anything out of this. Just wanted to give you all a heads up about the great sale.
Too often when it comes to knives people get the impression that to stock up on knives they have to buy some Pakistani or China made junk. While these knives might not be the worlds fanciest they are high quality and very functional tools.
I don't get anything out of this. Just wanted to give you all a heads up about the great sale.
It's How Much You Eat Silly
Everywhere I go I hear someone talking about this diet or that diet. There is scientific evidence to support this and testimonials to support that. All of these people write a book saying their system is the best and the really smart ones have a line of food or at least cook books and cooking accessories. All of this is pretty dumb IMO.
We need to talk about 4 things differently: nutrition, calories, fitness and body fat.
Nutrition is pretty obvious. Things like whole grains, fruits, veggies and lean protein are good and sugar, fat and alcohol are not so good. Nutrition affects body fat/ weight. Eating junk makes you sluggish and lazy while healthier stuff will keep you full for longer and fuel your body. I have never seen someone down 4 cheese burgers and a plate of fries then go for a long run.
There are so many fad diets. Some make sense and others are just silly. People will often loose weight on any fad diet, at least for awhile. Part of the reason for this is that the change shocks their system. Also I believe the bigger issue is that these people, for the first time in awhile are in some way or another monitoring what they eat. Just about any sort of portion control is better than none!
I am a huge believer in calories in vs calories out. If you burn more calories than you take in you will lose weight. If you burn fewer than you are taking in you will gain weight. Too easy. I have never seen a person who genuinely followed that simple plan consistently and did not achieve results. The reason nobody talks about it is that it is simple and will not lead you to buying their book. Invariably diets that are successful are compatible with this theory. A person could get fat on a diet of vegetables, granted they might have to eat a 5 gallon bucket of them but it is possible. Conversely a person who ate reasonable amounts of all sorts of food could lose weight. It would be very difficult to convince me that any diet can defy the calories in vs calories out rule.
Exercise improves your overall physical condition. Of course going from obese to not obese will make it a lot easier to do everything diet alone will not make you fit. Walking, hiking, running, body control exercises and weight bearing movements will make you stronger, faster and able to endure more physical hardships.
Starting to exercise helps a lot but be ware that unless you are exercising a truly crazy amount (think Michael Phelps or Ultra Marathoners) you still have to pay attention to what you eat. As Jillian Michaels said recently on the TV "a slice of pizza is 500 calories which is an hour on the treadmill." Personally I have experienced and observed this to be true. It is easy to think "oh I am exercising a lot now so I can have a bit bigger dinner/ whatever" and depending on your goals it might be. A young guy who wants to put on 25lbs to go from JV to Varsity could couple his heavy strength training with a couple more small snacks and a second helping at dinner. That kids parents who are doing an exercise program of walking, hiking and calisthenics in order to improve their fitness and get to a healthy weight would not be advised to follow their meat head son's diet.
Body fat/ weight is an issue that holds many people back in terms of fitness. I am not going to get into it just being bad for you but well it is. Unless you are a world class athlete those 5-10 vanity pounds are not going to slow an average sized person down significantly or hurt them in body control exercises (push ups, pull ups, etc all) but a 30lbs spare tire sure will. I have known plenty of guys who were not exactly skinny and had a waistline which noted their liking of cheese burgers a bit but were in darn good shape. However it is hard to be fit when you are just plain fat. Hauling around unproductive mass makes it more difficult to move. Also that weight puts a lot of stress on knees and backs. A lot of (but certainly not all) bad knees and backs would go miraculously heal if their owners got to a healthy weight!
I find eating a healthy, reasonable amount of food and starting an exercise program work well together. Doing either in isolation doesn't seem to but they both sort of motivate me to do better with the other.
GET OFF OF THE COMPUTER AND GO FOR A WALK!!!
We need to talk about 4 things differently: nutrition, calories, fitness and body fat.
