Doing Valentine’s Day Right

valentines This year, Valentine’s Day landed on Thursday.  Valentine’s Day is a day where we buy lots of perishable presents – flowers, candy, etc.  So of course, the stores have all the Valentine’s Day items at 50% off even today…  they don’t save until next year.

By celebrating on Friday instead of Thursday, we had the luxury of going out on a weekend night instead of a weekday night.  But I also saved 50% on the gifts.  Totally cheap?  Probably; but I bought twice as much stuff…. I think I’ll do it again next year.  Unfortunately, Feb 14, 2009 is a Saturday.  So I’ll have to come up with a new excuse for waiting an extra day…

Katrina Was a Long Time Ago

Hurricane Katrina struck the US in August 2005.  That’s 2.5 years ago.  Today, FEMA is finally kicking people out of 35,000 trailers from that event.  Occupants of those trailers are mad at FEMA.  They’ve been living in the trailers for 2.5 years while simultaneously claiming that they want to sue as a result of their health problems from living in the trailers.   If they know of the health problems, they should, uh, maybe leave?

This raises several questions.

First, why are these people getting free housing for 2.5 years?  Free housing is not a federal responsibility.  2-3 months should have been the limit for people to find new housing.

Second, why should we provide housing even for temporary relief?  If you provide victims with nothing, they can’t sue.  If you provide them with trailers that they claim are unhealthy, they can sue you for being negligent.  These people are whiners and users.  No matter what you give them, it’s never enough.  Fine, give no federal aid anymore for this type of tragedy.  It’s better than dealing with the ungrateful.

Of course, the lawyers are to blame; the American Bar Association even set up a whole website to help the “victims” sue somebody.  Not sure who to blame?  Ask the ABA!

If the victims had any money, I’m sure a smart lawyer would help me sue the victims.  After all, why did I have to spend billions of tax money just because these people were too dumb to move out of a flood plain which nature clearly wants to cover with water?  Don’t spend money on the levy; this will happen again.

SelectBlinds vs Blinds.com

blinds In the process of updating our living quarters, I had the opportunity to use both SelectBlinds.com and also Blinds.com for different window coverings in our house.  Since my carpet review of Home Depot and Empire Carpet was so popular, it seems that people want to hear about this.

Blinds.com

Blinds.com was the first company we did business with.  We ordered about 20 1″ wood blinds.  The total cost was about $1000.  The blinds arrived promptly – within about 2 weeks of our order.  The blinds look great, and we haven’t had many complaints.  Within a few months, one of the blinds that we ordered had the string break; we barely use the blinds, so we’re pretty sure it was a manufacturing issue.  We contacted the company, they sent out a new one, and everything is fine.  Overall, I think we got a really good price and the company honored their promises.  Great.

SelectBlinds.com

I used SelectBlinds on a secondary order because this type of blind was cheaper than via Blinds.com.  We wanted the honeycomb shades.  These take a little longer to order, presumably because they sell less volume.  They estimated 2 weeks.  After 3 weeks had gone by, I hadn’t heard anything, so I contacted them via their website.  No response.  Instead, I called their 888 number, and the support person was fairly nice.  She indicated that they’d have to contact the manufacturer, and then find out what happened – as our order had already passed to the manufacturer.   They then did reply via email that they had contacted the manufacturer and that the order would be mailed “any day now”, and the order was finally processed over a week later.  In all, it took about 4 weeks to get the blinds.  Once finally received, the blinds were great; we like them and they installed fine.

Conclusion

Both companies provided what we asked for and the blinds look great.  Blinds.com had a one low quality blind, which they fixed without trouble.  SelectBlinds was a little late with delivery, but the blinds were less common ones.  Overall, I think the two were exactly the same.  My conclusion:  use whatever coupons you can find and just pick the cheapest.  The product, ease of installation, and promises on goods delivered is about the same.

TODAY ONLY – Get a Energy Efficient Power Supply for $5

antec I don’t make any money on this; and I rarely promote products.  But this is a great deal, and I just bought one. 

You can get an Antec Earthwatts 380W power supply for $5 (after rebate) with free shipping.  The 80plus power supplies will generally reduce your computer’s power consumption by 20-25%.

Newegg is selling it for $35 with free shipping.

Here is the $30 mail in rebate, which expires today.

Never Underestimate American Stupidity

For the intelligent readers of this blog, this entry is just a rant.  I heard a segment on the radio tonight about “Should you Refinance”, and I was pretty appalled at the advice given.  The expert on the radio said, “If you are already well into your loan, one drawback is that you’ll reset the clock for 30 years with your new loan…”

Ok, well its true that you generally get 30 more years to repay.  But since when is that a drawback?   His statement reflects the underlying principle of how Americans view loans – and it is very troubling. 

