Bathroom Remodel Status

We ARE still remodeling our bathrooms, but we have rethought a few items.

1. We are not moving the wall between the two bathrooms. After additional thought we realized we'd be creating a lot of cost and little return. Leaving the wall also allows use to leave much of the plumbing alone, that's a major cost saver. Additionally it allows us to remodel the main (guest) bathroom without permits, as it is all cosmetic.
   
   Additionally we only have to have one bathroom torn apart at a time. We have a third bathroom in the basement, but neither of us wanted to go through that. With only one bathroom down at a time, we can take our time and not feel like we have to rush because of the inconvenience.
   
   
2. We are doing the guest bathroom first. Since the remodel will be mostly cosmetic, except around the tub, the cost to remodel this bathroom first will be low. We should be able to do it for around $3000 or so.
   
   
3. Rethinking materials. We want the bathrooms to be nice, but watching the DIY Channel has perhaps given us too many great ideas. Many of the bathroom remodels there are $10K+ and we just aren't willing to pay that much. The house cannot really support a bathroom that nice either. We put too much into this house and we'll never see the return, or we'll have to stay in it so long that the bathroom will have to be remodeled again before we sell it.
   
   That's not to suggest we are going cheap either. We are simply being frugal. For example I designed the guest bathroom tub surround with a nice metal accent tile strip. That metal tile goes for about $20/sq ft. We decided that metal tile was probably a bit much for the guest bath. We found some nice glass accept tiles that run about $10/Sq ft. We saved 50% by being flexible and considering the market our house falls into, plus the fact that in the guest bath, who's really going to get to see those nice expensive tiles?
   
   Another area of cost savings was to reconsider the 'bronze' colored fixtures. They look nice, but are more expensive than the simple and classic chrome. Will the bronze look dated later too? If we were ever to sell I don't think a potential buyer is going to walk away because we used chrome fixtures, so long as they are quality (and functioning of course).
   
   
4. We are doing this out of pocket, for the most part. Originally, when we were going to do both bathrooms at the same time, we were going to look at a home equity loan and take care of everything easily. Now we've decided rather than take on that kind of debt, we're going to do as much out of pocket as possible. We already bought our floor tiles awhile back. We are going to take advantage of a nice 0% interest deal that Home Depot is running this weekend though. We'll be able to pay that off before it's due, so it's a lot more affordable than the HEL, though certainly not as flexible, though we OK with that.

So we'll begin work soon. The parts list is compiled and ordering will commence this weekend. I'll post pictures as we begin.

Solutions to the Illegal Immigration Problem

Here is my solution and I dont understand why it's not being done full scale all ready:
1) Do not allow businesses to hire illegals. Put serious penalties on those businesses who do hire illegals and make the fines based on total revenues so large companies don't just pay the fines as a part of doing business as usual
2) Deport the children with the parents. Sounds harsh, but those children are the responsibility of those parents, not of the US.

Jobs and the opportunities for their children are two major reasons illegals come to the US, from where ever. Right now these are powerful incentives for these illegal immigrants to come to the US. Remove those incentives and there will be a reduction in illegal immigration.

Arguments I expect:
1) Businesses will be hurt without those workers. Maybe on the short run, but in the long run it will be better for all. Will some businesses fail? Sure, but others with better business practices will move in to take their place. Should we stop busting drug dealers because they help their local economies by buying whatever drug dealers buy? No. Illegal activity is illegal activity.

2) Those kids are US citizens! Why are they? Why should they be? They were born here, but their parents aren't legal immigrants. Their parents came here, knowingly, illegally, to have a child here, to take advantage of the systems we have in place. They get caught, they take responsibility for their actions, that includes their children.

Yes that sounds harsh, but these are the hard truths about what needs to be done. Otherwise nothing will change. Both political parties are talking big talk but not doing anything because to do something would take real courage and likely political sacrifice. These career politicians won't risk their sweet jobs to really DO anything. Why do you think Arizona felt like it had to step up and take care of things itself.

