By Daniel B. Kline
In between throwing up and attempting to get some sleep while battling the flu yesterday I was repeatedly text messaging my staff to see what was happening at work. This is when it occurred to me that I may have a slight problem and perhaps my text messaging habit had turned into an addiction.
The signs had been popping up all over the place, I was just too stubborn to see them. The previous month I had received a $300 phone bill because I had gone over my allotted 1,000 text message by 1,300 or so.
I argued with my phone company because I had assumed I had unlimited text messages and they ultimately dropped the charges. Still, I missed the obvious fact that nobody should be sending 2,300 text messages in a month.
Text messaging has become the dominant form of communication in my life. If what I need to say can be typed on my phone with my thumbs than it's unlikely I'll do anything more than that.
Like most people I started out as a casual texter, using brief messages to convey simple information like "on my way" or "thanks," that did not require a phone conversation. This grew steadily and once I got a phone with a keyboard I was quickly up to "what did you name the baby," and "I'm sorry about your loss."
In the early days I was even somewhat skeptical of texting and assumed that it was another ridiculous thing like "Gossip Girl," "Kanye West" and random piercings best left to young people. I wasn't able to avoid it, however, as many of the aforementioned young people work for me and communicating with them requires texting.
Now, I enjoy texting because it requires no small talk. In a phone conversation you must offer basic pleasantries and show some concern for the other person. With text messages none of that normal human emotion stuff is necessary and you can simply get to the matter at hand.
This has its drawbacks as text messaging quickly replaces normal communication; a fact I learned when I realized the other day that I was texting an employee in my store who I could actually see. Instead of walking over to him or even yelling out a bit, I typed with my thumbs wringing inconvenience from the jaws of convenience.
I, of course, still know how to have a conversation on the phone, but talking seems pointless when most calls are simply to deliver basic information like "I'm leaving now" or "the test was negative." Texting makes it easy to deliver information without having to take the time to actually speak to someone.
Certain information, such as "I'm pregnant" or "I think we should see other people" may still require at least a formal email, but text messages will do for most things. I figure I'm about three weeks away from texting to the person standing in front of me and replacing a nod hello in the morning with a text of one of those smiley emoticon things.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing Kline serves as general manager of Time Machine Hobby New England's largest hobby and toy store, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Confusing bailout won't help most people
By Daniel B. Kline
After weeks of furious negotiating, President Barack Obama and Congress have delivered a confusing, 1,000 page financial bailout that none of them have even read. The plan, which costs nearly $800 billion, sends money a lot of places but almost none of it comes my way and that's where they have made an enormous mistake.
While, of course, I personally would like a big chunk of government change, I'm speaking of "me" in a categorical sense as a small businessman and upper middle class taxpayer. The bailout does almost nothing to relieve the financial stress the economy has placed on me either personally or professionally.
If you are unemployed, running a gigantic failing business, not making your mortgage payments or have failed in a myriad of other ways, the government might have a check for you. Even if you don't make enough money to pay taxes, you'll be getting a check, but those of us swimming upstream and slowly making progress against the current won't even be getting a little push in the right direction.
On the business side, bailout money has only gone and will only go to companies that fail to meet their obligations. Lay a bunch of people off or run the risk of becoming insolvent and there might be a check waiting for you. Struggle to pay your bills and manage to keep your staff employed and you get nothing.
My company, a gigantic toy and hobby store, employs seven full-time people and about a dozen part-timers. Our sales are actually up a bit from last year, but it's taking a lot more smaller transactions to reach those sales dollars.
Basically, we're working a lot harder to get to the same place and the government bailout plan offers nothing to us. Instead of cutting payroll taxes, offering an incentive to not lay people off or making loans available for expansion, we get nothing other than the possibility some people might get jobs and then have the money to become customers.
On the personal side all the bailout has for me is a very small tax credit, Because I already own a house and actually make my mortgage payments, the government has no money for me.
Perhaps if I had never bought before or missed some payments, I'd get a lower interest rate, but being responsible gets you nothing. Too much of the bailout money goes towards rewarding failure which can only result in more failure.
