coddled kids

We attended the elementary school open house for our daughter yesterday evening. As usual the "booster club" was there to try and get us excited about the concept of our children becoming door-to-door salesmen. But what struck as most odd were the suggestions that the teachers made to make things "easier" for our children, and the incentives being offered for doing their work.

I just don't understand it. Why do we now feel the need to offer contests and incentives to get our children to do their work? Although I sometimes was rewarded with a fancy dinner for a good report card, I never felt like I was doing my homework so that I could win some sort of plastic toy, or be involved in an end-of-the-year performer's pizza party. I did it because I understood that good grades would make my parents proud of me, and that it would help me later in life, should I decide to pursue higher education. I guess parents aren't communicating this message effectively anymore.

Our kids just seem so coddled these days. I know that part of it stems from technological advancements, but most of it feels downright ridiculous. It must be some sort of inherent American belief - that our children must have things easier than we did. But what if those very challenges that we faced as children helped to shape us as adults? What if our kids are too coddled? I can understand not wanting our children to suffer through situations that are beyond their control - problems related to physical health, for example. I, for one, will be happy to pick up the latest acne products for my child when they are dealing with the pain and embarrassment of acne in their teenage years. But I still plan on holding back when it comes to getting them their own cellphones. They can get a job when they want to start driving, so that they can pay for their own gas and car insurance. I don't plan on offering rewards for when they finish their homework, either. As school children, that's just part of their job. Call me old-fashioned...

am i crazy, or just dreaming?

I've decided that I am going to design and build my own home. Everyone thinks that I must be crazy...but all of the books that I am reading say that IT CAN BE DONE! Perhaps it is just marketing spin, to get us to buy more books on home construction and spend lots of money on do-it-yourself tools and materials at the local hardware stores. It does have a good solid history to back it up, though.

People have been building their own homes for thousands of years. As far as I can tell, it was only within the last couple hundred years or so that we started to outsource all our homebuilding work to specialized "contractors". Don't get me wrong - I understand the advantage of hiring contractors. For one thing, you don't have to get your hands dirty. On top of that, a contractor who specializes in one certain trade will obviously have more experience than the first-time home builder. He's likely to have the right tools, and get the work done quicker. But can you depend on that contractor doing quality work? Work that is as high quality as if he were buildig it for his own family? This is hard to find.

If you're within city limits, there's a good chance that you don't even have a choice but to hire a contractor who is licensed and insured. In that case, the only buildings you're going to be constructing are doghouses, birdhouses, and perhaps dollhouses (if you have a daughter and lots of patience). And if you live within a historic district, there's even a chance that you'll have to run your doghouse designs past a design committee.

So we made sure to pick up a piece of land that is big on potential, but little on code, licensing, approvals and inspections. Yep, you guessed it. We're planning on building our own place out in the country. My confidence seems to fluctuate based on my location. When I am at home reading books on green building and alternative building methods, I am ready to take on the world. When I trudging across our rough piece of land, searching for the perfect building spot while picking up a collection of tick and chigger bites, I have my doubts. On the bright side, the world is full of bizarre homes built by crazy people, so at the least I'm in good company.

the politicals are dancing...on our graves

Why is it that nobody in politics can take a single step forward unless it is self-serving in some way? From local municipal government to the white house, everyone is in it for themselves. I suppose that we could blame it on unchecked capitalism, but that may be just a cop-out. It's our won fault, really - for allowing it to get this bad. Perhaps the concept of "baby-steps" has bitten us. By allowing things to gradually get worse little-by-little, nobody raised concern.

I once heard that you can't cook a frog by dropping him directly into boiling water, because he will hop out as soon as he feels the heat. However, if you place him in cool water, and gradually increase the heat to boiling, he will stay in and get cooked.

That's us now - the United Frogs of America.
We're cooked.

my latest conspiracy theory

A few weeks back, we had a pretty extreme lightning storm which resulted in one fo my hard drives going bad. Fortunately, the drive was still under warranty and I had enough time to back everything up before it quit working altogether. From what my neighbors have been saying, lightning storms (and fried electronics) are a common occurrence in this area, so we are going to try and make a regular habit of unplugging our computers when they are not in use.

Unfortunately, protecting our PCs from random acts of God doesn't seem to be enough to keep them running efficiently. My wife's laptop is already acting very sluggish, and it is less than a year old. It has become our primary internet PC, which I suspect is the reason for it being so slow. I have already tried a memory upgrade, and I have installed the latest software and driver updates available. I removed unnecessary start-up programs and tweaked the performance and page file settings. I've got a good firewall, virus protection and anti-spyware software running, too. But nothing seems to help. So I have a new theory...

I am starting to believe that computer manufacturers use the internet to slowly make our computers obsolete. It sounds silly, but there is a reason why I think this is possible. I have another laptop that is about six years old now. Strangely enough, it functions flawlessly. All of the programs work, and it doesn't ever crash on me. It is as fast as the day that I bought it, too. What's my secret? It has never been connected to the internet. It isn't exposed to viruses and malware, and it doesn't get any of the "recommended" software updates that we see from Microsoft and the hardware manufacturers. So if these updates are so important, and they fix major problems with the OS, how can a laptop continue to run so well without them?

The major difference between my two laptops is that one is connected to the internet and the other is not. When I worked for a large telecom firm, I also noticed that the computers that didn't have access to the internet (or those that were restricted to intranet only) also ran better and lasted longer. Could it be that some of these software updates that claim to better protect our PCs from internet bad guys are actually bloated updates to make our computes run slower, to convince us that our systems are now obsolete, and therefore in need of replacement?

xmas with the relatives...in our neck of the woods!

