eriepressible™

Al and I made chicken wraps for dinner last night.  We used fake chicken strips, shredded cheddar, salsa, jalapeños, and sour cream and wrapped all the ingredients up in the HUGE tortillas we got over the weekend at Larry’s Central Market. 

After each meal, Al always gives the Pooch a little taste of what we’ve had, but since we’d both finished our wraps, there wasn’t much for a little dog.  Until Al spied the spoon that had been used to scoop the sour cream out of the container. 

Here is the result:

It’s okay Google, I still love you.  But, you know, that’s probably because (a) I’m childfree and (b) I read the entire New York Times article instead of just the excerpts being quoted elsewhere.

Just because I don’t have children, doesn’t mean that I don’t enjoy reading the blogs of some people who happen to have children.  I usually steer clear of the blogs that are All Kids All The Time, simply because the subject matter doesn’t interest me that much, but I actually do enjoy an occasional photo or story about someone’s kids. 

Anyway, one such blog is Mom Voyage, written by Karrie.  And today, Karrie had a very short blog entry that sent me over to a blog I’d never seen before:  Hey, Ho KellyGo to read this blog entry about Google.

In a nutshell, Google (the company) provides daycare services to its employees and what appears to be well below market rate and Google is putting the kibosh on that, raising the price to something more akin to market rate. 

On her blog, Kelly quoted from the New York Times article, but she left out a few key paragraphs, like how the day care that Google provides has been fashioned around the Educational Philosophies Du Jour, provides the most advanced toys, and has the lowest teacher-child ratios around.  I don’t know about you, but that sounds like it would be pretty expensive to me.

But here’s one of the paragraphs in the New York Times article that I didn’t see mentioned on the other blog:

Meanwhile, someone at Google woke up one day and realized that the company was subsidizing each child to the tune of $37,000 a year — which nobody had noticed up until then — compared with the $12,000-a-year average subsidy of other big Silicon Valley companies like Cisco Systems and Oracle. Faced with this dilemma, Google decided that the way to solve the dual problems of a too-long wait list and a too-large subsidy was — are you sitting down for this? — to get rid of C.C.L.C. and make the Kinderplex more like the Woods! (Google says it was always planning to replace C.C.L.C.) Given that decision, the only possible way to reduce the subsidy was to raise prices through the roof.

emphasis mine.

So, it appears, that people are pissed that Google isn’t willing to pay $37,000 per year per child in its daycare.  And, to an extent, I understand that.  It sucks to have to start paying for something that you’ve been getting for free (or apparently nearly free) for a while.  But I wonder if all the other employees, the ones who were not using Google’s daycare, were being given an extra $37,000 in their paychecks each year.  I didn’t see anything about that mentioned in the article, so I’m guessing not.  I’m guessing that the employees enrolling their children in Google’s daycare centers were getting something of significant monetary value that was not an across the board benefit.  (For a better explanation of this theory, you might want to refer to one of my earlier posts on this subject.)

Another paragraph that seems to be glossed over is the one that states that Google has stated they will be offering scholarships to its employees who may not be able to afford the higher daycare costs. 

Google, I should note, believes that it has handled the day care issue in a “Googly” way and object strongly to the criticism by the parents. The company points out that the prices are somewhat lower than originally planned, that it is expanding its day care operation, that its facilities will be state of the art and that it will be giving scholarships to parents who can’t afford to keep their children in Google day care. (Although yet to release the details of the scholarship plan, the company says that employees will have to show proof of household income to qualify.)

emphasis mine.

This seems quite fair to me.  Multimillionaire employees (and it seems that Google has its share of those), will be paying full price for Google Daycare and, it appears, Google will still be subsidizing daycare for its employees who earn significantly lower salaries.  However, Google hasn’t said yet how much these scholarships will be worth or what the income guidelines for qualifying will be.  But even the New York Times article seems to only mention the scholarships in passing and, since I think it’s a pretty big deal, I’m not sure why.

It sounds to me like there’s a whole bunch of whining going on though:

Google may be providing the greatest day care ever, but so what? It doesn’t matter how good the day care is if only its wealthiest employees can afford to use it. If Google had really wanted to do something path-breaking about its day care crisis, it would have spent less time creating elitist day care centers and more time figuring out how to “scale” day care for everybody no matter what their salaries.

Isn’t that exactly what the scholarships will do … “scale” day care for everybody no matter what their salaries and, at the same time, provide state-of-the-frickin’-art daycare facilities?