Fixing the economy requires putting money into the hands of the people who spend it well. That means we should not be throwing money at dying big business or the bottom of our economic scale. Those of us in the middle who own homes and run businesses need the biggest breaks and are most likely to get the country back on track.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing Kline serves as general manager of Time Machine Hobby New England's largest hobby and toy store, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com.
After weeks of furious negotiating, President Barack Obama and Congress have delivered a confusing, 1,000 page financial bailout that none of them have even read. The plan, which costs nearly $800 billion, sends money a lot of places but almost none of it comes my way and that's where they have made an enormous mistake.
While, of course, I personally would like a big chunk of government change, I'm speaking of "me" in a categorical sense as a small businessman and upper middle class taxpayer. The bailout does almost nothing to relieve the financial stress the economy has placed on me either personally or professionally.
If you are unemployed, running a gigantic failing business, not making your mortgage payments or have failed in a myriad of other ways, the government might have a check for you. Even if you don't make enough money to pay taxes, you'll be getting a check, but those of us swimming upstream and slowly making progress against the current won't even be getting a little push in the right direction.
On the business side, bailout money has only gone and will only go to companies that fail to meet their obligations. Lay a bunch of people off or run the risk of becoming insolvent and there might be a check waiting for you. Struggle to pay your bills and manage to keep your staff employed and you get nothing.
My company, a gigantic toy and hobby store, employs seven full-time people and about a dozen part-timers. Our sales are actually up a bit from last year, but it's taking a lot more smaller transactions to reach those sales dollars.
Basically, we're working a lot harder to get to the same place and the government bailout plan offers nothing to us. Instead of cutting payroll taxes, offering an incentive to not lay people off or making loans available for expansion, we get nothing other than the possibility some people might get jobs and then have the money to become customers.
On the personal side all the bailout has for me is a very small tax credit, Because I already own a house and actually make my mortgage payments, the government has no money for me.
Perhaps if I had never bought before or missed some payments, I'd get a lower interest rate, but being responsible gets you nothing. Too much of the bailout money goes towards rewarding failure which can only result in more failure.
Fixing the economy requires putting money into the hands of the people who spend it well. That means we should not be throwing money at dying big business or the bottom of our economic scale. Those of us in the middle who own homes and run businesses need the biggest breaks and are most likely to get the country back on track.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing Kline serves as general manager of Time Machine Hobby New England's largest hobby and toy store, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Rigid ideas make for good TV, bad people
By Daniel B. Kline
In my unending desire to become even more famous, I now plan to become either an unbending leftist or a unwavering conservative. I'll probably decide which by flipping a coin or checking to see whether I look better in a jacket and jeans or a suit with a bow tie.
Whether I want to be Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann, I'll follow the easy path of never having to question anything to fame, riches and maybe a really big boat. When all your thoughts and values adhere rigidly to one philosophy, there's never any doubt how you feel about an issue and you never waste a single second thinking.
If I pick Republican than Democrats are bad and I get to make easy points by calling them "Dumbocrats" saying "tax and spend" a lot and raising the specter of socialism. If I select the Democrats than the GOP gets to be evil and I have to start saying "fat cats," and talking about how everything favors the oil companies.
This plan should make me a TV star because picking all your views from one neatly labeled basket makes for an efficient TV or radio show. Viewers know instantly whether your opinions outrage them or endear you to them. Nobody ever has to be outside their comfort zone and everything remains clearly black or white.
It would be entertaining if just once one of these talking heads offered an opinion that clashed with his core beliefs. It seems impossible to me that no liberal pundit has ever found a traditionally Republican view that he believes in and equally baffling that it never happens in the other direction.
Even politicians occasionally emerge who cross party lines. Democrat Joe Lieberman supports the war and Republican Rudy Guiliani supports gay rights. But, on television and the radio, our pundits and commentators must be one or the other which leaves little room for intelligent debate.
Basically, becoming a famous radio, TV or even print media personality requires being beloved by one side of the political spectrum and hated by the other. Those of us who actually think about each issue and have the ability to change our minds are relegated to the minor leagues.
Perhaps this happens because the public allows itself to be pulled too easily into rigid ideologies or maybe media executives simply like taking the easiest road. Agreeing with one large group and making another large group the enemy has worked for everyone from Bill O'Reilly to Adolph Hitler.
