First thought is money and budgeting. I have this nice little spreadsheet that I made up years ago. It's more than likely an over-complicated way to do a simple thing... keep track of money coming in and going out while helping me plan for the near future. The top lists what I expect to make each week. It's done weekly as I currently get paid weekly. If and when I get hired in by the state (more on that later) I will re-work the spreadsheet to be bi-weekly. Anywho, the top cell is what i expect to make that week. Under that is space for the actual pay when it comes in. For the most part these numbers are the same, but occasionally when I take a day off, as I did last week because of a stomach flu, or work an extra 15 minutes, they are different. There is a space for extra income, but that rarely gets used now.
Under that is a section for my bills. I currently have spaces for rent (it's not rent... more of a payback to mom from all the money I siphoned off of her), Fiona (car loan), Cell Phone, Credit Card, Storage (I rent a storage area for all my crap), Student loan (I just made my VERY first student loan payment... EVER!), cigarettes, cartomizors (the nicotine containing parts for my eCigs), and Gasoline.
I also have a space for 'weekly expenses'. I used to put in the amount I'd expect to take out each week for 'walking around' money, but now that's just an area for me to input money I spent that doesn't fit into other categories.
Right now this spreadsheet spans weeks from August 28, to October 23 (the dates line up to pay days). It's a nice system as it allows me to figure out exactly when each bill is due and make sure it gets paid on time. It also allows me at a glance to see how much 'extra' money I'll have for the next few weeks. For example if I spend only what I have in the spreadsheet I'll have $500 next month. That's in addition to the extra balance I'm carrying right now. So at a glance I can easily see that I couldn't afford to move out. $500 is nice, but that wouldn't cover a real rent payment, let alone utilities, food and other expenses that arise out of living alone.
Every few weeks I'll make sure that the ending week's balance in the spreadsheet matches up with my actual checking account balance. This is how I keep track of what 'walking around' money I take, and any extraneous purchases I make (like the keyboard and headset last week). This week when I tallied that up, I had to input $714.58. About $300 of that is the keyboard and headset. $260 is money I took out to get my brother's truck up and running (as opposed to 'fixing up' Lita). I know I took out $100 for some pocket cash... but that's only $660. I have to account for another $50 or so.
That's another reason I like this spreadsheet... it helps me think of where my money is going. As I was writing this, I honestly didn't know where that other $50 went. But with some thought, I remembered where it went... Porn. Yes, I'm not ashamed to say that since I've gotten my job I've been buying up memberships to some porn sites that I've admired from afar. X-Art, Wowgirls, Joymii, Passion-HD... these are all sites that I've gotten images from that I ended up using in caps. It seems only right to pay for a membership after all the joy they've given me. And no.. I didn't just buy the memberships to pay them back. I've enjoyed the porn values as well.
Some purchases I plan to make in the near future: Finish fixing my brother's truck. Fix up Lita enough to either give her to my brother or sell her outright (more on that later). Some new clothes. Really that's about all I have planned. There are of course other things I'd like to get like camera equipment (thanks for putting that in my head Dee!) and a handgun, but these are too expensive to do on a whim and honestly are too expensive to do without a better reason that 'I want it and can kind of afford it'. So those will stay on the backburner. Oh... I'm also mentally putting some money away to donate to NPR. I now listen to NPR for about 8 hours a week and I think donating to them is the right thing to do. It's SO worth it.
State Job:
Ok... enough budgeting for now. I mentioned getting hired in by the state earlier I never realized just how much of a pain this might be. There are currently open spaces for three RNs at my facility. Two are held by contract nurses... me and another nurse. I know that the state saves some money by having contract nurses, but they also want these to be filled by permanent employees. If it were up to the nursing staff at my facility we would both be hired immediately.