Nutrition is pretty obvious. Things like whole grains, fruits, veggies and lean protein are good and sugar, fat and alcohol are not so good. Nutrition affects body fat/ weight. Eating junk makes you sluggish and lazy while healthier stuff will keep you full for longer and fuel your body. I have never seen someone down 4 cheese burgers and a plate of fries then go for a long run.
There are so many fad diets. Some make sense and others are just silly. People will often loose weight on any fad diet, at least for awhile. Part of the reason for this is that the change shocks their system. Also I believe the bigger issue is that these people, for the first time in awhile are in some way or another monitoring what they eat. Just about any sort of portion control is better than none!
I am a huge believer in calories in vs calories out. If you burn more calories than you take in you will lose weight. If you burn fewer than you are taking in you will gain weight. Too easy. I have never seen a person who genuinely followed that simple plan consistently and did not achieve results. The reason nobody talks about it is that it is simple and will not lead you to buying their book. Invariably diets that are successful are compatible with this theory. A person could get fat on a diet of vegetables, granted they might have to eat a 5 gallon bucket of them but it is possible. Conversely a person who ate reasonable amounts of all sorts of food could lose weight. It would be very difficult to convince me that any diet can defy the calories in vs calories out rule.
Exercise improves your overall physical condition. Of course going from obese to not obese will make it a lot easier to do everything diet alone will not make you fit. Walking, hiking, running, body control exercises and weight bearing movements will make you stronger, faster and able to endure more physical hardships.
Starting to exercise helps a lot but be ware that unless you are exercising a truly crazy amount (think Michael Phelps or Ultra Marathoners) you still have to pay attention to what you eat. As Jillian Michaels said recently on the TV "a slice of pizza is 500 calories which is an hour on the treadmill." Personally I have experienced and observed this to be true. It is easy to think "oh I am exercising a lot now so I can have a bit bigger dinner/ whatever" and depending on your goals it might be. A young guy who wants to put on 25lbs to go from JV to Varsity could couple his heavy strength training with a couple more small snacks and a second helping at dinner. That kids parents who are doing an exercise program of walking, hiking and calisthenics in order to improve their fitness and get to a healthy weight would not be advised to follow their meat head son's diet.
Body fat/ weight is an issue that holds many people back in terms of fitness. I am not going to get into it just being bad for you but well it is. Unless you are a world class athlete those 5-10 vanity pounds are not going to slow an average sized person down significantly or hurt them in body control exercises (push ups, pull ups, etc all) but a 30lbs spare tire sure will. I have known plenty of guys who were not exactly skinny and had a waistline which noted their liking of cheese burgers a bit but were in darn good shape. However it is hard to be fit when you are just plain fat. Hauling around unproductive mass makes it more difficult to move. Also that weight puts a lot of stress on knees and backs. A lot of (but certainly not all) bad knees and backs would go miraculously heal if their owners got to a healthy weight!
I find eating a healthy, reasonable amount of food and starting an exercise program work well together. Doing either in isolation doesn't seem to but they both sort of motivate me to do better with the other.
GET OFF OF THE COMPUTER AND GO FOR A WALK!!!
Thursday, June 17, 2010
What Did You Do To Prepare This Last Couple Weeks?
I will try to get better about this feature. Anyway here is what I have been up to the last couple weeks.
I started an Orange Savings account at ING. Ya know the kind of account that paid 5% a few years ago and now pays 1.3 or so. Beats 0% and it is FDIC insured. Beats the heck out of having my emergency fund sitting at 0 percent.
Reeived some gold and silver as well as beer brewing kit. Read most of the book that came with the kit.
Stashed some Euro's. Not a whole lot but it is sure growing on itself.
Starting to fall into a modest workout regimen.Well modest in that it occurs outside of normal work hours.
Restocked the pantry with some staple foods.
What have you done to prepare this last couple weeks?
I started an Orange Savings account at ING. Ya know the kind of account that paid 5% a few years ago and now pays 1.3 or so. Beats 0% and it is FDIC insured. Beats the heck out of having my emergency fund sitting at 0 percent.
Reeived some gold and silver as well as beer brewing kit. Read most of the book that came with the kit.