I could easily write a column that, regardless of what I actually think, always plays up to one side or the other. Being anti-Obama would be an easy way to inflame passions on both sides of the aisle as would becoming a crusader for liberal social causes.
Taking either of those paths would make me more marketable and an easier sell to newspapers and ultimately other forms of media. Unfortunately, playing a character for fame and pretending you actually are that character, pretty much means selling out. This makes everything you say hard to believe and, for me, would make me it a little hard to live myself even if I was living in a really big house.
I'd like to be famous and I'm pretty sure I'm good enough in this medium, not to mention on TV or the radio, to keep people interested. Still, I'd rather be writing to you from the relative anonymity of the op-ed page than be just another unthinking buffoon collecting a paycheck.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing Kline serves as general manager of Time Machine Hobby New England's largest hobby and toy store, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com.
In my unending desire to become even more famous, I now plan to become either an unbending leftist or a unwavering conservative. I'll probably decide which by flipping a coin or checking to see whether I look better in a jacket and jeans or a suit with a bow tie.
Whether I want to be Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann, I'll follow the easy path of never having to question anything to fame, riches and maybe a really big boat. When all your thoughts and values adhere rigidly to one philosophy, there's never any doubt how you feel about an issue and you never waste a single second thinking.
If I pick Republican than Democrats are bad and I get to make easy points by calling them "Dumbocrats" saying "tax and spend" a lot and raising the specter of socialism. If I select the Democrats than the GOP gets to be evil and I have to start saying "fat cats," and talking about how everything favors the oil companies.
This plan should make me a TV star because picking all your views from one neatly labeled basket makes for an efficient TV or radio show. Viewers know instantly whether your opinions outrage them or endear you to them. Nobody ever has to be outside their comfort zone and everything remains clearly black or white.
It would be entertaining if just once one of these talking heads offered an opinion that clashed with his core beliefs. It seems impossible to me that no liberal pundit has ever found a traditionally Republican view that he believes in and equally baffling that it never happens in the other direction.
Even politicians occasionally emerge who cross party lines. Democrat Joe Lieberman supports the war and Republican Rudy Guiliani supports gay rights. But, on television and the radio, our pundits and commentators must be one or the other which leaves little room for intelligent debate.
Basically, becoming a famous radio, TV or even print media personality requires being beloved by one side of the political spectrum and hated by the other. Those of us who actually think about each issue and have the ability to change our minds are relegated to the minor leagues.
Perhaps this happens because the public allows itself to be pulled too easily into rigid ideologies or maybe media executives simply like taking the easiest road. Agreeing with one large group and making another large group the enemy has worked for everyone from Bill O'Reilly to Adolph Hitler.
I could easily write a column that, regardless of what I actually think, always plays up to one side or the other. Being anti-Obama would be an easy way to inflame passions on both sides of the aisle as would becoming a crusader for liberal social causes.
Taking either of those paths would make me more marketable and an easier sell to newspapers and ultimately other forms of media. Unfortunately, playing a character for fame and pretending you actually are that character, pretty much means selling out. This makes everything you say hard to believe and, for me, would make me it a little hard to live myself even if I was living in a really big house.
I'd like to be famous and I'm pretty sure I'm good enough in this medium, not to mention on TV or the radio, to keep people interested. Still, I'd rather be writing to you from the relative anonymity of the op-ed page than be just another unthinking buffoon collecting a paycheck.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing Kline serves as general manager of Time Machine Hobby New England's largest hobby and toy store, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Pay for your kids or don't have them
By Daniel B. Kline
Walk into an IRS office and steal millions of tax dollars at gunpoint and you will almost certainly end up in jail. Have a bunch of kids you can't hope to support or even pay the hospital bills for and taxpayer money still gets stolen, but nothing happens to you.
As a society, we may have significant problems in our health care system, but we never kick a pregnant woman out of a hospital regardless of her ability to pay. This makes sense, as while the woman in question should not have gotten pregnant if she could not afford to pay for delivering the baby, the unborn child should not be punished for the irresponsibility of the parents.
In general, this system works fine providing a safety net for responsible people who fall on hard times and allowing even those of us with the least to still have a family. That said, taking advantage of the public's largess by having multiple children you have no hopes of supporting should be looked upon as theft.