We both want to be hired in by the state, the nursing staff wants us both hired in by the state, and the state wants these positions to be held by permanent employees as opposed to contract employees. Sounds simple right? Well of course it isn't. So far the state and the HR department at our facility has only opened up one position to be filled. I've put my application in, but I'm not sure that I deserve this over the other RN. You see, she has a unique story full of woe. She was hired in as a contract nurse a few years back. Earlier this year she got hired in as a permanent employee... but between being told she was hired and ACTUALLY being hired she got pregnant. When she went to put in for time off to have her baby she was told that as a 'new' hire she couldn't take that much time off at once. It was explained to me once how this didn't violate the Family Leave act, but more or less it was a BS reason. She ended up having to quit to have her baby so that she could get hired back in... as a contract nurse.
So while technically I've been in the contract position longer than her, she has years of experience at this facility. If they are only going to open up one position I can honestly say that she deserves it more than me and just hope that they open up another position soon. But there's bad blood between this nurse and the HR department. She called them out in person (appropriately so in my opinion) for screwing her over. So the HR department seems to be leaning toward me. I would just feel so guilty to get this position over her, and honestly I'm afraid that other nurses might see me as the 'bad guy' for taking this opportunity away from her.
It's not like both of us won't eventually get hired. But being hired first does have it's advantages. Her past experience won't be factored in when compared with seniority. Time off requests, shift assignments, and even pay is based on seniority. If I get hired in first I'd get those advantages over someone that I honestly go to for help on a nearly daily basis... hell she just oriented me to working on 4 Block for the afternoon shift.
The other week the HUM (the big kahuna of the nursing staff) took me aside and made sure that I had my application in for the open position. My previous application was still in good standing, but I did go through the motions of updating it (adding my current experience to my resume, and making the application apply to this facility directly instead of all state correctional facilities). In light of whats going on between me an this other nurse, I'm taking this as a sign that I'm going to get the nod over her. And really, that's just a shame.
Lita:
So last week I went to my brother with a proposition. I could either start putting money into fixing Lita or put that same money into fixing his truck. Back when I was looking for a car I wanted to keep Lita specifically so that my brother could drive her (thus saving my Mom's van for herself) at least until his truck was on the road. Eventually when my brother got his tuck on the road I'd give Lita to my other brother as his family could really use an extra car (his wife has to get a ride to her job every day and his daughter is just about to get her drivers licence).
Now I knew that Lita needed work. It's one of the reasons I didn't want to continue to drive her nearly 500 miles a week. I knew that there was an odd sound coming from the front of her (probably suspension related), her brakes needed to be at least looked at (the ABS light has been on since my brother put new brake shoes on the back), the seat lost one bolt and was held in place by a wooden frame in the back, and the AC had died long ago. But since I got Fiona and let my brother drive her on a daily basis, he has since brought me up to date on her problems. It is indeed a suspension problem up front... and it's bad. He assumes it can be fixed, but until it's looked at it's a mystery problem. His estimate is that the repair will cost between $100 and $600. The brakes... yea the rear brakes aren't working at all. The seat is the seat... it just needs a repair shop that can drill out the now headless bolt and replace it. The AC would be nice, but since it's been out for so long it probably needs a new compressor and that can repair could run as high as $500. In addition to these problems, both front tires are on their last legs. Both have severe cracks in the sidewalls and will need to be replaced. The rears don't have much more life in their tread either, so even with used tires its going to be a couple hundred bucks there.
And what, you may ask, is Lita worth? Well if all these things (including the AC) were fixed Kelly Blue Book pegs Lita at under $800.
Ouch.
I had hoped that giving Lita to one of my brothers would be a gift. Now she's looking more like giving them a debt and a deathtrap. "Hey Bro, here's a free car. But don't drive it until you put $1000 in to her... yes that same $1000 could probably buy a better car." That's just a dick move.
I've overvalued the engine in Lita. If you remember in my previous car rantings, the 3800 Series II engine in Lita is the very reason I bought her in the first place. It's a strong engine that more than likely still has a solid 100,000 miles in her. But that engine isn't worth anything if it's surrounded by a car without tires, brakes are a suspension system that will keep her from careening off the road.