While Arizona is definitely stepping into Federal jurisdiction what does anyone expect when the Feds aren't doing enough? If the cops can't/won't take care of the crime, vigilantes or lynch mobs are going to step up. They aren't legal either, but it's a response to the lack of action by the officials. It's the "Do your job or we'll do it for you" mentality. I can't say I blame them one bit.

Political Correctness is Bad for Society

Over the last 20 or so years, perhaps longer, Political Correctness (PC), has become so prevalent that society is hurting because of it.

Just think for a second about what is being Politically Correct about? It is about changing your actions or words so as to be non-offensive. Offensive to whom is dependent on the situation at hand. Perhaps it's about the abortion debate, gay marriage, racism, immigration, even ironically enough, politics! You want to say or do something but you curb your behavior for the sake of being PC. And if you aren't PC then you are labeled a pariah and your social status is reduced, not because people disagree with you but because they don't want to be seen being un-PC.

The problem with being PC is that you are lying to yourself and everyone else. You are not being true to your feelings and what you know. PC has become something to strive for, to achieve, so that you may be seen as the good person who tolerates all. The end is something we should strive for, the means on the other hand are not right.

By biting our tongues we do not allow for social discourse on important topics of our day. There are those who do speak, but do they speak for you? Our political and social commentary seems to have focused on the fringes, while middle and largest portion of us sit quietly in the middle being PC. Those fringes do not represent the best of us. They represent the extremes created by our lack of voice.

Stop being PC and dialog will occur. Yes there will be those who are offended. But rather than being PC and ignoring the issue, perhaps the question of why needs to be asked more. Why is that word, option, or action offensive to you? Why do you feel that it's OK to say those words, options, or do those actions? These questions are not being asked. Without this dialog, feelings are left to fester creating much more harm than if they were just discussed to start with.

Wouldn't society be better off working out issues rather than sweeping them under the rug in the name of being Politically Correct? I give you this challenge. Next time you catch yourself being PC, apologize and do/say what you really feel. If you are in the wrong, work to be a better person by understanding WHY it was wrong. Better to be true to yourself and learn from mistakes than to be PC and harbor ignorance.

The Numbers

The numbers. We finally get some insight into what they mean, or at least what they correspond to:

• 4 - John Locke
• 8 - Hugo (Hurley) Reyes
• 15 - James (Sawyer) Ford
• 16 - Sayid Jarrah
• 23 - Jack Shephard
• 42 - Jin/Sun Kwon (it's unclear if it's both or one of them)

I've seen tweets asking, where's Kate! Well clearly she's not one of the candidates. We've known for some time that there are certain individuals that were picked by Jacob and are some how 'special'. We find out from Smokey, if you can trust him/it, that these listed are candidates to be Jacobs replacement.

There can be only one:

4 - Well we can already take Locke off the list, he's dead.

8 - Hurley is my favorite candidate. He's probably the most 'good' of the bunch. Additionally he's figured out how to take a hold of his destiny. The episode where he drives the old VW van off the side of the hill to get it to start is the point where he 'made it', in my opinion. Plus he sees dead people.

15 - Sawyer is a tricky one. Right now he's with Smokey but Sawyer isn't stupid. It's hard to con a conman, so I don't think he's necessarily in immediate danger, but I don't think he'll be the chosen one. He has leadership skills and is generally a good person, but he's also selfish.

16 - Sayid isn't exactly a 'good' person, so I find it difficult to believe he'd still be eligible for the job. He's not a bad person, just not good.

23 - Jack is the obvious choice. He's been acting as leader from pretty much season 1. We already know from his tattoo episode that he's meant to be a special leader. He's also come a long way in the 5+ seasons of the show. But I think it's because he's obvious that he won't be the new Jacob. I see him more as a new Richard. Jacob was the spiritual leader. Jack isn't that. He's a hands dirty, in the middle of it, leader.

42 - This one isn't too hard either. I just can't see either Sun or Jin or both of them together being the new Jacob. Like Jack they have both come a long way, but they have a child, one that I'm sure they'd both like to get back to. They have a life to live off the Island.

