Work Hours

When I was growing up (centuries ago, seems like), everybody talked about 'banker's hours'. I wasn't paying much attention at that tender age, but apparently, bankers started work in mid-morning, and closed up before most folks got off work. Oh, and they probably had a long lunch in there, too. Looking back, I wonder how people managed to do any banking at all; there was no direct deposit, no drive-up windows, no evening or weekend hours when the bank was open. But it must have been nice to BE a banker; no getting up before the sun, no late hours, and you got all sorts of holidays off.

But times have changed, as people say. I have a friend who works in a bank. She doesn't work in the lobby, helping customers; no, she works in one of the back offices where they push papers around and never really even touch money. So, she's a banker, since she works in a bank. But bankers hours have changed. She and her co-workers arrive before the bank lobby opens, they work a full day and trudge out as the guards lock the building up, past the ATMs and the still-open drive-through windows to their cars in the parking lot. And this year, when Christmas and New Year's Day happen on the weekend, they don't get any time off for them. Some of the back offices in these large banks have more than one shift. How would you like to be a banker working the 'graveyard' shift?

No doubt in my mind; bankers hours aren't what they used to be.

Grinch Days

I always like Christmas. It almost always disappoints, but I still like the season.

I DON'T like seeing Christmas decorations going up before Halloween has arrived, nor when the Christmas music starts almost before those Halloween costumes are discarded. It seems to me that each holiday deserves its own bit of time, and Christmas does not need to infringe on months that already have celebrations.

So, here's to the tree - which is looking a little bare this year - and here's to all the season's goodies – which I'm not supposed to eat – and here's to all the pretty lights – which I thoroughly enjoy. Hope you have a good one.

Bicycle to Nowhere

Okay, planning bicycle routes for an entire city that has (virtually) none can't be an easy job. Still, I have to wonder that that bike czar in Omaha is thinking. I haven't seen a LOT of progress so far, but a few streets have been reconfigured to introduce a bike lane on the side.

Last winter, St Mary's underwent some major reconstruction between 29^th and Leavenworth, about 3 blocks. It now has a bike lane on the right side … for 3 blocks. Where the bikes are supposed to come from to use that bike lane, or where they are supposed to be headed, I haven't figured out.

Further out on Leavenworth, the two-lanes-each-way has since been reconfigured into two lanes headed downtown and one lane headed out, to make way for a bike lane. This puts a bit of a crimp on the evening traffic that used to head out of downtown using Leavenworth, but I'm sure the bicyclists love it. The new bike lane appears around 53^rd Street and continues all the way to 60^th Street, where most of the automobile traffic turns south, but I believe the bike lane continues down the steep hill into the park. I suppose people might be willing to take their bikes into the park, but why/how did they all congregate at 53^rd Street?

These bike lanes I've mentioned are one-way, headed west. I have not yet seen any bike lanes headed east. Is that a hidden message, like, "Go west, young bikers?" So, I suppose he's doing something during those 40 hours a week he supposedly is working. But it has been several months. I don't spend all my time driving around Omaha looking for bike lanes, but … how hard can it be to decide to put a bike lane here for 3 blocks, and another here for 6 or 7 blocks … and not bother to connect them up?

I don't know how much longer his 'grant' job is going to last, but I certainly hope Omaha sees more out of his office than this little bit of nonsense.

Make Way for Bicycles

Some months back, well after the City of Omaha admitted it was having Dire Financial Difficulties, the city officials were thrilled to announce that they had hired a 'bicycle czar', someone to decide where and how bicycle lanes would be created so that people could use these devices to travel about town, thereby saving gasoline costs and lowering the smog emissions, since there would be fewer cars on the streets. I believe the local paper even stated what that person would be paid, and it certainly seemed an exorbitant salary, considering how many city employees were facing lay-off at the time. The paper went on to say, however, that the position had been created and was being paid for by a federal grant the city had received. So that made it okay, was the implication, because the city wasn't actually paying for this person to do his job.

Really? I keep wondering if that reporter really is that simple, or if s/he thinks the readers are.

