Weekend update early and my list of 10 reasons you are deleted.

Weekend update comes early today. Good times. Generally, hung with Cdizz. We did 3rd Corner last night. Why must such a fabulous place be in OB? Anyway, I always enjoy having our girls nights out.

Today I got up early and cleaned out my eharmony account. I compiled a list of 10 reasons why I will automatically reject a potential suitor.

1) If you are wearing any sort of Ed Hardy apparel. I do not want to date a potential tool academy contestant.

2) If you lack a shirt in any of your photos. Really? I mean, I love some Vin Diesel, but doesn't every girl? I'm looking for a quality guy to date and frankly whether he has rock hard abs is pretty irrelevant to his quality of person or ability to compliment me.

3) If you are posing next to a luxury car. Here is where I separate the men from the boys. I do not care if you drive a BMW or some other overly expensive car. In fact, that makes me not want to date you. However, I do tend to keep the men with pictures next to F-150s, 350s and the like. Additionally, I will even initiate contact if there appears to be mud on the vehicle and/or some sort of motor bike in the bed. Note, I also do not delete pictures with what appear to be muscle cars which are older and it seems the potential suitor is working on. That also is acceptable and shows you have some mad mechanical skills. Manual labor on the weekends is always a plus.

4) If your profile is misspelled or has other typos including lacking proper grammar. This is your first introduction to a woman you might want to date and you can't even capitalize "I" and insist on ending thoughts with "..." Deleted.

5) If your number one requirement is "Chemistry" I'm out. I completely agree chemistry is necessary. However, it just seems to me this really means "I'm looking for some easy ass." Which, easy is not a quality I'm offering. So, I just don't think we will work out.

6) Using profanity in your profile. Your ability to use the f-bomb is the first thing you want me to learn about you?

7) Your name. If your name is anything with a "-" such as "J-Dizzle" (true story). Or any sort of bizarre nickname, delete. I don't want to call you what your roommates in PB call you on a drunken Saturday night at PB Bar and Grill.

8) If you are wearing a Lance Armstrong piece of trash in any of your photos. Firstly, 1999 called and it wants its hideous yellow bracelet back. Secondly, I am also against cancer, but I don't feel the need to wear a piece of trash around my arm to show this. Finally, you are not Lance so give it up. I don't care if you bike 4000 miles a week. You aren't him.

9) If "Working Out" is mentioned more than two times in your profile. I get it. You are in shape and want a girl you date to be in shape. Don't you think there is more to your personality than the fact that you "like to workout"? Your eharmony profile is only so long, and you have NOTHING else to fill it with?

10) If "Happiness" or a "loving free spirit" (true description) is how you describe your ideal match. Well clearly I am not a "Free Spirit" so that is obvious why I would delete you. Mostly the single word description of "happiness" is what you look for in a match bothers me. Isn't that what we are all looking for? How about you pick some other characteristics about the individual which might suggest their quality of person.

Needless to say I have about 3 men left on my list of potential matches. One of them sorta doesn't count either because he is a friend of a friend and I could meet him away from this horrid website.

Happy Sunday!

Non Tardos, Inc. Nominations

Fridays will be my nominating days for Non Tardos, Inc. honorary board memberships. The general rules and requirements for this prestigious honor are as follows:

1) Satan and I as co-founders and co-Presidents of Non Tardos, Inc. are the only individuals with nomination power. However, we will take suggestions into consideration given they meet the below criteria.

2) Those nominated may be individuals and entities.

3) These nominated individuals or entities must follow what I call the "Superman" criteria. Simply, they must act in ways that promote "Truth, Justice, and the American Way".

My nominations for Non Tardos, Inc. honorary board memberships are: Google and Conan O'Brien.

Google: Rumors are they will exit China as soon at April 10th. This is a corporation who is acting socially responsible in a world where very few corporations could do so when faced with potentially astronomical profits. I truly believe freedom and justice will only succeed when private enterprises act with integrity and loyalty to the American way. Kudos to Google.

Conan O'Brien: I am not a late night tv watcher. In fact, I have never seen Conan's show. However, I nominate him because he has made his own way in America and seeks to spread his hard earned wealth to those who have contributed to his success; Mainly, his staff. This week it was discovered that all profits from his upcoming tour will be going to his staff and not him. Prior to this, he negotiated a hefty settlement specifically for his staff. He is a loyal boss and recognizes that his staff will feel the burden of the late show battle and the across country move much more deeply than him given their economic disparity. He shows that the American way includes rewarding those who helped you get to the top.

