cord jefferson - with 5.6 million people and counting, the 'move your money' campaign worked
i think this is so awesome, and partly because i also changed banks. i was with wells fargo and now i'm with onewest bank, which isn't the smallest bank, but it's still a lot more personable than wells fargo. it doesn't even have those bulletproof windows separating you from the tellers. and they always have coffee and cookies. :)
i switched from wells fargo for a few reasons, but mostly because they were going to start charging me a fee because i don't have direct deposit or a mortgage payment. i get that banks are business so they do need to make money. but it seems like they are making the most off of the people who can't afford it. tons of people (especially in this economy) can't afford to buy a house. and even if you do have a job, lots of places, including most small businesses, don't offer direct deposit. i also understand that they can / should reward their best customers (people paying loans (cause of the interest), those with lots and money invested...) with higher interest rates and waived fees, but the inverse is that you have the people with less money paying for the services provided for free to those probably have more money. which, duh, seems really unnfair.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Saturday, February 25, 2012
book swapping
i love books. i joined librarything a few years ago cause i thought it was a great place to catalogue my books. and if i were ever out and couldn't remember if i had already owned something, i could look it up. (btw, i joined back in feb 2006 and i don't even know if smart phones were around at the time but that was pretty forward thinking!)
unfortunately, the one feature librarything didn't have was a built-in book swapping system. so last year i joined goodreads, which isn't a site dedicated to book swapping, but it did have it and as an added bonus, a number of my friends were already members.
i took advantage of the book swap thing and i really happy with it until they canceled the thing! so annoying because the only reason i signed up for goodreads was for the bookswap. :(
anyway, i still wanted to swap books cause 1. it's a fun idea 2. it's good for the environment 3. it's cheaper than most other ways of getting books 4. it's good for the post office 5. i love getting stuff in the mail. (who am i kidding, it's all about #5!)
so i did some research and it's kind of weird but most of the sites charge the shipper to send books. in other words, it's free to receive them. ... tho most sites have a point system so you can't take advantage and get way more free books without sending any. but anyway, i finally signed up for booksfreeswap which has the receiver pay for shipping in advance. the shipper just has package the books, print out the shipping label, and put the package in their mailbox. so easy!
anyway, the real reason i'm telling you this story is because i'm sending out my first package today. and she only paid $3.42 to receive three books in great condition, which is an amazing deal!
(as i mentioned, booksfreeswap is one of the few sites that makes the receiver pay for the shipping, which i think only makes sense. also, this way there's no confusing point system to keep track of. but the "catch" is that the first time you want to request a book, you have "deposit" $10 into you account. and every month after that 25cents is deducted from your account to help run the site. it's not a lot of $ and i'm totally cool with it, but i didn't read anything about this system until after i signed up for the site. i haven't gone back to find if they do tell you about this stuff upfront, but i did re-read the faqs and it's not in there, which is pretty shady.)
(update: even shadier, i was talking to the person i shipped my books to and mentioned how amazing it was she only paid $3.42 for three books. i got the number from the postage that i printed out. she wrote back: "I paid $5.37. The rest goes to the site. The site charges as low as 50 cents for mass market paperbacks AFTER the first book. Hardbacks can cost over a dollar. Ordering only one book at a time can be expensive, just due to the way media mail works." ...what?! look, $5 something is still great for three books. but it's hella shady the site doesn't tell you about all these extra fees before you sign up!!)
(one more thing!! when i sent my books to someone, i guess i didn't wrap it well enough because the books came loose and were lost in the mail. all the receiver got was the wrapping and note in the mail. :( but she contacted booksfreeswap about it and got her money back from them. no hassle. pretty nice!)
unfortunately, the one feature librarything didn't have was a built-in book swapping system. so last year i joined goodreads, which isn't a site dedicated to book swapping, but it did have it and as an added bonus, a number of my friends were already members.
i took advantage of the book swap thing and i really happy with it until they canceled the thing! so annoying because the only reason i signed up for goodreads was for the bookswap. :(
anyway, i still wanted to swap books cause 1. it's a fun idea 2. it's good for the environment 3. it's cheaper than most other ways of getting books 4. it's good for the post office 5. i love getting stuff in the mail. (who am i kidding, it's all about #5!)
so i did some research and it's kind of weird but most of the sites charge the shipper to send books. in other words, it's free to receive them. ... tho most sites have a point system so you can't take advantage and get way more free books without sending any. but anyway, i finally signed up for booksfreeswap which has the receiver pay for shipping in advance. the shipper just has package the books, print out the shipping label, and put the package in their mailbox. so easy!
anyway, the real reason i'm telling you this story is because i'm sending out my first package today. and she only paid $3.42 to receive three books in great condition, which is an amazing deal!