Perhaps nobody explained to the reporter that when the federal government hands out a grant that creates a new position, that grant has strings attached. It's my understanding that one of those strings is that after the duration of the grant, the entity (city) must continue the position, at the same salary, for a certain period of time, perhaps 5 years. I'd love to know how long the grant will pay this person's salary, because after that point, the city certainly will be paying for this person to do his job! And since the current poor economic times seems to be long-term, I expect the city will still be in Dire Financial Difficulties when that bill comes due.

American Dream

Is the American Dream dead? Or just ill?

In my parent's day, the American Dream was to own their own home, for the kids to have a better life than they'd had. They did own a house, at various times while I was growing up. At other times, they rented. My husband and I have owned this particular house for 20 years this month, so in that respect, we're doing pretty well. Other families, and especially younger families, are having a much tougher time these last few years in getting and keeping ownership of a home. I don't know exact figures, but that aspect of the American Dream seems to be slipping away.

As for the kids having a better life than the parents – my parents imagined the correct route for that was to see that we all went to college. So far, out of 3 children, 1 ½ of us have finished college. I still have a ways to go to get any kind of degree, but I've made it through over half the required credit hours towards that degree. The youngest of us has never started college. But since neither of my parents ever had any college classes – and lately, there's been some confusion over whether or not one of them even graduated high school – then it seems that my generation did better than they did.

In my husband's family, both parents were professionals, with all the schooling that that entails … some kind of degree, I'm sure. Of their 3 children, all of them have at least two master's degrees, and one also has a doctorate. So far as 'better education' goes, they definitely all have their parents beat, but that has not necessarily meant 'better off financially'.

Which brings us to our kids. Ours are still young, just out of high school a year or so. They have both taken some classes at the local community college. One signed up at a private junior college, and went deep into hock to do so. The junior college promptly lost its accreditation, but he still has to pay those loans back. A lot money down the drain for nothing. It'll be a long time before he can get back to school, if he every makes it.

I think that's why these types of economic times are called depressions. Everybody gets depressed. Everybody gives up. Welcome to the American Dream on Life Support.

Taxing the UnRepped

For years, the City of Omaha has taxed its citizens by charging an annual 'wheel tax', which was collected when car owners renewed their state license plate. It always seemed a little unfair to me, as those who didn't have a car didn't pay, and those who had an old car paid the exact same amount as someone who had a brand new one. But nobody asked me my opinion on the subject.

At one point, the wheel tax was extended to those who worked in city government but didn't live within city limits. However, they only charged those people the wheel tax on one car, probably because they had no way of knowing exactly how many vehicles that person might own. This was even more unfair. Employees were being taxed based on who they worked for! But of course, their only recourse was to quit.

The city has its reasons for wanting to get as many people to pay this tax as they can manage. Supposedly, it pays for maintaining the streets, which all those auto tires are busily wearing out. Do other cities pay for street repairs by charging a wheel tax? I don't know. I wish I did.

The most recent proposal from the Omaha city government is that everybody who works inside the city limits – but lives outside the city – should have to pay this wheel tax. I haven't heard how they propose to make that happen. Are the employers supposed to collect it and turn it in? I'm sure they think they've found a way. But wait a minute. People who live outside the city don't have the opportunity to vote on whether or not they should have to pay this tax. They don't have any representation within City Government. Isn't that Taxation Without Representation? Didn't we once fight a war against that very concept?

So, what comes next in this effort to make people pay for the street asphalt they use up by driving through town? Why doesn't the city erect toll booths on all the roads coming into town, all the exits from the interstate, and charge for the privilege of entering the City of Omaha? Think of all those tourists who pause to use a hotel or grab a tankful of gas, a bite to eat. Aren't they also using up the asphalt? Shouldn't they have to shoulder their share of the replacement cost? Of course, they aren't represented on the City Council, either, but such things don't seem to matter in Omaha.

Can't Go Home

There's an old saying that you can never go home again. I've heard it most of my life, but I never really believed it. Until I tried to do it earlier this fall.

To me, home is where your family and friends are, preferably in a location familiar to you from your childhood. As my parents, grandparents and other family members passed, I lost that contact with those familiar faces and places. Maybe it was my age, maybe it was that lost connection with my childhood, but more and more, I started remembering the small town where I grew up, the friends I had, the classmates I shared so many years with. Where were they, what were they doing? I drooled over remembered pastries from the bakery on Main Street, wondered if the school system still served peanut butter sandwiches on Fridays. I didn't realize I was romanticizing my childhood.