Stashed some Euro's. Not a whole lot but it is sure growing on itself.
Starting to fall into a modest workout regimen.Well modest in that it occurs outside of normal work hours.
Restocked the pantry with some staple foods.
What have you done to prepare this last couple weeks?
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Can it happen here?
I was reading Time today (as usual) and came across a story about Australia's new massive Internet censorship plan. It started me thinking: can that happen here? I didn't think too long, because the answer is, under current law, yes. Easily. Here is how.
We need to understand that the Federal Constitution, under the supremacy clause, is the highest law in the land. After it, there is federal law, then state constitutions, then state law. Note, federal law trumps state constitutions. The State of Oregon is often used as a case study for this, because, unlike most states, the Oregon Constitution is interpreted very differently than the Federal Constitution (no matter where you go to law school, if you take a class on how state constitutions work, you will focus almost exclusively on the Oregon Constitution). Under the Oregon Constitution, there is a complete ban on content regulation of speech; under the Federal Constitution, there is a multi-part test, which I will be discussing later. The Oregon Constitution is MUCH more protective of free speech than the Federal, but it only applies to state law. If a federal law is in violation of freedoms protected in the Oregon Constitution, it can still be applied to citizens of Oregon.
On a side note, for those of you who follow the blog, you have noticed that Ryan and I don't say where we are from. There is a reason for this; Ryan is in the military, and I will be a lawyer soon. This blog could have a negative impact on our careers, and the nice thing about the Internet is it allows us to say what we actually think. I mention this only to tell you that, no, I am not from Oregon. Nice try, keep guessing (not that you care).
Anyway, when looking at free speech issues, there are two lines of analysis. Speech regulations are either content based, or conduct based. For example, a law saying no yelling in city parks between the hours of 9pm and 6am, is conduct based; it applies to people based on what they are doing. A law saying no supporting libertarians in city parks is content based; the law specifically targets the content of the speech. The law in Australia is content based; it targets certain types of speech.
When a law is content based, the strict scrutiny test is applies. It requires that the law must be "narrowly tailored" to a "compelling government interest". Strict scrutiny basically means the law fails. While this is not universal to all cases (this test also applies to Equal Protection claims and affirmative action has passed it), the overwhelming result is that a law is invalidated.
Right now you are saying "but Ryan, J.D., you said it can happen here! You are a lair!" There is a second prong of the analysis. There is some speech which the Court has said is simply not protected. Strict scrutiny does not apply, its completely free to be banned. Here are the 3 big categories, with explanations.
1) Inciting- Speech can be banned if it creates a "clear and present" danger of lawless action, the conduct is likely, and the speaker intends it to cause the conduct. In the South, during the civil rights movement, MLK telling people to engage in sit-ins, could be a crime. Its not protected.
2) Fighting Words- Abusive words which are likely to cause a physical reaction from a reasonable person. If you say anything which makes me want to hit you, it can be banned. Please note here, this actually applies to anything. Saying you are a libertarian at a democrats house could be considered fighting words. It hasn't gone that far, but it rationally and easily could.
3) Obscenity (my personal favorite)- Speech that is sexual, offensive, and "lacks serious value" can be banned. As Justice Stewart famously said in Jacobellis v. Ohio,
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ("hard-core pornography"); and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." While the Court does not currently use the "I know it when I see it" standard, this phrase sums up how the Court actually views obscenity.
Anything which falls under these categories could be banned nationally from the Internet. Porn is gone. Anything saying a law is unjust could be censored. Anything which makes someone else want to hit you, good bye.
As noted before, this law would even apply in Oregon. In Oregon, it could not happen. There is no test to determine whether the constitution is violated other than, does the law restrict speech based on content. If the answer to that question is yes, the law is unconstitutional.
I love the Internet, because it allows me to say what I think. Are there down sides? Absolutely. The KKK assholes get to say what they think. However, that is what the Freedom of Speech is all about. You can think and say whatever you want, and I get to think and say that you are an asshole. You can do the same to me. That's the beauty of it. Once you take that away, freedom becomes meaningless.