So I'm very glad to say that my brother chose to put the money into his truck. He's doing the work himself so far as it only needed basic suspension work (ball joints and tie rods). He'll need to get it professionally aligned once he's done but that will still put the bill at under $500. He may well be ready to put his truck on the road this week (next week at the very latest) at which point I'm going to cancel the insurance on Lita and move it over to his truck (yes, I"m going to pay for his insurance until he can do so himself).
That leaves me with the dilemma of what to do with Lita. I can still give it to my brother, but if I'm honest I'm not sure I'd even want him to take it. His wife's drive to and from work is about 20 miles a day. Not much when compared to the 100 a day I was going to do with her, but still a lot of miles to drive without putting the money into her. Even if he does put the money into her and fixes her seat, the suspension, the brakes and the tires (forget the AC... Winter is coming), he'd still be putting hundreds of dollars into a car with over 150,000 miles. A car with three major rust areas (both rear fenders and the hood). A car with an accordion like dent line running from the passenger front fender, along the A pillar, the roof, the C pillar, and the rear fender (from when the car port fell on Lita). I just don't think that would be a good way for him to spend the money. It would be different if I could say that she could safely drive the car while they slowly put money into her... but she drives on the highway. No... I think that's too much risk for them to take on.
So that leave me with the quandary of what to do with Lita. I could probably sell her outright. We don't live on a busy street, but if I put a for sale sign on her, plant her in the front yard and supplement that with a Craig's List listing I could probably get about $200 for her. My brother has suggested selling her to a junk yard. I might be able to get as much as $400 for her that way as she has FAR more than that in parts. Hell... they could sell the used engine and tranny for that!
Damn it... it looks like junking her is the best option. And to think... I probably could have gotten between $500 and $1000 for her as a trade in.
Guns:
I'm a fan of guns. I've always had the idea of getting 'into' guns in the back of my head. Hand guns, long rifles, shot guns... I just like the idea of taking up guns as a hobby. Several years ago a close friend of mine stared to do just that. He bought a Remington 700 rifle and started to customize it. This wasn't the over the top 'tacticool' customizations that you generally see from gun enthusiasts... these were enhancements to the guns reliability and it's accuracy. It felt like very month or so he'd get some new part that would require us to take it out to the range and get it sighted in. Before his financial situation required him to sell the gun we could reliably hit a small target (about the size of a desert plate) at 500 yards.
500 YARDS!
That's five football field lengths. If a person were standing next to the target (which would NEVER happen for safety reasons), they would see the bullet hit the target before they heard the gunshot. This wasn't an elite rifle by any means, but for an amateur it was incredibly impressive.
He also got into handguns. One of his first handguns was a Ruger Mark II .22 targeting pistol. A .22 round is fairly small and isn't really useful for self defense. Most pistols that use .22s are small and designed for concealment. But the Ruger Mark II is designed for accuracy. It's a heavy pistol and that weight really helps reduce if not outright eliminate kick. So once you have the target in sight you can put several rounds in it quickly. It is an absolute BLAST to shoot and since it uses .22 rounds it's actually quite inexpensive to shoot on a regular basis. He also ended up getting a Smith and Wesson M&P 9mm. The M&P designation means that it was designed for the military and police so it's a rugged gun. Fun to shoot, but not something that I'm particularly interested in owning.
The Ruger Mark III (a new line came out a couple years back), however, IS something that I'd like to own. Brand spanking new they go for between $400 and $700. The problem in buying one is that it's one of those 'For Me' purchases. Yes, I'd like to own one and yes, I'd get enjoyment out of taking this to the range and putting some lead through paper. But I'm not sure that I could justifiably put that much money down on something. I just ranted last week about not being so greedy. It's not even something like a Camera that I would put down as a mostly greedy purchase. With a camera I could at least make art. I could make professional quality portraits (at least once I got some professional lighting equipment to go with it!). This Ruger would be nothing more than something for me to take to a range and plink some rounds down range with. Hell, it wouldn't even be a good home defense weapon.