Earlier this fall, I had a chance to return to that town for a class reunion. It was culture shock. The highway that used to go through town now veered around. Both trucks stops – one on either end of the town – where my mother and sister used to work were gone, replaced by simple gas stations, fast food joints and pizza places. Main Street was mostly unrecognizable, because a tornado had torn through about 15 years ago, and most of the buildings had to be replaced. The only piece that was recognizable was the theater, but it operated only on the weekend, rather than all week.

When I actually got together with a number of those classmates, I reverted to the shy wallflower I had been in school. I did okay when I could talk to one or two people, but most of them concentrated on conversing with larger numbers, to get the most ground covered, I suppose. And I'm not sure, but I only remember one of them as still living in that town. Some of them recognized me, even after all these years. Strangely, the ones I remembered the most strongly barely remembered me.

The house I grew up in looked ready to fall to the ground.

That wasn't home anymore. Like me, 'home' had changed.

Team Spirit

I've got a friend who's been working a temporary job at a big bank. I get two versions of this job from her whenever she has a chance to talk.

1. It's a fun team to be part of, with rewards and competitions all over the place. The one who closes the most loans this month gets a free turkey! The sooner we reach our goal, the sooner we get to wear jeans! Everybody's worked so hard, we're giving out free ice cream cones this afternoon!
   
2. Her work space is about as far from ergonomic as it can get, and no opportunity to make it better suited to her body. This led to horrendous pain in her neck and shoulders the first week, pain in her lower back radiating down her legs the second week. At last she seemed to 'adjust', and the pains faded away, but she wondered what she might be doing to her body in the long term, by adjusting to her workspace instead of adjusting her workspace.
   

I suppose every job is like that. You learn to do what's expected of you so that you fit in. If you're lucky, you get rewarded for good work with a little more than just a paycheck. But sometimes it seems to me that those 'fun rewards' are just a gimmick to get you to think your workplace is a caring place to be. Upon further study, it doesn't cost the company anything to let the workers wear jeans, or to have a competition to see which team collects the most food for the food bank. Even a few dozen ice cream cones is chump change for a bank as big as this one. How about a reward that would actually mean something, like NOT raising the employees' insurance premium?

Not only companies have a bottom line. Families do, too.

Hide and Seek

I was getting ready to type up a new blog … must be halfway consistent, mustn't I? … when MicroSoft dealt me another blow. That's the problem with MicroSoft (and maybe all giant computer programs, for all I know) – they aren't consistent. Just when you think you've got a mutually working relationship with them, they go and do something unexpected.
Today when I opened up a new blog document, the view of it was not what I expected. The lettering seemed half the size I expected, or less, although the program claimed it was its normal 11 point size. When I compared this new blog document to one I'd previously written, the old one went to '10' according to the ruler along the top. The new one goes to 16 ½.
Now, if this were a document document, I could simply adjust the size at which I'm viewing it. But it's not a document document, it's a blog document. And despite all my efforts, all my searching, I can't find any way to change the size of the view. I even got desperate enough to consult the help files, but they were no help. Help files never actually help, do they?
And so I had to change the size of the font to twice what it normally is, in order for me to see the letters I was typing. I expect when I post this blog, I'll have to change the font back to its normal size, or everybody will think I'm screaming at them. I'd rather just scream at MicroSoft, like that would do any good. Why should they listen to customer complaints? They already have their money.

Anti-Politics Rant 1

Coming up on another election, and those running for office seem particularly stupid this time. Everybody hates mud-slinging ads, and yet, that's all we ever get: "A is going to raise taxes!" / "I'm not going to raise taxes! B's going to! Plus, he gave himself 87 raises in the last two years!" / "A voted himself a raise that doubles his salary! And he was seen drunk!" / "Enough of this mud-slinging; let's discuss the issues. B's going to end social security benefits!"

It's impossible to tell the grain from the chaff, and all anybody can do in such a dearth of information is vote along party lines. That's fine for the followers who feel they must belong to a party, but what about those of us who actually try to determine who they think would be the better choice?

What we need is somebody who could study the records and put out a factual, unbiased report on what the politicians HAVE done in the past. Did C vote to privatize social security? Did D sell his vote on this bill for a big pork-barrel addition that doesn't benefit anybody? That would at least give the voter some information on which to base his decision.