There can only be one...or can there?

What if there doesn't need to be one, but many? What if, through the struggles they've all been together, it's the balance of them all that makes them all need each other to bring out the strengths of each other? Kate may not be one of the candidates but that doesn't mean she can't be with Jack. (I don't see her with Sawyer at this point, but who knows.)

Consider Jack and Sawyer. They are frequently at each other, but they also bring out the best in each other. In many ways they lead in completely opposite ways but are still very effective in their leadership.

What if Hurley is the new Jacob, Jack is the new Richard, and Sawyer is the new Ben (leader of the Others)? Seems reasonable to me.

Reduction of the US Deficit

I'll admit that I didn't listen or watch the State of the Union address last night. I caught bits and pieces on the news; I know that's not enough to really discuss, one way or the other, statements made there.

I feel I should comment on the the idea of a freeze on some government spending. My problem with this is that it's too little and in the wrong places. The cuts will only save a small fraction of our budget, ultimately amounting to little impact on the deficit, yet the programs that are affected are going to be hurt. It's not yet clear what those programs will be so I may end up eating a little crow here. Some of those programs are suggested to include things like transportation funding, state aid and money for social services.

State aid, especially for some of the states that have been hit hard by the recession or natural disasters (Sorry California), is something that will make passing a bill like this difficult. I'm sure it won't matter what party you belong to, if there is a threat to reduce or loose federal funds that were expected, the elected officials of those states are not going to be keen on voting for it or they will strip it out of the bill, further reducing its viability.

Social services will likely stir up a great deal of debate. There are many who feel it's not the responsibility of the government to fund such things. I won't argue this one without a better idea of the programs affected.

Transportation funding is something I'm very worried about. Have we so quickly forgotten about the Twin Cities bridge collapse? What about the reports from various states' departments of transportation that indicated a large percentage of the bridges we use every day in the United States are in need or repair or replacement? We pay our taxes and expect to have safe roads. Perhaps this is for the states to take care of but short of private toll roads and bridges, most states have a hard time finding the money in their budgets to take on these significant projects. It's not cheap to build bridges. Do we let our nations infrastructure further decay until there are more deaths?

What about better rail? We are still using the same lines as we did a hundred years ago. There are very few passenger systems because they are too slow and are not suited to commuting. This map shows the few Amtrak lines out there. I like the train. It's a nice way to travel but if I want to take a trip, with my wife, to California it will take nearly 40 hours and if I want a 'roomette' (a couple of bunk beds), it'll cost us nearly $1200. It's considerably more if you want a full room with bath and shower. This isn't 'luxury' travel. I don't know many people who'd want to be in a coach seat for 40 hours with no shower. We keep putting off transportation as a want but not a need because our roads aren't so bad. (yet!)

There is no doubt that government spending is out of control and that there are many programs that are wasteful and unnecessarily bureaucratic. What makes it difficult to correct those things is the people who can change it for the better frequently profit from it being mismanaged. But that is a different topic all together.

The spending freeze won't touch: Defense, Veterans Affairs, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security.

The only one I'm going to argue is the defense funding. The others I don't know well enough to argue the pros or the cons and would simply diminish the point I'm going for.

A large reason we are so in debt as a country right now is because we are at war. We have thousands of troops over seas that need our support, financially and emotionally. I have nothing against those soldiers. They are doing what they are asked and I respect that.

However, I do not believe we are doing the right thing continuing this war on terror. The War on Terror is like the War on Drugs. We can never, no NEVER, win. We cannot eliminate terrorists. We eliminate one cell and other pops up in another village or country. It's one set of ideals Vs. another set of ideals. You cannot beat ideals with guns, if anything it makes them stronger.

I've been critical of a lot of choices made. What do I suggest?

Why don't we first bring back our troops and put them to work securing our country. Forget having the TSA at the airport. Many countries around the world have soldiers at the airports all the time. These are well trained government agents. Can you say the same about all TSA agents? (No disrespect intended to the good TSA agents out there.) How about boarder patrol? Port control, etc. Secure our own borders with our own soldiers and we have less to worry about from external forces. And lets be honest for a second. Many groups hate the US, less because of our ideals, and more because we stick our nose where it doesn't belong.