(as i mentioned, booksfreeswap is one of the few sites that makes the receiver pay for the shipping, which i think only makes sense. also, this way there's no confusing point system to keep track of. but the "catch" is that the first time you want to request a book, you have "deposit" $10 into you account. and every month after that 25cents is deducted from your account to help run the site. it's not a lot of $ and i'm totally cool with it, but i didn't read anything about this system until after i signed up for the site. i haven't gone back to find if they do tell you about this stuff upfront, but i did re-read the faqs and it's not in there, which is pretty shady.)
(update: even shadier, i was talking to the person i shipped my books to and mentioned how amazing it was she only paid $3.42 for three books. i got the number from the postage that i printed out. she wrote back: "I paid $5.37. The rest goes to the site. The site charges as low as 50 cents for mass market paperbacks AFTER the first book. Hardbacks can cost over a dollar. Ordering only one book at a time can be expensive, just due to the way media mail works." ...what?! look, $5 something is still great for three books. but it's hella shady the site doesn't tell you about all these extra fees before you sign up!!)
(one more thing!! when i sent my books to someone, i guess i didn't wrap it well enough because the books came loose and were lost in the mail. all the receiver got was the wrapping and note in the mail. :( but she contacted booksfreeswap about it and got her money back from them. no hassle. pretty nice!)
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Sunday, February 19, 2012
bloody shame
yashar ali: if men had periods, women would all know about it (btw, i love it that the author is male)
this reminds me of that kotex commercial about covert tactics: "no one can see me with tampons." ha! i think it's weird that so many people are embarrassed by menstruation since every healthy fertile un-pregnant woman has them. i did the math once and figured that at any given moment 10% of the human population is bleeding out their vag. so why pretend it doesn't exist?
i haven't ever needed rip to buy me tampons but i asked him about it and he said that yeah, he would. (yay!!) then he immediately ruined it by saying:
this reminds me of that kotex commercial about covert tactics: "no one can see me with tampons." ha! i think it's weird that so many people are embarrassed by menstruation since every healthy fertile un-pregnant woman has them. i did the math once and figured that at any given moment 10% of the human population is bleeding out their vag. so why pretend it doesn't exist?
i haven't ever needed rip to buy me tampons but i asked him about it and he said that yeah, he would. (yay!!) then he immediately ruined it by saying:
rip: yea, if anyone asks id jus say i get crazy nosebleeds
Neurp: or you could just say your girlfriend has her period
rip: gross
Neurp: why? it's natural...
rip: yea but no one needs to know
tho honestly, this doesn't surprise me. i talk about my period all the time and i don't care if people are uncomfortable hearing about it. i sometimes say "i have cramps" but i'll more likely say "my uterus hurts." mostly because it's more specific. i could have leg cramps from running. anyway, rip once commented how weird it was i said that in public. he said the next time i did, he would make me stop by asking me detailed questions about it. i was very enthused to take him up on his little "dare". you can't shame me about my period. you want to know specifics? i'll bloody tell you and everyone who cares to eavesdrop.
women get their periods. that's life. and men who don't want children should be DAMN HAPPY every time their lady gets it. maybe happy to the point of telling their buddies that "hey! my girlfriend got her period today, drinks on me!"