Perhaps it’s because, when it comes to daycare, instead of thinking ahead (and when I say ahead I mean before you actually have children) about how much daycare is going to cost, it’s so much easier to prattle on about how good they have it in Sweden.  However, I’ve yet to meet anyone who, while they might like the daycare set-up in Sweden, is any too excited about their tax structure.  Swedes pay approximately 47.8% of their salary in taxes and are second only to Denmark as having the highest tax burden in the world.  And, until very recently when Denmark pulled ahead, Sweden was #1 in the world for the highest tax burden.  In comparison, in 2005, for a household with one wage earner and two children, only Iceland and Ireland had a lower tax burden than the U.S.  While I would support a tax increase for universal health care, like Sweden and other civilized countries offer its citizens (because that would benefit everyone), I would be hardpressed to support government mandated and funded daycare, simply because having children is a choice, not a necessity.

Before I veer off course to severely, here’s a thought with regard to the Google daycare dilemma:  maybe instead of running to the powers that be at Google and crying (yes, the article actually mentions that employees “wept”) about having to pay market price for daycare, maybe the Google employees who are so distraught should get together and come up with a viable plan themselves and present it to their superiors.  If this is a perk that’s that important to them, then why don’t they put a little effort into solving the problem instead of just bitching about the solution Google came up with? 

Orange Butterfly Weed

Lavender with Bee

Can’t remember the name of this one

And, after three (maybe four?) years, our Northern Prickly Pear finally has flowered!

Yesterday, while I was sitting on the couch in front of one of my huge living room windows, the sun was streaming in, and I was writing this blog entry, several houses on the block were beginning their holiday picnics.  A party-goer in a black SUV parked in front of my house and out of the passenger side emerged a woman wearing white pants; a navy blue top; red, white, and blue beads around her neck; and a red, white and blue stars-and-stripes scarf tied in her hair.  Pretty damned patriotic looking, no?

And what did the Little Ms. Patriotism do when she exited her SUV?  She threw her cigarette on the ground.

“I love my country so much I wear patriotic colors …and litter.”

Ass.

July 2, 2008
For Immediate Release
Contact: Tammy Roche (814) 392-5190 or media@kathydahlkemperforcongress.com

Congressional Candidate Kathy Dahlkemper Launches Energy Independence Proposal to Help Reduce Cost for Families

Erie, PA – Kathy Dahlkemper, Democratic candidate for Pennyslvania’s 3rd Congressional District, will declare Pennsylvania’s independence from energy speculators this fourth of July and propose a plan that would help lower gas prices for families seeking relief at the pump.

“As someone with a nephew serving four tours in Iraq and a mother of someone in our armed services, I am grateful for our country’s freedom and I honor our troops for the sacrifices they make.  But this July 4th, we need to take a strong stand and declare independence from energy speculators who are driving up the price of oil just like we declared independence from the British.” said Dahlkemper. “The energy speculators are hurting families at the pump. We need to stop escalating gas prices and begin a serious move toward long-term energy independence.”

Dahlkemper’s plan would call on Congress to:

• Close the Enron loopholes that allow energy speculators to manipulate the market for personal profit, causing prices to soar
• Create a new, stronger independent Inspector General appointed by the President to increase oversight on energy futures trading on the so-called “Dark markets”
• Invest in local businesses that develop renewable energy.

“We’re in an energy crisis and we simply can’t afford to let Washington continue to dictate bad energy policy. Congressman English’s failure to support bills such as the Energy Independence & Security Act (HR6) and the Alternative Energy Bill (HR 5351) are a clear indication that we need a change in leadership and a forward thinking representative who will put the citizens first. We must prioritize the development of domestic and alternative sources of energy to end our reliance on foreign oil,” said Dahlkemper.  “We need to have accountability in government so that we are no longer at the mercy of pricegouging speculators or foreign nations. In Congress, I’ll fight for what’s best for our region’s families—regardless of whether it’s a Democratic idea or a Republican idea. I am asking you to join me in fighting for an independent America and in bringing an independent voice back to western Pennsylvania.”

About Kathy Dahlkemper

Kathy Dahlkemper, 50, is the Democratic nominee for Pennsylvania’s 3rd Congressional District, having won decisively on April 22, 2008.

With a margin of 20 points over her closest rival, Dahlkemper’s campaign has gotten the attention of Democrats and Republicans alike. The
overwhelming success of the primary is indicative of the type of hard work and success that Dahlkemper has shown throughout her life and will bring to Congress once elected.