Purposely having children you can't support must be considered questionable behavior at best. Having eight kids through in vitro fertilization when you already have six children, extremely limited means and no spouse, must be considered a crime.
The California woman who recently gave birth to octuplets through in vitro fertilization essentially robbed every single one of us. Though she has six kids already and is not a wealthy woman, she took it upon herself to spend at least $4 million in taxpayer dollars.
Of course, that's just the hospital bill and it remains to be seen exactly how much it will cost the public to support this woman and her 14 children. Through her irresponsible actions this overzealous mom has obligated countless other people to work hard to feed, clothe and shelter these children she surely loves, but can in no way pay for.
Everyone has the right to have children, but we must exercise that right responsibly. If you lack the money to pay for a child's basic needs, than it makes sense to not have a child no matter how much you want one.
I'd like to have a dog, but it would be irresponsible of me to get one given how much I work. If I had the aforementioned pooch and failed to pay him proper attention or give him the care he requires, that would be considered abuse. One would think that we would apply the same standard to having children.
My wife and I decided to only have one kid partly because though we do reasonably well financially, we did not feel we could provide for more than one in the way we felt necessary. College costs a lot of money and we consider paying for education a basic parental responsibility.
You can debate what amount of money it requires to properly support a child, but you cannot debate that passing on a huge bill to other taxpayers represents at least some level of wrongdoing. I don't want this California woman thrown in jail, but I do want her evaluated to decide if she has the ability and mental stability to provide any sort of a home for her 14 kids.
Being a good parent means teaching your kids that they have to stand on their own two feet and should not look to others for help. It also means that sometimes you simply can't afford something -- a lesson this mother of 14 clearly has not learned.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing Kline serves as general manager of Time Machine Hobby New England's largest hobby and toy store, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com.
Walk into an IRS office and steal millions of tax dollars at gunpoint and you will almost certainly end up in jail. Have a bunch of kids you can't hope to support or even pay the hospital bills for and taxpayer money still gets stolen, but nothing happens to you.
As a society, we may have significant problems in our health care system, but we never kick a pregnant woman out of a hospital regardless of her ability to pay. This makes sense, as while the woman in question should not have gotten pregnant if she could not afford to pay for delivering the baby, the unborn child should not be punished for the irresponsibility of the parents.
In general, this system works fine providing a safety net for responsible people who fall on hard times and allowing even those of us with the least to still have a family. That said, taking advantage of the public's largess by having multiple children you have no hopes of supporting should be looked upon as theft.
Purposely having children you can't support must be considered questionable behavior at best. Having eight kids through in vitro fertilization when you already have six children, extremely limited means and no spouse, must be considered a crime.
The California woman who recently gave birth to octuplets through in vitro fertilization essentially robbed every single one of us. Though she has six kids already and is not a wealthy woman, she took it upon herself to spend at least $4 million in taxpayer dollars.
Of course, that's just the hospital bill and it remains to be seen exactly how much it will cost the public to support this woman and her 14 children. Through her irresponsible actions this overzealous mom has obligated countless other people to work hard to feed, clothe and shelter these children she surely loves, but can in no way pay for.
Everyone has the right to have children, but we must exercise that right responsibly. If you lack the money to pay for a child's basic needs, than it makes sense to not have a child no matter how much you want one.
I'd like to have a dog, but it would be irresponsible of me to get one given how much I work. If I had the aforementioned pooch and failed to pay him proper attention or give him the care he requires, that would be considered abuse. One would think that we would apply the same standard to having children.
My wife and I decided to only have one kid partly because though we do reasonably well financially, we did not feel we could provide for more than one in the way we felt necessary. College costs a lot of money and we consider paying for education a basic parental responsibility.
You can debate what amount of money it requires to properly support a child, but you cannot debate that passing on a huge bill to other taxpayers represents at least some level of wrongdoing. I don't want this California woman thrown in jail, but I do want her evaluated to decide if she has the ability and mental stability to provide any sort of a home for her 14 kids.
Being a good parent means teaching your kids that they have to stand on their own two feet and should not look to others for help. It also means that sometimes you simply can't afford something -- a lesson this mother of 14 clearly has not learned.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing Kline serves as general manager of Time Machine Hobby New England's largest hobby and toy store, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