Satan would like to nominate Alan Mulally, current CEO and President of Ford Motor Company, for being the only person to run a successful automotive company in this market. I direct you to his blog, kostkaFeX, where he will do justice in explaining why he is worthy of a Non Tardos, Inc. membership.

people with bad credit...a protected class?

Good morning all!

Two mornings ago, I was happily enjoying my daily cup of coffee and WSJ when I was rudely interrupted by a story in the "Personal Journal" section (the most skimmable section in my opinion) about individuals not able to obtain certain jobs because their poor credit rules them out. I thought not too much of it other than sour grapes until I ventured further into the article. Congress is actually considering making a law that would restrict employers from using credit checks to make hiring decisions.

This involvement by Congress bothers me on so many levels. Firstly, free markets people. Employers should be able to use whatever methods they deem appropriate to determine if an individual should be hired. Imagine if an investment firm could not consider employees' credit before they let them advise clients on money management. Secondly, poor credit is a result of individual circumstances and choices. Congress' involvement will only punish those who strive to act financially responsible and protect many who have failed to build credit by going through life behaving irresponsibly. Credit is determined by behavior of an individual and is not a benign physical trait such as hair color or skin color. Thus, Congress should not act to essentially make them a protected class (so accurately described by my Protege!). I swear, we are headed to (as Satan so kindly help me coin): Hell in a handbasket on a rocketship with napalm.

In other news: Happy Saint Patrick's Day!

I'm currently in the process of charting my rejections on eharmony. I think it would make a fabulous demonstration to represent my fail rate in a graph (x = time, y = number of rejections). Now, when I log into eharmony I pray for more rejections so that my graph can be that much more dramatic. Not really helping my dating situation, but eh- I paid, and I think any entertainment I can get out of it helps me get my money's worth.

Going to Hooleys tonight for the Irish day celebration. BabyInTheCorner and my Protege and their respective significant others will hopefully join us. I love that my coworkers are cool chickas but they really deserve their own blog at some point.

Weekend update

Much like my fav blogger Satan, I will be updating you on my weekend fabulousness, follies, and general events.

1) Prepared my taxes. The guy I went to actually made taxes not an entirely horrible experience; entertaining really. There is an entire blog on this event, but eh- I'm tired.

2) Went to Sonoma county and wine tasted a bit with the parents. It's cool when you realize you are no longer a child but a friend and equal. It's also a bit sad, to realize you are a grown up and those days of childhood are only memories now.

3) Airport. Horrid. This also deserves an entire blog. For now I will just say, last time I checked, Al-Qaeda does not tend to have sweater sets from Izod that need to be removed and put through the xray machine. I literally had to take my entire super cute outfit apart.

4) Glad to be back in glorious San Diego.

5) Checked my eharmony immediately upon arrival. I have no idea why. I don't actually think this experiment will be successful, nor am I interested in any of my "matches", but something about it is ADDICTING. Let's just say, rejections are continuing to pile high. I'm talking exponential here. Oh well, I don't lack in self esteem and maybe this little experiment will put me in my place.

For now I'm out. I will return tomorrow with much more energy and quality blogging.

Integrity....and the little guy.

I am a capitalist. I believe the free market is the best and most efficient means of distributing services and products. I believe that the market is best at regulating itself. That being said, I am also a realist. I accept that very limited state involvement is important to keep markets open and fair. I think limited state involvement in a free society based on republican principles is ultimately the best government to perform this limited regulation. Without going into a long and boring offramp, let me just say, for the record, I am against government bailouts. That includes bailouts for: banks, car manufacturers, insurance companies, and individuals. I think the only way to clean out the crap in a cyclical economy is to let the pain run its course.

This is the latest scenario I've seen in the "housing crisis":

Borrowers go to a bank to borrow money to purchase a home. Bank lends them money in good faith. In exchange these individuals enter into a written contract agreeing to pay the money back with interest to the bank over a period of time. The borrowers then begin living in the home, paying the mortgage as they promised to do. They begin enjoying what many feel is the American dream; owning a home. The housing bubble bursts and the market crashes. Fortunately, these borrowers have not lost their job or suffered any financial hardship that would make them unable to continue paying the mortgage. The borrowers then decide they want to stop paying the mortgage because the value of the home has decreased significantly. They are "underwater" and the value of the home is less than the debt they owe to the bank on the home. They eventually enter into a short sale of the home. In a short sale the proceeds of the sale falls below the debt owed on the home. That is, the bank will not recoup the amount of the original bargain.