A graduate of Edinboro University of Pennsylvania, Kathy is a community and civic leader and has spent her adult life working to improve the community through numerous projects including the development of the Lake Erie Arboretum at Frontier Park (LEAF). Dahlkemper is the director of (LEAF) and vice president of the LEAF Board of Directors. Since 1997, Dahlkemper has been responsible for securing over $2 million in public and private funding for the Arboretum and coordinates daily operations including programming, marketing, fundraising, site management and collaboration with government, civic and private partners.

Concurrently, Dahlkemper is the Director of Human Resources and Special Projects at her family owned business, Dahlkemper Landscape Architects & Contractors.

Dahlkemper cites the issues of war, healthcare, climate change, education, jobs, and national debt among those to be addressed in greater depth throughout her candidacy and service as Congresswoman.

Dahlkemper is married to Dan Dahlkemper and is the mother of five – Aron, Gretchen, Linden, Tricia and Nathan.

For more information about Kathy Dahlkemper, visit online at www.kathydahlkemperforcongress.com.

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS ARE NOT TAX DEDUCTIBLE. NO CORPORATE CHECKS ALLOWED.
www.KathyDahlkemperforCongress.com
PAID FOR BY THE KATHY DAHLKEMPER FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE.

Happy Independence Day!

I credit Al with introducing me to some of my favorite music.  A lot of it is stuff that I’d heard before, but just never paid all that much attention to.  Three years ago, Al took me to see Arlo Guthrie live at Chautauqua.  Obviously, I’d heard some of his music…and some of his father’s music…but I’d never really listened to it before.  I know, I know, I know…bad hippie.  I deserve to have my patchouli taken away from me.  But Al gave me a musical history lesson and I’m not pretty much up to speed on All Things Arlo, as well as most things Woody, which makes me appreciate and love the music all the more.

So, for this Independence Day, I give you a little Arlo and what I think should be this country’s national anthem.  Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know…the national anthem will never be changed, especially to to this song.  But a woman can dream.

I think most people around my age or younger have probably hear Bruce Springsteen’s rendition of This Land is Your Land, but just in case you haven’t heard Arlo sing it, go watch this clip of him with the Boston Pops. 

And Al calls me the Hippie of the House.  Ha!  Now gimme back my damned patchouli and pass the hot dogs and potato salad.

July 3, 2008

For Immediate Release

Contact: Tammy Roche (814) 392-5190 or media@kathydahlkemperforcongress.com

Dahlkemper Campaign Momentum Mounting

Today, the non-partisan Cook Report came out with their latest ratings for various races and the Pennsylvania’s 3rd District was among those being changed – or upgraded in the case of Democratic Congressional candidate Kathy Dahlkemper. Previously the district was in the “Likely Republican” category and it has now been changed to “Lean Republican”.

“This is another huge move for us. Once again, Kathy is seen as a strong candidate that is gaining momentum by the day,” said Tina Mengine, Campaign Manager for Kathy Dahlkemper.

Previous signs of momentum were seen with Dahlkemper being placed on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s Emerging races list, followed shortly by Stuart Rothenberg of Roll Call highlighting just 4 candidates across the country, of which Dahlkemper was one.

To view the cook report go to: http://www.cookpolitical.com/node/2682.

About Kathy Dahlkemper

Kathy Dahlkemper, 50, is the Democratic nominee for Pennsylvania’s 3rd Congressional District, having won decisively on April 22, 2008. With a margin of 20 points over her closest rival, Dahlkemper’s campaign has gotten the attention of Democrats and Republicans alike. The overwhelming success of the primary is indicative of the type of hard work and success that Dahlkemper has shown throughout her life and will bring to Congress once elected.

A graduate of Edinboro University of Pennsylvania, Kathy is a community and civic leader and has spent her adult life working to improve the community through numerous projects including the development of the Lake Erie Arboretum at Frontier Park (LEAF). Dahlkemper is the director of (LEAF) and vice president of the LEAF Board of Directors. Since 1997, Dahlkemper has been responsible for securing over $2 million in public and private funding for the Arboretum and coordinates daily operations including programming, marketing, fundraising, site management and collaboration with government, civic and private partners.

Concurrently, Dahlkemper is the Director of Human Resources and Special Projects at her family owned business, Dahlkemper Landscape  Architects & Contractors.

Dahlkemper cites the issues of war, healthcare, climate change, education, jobs, and national debt among those to be addressed in greater depth throughout her candidacy and service as Congresswoman.

Dahlkemper is married to Dan Dahlkemper and is the mother of five – Aron, Gretchen, Linden, Tricia and Nathan.

For more information about Kathy Dahlkemper, visit online at www.kathydahlkemperforcongress.com.