Traveling home for Christmas has always been bittersweet. On the one hand, you get to see relatives and exchange gifts and stories. We see people that we only see once a year, and everyone is (for the most part) in a good mood. But on the other hand, it is stressful and expensive to travel during the holidays, requires that we take time off of work (that we often would prefer to take for an *actual* vacation), and the kids only come home with more useless toys to take up space back home.

We had already made up our minds not to visit for Christmas this year. We visited during the summer instead, and hoped that would be adequate. As the end of the summer nears, our relatives have been dropping the usual guilt bombs about us not coming home for the holidays. I think we're doing pretty good at deflecting their probing, though, since we can honestly say that we just can't afford it at this time.

Fortunately, my parents have taken their lemons and made lemonade. My father called me yesterday to inform me that he had traded one of his timeshares for a week in a condo near us. They'll be here during the week between Christmas and New Year's. So while they won't be here on Christmas Day, we'll get to see them during the holidays after all. Although I was a bit against the idea at first, I have begun to appreciate the fact that my father bought his timeshare in Vegas. With my parents' overall fascination with gambling, taking several Vegas vacations each year didn't seem like such a good idea. But I can't argue with the trades that he has gotten out of it. Last summer, he traded some of it for our trip to Disney World, and now he has swapped another week so that we can spend the holidays together.

So this holiday season should be much less stressful than the usual, thanks to the fact that my parents were willing to come to us. Now if I could just get my mother-in-law to do the same...

ride it out or take the loss

Our house is for sale right now. We have a dream of building our own home, and we even own our own piece of land to do so. But we need to wait to sell this one first before we can sink any cash into new construction.

We're anxious to sell, and obviously anxious to build. So far, we've had many showings on our home but only one low-ball offer. We're thinking of lowering the price again, but that will only invite further low-ball offers, right? The house is more than we need, and most of our payment goes towards interest. Therefore it feels like we are wasting cash on it each month. But is it better to waste the cash and wait for the right offer, or is it better to lower the price now to try and attract a quick offer? It's a difficult decision to make.

The housing market is definitely in a slump, although it hasn't hit our area as hard as in other areas of the country. Admittedly, our impatience and frustration with house showings has a string influence on our decision-making, but like most situations, I suspect that it makes sense to be patient.

recessions, depressions, and investing

Analysts are predicting a depression. Democratic hopefuls are predicting change, and everyone else is just trying to survive. One of the questions that rarely surfaces when we find ourselves on the alleged cusp of collapse is how our current investment strategies may be affected.

For example, the typical American worker feeds a 401k with x amount of dollars per year, and hopes to supplement it with his/her pension and social security benefits. The assume that they will have to work 65 years (more like 75) before they can retire. Hopefully, by that time, they will have paid off their mortgage and credit card debt, and can spend what is left of their lives trying to rest and relax. But what happens when the market collapses? What happens when their 401k disappears, and the government finally admits to running out of social security?

Everyone is reliant on their current "sound investments" because they have worked well in the past for the majority of the population. But what kind of changes do we need to make when faced with a potential depression? Who has the experience to guide Americans through these decisions? What kind of planning existed for those who were hit so hard by the depression of the late 20s and 30s? Can we rely on the advice of our futures broker and investment advisers to steer us clear of an impending wave of bankruptcy and foreclosures?

Some would say this is unfounded paranoia. Some would say not to worry about it, or to trust that our government would prevent a depression from happening again. Others say to take all that paper money and buy gold. Personally, I've sunk much of my future into land. It may not be a very accessible source of funds in an emergency, but at least I know that I have somewhere to live (rent and mortgage free) in a bind.

the elusive all-in-one digital camera

I've owned several digital cameras over the years. I've been fairly satisfied with most of them, each for varying reasons, but I haven't been fully happy with any single one of them yet. My first digital was an HP - horrible quality pix, but it was a very early model, so the resolution was lacking. My second was also an HP. The resolution was greater, and I had some terrific customer service experiences with HP. It really made feel like a loyal customer. I was going to keep buying HP, until I saw the affordable features of my current camera, and Olympus SP-320. It's got tons of features, and the price was right, but I've had many problems with it, and have already had it replaced once. The software is also a nightmare, and you are best off just plugging it in as a USB mass storage device.

Lately, I've been looking at digitals once again, not because my Olympus has quit functioning again, but because there are certain types of shots that it just doesn't capture to my satisfaction. While the close-ups that it captures are awesome, and the skin-tone is usually phenomenal, landscape photos leave much to be desired. I've tried many of the different settings and presets and none seem to fix it. Also, tripod photos at night look gorgeous when I leave the flash off and the shutter open.

There seem to be lots of options these days, and prices are continually spiraling downwards for the amount of technology that you get. But is there any digital camera that truly functions as an all-in-one solution for any photo situation that I may run across?

I've looked at digital SLRs and those may be the answer, but some of the non-SLR cameras have been getting great reviews and are much cheaper. I don't think I would touch another Olympus, but HP still sounds good. The Canon Powershot series has good reviews and seems to offer a lot of bang for the buck. Plus, they have the name of Canon to back themselves up. I just don't know whether I trust camera companies who have moved into digital, or digital companies (like HP or Sony) who have moved into cameras. I once had a little Olympus 35mm that I used for years and years and it always gave me great photos. In fact, that is the only reason why tried the Olympus digital in the first place. But their digital cameras fall short of the reputation they had earned with their 35mm models.

Perhaps the answer lies in the habits of 35mm photographers. Instead of carrying around different lenses to capture the right shot, perhaps the answer lies in carrying around multiple digital cameras. I'll keep my Olympus for close-up portraits and candids, as well as night-time shots. I'll need another to capture landscapes. The only problem is that this idea defeats one of the main purposes of digital cameras - to have something "at the ready" whenever you need it. No film to load. No lenses to swap. Just point and shoot. But how d you point and shoot when you're juggling two or three different cameras?