We need to understand that the Federal Constitution, under the supremacy clause, is the highest law in the land. After it, there is federal law, then state constitutions, then state law. Note, federal law trumps state constitutions. The State of Oregon is often used as a case study for this, because, unlike most states, the Oregon Constitution is interpreted very differently than the Federal Constitution (no matter where you go to law school, if you take a class on how state constitutions work, you will focus almost exclusively on the Oregon Constitution). Under the Oregon Constitution, there is a complete ban on content regulation of speech; under the Federal Constitution, there is a multi-part test, which I will be discussing later. The Oregon Constitution is MUCH more protective of free speech than the Federal, but it only applies to state law. If a federal law is in violation of freedoms protected in the Oregon Constitution, it can still be applied to citizens of Oregon.
On a side note, for those of you who follow the blog, you have noticed that Ryan and I don't say where we are from. There is a reason for this; Ryan is in the military, and I will be a lawyer soon. This blog could have a negative impact on our careers, and the nice thing about the Internet is it allows us to say what we actually think. I mention this only to tell you that, no, I am not from Oregon. Nice try, keep guessing (not that you care).
Anyway, when looking at free speech issues, there are two lines of analysis. Speech regulations are either content based, or conduct based. For example, a law saying no yelling in city parks between the hours of 9pm and 6am, is conduct based; it applies to people based on what they are doing. A law saying no supporting libertarians in city parks is content based; the law specifically targets the content of the speech. The law in Australia is content based; it targets certain types of speech.
When a law is content based, the strict scrutiny test is applies. It requires that the law must be "narrowly tailored" to a "compelling government interest". Strict scrutiny basically means the law fails. While this is not universal to all cases (this test also applies to Equal Protection claims and affirmative action has passed it), the overwhelming result is that a law is invalidated.
Right now you are saying "but Ryan, J.D., you said it can happen here! You are a lair!" There is a second prong of the analysis. There is some speech which the Court has said is simply not protected. Strict scrutiny does not apply, its completely free to be banned. Here are the 3 big categories, with explanations.
1) Inciting- Speech can be banned if it creates a "clear and present" danger of lawless action, the conduct is likely, and the speaker intends it to cause the conduct. In the South, during the civil rights movement, MLK telling people to engage in sit-ins, could be a crime. Its not protected.
2) Fighting Words- Abusive words which are likely to cause a physical reaction from a reasonable person. If you say anything which makes me want to hit you, it can be banned. Please note here, this actually applies to anything. Saying you are a libertarian at a democrats house could be considered fighting words. It hasn't gone that far, but it rationally and easily could.
3) Obscenity (my personal favorite)- Speech that is sexual, offensive, and "lacks serious value" can be banned. As Justice Stewart famously said in Jacobellis v. Ohio,
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ("hard-core pornography"); and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." While the Court does not currently use the "I know it when I see it" standard, this phrase sums up how the Court actually views obscenity.
Anything which falls under these categories could be banned nationally from the Internet. Porn is gone. Anything saying a law is unjust could be censored. Anything which makes someone else want to hit you, good bye.
As noted before, this law would even apply in Oregon. In Oregon, it could not happen. There is no test to determine whether the constitution is violated other than, does the law restrict speech based on content. If the answer to that question is yes, the law is unconstitutional.
I love the Internet, because it allows me to say what I think. Are there down sides? Absolutely. The KKK assholes get to say what they think. However, that is what the Freedom of Speech is all about. You can think and say whatever you want, and I get to think and say that you are an asshole. You can do the same to me. That's the beauty of it. Once you take that away, freedom becomes meaningless.
quote of the day
"When the virus struck for obvious reasons the first ones to go were the fatties."
-Columbus Zombieland
-Columbus Zombieland
Physical Preparedness for Everybody
My post yesterday got some great comments. One of which is that it would be nice if the blog was more inclusive as everybody isn't young, healthy and in good shape. Today I am going to talk about physical fitness for those who are not young, healthy and otherwise in good shape.