But who would do it? The average person can't spend the required time to do that much research; they have a job and family. My initial thought was that it was a job for the news media, but they seem to have abdicated that responsibility. The only thing they seem to be interested in doing is asking such questions as, "How does this faux pas affect this candidate's ability to win the election?

So, it seems impossible for the average voter to get any real information on the candidates, and yet, they are expected to choose one, even though all the candidates act like idiots. I'm beginning to think only idiots run for office. Do I really want idiots representing me?

What choice do I have?

Oct Road Trip Part 2

Okay, so there I was in Colorado, where I had a cozy chat with friends from long ago. Eventually, I had to start home.

I never did find a place in that small town to get a decent breakfast. The hotel offered donuts, but I have to watch my blood sugar, so that wasn't a good option. All the restaurants I saw were either fast food without a breakfast menu or associated with a bar and not open until 11 AM. I pulled out of town at 7:30 AM with a couple ounces of cheese to serve as my breakfast. Not a great start to the day.

It started raining while I was on that 2-lane Colorado highway. I carefully considered the landscape every time I came across a sign that declared this section of road was in a 'flash flood zone'. I suppose the locals know what they're talking about, but … all I saw were low ridges all around, sloping down to a valley some 5 or 6 feet below the asphalt roadway. No dry creek bed or eroded section to indicate past floods. Happily, it wasn't raining hard enough for me to see where a flash flood would come from.

It was still raining when I got to Nebraska, and suddenly I had plenty of company on the road. You know, it's disconcerting to find yourself zipping along at 75-80 amidst a herd of 18-wheelers, all jostling each other as they jockey for a position closer to the front of a VERY long line of traffic. Add rain heavy enough to put your wipers on high speed, and the experience becomes worrisome. So my trip east through Nebraska was not as happy as my trip west had been, except that each exit I went past put me that much closer to home.

Oct Road Trip

Took a trip this past weekend to see some old high school friends. I drove practically the entire length of Nebraska, and 150 miles into Colorado. And then, of course, after my visit, I had to drive back.

Like a lot of people, I kind of thought all those states between the Mississippi and the Rockies to be the same flavor – flat in spots, rolling in spots, with farm fields and livestock fields and an occasional tree in between the small towns. The thing about driving alone is that you have time to observe the countryside and think about things. This trip made me realize that Nebraska and Colorado are very different.

In Nebraska, there are a LOT of small towns. As I zapped down the interstate, every 9-15 miles, there was an exit that lead to some village, town or (Nebraska-sized) city. In between those exits, there were farm fields, neatly bordered by fences, though one has to wonder how a fence is going to keep a plant crop confined. Rivers and creeks were fairly frequent and bordered by large numbers of tree families. I didn't realize until I got to well into Colorado that Nebraska gave me a 'happy' impression.

In Colorado, the exits from the interstate were further apart, and in a lot of cases, those exits seemed to lead to a dirt or once-upon-a-time-paved road with no clue what direction one should go in order to find the town the exit supposedly served. The fields were still fenced, but untilled, for this was cattle country. However, the cattle seemed to be hiding behind the nearest ridge, or at the other end of the ranch, or someplace out of sight. When I got off the interstate for the last 70 miles, I went through 2 wide spots before arriving at my destination. One had a post office/general store as its only visible business, and the other had no visible businesses. Tumbleweeds really do complete the feeling of lonely desolation.

Hmmm, too many observations for one blog. Guess I'll have to do a Part 2, some day.

I Can't Complain

Actually, I can complain, I frequently do. I try not to do it so much that people can't stand my company. But the last couple days have given me Things To Think About.

I received a call the other day asking could I please provide transportation to an older woman who needed to get to her Physical Therapy, and then the store, and then home again. She no longer drives. She no longer has a husband to drive for her. She has very little sight left, and needed someone to read the prices for her on the store shelves. It took a chunk out of my day, but I did it. Some day I might be in that position myself.

This morning, I received an impromptu visit from a friend, and we started comparing notes on our health problems. She's younger than me, but her health problems, in some ways, are worse than mine. I wish I could learn now what she had to learn long ago – to get my body into shape and then exercise to keep it there. Exercising helps keep the aches and pains away. It's not that I haven't tried to exercise, but I guess I'm too easily frustrated by lack of progress.