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Monday, February 13, 2012
private funds for public works
the govt is out of money. instead of raising taxes, maybe they can encourage large corporations to "take over" the budget of local stuff for one year. for instance, disney corp can provide all the money for the auhsd (anaheim union high school district). the lakers can sustain the la public library system. google can donate enough money to cover mountain view's public transport system. this is also a really cool way for these corporations to give back to the communities that support them.
of course, these companies would not be allowed to actually take over operations or dictate anything. the la public library already has a estimated budget, so the lakers would just write a check to cover it, and the govt (local, state, and federal) wouldn't need to give money to the la public library that year. that saved money can then be used for other stuff. and if a certain city already has, say 10%, or more of their annual budget covered, the some state and fed money can be transferred to another city in the same county that doesn't get any help. if the county has 10% or more of their budget provided for, the state and federal money goes to the state fund to help other counties. and so on... this way no "lucky" cities will get way more extra help while their city next door gets no extra money.
and what would these companies get in return? probably not much other than our gratitude! they can't get too many tax breaks because the govt needs that money. tho they can do the usual thing, where you don't pay taxes on donations. but i don't really know what else the govt can give them except control over whatever they've given money to. but that could be really unethical. besides, you're not buying that thing, you're just giving money to it. when i donate money to the salvation army i don't expect that they now have to be run the way i want. granted, these companies will be giving a ton more money, but it is only for one year, and it would be to their govt thing of choice. so if the miami heat hates the parks in maimi, they wouldn't give them money!
btw, this post reminds me of billionaire david rubenstein donating $7.5 million to repair the national monument.
of course, these companies would not be allowed to actually take over operations or dictate anything. the la public library already has a estimated budget, so the lakers would just write a check to cover it, and the govt (local, state, and federal) wouldn't need to give money to the la public library that year. that saved money can then be used for other stuff. and if a certain city already has, say 10%, or more of their annual budget covered, the some state and fed money can be transferred to another city in the same county that doesn't get any help. if the county has 10% or more of their budget provided for, the state and federal money goes to the state fund to help other counties. and so on... this way no "lucky" cities will get way more extra help while their city next door gets no extra money.
and what would these companies get in return? probably not much other than our gratitude! they can't get too many tax breaks because the govt needs that money. tho they can do the usual thing, where you don't pay taxes on donations. but i don't really know what else the govt can give them except control over whatever they've given money to. but that could be really unethical. besides, you're not buying that thing, you're just giving money to it. when i donate money to the salvation army i don't expect that they now have to be run the way i want. granted, these companies will be giving a ton more money, but it is only for one year, and it would be to their govt thing of choice. so if the miami heat hates the parks in maimi, they wouldn't give them money!
btw, this post reminds me of billionaire david rubenstein donating $7.5 million to repair the national monument.
Friday, February 10, 2012
support
rip and i watched a movie a few weekends ago. there wasn't anything out that we really wanted to watch, but rip had a free movie ticket that was expiring so... there was haywire, redtails, and contraband. we watched haywire, mostly because the showing time worked out best. but i also wanted to watch it because it's an action movie with a female lead. (rip rolled his eyes when i said this, but eh, that's who i am). you might say, hey, that actually happens a lot: catwoman, underworld, tomb raider, and while yes, those female characters do kick ass, they are also portrayed as sex objects. the haywire commercials did not portray gina carano as a sex object who happens to be tough, she was clearly a very tough woman who happens to be sexy.
in any case, the movie was interesting. i didn't like it much at first. there was minimal background sound / music, and what music there was, was really... cheesy. it felt like it was trying too hard to be "hip" and not hip like cool, but hip like from the 60's and 70's. it reminded me a lot of the ocean's 11 actually. anyway, the style took some getting used to, but all in all, i liked it. ...altho i think most audiences will not agree. which is a shame, since their dislike isn't really of the movie itself (or being unconvinced of a strong female lead), but because of the style of the movie. it really did have a lot going against it...
(btw, i was also thought of watching redtails because of the controversy associated it: how studios wouldn't give george lucas any money for it since the movie didn't have any leading white roles. but at the end of the day, you should support what you feel most strongly about, and while i absolutely care about racism, feminism affects me in a more direct way. [you could argue against that, of course. but it's one the "perks" of being in the model minority living in a place that is quite racially diverse])
in any case, the movie was interesting. i didn't like it much at first. there was minimal background sound / music, and what music there was, was really... cheesy. it felt like it was trying too hard to be "hip" and not hip like cool, but hip like from the 60's and 70's. it reminded me a lot of the ocean's 11 actually. anyway, the style took some getting used to, but all in all, i liked it. ...altho i think most audiences will not agree. which is a shame, since their dislike isn't really of the movie itself (or being unconvinced of a strong female lead), but because of the style of the movie. it really did have a lot going against it...
