Thursday, June 25, 2009

RIP Michael

Wednesday, June 24, 2009


Really disgusting all these issues with these politicians, such as SC's Sanford.
These men are just soooo coward and losers. Just like the other governors, they are sorry they got caught. They are all very sorry and start crying once they are caught, they ask for decency in the media for the sake of their families blah blah blah.
What kind of a governor or trustful politician could he be when he just leaves the state and his job to run crying to his mistress in Argentina.
Be a man, for God's sake. You found another woman, admit it, make it public, manage the situation in an honorable manner. Get a divorce and, if not, forget about affairs.
It's not an issue if he had or not an affair. If he does his job right, if he's not a hypocrite, if he manages this complicated love live and does the right thing to do, then people don't care about it. People didn't care about Clinton and would not have cared if he had admitted from the beginning, like a man. He did his job and the affair didn't interfere with it.
But when you give people morale and religion lessons, when you publicly fight prostitution only to get one at night, when you are supposed to run a state and you just disappear in the arms of your mistress for days, well, then it is people's business.
Oh, not to mention the priest in Miami who had a mistress for like a few years and only admitted, the same cowardly way, when the media discovered him. And then he was saying that he's a regular man too, or something that he wears pants too. Well, if you know you sinned, take it like a man and resign in the first place, don't continue preaching and acting as a saint for so many months. It's one thing to fall in love, and another to keep disgustingly lying about it for so long and being a hypocrite.
And the most disturbing is this disgusting way they all manage this, like some kindergarten kids who think that if they start crying mommy is gonna forgive them for some stupid thing they did.
Not to mention the double standard. If a woman, let's say Hillary Clinton, had done this, I cannot imagine the attacks... But usually women are more of a man than men are, and either don't get into this kind of trouble, of handle it with more dignity, anyway.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009


I wonder why everybody is so interested in the octomom, Kate and Jon and other "reality" shows. They are basically made stars and millionaires overnight.
Ah, the power of TV and public opinion.

Friday, June 19, 2009


Few people know that the foreclosures are a pain not only for owners, but for buyers too.

Buying a nightmare
So, a year ago we decided to look to buy a house for us, we are married, 31 years old, in the US legally, permanent residents for 3 years. We have a very good credit score, we both work,we had money for about 10% down and closing.
We first started looking for a housea year ago around $170k, and we had a conventional loan preapproval for it. After a few months and a few offers not getting accepted because our realtor was pushing us for a much lower price, Bank of America let us know that the new conventional loans ask for 20% down, instead of 10% when we qualified. So, we had to go for an FHA.

Realtors do the deal
Therefore, while most of the foreclosures were priced attractively, a significant part required repairs, appliances and other fixings, and the FHA loan would not allow us to buy this type of properties. On the other hand, for some of the foreclosures that were nice and could have worked, the listing agents already had their own buyers or offers and our offer didn't even get to the bank. Yes, we managed to check with a bank to see if they got our offer, unfortunately all the deals are basically "managed" by their listing agent, because the banks don't have any contact information for possible buyers.

No cash? No foreclosures.
Then, something else happened in the market. The investors are starting to buy like crazy. Cash. So for all our offers for nice foreclosed houses, not only we had to offer above the listing price, because they had multiple offers, we didn't actually have any chance with an FHA loan. The banks prefer to take $20-30k less for a cash offer, than accept our FHA offer, even though much higher and even though we are preapproved and all the paperwork was checked.
Not to mention, our FHA loan broker, Countrywide, now Bank of America, just let us know that they probably need more than 30 days to close.

No condos for FHA
Then, seeing that we don't have too many chances for a house, we thought to maybe look for a townhouse or a condo and buy something when the prices are still low. Guess what?! Most of the communities have too many condos for sale or have financial problems because of people who don't pay their HOA dues, so the bank would not approve the community for our conventional or FHA loan.

Short sales, maybe
In these circumstances, we only have a slight chance for short sales, who take, yes, actually take months. Months until the bank decides if our offer is ok or not.
And this is why the poor and middle or low income people still don't stand a chance, even with foreclosures. And yes, it's very frustrating to see on TV how people keep showing how much the prices are down and how you can buy a house for $10k. Yea, maybe, if you are looking for a ghetto house and in some very cheap state. Otherwise, again the investors have to gain. And a year later we still didn't benefit from this.
And we are left disgusted by realtors and banks.

Thursday, June 18, 2009

save money on ink

Font ecologic to help you save ink
Awesome idea, it seems that it works. Which means it can help you save money on those awfully expensive ink cartridges.

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Internet scams

It's unbelievable how many online scams, or e-mail scams, these people find. You know, the e-mails with the rich uncle you never knew about who died in Nigeria and left you millions. Or the e-mails who offer you a job of $100 per hour just to make some bank transfers. If only these people would use their imagination for a good, honest enterprise, they might actually get some place.
A new way to use the same old trick is on web chats now. They find the prey in some country, present themselves as rich Americans working or traveling abroad, who all of the sudden need some urgent cash for something, and since you're their friend, maybe you'll offer to help... There are actual websites presenting the portfolio of pictures these people use in their e-mails and communications with their victims.
It's also surprising that you actually find websites all over with victims of these people.
I would expect them to trick some not very Internet and economy savvy people from developing countries, but not from the US. However, since Bernard Madoff was able to trick so many financially knowledgeable people, I guess the Nigerian stuff is not that extraordinaire.