There are days when I don't want to climb out of bed any more. I ache, I have pains, blah, blah, blah. I'm going to be telling myself to knock it off. I'm not young anymore, and I've mis-used my body for a long time. But I'm still in better shape than many other people. I still have some years left in me. If I work at it and I have a modicum of luck, they can be good years. If I'm going to complain about how awful things are, then why would I WANT to have several more years?

It's not that I CAN'T complain. It's that I choose not to.

More Bra Nonsense

Okay, I recently had to buy some new bras. Every so often I can't put it off any longer, and I have to take the plunge. In an effort to make it less of an ordeal, I carefully read the measuring instructions, in order to find my 'correct' size.

I seldom see that much ridiculous nonsense in one place.

Band Size. When I was young, the instructions were, measure around the rib cage, up under the breasts, and then add 5 inches, if that gets you an even number, or up to 6 inches, to get to an even number. That was your 'band' size. I never understood why the manufacturers couldn't just use the actual measurement around the ribs as a woman's 'band size', but they didn't.

Since then, I've seen instructions that the woman should measure around her chest, up under her armpits and over her breasts. This number actually was her 'band size', even though it had nothing to do with the band that sits around her ribs. This measurement can change from minute to minute, too, as it is not actually measuring a straight line around a woman; it's considerably lower in the back than it is in front.

This time, I was told to measure my rib cage again, but I only needed to add 3 inches, up to 4. I don't mind them changing how they measure for a bra, but adding 3-4 inches doesn't make any more sense than adding 5-6.

Cup Size. The cup size – the letter component of a bra's size – is determined by how much larger is the measurement around the body at the fullest part of the breasts compared to the 'band size'. If the numbers are the same, you're a B cup; smaller and you're an A or AA; larger and you're a C, D…all the way up to H. The instructions for getting this measurement haven't changed: "Wearing a well-fitting bra, measure around…." What? If I had a bra that fit well, why wouldn't I just check the label to see what size it is? Seems a lot simpler than all this rigmarole.

And after all this, you still don't know what size you are. Because in the end, this time I ignored my results of following the instructions and ordered the same size I bought last time, even though it wasn't the size the instructions said I took. They fit just fine.

Not Dead Yet

For several years, men of A Certain Age have had access to chemical assistance to help them in their amorous dealings.

For several years, I have periodically mentioned to my physician that I had no amorous inclinations, something my husband found quite irritating. It's gotten to the point that it's rather irritating to me, also. There is no physical reason for my enjoyment of this activity (yes, sex – what did you think I was talking about?) to be so … limited.

So, where are the little blue pills, or little pink pills, or anything that might help me enjoy myself? So far as I can figure out, there's no such thing.

Why not?

Is it because men rule the world and women (and their lack of enjoyment of such pleasures) are unimportant? There are feminists who insist this is the case. I've tried to work my way past that type of thinking, that type of conspiracy belief, but in the back of my mind…

Is it because female biology is so much more complex than male biology? Yeah, right. Tell me another.

Whatever the reason, I want it fixed. I want to feel the same level of passion my husband is still capable of. Why should men have all the fun?

PS. This is NOT an invitation to tell me of your family recipe to 'cure' this problem, or the latest 'study' on what exercise or activity the couple should do. Believe me, the subject has been researched, instructions followed, and what didn't actually turn my stomach did absolutely no good. All men need is a little blue pill. It should be just as easy for women.

When Do I Become a Senior?

Becoming a Senior Citizen used to be a simple matter. At least, I assumed it did; I really didn't pay any attention, since I didn't figure it would affect me. My assumption was, when I retired from my job and began receiving a Social Security check, then I would officially be a senior citizen.

Well, I have retired; I do receive a pension check, but I am still a long way from applying for Social Security. Actually, I am looking at starting a new career, so even though I may have retired, I am far from spending my days sitting in the pasture. As I collect a few gray hairs, I find myself in a gray area of society.