So for now, I'll put getting a Ruger down toward the bottom of my 'dream' list. <Sigh>
As long as I'm talking about guns, I wanted to talk a bit about Gun control I think this is something that we as a nation should have a serious discussion about. I'm not talking about the incoherent "I'M RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG AND YOU'RE KILLING OUR COUNTRY" style shouting match that's gone on in the media ever since Sandy Hook. I'm talking about an honest discussion about what we want and what we can do together.
I think there are two vocal groups taking up most of the oxygen in this discussion that represent only a very small portion of our population. The first group is the one that believes that we as americans should be able to buy any gun anywhere in any way without the government ever being involved. This group opposes the fact that we can't buy fully automatic rifles. This group opposes any background checks. This group is lead by the saying "The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun".
The second group is the one that believes that guns are destroying our nation. That all guns should be outlawed. That the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to stop sales of all guns and to get all the guns from everybody.
Neither of these positions are possible. There is no way that the government is going to completely back out of the gun regulation business. There is no way that the government is going to come after our guns. So reality is somewhere in between and any time spent talking about either of these extremes is time lost on discussing real progress.
My biggest problem is that I spend so much time arguing against both of these positions that I can't really define where I sit. I would NEVER support the government coming after our guns. I would NEVER support the government banning all guns. Would I support the banning of assault weapons? Well... I guess it depends on how the define an assault weapon. I don't like the way this last assault weapons ban was written.
I guess I should lay out what I think guns should be used for. Hunting. Collection. Target Shooting Home Defense. Note that I'm specifically saying Home Defense and not Self Defense. That's because I don't think a normal citizen (as opposed to specific police and/or security forces) should be carrying guns out and about.
The problem with that list is that there isn't much room for 'banning' any weapon. Even fully automatic rifles. I would absolutely LOVE to take a fully auto AK-47 or M1 and shoot them... at a range. Targeting a fully automatic gun, whether it be an Uzi or a Kalashnikov, is a whole different skill set as opposed to targeting a single round gun.
For home defense, I can't think of a better weapon than a pump action shotgun loaded with bird shot. The sound of such a gun being chambered is practically unmistakable and is incredibly threatening when heard along with a shout of "Get the FUCK out of my HOUSE!" from behind a closed door. If need arises for the gun to actually be shot the bird shot will make sure that anyone hit will be seriously hurt without a large chance of killing someone (especially a loved one behind a wall or in another room).
For hunting many many weapons would qualify. Most "Assault Weapons" make great hunting rifles. The fact that they are designed to get effective kills is exactly what makes them good hunting weapons. Say what you will about the morality of hunting anything, if you ARE going to kill an animal I would think that getting a kill with one shot is better than torturing an animal with multiple shots from a lesser weapon. Being easy to kill a large buck with one shot makes it easy to kill a human with one shot. My biggest gripe about hunting and hunting weapons is that there is no reason to have a lot of rounds in a magazine. Realistically if you can't kill a dear with 3 rounds, then you probably can't kill it with dozens of rounds. And if I'm remembering this correctly you are only allowed to have five rounds in a magazine when hunting (at least in my state).
So this leads me to the first thing about gun control that I would and do support.... magazine restrictions. I honestly can't come up with a reason that it should ever be legal to own, let alone use, a magazine that holds dozens of rounds. Laws have been proposed (some of which passed) that limits magazines to holding ten or fewer rounds. If you can't defend your home with ten rounds, then you simply can't defend your home. If you can't hunt with ten rounds, then you simply can't hunt. And target shooting? I don't believe I've ever shot more than 4 rounds without stopping to check on my accuracy.
Let's say this passed... that it is now illegal everywhere in the USofA to have more than 10 rounds in a magazine. Do I think that means we have to go out and get all the old magazine that hold 11, 12, 15, 20, 50 or even 100 rounds? No. Those are out there. But the criminal offense at having such a magazine with more than the legal limit loaded should be stiff enough to keep any sane person from trying such a thing.