To be blunt I believe your body is the most important tool you have and thus it is essential to keep it in the best working condition possible. Do the best you can to prepare yourself physically in a variety of ways and hope it is enough. Being able to move very quickly but also for some time is important. Having the strength to lift heavy stuff and the endurance to lift fairly heavy stuff for a long time is also important.
To be honest I live in an everyday world full of predominantly young people but where the vast majority are healthy and reasonably physically fit. I sometimes loose sight of the fact that lots of folks are old and/ or otherwise unhealthy. If you take a random group of 55 year old men there aren't many who would successfully complete the RPAT. Of those who tried some would get pretty messed up in the attempt.
When we switch from talking about young or otherwise healthy people in good shape to people who have physical problems or are older it is essential to really focus on basic real world tasks. Like so many things if you work harder in practice the real thing is easy. If you can run for distance wearing heavy equipment you can certainly walk. If you can get yourself up a rope in 40 pounds of kit you have the strength to conduct normal 19th century physically intensive tasks or move in and around terrain as needed. However for older folks this path isn't going to work, largely because they are going to be close to max effort to try and get the real world tasks done.
Broadly speaking older people are often unhealthy. Our modern system of medicine has greatly extended peoples lifetimes but the point where people start physically deteriorating hasn't changed that much. Often older people have just had more time to accumulate various injuries or have stuff wear out. Also as a complex post industrial society a lot of people survive who are simply not capable of existing in any other type of lifestyle. In a physical sense Darwinism among humans is dead.
Often (but not always) the lynch pin for the older/ unhealthy is being too heavy. I have seen/ known more than one person who " just can't exercise because of their knees/ back" and happen to be overweight. For many of these folks the problems with their joints would be largely alleviated by getting to a healthy weight. Seriously loosing 50 pounds of fat will do wonders for most average knee and back problems. If these people get to a healthy weight their problems would subside and they would be able to conduct more types of exercise which would improve their health and capabilities even more.
For older folks I would say to keep in mind what your physical goals are. Off the top of my head I would say that walking is likely going to be the single capability that would filter the wheat from the chaff. If it is at all possible focus on being able to at least walk for fairly long distances. It just doesn't get any lower tech than a pair of boots. Some folks will have a real rough time with a moderate weight pack (say 40lbs). The amount of older people who could walk (say 10 miles) is likely a lot larger than the group of older people who could walk that same distance with a 40 pound pack. Bikes come up pretty often. They are not reliant on fossil fuels but are relatively complex and as such prone to failure. I am not saying they aren't a good plan but that you need to be prepared to walk if the darn thing breaks or you face impassable (to bikes) terrain. Also I would be inclined to go with a low tech rugged bike than a super duper mountain bike. Some sort of cart might be an option. Remember that a bunch of Mormons walked across the country in the middle of the 19th century pulling handcarts. If I was older and still able to walk but a pack seemed out of the question I would be looking very hard at small rugged carts.
[Edited to include: Sorry but this whole cart thing keeps reminding me of the father and son pushing their cart in The Road which is by far the most depressing post apocalyptic book I have ever read.]
For other people who have medical issues especially that conflict with movement, physical fitness stuff the advice is pretty similar. Do the absolute best you can to get into the best shape possible and then figure out how to mitigate what you can't do.
If your situation is such that working up to walking by getting to a healthy weight as well as targeted training (physical therapy, weights, etc) is honestly not realistic the situation gets harder. I would suggest that people put real time and energy into establishing redundancy as well as ruggedness in whatever systems are necessary for movement. Eliminate as many single points of failure as possible.
I guess it would be cliche to say "focus on what you can do not what you can't" but it is still true. I do however think it is worthwhile to take a harshly realistic look at if you are truly incapable of completing a realistic and meaningful task or if you just don't want to put in the work to make it happen.
As for planning of programs and workouts I would say that working on or around realistic meaningful tasks and improving your capabilities by incrementally longer and harder workouts is the way to go.
Thoughts?