Am I a Senior Citizen? Depends where I am. Some businesses considered me a Senior Citizen as soon as I turned 50. Others won't offer me any 'consideration' until I hit 65. It's embarrassing to go into a restaurant, see a sign that offers a discount to seniors, and have to ask, "What constitutes a senior for your business?" But I am on a fixed income right now, so I swallow my pride and ask. A few pennies here, a dime or two there … it adds up. Still, if I were a gung-ho conspiracy therorist, I'd be sure this is a deliberate attempt to belittle people who have the audacity to live past their 'prime.' Keep us off balance, keep us 'in our place'.

Frankly, I don't feel like a senior citizen. I didn't wake up on the day I turned 50 and tell myself, "Well, that's it, now I'm old." Yes, I have a few aches and pains; a couple medical conditions have become long-term. So what? Plenty of younger people have chronic medical problems, and they get along just fine. So when I get my new career off the ground, maybe I won't bother to ask for the senior discount. Or maybe I'm just so thrifty that I will.

As for those parking stalls near the store door marked 'For Senior Citizens', do I use them or not? Depends on how much I ache that day.

Bra Nonsense

Back in the 70s, some feminists went so far as to burn their bras. No longer would they submit to the shackles decreed by men!

Turns out, as many of us discovered as the years drifted by, bras actually serve a purpose, other than shackling women because men like them like that. They help combat the ravages of gravity and time, if worn correctly. Therein lies the rub, in more than one sense.

I'm going to guess that at least 95% of the bras manufactured follow the same old pattern: two straps that go straight over the shoulders, and the opening is in the back. I hate that pattern. Unless you are young and flexible – or don't mind asking for help getting dressed and undressed – that back opening is hard to negotiate. The straps fall off the shoulders, which means the bra is not doing its job. And the more a woman needs a bra (the bustier she is), the more those objections hold true. Some women develop deep indentations in their shoulders from where they've tightened those straps as much as they possibly can, trying to keep those straps from falling. My mom had those shoulder indentations.

I switched to front-closure bras a decade or more ago. Much easier to put on! But most of them are of the 'leisure' variety, meaning they aren't really intended to provide the support that is the reason for wearing bras in the first place. What gives with that? Oh, they do supply some light support, but for the full-figured gal, it isn't much. And if you aren't a full-figured gal, why bother with a bra at all?

I do wish the bra manufacturers would go back to the drawing board and try again. There is no reason why a bra that offers support can't be opened in the front. There is no reason why a bra's straps have to go straight up and over, which gives them leeway to slip out of position. There are plenty of other possibilities that would minimize that problem, if not eliminate it. But I suspect the general mentality of bra manufacturers is; it was good enough for mom, so it's good enough for today's women, too. Shame on them for being stuck in the mud.

Trying to Eat Right

When I was growing up, my mom fixed the typical American meal; meat, potatoes, vegetables, bread & butter and sometimes a dessert. Of course, back then, a fatty piece of meat was considered 'flavorful', potatoes were mashed using full-fat milk, vegetables were often flavored with bacon grease or butter, and desserts and snacks were just full of both fat and sugar. But at the time, it was considered a pretty healthy diet.

I got a little older, didn't climb trees and run around the block so much any more, and found that eating an entire big bag of chips at one sitting tended to increase my girth. So I tried to stop eating such large helpings, tried to educate myself about what was healthy eating. Things had changed when I wasn't looking. Bye bye to hot dogs, whole milk (2% was all the rage!) and bacon. If you were baking, you were supposed to substitute applesauce for half the butter. And that, apparently, was the new healthy diet.

Okay, more time passed. I had continued to put on weight, despite many attempts to 'exercise more'. My joints started to complain about the strain. What more could I do? I couldn't afford much of the really really lean meat, so meat became a 3-times-a-week luxury. All the fats I knew how to cook with were thrown out in favor of olive oil. Milk became skim milk. In an effort to fill my belly, to avoid all those desserts and snacks I wasn't supposed to have, I tended to have rice and pasta with my meals. Those weren't fatty, so it was okay, right?

Then I was diagnosed as 'pre-diabetic'. As I've learned how to 'adjust' my diet (yet again), everybody keeps telling me how simple this is. Really? You have just thrown out everything I ever knew how to cook. After a week of oatmeal, raw carrots and salad, tell me how to resist the temptation to actually EAT.

They keep changing the rules, but they never really give you a handbook on what you CAN eat, or how to cook it. Oh, they give you a couple sheets here and there, telling you what NOT to eat, but not how to cook (whatever's left) to make it into something you actually want to eat.