Refinancing shouldn’t be about getting a lower monthly payment unless you simply can’t afford your current loan (should be rare).  Refinancing should be about saving money because you are paying less in interest each year and paying more against your principal instead.  It’s pretty simple.

Are we so stupid that we think we have to put the dollar amount that is on the payment slip each month?  Yeah, I guess we are – welcome to the land of the ‘interest only’ ’30 year loan’.

Sometimes I wish my name were “Smith”!

As this blog has garnered more users over time, there have been a couple of comment threads which have degraded a bit.  Recently one was brought to my attention where a sole proprietor from one small company wrote some comments which were not well received by others.  He used his real name, which is somewhat uncommon – let’s call him “SmallGuy”.  Readers then replied back saying that SmallGuy was bad unreliable and a rip off.

Unfortunately for SmallGuy, this blog is more popular than his company’s web page.  Google picked up the whole conversation, and a search for “SmallGuy” now brings up belshe.com above SmallGuy’s website, including “SmallGuy sucks” right in the snippet! 

Obviously, SmallGuy is not too happy about this; customers searching for references on him don’t see very good stuff.  And all of this is because he posted a comment using his real name on my blog, and he probably didn’t think enough about the possible long term effects of this comment before he wrote it.

Unfortunately, SmallGuy’s name is pretty unique.  If it weren’t so unique, Google wouldn’t show belshe.com as a top result for his name.  Everyone should remember that data that goes up on the net goes up forever.  You can’t take it back once you press ‘post’ – ever.  Even if I deleted the comment, its still out there in untold numbers of RSS caches, archives.org, and other places.

Those of us with unique names need to be doubly careful.  On one hand, our uncommon surnames lead to better prominence on the net for those searching for us.  On the other, if you say anything bad, it’s permanent and undeniable. If your name is Smith, you don’t have to worry!

As for SmallGuy’s dilemma, I offered that if he can get the poster of the negative comment to send me an email to change the comment, I will do so.  That is, if he can solve his own customer issues, then he can mostly fix this.

Why The World Loves Barack Obama

In stark contrast to yesterday’s photos of Hillary Clinton, here are the Barack Obama results.  Again, these are only plucked from the first page of results.  There were no pictures with popping-out eyeballs, rage, pointing fingers, grimaces,  expressions of disdain, surprise, or disgust.  Just an all-around, likeable guy.

b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6 b7 b8 b9 b10

Unfortunately, on average, people don’t read papers past the pictures.  That’s why the USA Today is popular!

Why The World Hates Hillary Clinton

I’ve noted before that the press loves publishing horrible photos of Mrs. Clinton.  They pick on her like no other.  We’ve seen so many of these pictures, we’ve now begun to think she’s the dragon lady.  Maybe she is.  What do I know.   I did a Google image search for Hillary Clinton, and here is what I saw.  Every one of these is from the first page of results:

h1 h2 h3 h4 h5 h6 h7 h8 h9 h10

No wonder we find her unappealing.  Tomorrow, I’ll post Barack Obama’s pictures.  Who do you think the press wants for President?  Who do you think really controls your vote?

Big-3 Fined for Promoting Gambling

The Wall Street Journal wrote, “U.S. Fines Google, Microsoft, Yahoo“. 

I find this to be yellow journalism. I don’t really care that the article is about Microsoft & Google, so this isn’t about my biases.  From reading the title, I sort of expected that Google got hit the hardest.  This doesn’t seem unlikely since the Google search engine is by far the biggest.  But, when you read the content of the article, you discover that the size of the fines were:

   Microsoft:  $21M
   Yahoo: $7.5M
   Google: $3M

So, the title was intentionally misleading us about the nature of the fines.  Anyone not looking carefully would have assumed from the title (like I did) that Google was hit hardest. 

I wonder if you could write an “unbiased news” app.  One which just takes titles, shuffles them around to get similar but less colored meaning.  This would help make sure your eyes don’t accidentally process titles as facts.  It’s all too easy to do.

The real story should have been, “Why were the 3 companies fined so differently?”  And why did Microsoft get hit so hard?  Poor negotiations?  Or something else.  The press release from the DOJ says nothing useful.  But it does provide the text of the contracts with each company.  Each was drafted separately (no doubt due to the legions of lawyers hired by the big 3).  None of the contracts are specific about how the penalties were derived. 

Each contract has similar text about, “In particular, the United States alleges and <company> neither contests nor admits, that on or about, and during, that time period, <company>, received payments from, or attributable to, on-line gambling businesses… The United States will move for the forfeiture of these funds…”

The Microsoft contract then states, “These funds are represented in full by the Four and a Half Million US Dollars…”

The Google contract then states, “These funds are represented in full by the Three Million US Dollars…”

The Yahoo contract then states, “These funds are represented in full by the Three Million US Dollars…”

OK – so, if the funds were represented by these amounts, why did Microsoft and Yahoo get screwed?