Al and I don’t have change on us very often.  We usually have paper money and we always have our debit cards, but change?  Eh.  Not so much.  Neither one of us likes to carry it.  It gets heavy.  It makes noise.  It’s cumbersome.  I always have change in my car for parking meters, but usually not on my person.  So, when we use paper money, what do we do when we get change?  We come home and throw it in the change jar.  We’ve been doing this for quite a while.  Sometimes we throw paper money in their, too.  It comes in handy when you have to run to the store for something little, you just grab a couple bucks out of the jar and you’re off to get a loaf of bread or a hunk of cheese.

Anyway, it’d been a while since I last emptied the change jar and it was getting a bit full.  So, I got out the  paper wrappers and decided to count our stash and add it to the previous jar funds, which I never got around to taking to the bank.  Together with the last jar emptying, we’ve got over $329.00.  I’m not sure if we’ll add it to the vacation fund, the general fund, or if we’ll just go to dinner and a movie… 6 times.  I’ve been wanting to see Get Smart, even though it didn’t get a very good review from my favorite reviewer.  Just the fact that I’ve been saying “missed it by that much” since I was a kid is reason enough for me to go see the movie.

Also known as Downward Facing Dog, a very popular yoga pose.

Allow me to show it to you:

The Fretful One alerted me to the fact that the Newsweek article I blogged about yesterday was discussed on The Today Show this morning.  You can watch it for yourself  (it’s six minutes long).  In light of my blog post of this morning, pay particular attention to the very end of the segment.

Although they didn’t call them “bingos” like a lot of childfree folks do, it was nice to see people discussing how inappropriate some of the things are that people feel free to say to those who don’t have children, including the age-old “selfish” comment. 

“I don’t want my kids to come from a broken home.”

This is the sentiment of one of my friends.  She’s a wonderful person - has a great sense of humor, is hard-working, loves children, is active in her church, is a great friend - but she’s in a completely loveless and emotionally abusive marriage and she won’t leave. 

I’ve known her for more than 20 years, meeting her when her two children - both boys - were about somewhere around the 7-10 age range.  She was in a miserable marriage that long ago.  But she wouldn’t leave and he wouldn’t go to counseling, so they just pretty much lived separate lives under the same roof, but on the occasions she and her husband did interact, it was never pleasant.  He was emotionally abusive…nothing she ever did was good enough for him.  And her sons grew up seeing this.  This was what a marriage/relationship was to them.  This was their “normal.”

In order to make up for what was certainly lacking in their home life, my friend spoiled her sons.  She spent every extra dollar she had on them - all the latest toys when they were little, cars when they got older, trips/vacations, etc. 

And how did they thank her for that?  By treating her exactly the same way they saw their father treat her all their lives.  Like shit stuck to the bottom of their shoes.  There were never any “please and thank-yous,” they would make snide comments about her clothes, complain about the way she drove and meals she cooked.  And they both treated their various girlfriends similarly.  Fortunately, none of the girlfriends stuck around any too long. 

Were there other factors, aside from “staying together for the children” that helped keep my friend in a loveless, abusive marriage?  Yes.  One of them was finances, the other was fear of the unknown.

Even now, her kids have (finally) moved out and are on their own, but she stays married, living with someone she not only doesn’t love, but absolutely loathes.  She doesn’t have to stay “for the kids” anymore, but she is still afraid of the unknown and afraid of what would happen to her finances if she left.

Whether staying married for the sake of her children was her main reason (as opposed to fear and financial concerns) or not, it really doesn’t matter.  What matters is that she did her children a great disservice by allowing them to grow up in a house with constant stress, unhappiness, and emotional abuse.  I often wonder if her kids would have turned out differently had she divorced her husband and had either one or both of them found someone they loved and with whom they could truly be happy.

It’s really incredibly sad.  She sacrificed her chance at happiness so her kids wouldn’t have a “broken home,” but in my mind, that’s exactly what they had all their lives. 

A few years ago, I remember either reading a story or seeing something on television about burglars who used obituaries published in local newspapers to pick their targets.  They would note the names of the immediate family and the date and time of the funeral services.  Then all they would have to do is find out where those relatives lived (telephone book, city directories, on-line) and voila!  They knew the house would be empty (or there was a good chance) and they would burglarize the empty house(s).

Now, I have a Twitter account and have had it for quite some time, but I rarely update.  There just isn’t enough time in my day to do that.  But I did log in this morning to send someone a message via Twitter, because I couldn’t find her e-mail address on her blog.  While I was logged in, I noticed that some people included quite a bit of detail in their Twitter updates…including where they were and, sometimes, how long they expected to be there.

So, does anyone else see this as potentially dangerous?  Or am I just overly cautious?