Maybe if we are acting as the worlds police force we wouldn't have to spend quite as much on military hardware either. How many helicopters have gone down because of missiles or freaking sand? Those things are not cheap!

Second thing I would do is rebuild our internal infrastructure. You want to put people to work? Why not public works programs that build new bridges? How about better rail? How about working on a stronger power grid? These are all things that need to be done and would require workers of all education and skill level.

Yes, it would cost money to reinvest in our country, but wouldn't it be worth it? This is supposed to be the greatest country in the world but we are falling further and further behind other countries. The money we save on defense alone would help reduce the costs.

Both Democrats and Republicans are saying we need to spend less, yet no one seems to want to say the brutal truth. We are wasting money on things we don't need to be spending them on. War. Bank Bailouts. Auto Bailouts. Even the things that seem worth while are wasteful, either because of corruption or simply because of short sightedness.

This country is like a mansion that was built in the 1920s. It cared for and because of it's excellent designers and builders, is built strong. But even a well built mansion needs to be maintained all the time. The electrical systems would have to be replaced; the plumbing; the heating and air; the paint; the roof. You get my point. We have been spending too much time our of our mansion, bragging about how great it is to be rich and live in a mansion, that we have neglected both our bank account and the mansion. We need to get back home, roll up our sleeves and do some chores.

Mobile Early Termination Fees

So mobile phone contracts pretty much all come with an Early Termination Fee (ETF) that basically allows the company to recover the cost of the phone that you probably purchased at a substantial discount.

When you sign a 2 year contract and get a $30 phone, the phone isn't really $30. You are, in part, paying for that phone with your monthly contract.

Recently these ETFs have increased for certain carriers. My question isn't why; the new smart phones out today are not cheap. I just don't understand why each contract isn't configured to account for the specific phone and it's retail value. Why not prorate the value of the phone based on the start date of the contract?

If I went to AT&T and got a new iPhone with an unlimited plan I'd pay nearly $3000 over two years. $200 of that is for the phone still. The actual phone is probably $500-600, though you can't easily buy it without a contract, certainly not from AT&T. If AT&T is even pay $500, do you think they'd let you cancel your contract after a couple of months and not expect some compensation? Of course not.

I think mobile contracts should be set aside from the cost of the phone. You pay X number of dollars per month for the service alone. You buy the phone separate from the contract. No lock-in, no ETFs. Those who want their phone subsidized should pay a separate fee, that is based on the price of the phone; leasing the phone instead of buying.

The problem is that the mobile companies don't want you to be able to come and go as you please like that. Each of them want to lock you into their service. So rather than providing a service that is built on quality, that would keep customers because they are happy, they have built a way to keep customers regardless of how they feel.

ETFs are not about the phones. I know I just painted the picture above that suggests that and I'm sure their PR reps will tell you the same thing, but the reality is that it's about keeping customers. If they can't keep them they are going to penalize them as much as they can get away with.

Sexy Dictionaries

So a school in southern California has banned a dictionary for defining oral sex. It's making some news through the Internet, but I have to wonder why.

The school in question is a grammar school, typically meaning 1st through 5th grade. My memory is a bit fuzzy from my time as a grammar school student but I'm pretty sure that the dictionaries for use young children were highly abridged. The dictionary that is in question is a Merriam-Webster’s 10th edition. Was it for kids, for high school students, for college students? No word on that.

The point I'm trying to make is that it's not unreasonable to say, "A college level dictionary is inappropriate for grammar school students."

That said, I know I and many of my male friends looked for dirty words in the dictionary. It's what boys do. (Sorry ladies I can't speak for you on this one.) The definition given is pretty vague to be fair: "oral stimulation of the genital."

With the Internet widely available to kids, with or without supervision, this is not the worst thing in the world. Better that they are educated than misinformed, yes?

EDIT: This article on Salon.com puts it better than I could.