To be blunt I believe your body is the most important tool you have and thus it is essential to keep it in the best working condition possible. Do the best you can to prepare yourself physically in a variety of ways and hope it is enough. Being able to move very quickly but also for some time is important. Having the strength to lift heavy stuff and the endurance to lift fairly heavy stuff for a long time is also important.
To be honest I live in an everyday world full of predominantly young people but where the vast majority are healthy and reasonably physically fit. I sometimes loose sight of the fact that lots of folks are old and/ or otherwise unhealthy. If you take a random group of 55 year old men there aren't many who would successfully complete the RPAT. Of those who tried some would get pretty messed up in the attempt.
When we switch from talking about young or otherwise healthy people in good shape to people who have physical problems or are older it is essential to really focus on basic real world tasks. Like so many things if you work harder in practice the real thing is easy. If you can run for distance wearing heavy equipment you can certainly walk. If you can get yourself up a rope in 40 pounds of kit you have the strength to conduct normal 19th century physically intensive tasks or move in and around terrain as needed. However for older folks this path isn't going to work, largely because they are going to be close to max effort to try and get the real world tasks done.
Broadly speaking older people are often unhealthy. Our modern system of medicine has greatly extended peoples lifetimes but the point where people start physically deteriorating hasn't changed that much. Often older people have just had more time to accumulate various injuries or have stuff wear out. Also as a complex post industrial society a lot of people survive who are simply not capable of existing in any other type of lifestyle. In a physical sense Darwinism among humans is dead.
Often (but not always) the lynch pin for the older/ unhealthy is being too heavy. I have seen/ known more than one person who " just can't exercise because of their knees/ back" and happen to be overweight. For many of these folks the problems with their joints would be largely alleviated by getting to a healthy weight. Seriously loosing 50 pounds of fat will do wonders for most average knee and back problems. If these people get to a healthy weight their problems would subside and they would be able to conduct more types of exercise which would improve their health and capabilities even more.
For older folks I would say to keep in mind what your physical goals are. Off the top of my head I would say that walking is likely going to be the single capability that would filter the wheat from the chaff. If it is at all possible focus on being able to at least walk for fairly long distances. It just doesn't get any lower tech than a pair of boots. Some folks will have a real rough time with a moderate weight pack (say 40lbs). The amount of older people who could walk (say 10 miles) is likely a lot larger than the group of older people who could walk that same distance with a 40 pound pack. Bikes come up pretty often. They are not reliant on fossil fuels but are relatively complex and as such prone to failure. I am not saying they aren't a good plan but that you need to be prepared to walk if the darn thing breaks or you face impassable (to bikes) terrain. Also I would be inclined to go with a low tech rugged bike than a super duper mountain bike. Some sort of cart might be an option. Remember that a bunch of Mormons walked across the country in the middle of the 19th century pulling handcarts. If I was older and still able to walk but a pack seemed out of the question I would be looking very hard at small rugged carts.
[Edited to include: Sorry but this whole cart thing keeps reminding me of the father and son pushing their cart in The Road which is by far the most depressing post apocalyptic book I have ever read.]
For other people who have medical issues especially that conflict with movement, physical fitness stuff the advice is pretty similar. Do the absolute best you can to get into the best shape possible and then figure out how to mitigate what you can't do.
If your situation is such that working up to walking by getting to a healthy weight as well as targeted training (physical therapy, weights, etc) is honestly not realistic the situation gets harder. I would suggest that people put real time and energy into establishing redundancy as well as ruggedness in whatever systems are necessary for movement. Eliminate as many single points of failure as possible.
I guess it would be cliche to say "focus on what you can do not what you can't" but it is still true. I do however think it is worthwhile to take a harshly realistic look at if you are truly incapable of completing a realistic and meaningful task or if you just don't want to put in the work to make it happen.
As for planning of programs and workouts I would say that working on or around realistic meaningful tasks and improving your capabilities by incrementally longer and harder workouts is the way to go.
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![[Most Recent Charts from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_4.gif)
![[Most Recent Charts from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/t24_ag_en_usoz_4.gif)
Posts