(btw, i was also thought of watching redtails because of the controversy associated it: how studios wouldn't give george lucas any money for it since the movie didn't have any leading white roles. but at the end of the day, you should support what you feel most strongly about, and while i absolutely care about racism, feminism affects me in a more direct way. [you could argue against that, of course. but it's one the "perks" of being in the model minority living in a place that is quite racially diverse])
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
ideal bookshelf
omg, jane mount has combined a couple of my most favorite things: art and books. her ideal bookshelf is freaking to die for. seriously. if i had an extra ~$300 lying around i'd totally order a customized painting. tho i'm not sure what books i'd want. haha, i'd be tempted to choose books that i only like (but not love) because they have beautiful bindings (like that gorgeous kenzo book above!!).
i'd definitely have: margaret atwood's the handmaid's tale, f scott fitzgerald's great gatsby, sylvia plath's the bell jar, ray bradbury's fahrenheit 451, w somerset maugham's of human bondage, and shirley jackson's the lottery.
i'd want to include: something by bill bryson, andre dubus iii's house of sand and fog, stanislaw lem's solaris, milan kundera's the unbearable lightness of being, arthur miller's death of a salesman, scott schuman's the sartorialist, jhumpa lahiri's interpreter of maladies, charlotte perkins gilman's the yellow wallpaper, and lois lawry's the giver.
and possibly add: the 2005 lonely planet china, irene nemirovsky's suite francaise, janwillem van de wetering's the empty mirror, anna gavalda's i wish someone were waiting for me somewhere, sena jeter naslund's ahab's wife...
okay, no more, i thought i'd list a few, turns out there are way too many, lol.
what books would you choose?
Saturday, February 4, 2012
booth babes
must watch video from bbc: "booth babes" stir controversy at 2012 ces
“I don’t know any women [interested in tech]. I don’t know any women that would choose the tech world over shopping or cooking or taking care of kids.”
...yes, i have zero interest in tech. in fact, you only think you're reading this blog post on the internet which i typed up on my computer for a site that i learned some html for just for fun. but in fact, a man breaks into my house twice a week and holds a gun to my head to force me to say things that he types up for a website of his making!
but seriously, i think it's incredibly stupid that sex still sells as much as it does. it's not only condescending to the women in tech (or in other 'mainstream' industries) (and to the women too damn stupid / apathetic to recognize that a booth babe is basically a whore), but it's insulting to men also. these companies are basically saying "we don't need to actually think about intelligent marketing, all we need are talking boobs for you to give us your life savings!"
“I don’t know any women [interested in tech]. I don’t know any women that would choose the tech world over shopping or cooking or taking care of kids.”
...yes, i have zero interest in tech. in fact, you only think you're reading this blog post on the internet which i typed up on my computer for a site that i learned some html for just for fun. but in fact, a man breaks into my house twice a week and holds a gun to my head to force me to say things that he types up for a website of his making!
but seriously, i think it's incredibly stupid that sex still sells as much as it does. it's not only condescending to the women in tech (or in other 'mainstream' industries) (and to the women too damn stupid / apathetic to recognize that a booth babe is basically a whore), but it's insulting to men also. these companies are basically saying "we don't need to actually think about intelligent marketing, all we need are talking boobs for you to give us your life savings!"
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
that's art?!
this brings up the interesting question of "why the hell is that art?"
or... maybe it isn't really art and someone just got away with making art critics look like fools. :)
anyway, here a few famous artists who's work constantly gets questioned as legitimate art by the general public. mondrian, marcel duchamp (esp his "fountain" which is really just a urinal), barnett newman, and that guy who paints white canvases white. cannot remember / find his name. if you know it, please comment with it!
(and i know, i didn't even talk about what makes art art, cause i have no good answer for that. but if i had to say... it's a representation of an universal idea.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)