Business friendly or Unfriendly?

I do a little bit of traveling here and there in the lower 48. And I'm old enough to remember a little further back than last week. I remember when airlines and hotels began to promote certain aspects of their offerings as being especially useful or nice for those on business trips.

Have to fly to <insert city name>? XYZ Airline has Business Class seats available! Not as expensive as First Class, but more legroom than Sardine Class. Need to get some work done between meetings? <ThisHere> Hotel now has a Business Center and internet access in your room, as well as the dry cleaning and shoe shining services we've always had!

I've never been in Business Class on an airplane. For that matter, I've never been in First Class. But I have flown a few times in the last couple years, and if the airlines are offering ANY seats that allow their passengers to breath, then I guess that's got to be considered pretty d****d 'friendly'.

My travels have me staying in a wide range of hotels, from really cheap mom-and-pop roadside motels to modestly expensive high-rise hotels. As someone who tries to conduct some modicum of business even while I'm traveling, I'm learning to like those cheap national brand h/motels far more than those big-city high-rises. If the wifi connection isn't free in my $50 motel room, then it costs a whopping $2.93 a night. Meanwhile, during my stay in that $150 hotel room, an internet connection in my room costs at least $10 a day, and if I want to use their business center, perhaps to print something out, then that's an additional $5.99 PER MINUTE that I'm logged onto their computer.

Seems obvious to me that the only 'business people' these businesses are friendly to are their own stock holders. Every business for itself, I guess.

What’s a Girl to do?

I've been traveling around these United States since I was a little girl, which is a very long time. I want to talk today about restroom stalls. During those travels, I've seen stalls at rest stops along highways, in parks, in gas stations, restaurants, theme parks, amusement parks, and even hotel lobbies. I swear, as I've gotten larger, the stalls have gotten smaller. If any handicapped ladies are wondering why so many women who are not 'challenged' use the handicapped stall, it is because that is the only stall they feel they can squeeze into.

I suppose men don't have this problem; certainly hubby doesn't quite understand my anger over this. But when I go into a stall, and the opening door comes within 2 inches of the toilet bowl, I am left wondering where I am supposed to stand in order to close that door. I suppose an underfed 8-year-old could stand next to the toilet and close the door, but I am not paper thin. The only thing I can think of is that we ladies are supposed to stand IN the toilet to close the door. Then we can step out, shake the blue liquid from our dainty high-heeled slippers and do our business. Hopefully, the toilet will flush before we are required to step back into the bowl in order to open the door to leave.

At the same time, toilet paper containers have become enormous. I recently made the mistake of choosing to use a 'normal' stall, and after contorting myself to get the door closed, and seating myself, I found the over-sized toilet paper container trying to sit on my lap! This would have been quite a feat, since I have no lap. The entire experience was quite claustrophobic.

Please, whoever is designing bathroom stalls these days … give us room to breath!

When Games Make More Sense than Reality

Have you ever played Sim City? It's a computer game where you start with a plot of land, and you try to build a respectable city with housing, businesses, industry, power supply, airport, roads and railroads, even a sports arena. Seems simple enough, actually, and I could spend hours playing it. I found there were some tricks to being successful. If you built a sports arena too early, you ran out money and had to raise taxes. Raise the taxes too high, or leave them elevated too long, and all sorts of things went wrong; industry moved away, businesses died, and houses became empty and dilapidated. It's no fun trying to recover from that.

Not enough police stations? Crime runs rampant. Not enough fire stations? You run the risk of the Great Chicago Fire. And every time you build one of those necessities, your revenue has to cover the increase in salaries, upkeep and so on. It becomes a balancing game, really, to keep growing and still manage to supply the expected services.

Perhaps a few more politicians should spend a few weeks playing that game. Perhaps they'd figure out that if you build an unnecessary sports arena, people get upset. That if you ask the day-to-day city employees to forego cost-of-living wages for several years (while those in the mayor's and city council's offices got some pretty whopping raises), you have started to choke your own revenue sources, because those day-to-day workers number thousands of families who would like to buy more than they currently can, while the dozen who got those whopping raises aren't likely to make up the difference.

Maybe they'd learn to THINK about the decisions they make, before they make them.