That leads me to my second thought on gun control. Crime happens. People have, do, and will continue to get into a point of their life that baring a weapon and killing people seems appropriate. Whether it's using a handgun to rob someone on the street or taking weapons of war into a theater of people, it's sadly going to happen. I believe that any crime where a gun is used (even if it's just pointed at someone and never shot) should be punishable by a long and sever prison sentence. Guns should be something that we as a society respect, and if you can't respect them and use them in a legal manner then you need to be behind bars.
That actually leads into another point. Mental Health. Most of the mass shootings we've heard about involve someone with a mental illness. No matter what the punishment is, no law will dissuade someone like this from using a gun. We can talk until we're blue in the face about stopping the mentally ill from getting guns, but the fact is that mental illness isn't something that is static. You may be fully 'sane' when you bought your guns, but that doesn't mean that you will continue to be sane through your entire life. So I believe it's perfectly reasonable to 'prove' that you are sane enough to get a gun and perfectly reasonable to prove that fact on a continuing basis.
I don't think it would be difficult to develop a psychological test that can ascertain legal gun ownership status. This test would have to be taken to buy a gun and then taken on a regular basis to continue to own your guns. Say... every six months? Would that be tedious? Yes... but then again owning a gun shouldn't be easy. And I'm not just talking about owning a handgun or an 'assault weapon'... I'm including hunting weapons in this. If a hunter can't pass this type of test then he shouldn't be trusted with his weapon. Period.
That of course leads into another point... gun registry. Should that national government or the state government keep tabs on gun ownership? I like the government getting into my business as much as the next guy, but I think this is something that needs to be done. We trust the government to keep tabs on the property we own and the vehicles we drive. We trust the government to license our medical professionals, and oversee our police forces... why wouldn't we trust them to oversee something that is designed to kill? The only argument I've heard against the government having a gun registry of some sort is that the government will some day use that to get all of our guns. I call Bullshit. I don't know of any time that our government has ever tried to take guns away en-masse. Even when they banned fully automatic weapons they didn't try to take the existing weapons out of circulation.
And if someone is so afraid or hateful toward our government that they want to be prepared to fight in a revolution then they had better hope they take half our military with them.... otherwise that is going to be a sad and short revolution.
And then there are background checks. I think everybody can agree that there are people out there that shouldn't have a gun. The mentally handicapped and those with a violent or criminal past easily top the list. But if that's true, how do we enforce that? At some point along the way you have to be checked to see if you qualify to own a gun. And yes, again I'm including hunting weapons in this line of thought. If we agree that certain people shouldn't own a gun, then I don't see any reason that any gun sale shouldn't involve a background check. A former criminal shouldn't be able to walk into a gun show and buy a gun. A mentally unstable person shouldn't be able to buy a gun anywhere even if it's from a family member. Running a background check isn't expensive and doesn't take a lot of time. If I want to sell my gun to my brother then I don't believe it's prohibitively egregious or expensive to bring said gun to a gun store, run the background check and then complete the sale there. To do so otherwise should be just as heinous as using a gun in a crime and punished accordingly.
So... getting a gun should be difficult. Keeping a gun should be tedious. Using a gun in a crime should be considered heinous and punished accordingly. I don't believe that any of these things go against my 2nd amendment right to bear arms, and would hopefully over time make us all safer.
Two things are standing in the way of this type of common sense thinking; those who balk, shout, scratch, and fight at any mention of gun control.... and time. I believe it would take decades for us to see any sizable results if this legislation went into effect. There are just to many guns and to many people with guns for laws to change the facts on the ground quickly. It would take time for gun ownership to be seen as a responsibility as much as it is a freedom.
This isn't something that I had thought out previously. At least not in detail. I'm sure there are plenty of holes in my ideas just as I'm sure there are better ways to get the results I'm after (those results of course are less guns used violently while protecting the rights of gun ownership).
No comments:
Post a Comment