Now here are the justifications I've heard from such hypothetical borrowers who chose to enter into a shortsale:

1) One claim I saw online was that because some of these banks owe such large amounts to the government, the borrowers who owe to the bank are just a drop in the pale and should not feel obligated to the bank. They listed numbers. It was something like an individual homeowner on average owes 100,000 times less to the bank than the bank owes the feds. (A number I did not investigate, but let's take it at face value because its actual value is irrelevant.)

A simple refute goes something like this: do not use other bad behavior to justify your own. Their general premise is that because the bank made bad investment choices and ran to the federal government for a bailout they, as the borrowers, are entitled to act equally poorly and stiff the bank. What a third party does is irrelevant to your own integrity. These borrowers try to further their justification by using some asinine ratio about the amount they promised to pay versus the amount the bank promised to pay a third party. I ask, what is the value of your integrity?

2) This claim is related the previous one. Borrowers will argue that they are just screwing over a "big corporation" who can afford it. So it really does not matter. Let's use Bank of America as a simple example. This evil corporation is listed on the New York Stock Exchange, and thus, is publicly traded. By definition, a publicly traded company is owned by its shareholders. Who tends to be shareholders? Well, often public pension funds are invested in publicly traded companies. Who gets public pensions? Teachers, DMV workers, social workers, and other government workers. Also, private pensions are invested in publicly traded companies. That includes: auto workers, truck drivers, doctors, accountants, etc. What about mutual funds? Yes, they are also invested in publicly traded companies. As you might have guessed where I'm going with this, mutual fund holders include the average middle class and upper middle class earners. Simply put, when borrowers "screw over" the "evil corporation" they are essentially harming the value of their own neighbors' investment portfolios and retirement plans.

3) The third argument I've heard is these borrowers are doing what any rational actor in a capitalist system would do and bail on a poor investment. Well a "rational capitalist system" requires dependence on contractual agreements. When contracts no longer operate as the framework to set expectations of lenders and borrowers, the system breaks down. Would you lend money to someone under a contract if you knew that the contract could just be ignored when the borrower felt it convenient to him? When you bail on your contractual agreement, you are essentially breaking down the very system that enabled you to purchase a home. My new favorite is the complaint that only borrowers with extremely high credit scores can get credit. Consequences much?

4) Others claim that the bank misled them into entering into the loan initially. This is my personal favorite. Personal responsibility people. When you choose to sign your name on the dotted line, you better be sure. If you are not, get an attorney or other specialist to go over the documents with you.

5) I'm entitled to a "bailout" and want my share of "government money." There is no such thing as "government money". Government money is essentially, your money. Whether you pay it directly to the government or not, you will pay in the end. How does that work? Well the usual claim is the "rich" will pay, not the innocent plebes. Isn't your employer rich? If your rich employer has less money to spend because he is paying for your mortgage, there will be no upcoming raise, or additional hiring. He may cut back on the perks you once enjoyed at your job. Potentially, he will go so far as laying individuals off. Additionally, when you squeeze the rich, they give up yachts and a new Porsche. You give up a raise that would have paid for your family trip to Sea World. Who really hurts in the end?

Integrity is my central issue with these borrowers. For me, integrity is simply doing the right thing when no one is looking; Doing the right thing even if it is not popular or easy. How can you make an agreement, in writing, and then decide that after the other side has performed their agreed part you just "don't want to" anymore? The bank has given you a loan; Possibly in the amount of hundreds of thousands of dollars. You were able to enjoy the benefit of the bargain and purchased a home you would never have had if the bank had not extended you credit.

Just seems like a flawed plan on how to go through life to me.

Online Dating is a FAIL.

Goodmorning all!

So as many of you probably already know, I've recently reattempted online dating. Previously I was on match.com. That was a total shitshow. I'm now trying eharmony. It appears this one will turn out the same. Now let me preface my rant with why, likely, these mediums of dating will inevitably fail for me:

1) I hate dealing with "dating" in general. I am the most awkward person when it comes to dealing with the opposite sex. Don't get me wrong- at work and other areas of my life, the opposite sex is just fine. If anything I beat them into submission. But when it comes to potentially romantic interactions I shut down and want nothing to do with it.