Monday, June 15, 2009


Very, extremely sad and disgusting
No comment.
Now, allow this type of persons access to guns, and things will go even further... It's always surprising to see that in one of the most religious countries in the world things like this just happen everywhere.

Sunday, June 14, 2009


This is what happens in many countries when it comes to elections
Even democratic countries use tricks of this type when it comes to the expats. If the current president is among the candidates and, like in Iran's case, has a target of supporters from rather conservators, nationalistic groups, it is clear that his votes are not going to come from the expats living in other countries, especially in a democracy like the US.
Then, there are a few things you can do.
One, you reduce as much as possible the centers where expats can vote. It wouldn't be excluded to find out that, for example, in the US the only voting location would be in Washington.
Two, you reduce the opening hours to, let's say, an interval quite short and inconvenient for people (during church time etc).
Three, as Ahmadinejad did, don't send enough voting forms and so on.
And just think that everything is legal and there is nothing you can do.

Friday, June 12, 2009

health insurance

The hot topic presented lately by pres. Obama. The debate started on it is excellent. However, the variables are numerous, as well as the parties involved. On one hand, you have the consumer, the patient, who wants access to quality medical services. It's not like anybody in the US loves to go see doctors, spend time in hospitals and so on. So it is clear that there are the necessary medical services, non-elective, where people need to have access.
On the other hand, there are the medical services providers who want, evidently, more and more money, more liberty in selecting the insurers they want to work with and liberty in price formulation.
And, of course, the part blamed by most, the insurance companies, who would prefer to insure just healthy people and drop them at the first sign of sickness.
If this government is going to be able to solve 2 basic issues, access to emergency (or rather urgent, acute, indispensable) health services for everybody and solving the problem many people have with being dropped for previous medical problems. No pain, no gain. And no necessity to go to the doctor.
This legislation should consider all parties involved and put them together in the negotiation. There is never gonna be a win-win in this case, but, as the lawyers can do pro bono work, so would the doctors be able to work with a basic public insurance plan for a small part of their patients.
Looking over the ensemble situation, it is very simple. Exactly as with profit taxes, you can't expect all your patients to pay the same amount, but the final amount gets compensated overall. And exactly like this, the insurance companies cannot expect to only have healthy patients. Assume the responsibility not only for your billions gained, but also for people's lives, for costly treatments, such as cancer, and so on.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009


This whole right to bare guns issue is starting to be more and more out of control. Both the debate and the actual situation. No politician is going to have the guts to face the gun associations and producers regarding new restrictions. While a total interdiction on guns is in now way possible, from legislative, logistic and even cultural point of view, there are issues and possible improvements that can be considered.
Just by opening the local newspaper today, you can read 3 news gun related. A guy just shot himself in the head in front of a police station. Another guy, in road rage, just shot 2 times in a car because he couldn't overpass it. And, of course, the national news with the nut at the Holocaust Museum.
I would say that, in a discussion with the guns supporters, none of them would have arguments to tell me that any nut or criminal has the constitutional right to have a gun. Would any of the guns supporters want some crazy people, with criminal record, just start shooting around their families or homes? When you go to the mall or at a museum?
Hey, people want to be able to protect themselves and their homes. Good, they have the constitutional right to have guns. But nothing gives them the right to have automatic guns, as no law in the world can give the right to guns to insane people, former inmates, or children to get guns.
Those who want guns should assume the responsibility to prove they are fit to have guns. Physically, mentally and so on. While you need a driver's license to drive a car or a prescription to get antibiotics, why shouldn't we check people who want guns... Just to reduce the risk that the next day they're going to kill you or me at a museum. And I don't care if they're democrats, republicans or whatever. A gun doesn't know the political or skin color of its owner.

Tuesday, June 9, 2009


I just read today that some businesses who benefited from governmental (taxpayer money) loans are already able to return some billions to the public pocket. Which is good news, right? We might say that the economy is starting to function since they made their money so fast.
On the other hand, let's start thinking about how they made the money so fast. No doubt, on the back of their customers. The situation didn't change so dramatically in the last months. The market is still full of foreclosures, even more coming now since the break imposed by the government on foreclosures has just ended. Therefore, no gain from this part. The investments market rebounded, but not that much for the banks to jump of joy. Therefore, the "poor" customer is the one left to pay the bills, no matter if individuals or regular businesses.
We end up, therefore, with a few reorganized Wall Street and banking companies, some helped by the government, a lot, and look, so fast, the situation is pink for them. Big winners.
On the other hand, we have the biggest losers of the financial meltdown. The small players, the regular citizen, you, simple worker, you, small business owner, you. On one hand, the same banks mentionned below, increased their lending requirements and so on. On the other hand, they just started raising interest rates. Moreover, if you're just a regular citizen and managed to get a mortgage preapproval, guess what, most of the banks prefer to sell their foreclosure properties for cash, rather than waiting for your loan to be processed.
Of course, maybe you already lost your job or your business is under water. But, hey, you can always go to these marvelous banks and ask for some help. They got it when they needed. Short memory.