2) I hate how fake the people on these websites are. I mean, you sort of have to be. You fill out this form to tell the world how fabulous you are. One of the questions is seriously "what are you looking for in a significant other." I'm like- how much time do you have? I guess I should not post a list of my top 100 things?

3) Most people (this includes women) are crap. One does not realize this until they are all on your computer screen raping your eyes with their "wit" and "sexy" photos. The "sexy" photos really deserve a whole other blog.

4) My biggest problem is I'm a routine Nazi. I view these potential dates as "cramping my style." I get two weekend nights. I don't want to waste them with some idiot I met online who will not be nearly as fun as a) Cdizz, b) catching up on my DVR, or c) washing my hair.

So the eharmony experience has gone something like this:

1) Start profile in a moment of weakness. I was attempting to "take charge" of my life for 2010 and find my "soulmate" (which is a concept I do not even believe in, but I did for that moment).

2) The website initially told me I had no matches. Duh, I have no matches, that is why I'm on this stupid thing. So what did a girl do? The most unreasonable thing possible. I changed my dating filters and lowered my standards just so someone would show up in my "matches". Upon lowering my standards dramatically, I received a barrage of "matches". Coincidence? Perhaps this is a learning moment.

3) So now, I'm two and half days in, and have been REJECTED by more men than I have ever collectively approached in my entire life. These men are rejecting me left and right. Most of them are rejecting me before I even see them as a "match". Does that mean I am a "match" and immediately upon notification they log in only to reject me? Of course I have overly freaked out and gone through my profile about 45 times to see what they don't like about me. My pictures are cute, my answers are as honest as I can be for that site. Is it because I read? If I'm being honest, I have a conservative disclaimer. So that might be it...but still.

4) Well, the one positive thing I do like about eharmony is that it does make rejection fun and easy. As soon as I got my first "closed match" notice...I immediately began closing all the matches of individuals who did not seem to be my soulmate (note that is about all of them).

I'll will obviously keep you posted on the exciting (or lack thereof) dating potentials.

In other news, a friend is going through a rough time right now- and it really makes this whole post a bit irrelevant. Some people have serious problems. I realize this. I just hope you can all find some humor in my attempt at normalcy.

The interaction that inspired me.

Now that I've appropriately introduced myself let me get started with the story that made me feel the need to work my aggressions out on the world wide web and potentially rape your eyes with my whining.

It all started last week with a political posting on Stalkerbook. We can call this alleged poster DoubleL. DoubleL had a post up complaining about a Senator Jim Bunning blocking the extension of unemployment benefits. DoubleL then added, ever so thoughtfully, that she thought this guy was a "prick". Let me first offramp to explain my initial problem that prompted me to comment. We need to raise the level of discourse in this country. If you know me at all, you know I absolutely hate certain politicos and policies. Also, from time to time I will put a lovely status up describing how I feel. I do this with the intention that individuals will comment. They may comment whether they agree or not. I also hope they feel free to comment without worrying about unnecessary or irrational wrath. So let's get back to the interaction. I commented on this status saying "we have no money." Which is true. We have ZERO dollars. Whispers in Washington halls are even throwing out default. America is in SERIOUS economic crisis (all for another post). I personally believe if we don't stop spending now we are going to face an economic crisis of astronomical proportions.

We all know how Stalkerbook goes. One person says something, someone responds. To be honest, I don't remember the exact wording or the play-by-play. It went something to this effect:

Me: we have no money

DoubleL: so people should starve and die

***offramp: Always my favorite when people try to pull the "road to perdition" argument and argue against something you did not say.

Me: Not at all what I'm advocating. My point was that America is broke and we are going to have to make some tough choices in the next year. I think there is more to it than him just being an asshole.

DoubleL: I think you should go to the food shelter I work at and tell that to their faces.

***offramp: Your anecdotal evidence does not make for a factual argument. Nor did I miss the usual attempt of a liberal to point out how he/she does so much for the community while you, the evil Republican, are shit and don't do anything.

At this point I don't really remember what I said. I know it was something about paygo. Plus, I'll admit, I knew the liberal was in a tizzy at this point and couldn't help myself from continuing to poke.

Me: [something about paygo and facts.]

DoubleL: you have lost this argument

***offramp: um WTF. Is this how arguments go for liberals? ATTENTION: Saying something out loud or typing it on Stalkerbook does not make it true.

Me: I'm confused. Could you point out where I was factually incorrect.

Okay- now here is where I get really foggy because I literally cannot remember the entire monologue of a response. To sum it up, I iPhoned into Stalkerbook's notifications, only to discover this rant took up my entire phone screen.

Summary of DoubleL: You have never had it rough. You have never had to put groceries on a credit card, rent a studio, drive a used car, insert other things I haven't done. Your talk of making "tough choices" is hollow because you have never had to make a tough choice in your life. Until you have had to do any of that, your opinion is useless.

***offramp: this is a very short and edited version of what was said to me. It was basically an entire two paragraph diatribe on why I am a spoiled American, who shouldn't have an opinion.

Me: So essentially, because I have been very fortunate, I cannot comment on issues such as the federal deficits or social policy? We need to raise the level of discourse in this country. My point was simply, that personal attacks are unnecessary and serve no purpose.

DoubleL: "DELETE" - yup, she deleted me as a friend. Otherwise I would have just simply posted the whole thing on my blog! So let me unpack this situation and explain my general problems and/or conclusions from this.

1) I still maintain, if you put something up on Stalkerbook that is political in nature, please expect others to comment even if they disagree.

2) DoubleL purposely insulted me in her last post as an attempt to point out that my opinion is moot. Her general argument was that I would have to experience being poor to have an opinion on the subject. Let me analogize: Do we need to be soldiers to have an opinion on foreign policy or national security? Do we need to have children to have an opinion on correct ways to punish them? Do we need to be property owners to vote on initiatives that affect property rights in CA? Or the nuclear option for liberals: do I need to be gay to have an opinion on gay marriage? The answer is most obviously NO to all these. While I will admit, openly, that I am VERY lucky. I indeed do not know what it is like to be poor. I hope I never do. But it is a really scary world when one person's opinions are more valid than another because of social status. Think of this scenario in reverse; Only the opinions of the rich matter.

3) Throughout the interaction she did the general liberal scenario. I give to my community (in DoubleL's situation by volunteering at a food shelter) and now I'm going to insinuate you don't. On top of it, I will also insinuate that you hope people starve and die in the street. Can we please stop with the attempted guilt trips? Volunteering in your community is fabulous. It is also an individual choice. DoubleL has no idea what kind of things I choose to spend my time doing. Additionally, the attempt to depict me as a modern day Hitler because I pointed out that we are broke. Let me announce to you liberals...this is reality. Yes, I wish I could come to "should" island with DoubleL where we have unlimited funds, and great parties with lots of drugs. Unfortunately, I live in "is" land. Here, America has no money to spend on anyone. Suggesting that a Senator blocked extending benefits because of other reasons then him just being a "prick" does not mean I wish people to suffer and die.

4) Taking it personal. This was probably not the most shocking of the whole thing. As a general rule, I try to keep things about the facts at hand. DoubleL's personal situation is not a topic we are discussing. So I continue to wonder why she thought it was okay to personally attack me on a public website where we have mutual friends. It is just mean. There I said it- it is mean. No, I am not shocked (she has a history of this) and nor did I actually care what her opinion of me was. It was just disappointing because these personal attacks are generally what I've come to expect from liberals when they are losing their argument or at a loss for facts to support their position.

5) Finally, the most upsetting thing about the whole interaction is that DoubleL is really dating a friend. She isn't even my friend. She knowingly took things to a personal level with no consideration of my friend and her situation as an awkward third party. It would be like me personally insulting my boyfriend's friend and then deleting him without any regard to the situation that I put my boyfriend in. I have gone out with this couple and invited them to my home to entertain them. Unfortunately, DoubleL will no longer be welcome, and I will have to put my friend in the middle. Additionally, I will not be attending anything at my friend's home because DoubleL lives there and has made her opinion of me quiet clear.

One positive thing, at least I know what she really thinks of me now. There was no "hide the ball" with this interaction. It makes things easier for any potential future dealings.

Regrettably, this is a very common situation I've had when dealing with liberalism. I do honestly enjoy political discussions and disagreements. I think we can all learn something from one another. Unfortunately, it has been my experience that interactions with liberals mainly turn to personal attacks. Plus, when they get their claws out- they are totally in for the kill. Let me please say there are a few liberals whom I have generally enjoyed discussions with and you are not included in this overall complaint (if I'm still debating with you on Stalkerbook or AIM you are excluded!).