Are those Tevas or The North Face or Both?

What is the deal with Down Jackets, shorts and flip-flops?

Just this morning I have seen at least 4 people sporting outfits with each component.

Is it not enough that Seattleites (along with the Northwest in general) are known for socks and Birkenstocks?

I must admit, I wear flip-flops around the house year round. But my house is heated and I live alone.

I just don't get folks who rock flip-flops/sandals year round. Do they not realize that 43 degrees isn't so great for bare feet?

Here's the thing: If it's cold enough that you put on a Down Jacket and/or sweater, it's time to toss on some pants or least socks and shoes*.

Just tossing that out there.

Maybe it's me, but the Down, Shorts and Flip-flops just look a bit Schizophrenic. Much like something a 5-year-old would wear if left to their own devices.

They simply don't go together.

I am no fashion guru, but it irks me that the Schizophrenic few can give an entire region a bad name.

Here's some advice for the folks who just can't figure it out:

If you take enough time to shower and put on clean clothes, add an extra 30 seconds to the routine and toss some socks and shoes into the mix.

Your poor, poor toes, along everyone else around you will thank you.

And doing so should save you quite a bit of embarrassment.

*Please note that I did not recommend socks and sandals, which are unacceptable as well.

A Seattle boy gets a taste of the real Big Apple and this one didn’t come from Walla Walla.

So as I sit here in a trendy coffee shop in the heart of Pioneer Square, I am bombarded by a myriad of Seattle clichés: Tech-talk, black-rimmed glasses, hiking boots as acceptable work shoes, over-priced coffee, lots of fleece and even a couple flannel shirts, but do those ever go out of style?

Being amongst so much Seattle, I got to thinking about a recent trip to New York City.

Coffee shops are hubs of caffeine and chit-chat. But as I look around, the only folks chatting are those who know each other. I haven't been offered so much as a "Hello," or the famous Seattle look-up, quick change of expression and mouthing, but not actually saying "Hello" as you walk past a stranger.

I was reminded of a term first coined by Seattle P-I columnist Robert Jamison.

"Seattle Nice."

The crux of the term, as I understand it, says that Seattleites, while being very polite at first are pretty cold fish to strangers after an exchange of pleasantries. There's no real effort or inkling to say more than "Hello," to someone you don't know.

I have been guilty of being "Seattle Nice" many times in my life. In my defense, I was born and raised here.

I am perfectly happy to acknowledge the existence of fellow human beings, by nodding towards them, offering a smile and moving right along. The inclination to say hello and actually engage in conversation is about a foreign to me as say, breathing under water. It's just not something I'd ever do or anything I've seen anyone else do.

Which brings me back to New York.

Cold, hard, rude, New York.

My perception of New York, before traveling there a few times, was just what you see on TV: Big lights, lots of "Ay, Yos!" and rude New Yorkers in too much of a rush for anyone but themselves.

By comparison, my liberal all-welcoming enclave of Seattle seemed like just what the Big Apple needed, a healthy dose of Seattle-style Kumbaya.

Boy was I wrong.

As I started interacting with New Yorkers, I realized how superficial Seattleites were and how genuine New Yorkers are.

True enough, it takes a bit of chipping to crack the shell of hardened New Yorkers, and by cracking I mean saying, "Hello, how's it going?" But once that heavy-lifting is done, I found New Yorkers to be welcoming, genuine, curious and most-of-all helpful.

My first cab ride in Manhattan changed my perception of New Yorkers forever. I, unsure of even how-to hail a cab (Seattleites drive themselves everywhere), walk-up to a cabbie and tap on the window. After nearly causing the guy to have a heart attack, he wolfed down his curler and agreed to give me a ride. I then broke the cardinal rule of riding in an NYC cab, I told the guy I was from out-of-town and had no idea where I was going. But to his credit, instead of circling Manhattan and running-up the fare, he assured me my destination wasn't too far away and told me it should only take a few minutes.

Then he did something that surprised me, he asked me what it's like in Seattle. I shared a bit and then he did what I've found to be a common New Yorker trait, he actually engaged in meaningful conversation. I learned about his kids, where he was originally from and how he really wants to visit the West Coast. There was an authentic tone to the conversation that I didn't expect from a stranger, let alone a Lean Mean New York Cabbie.

This type of interaction played itself out many times during my various trips to New York, from people on the subway, to the guy at the corner store to bar owners. I actually came away from my last trip to New York feeling more connected to the neighborhood after 5 days than I do in my Seattle neighborhood after 8 months.

I think there's something to being in such a big place and being so anonymous that people just want to connect with other people. And it's easier to open up if you are never going to see the person again, quite a possibility in New York.

So what's the deal with Seattleites?

We really do keep to ourselves. We don't speak unless spoken to and rarely do more than answer the question once someone else has broken the ice.

Seattleites do have an air of superiority about them. A bit of the "I'm better than you are," can be quite off-putting.

Obviously, we (being Seattle) pretty much have it right. We just can't figure-out why no one else seems to get that.

So what can we do to remedy "Seattle Nice"?

A good first step is to avoid the fear that comes with interacting with someone new. Perhaps it's the gray weather, but Seattleites seem to be scared of strangers. I assure you, fellow Seattleites, the world isn't out to get you. Ted Bundy was an anomaly.

The fear induced in Seattleites by interaction is actually pretty funny, try this sometime to see it for yourself:

• Go to a coffee shop. (There are plenty of options for this in Seattle)
  
• Walk towards a table that is occupied by one person and make eye contact with the person sitting at the table.
  
• I bet you'll see a deer-in-the-headlights gaze as the person at the table is mortified by the prospect of having their personal bubble invaded.
  

We have a different perception of co-existing out here. I realized that my personal bubble was much bigger than the average New Yorkers and that doesn't aid in meeting new folks.

You'll have to get out of your comfort zone a bit. Think about it, if someone is sitting alone in a coffee shop, they probably wouldn't mind some company. By invading someone else's bubble and shrinking yours, you just may find life a little more interesting. By genuinely interacting with other people you gain experience, a couple good stories and maybe a new acquaintance.

And really, how bad can that be?

A few insights from an unemployed and single guy.

In case you didn't read the "About Me" section of this blog, I am unemployed and single.

Having been both for quite a while, I've begun to see some correlations between the two.

Specifically, how similar the process of applying for a job and asking a lady out, actually are.

Think about it, when unemployed you spend a good bit of time looking for the perfect job or at least one that's not too bad.

And when single, you spend the majority of the time at the bar (at least that's where I do most of my window-shopping) looking for the one girl who doesn't have sunglasses so big that you'd swear she bought them on a dare or at least a lady who might actually be cool.

This whole job search thing can be quite nerve-wracking. If not for the obvious reason of needing to pay the bills, but for the: I am going to spend the majority of my waking life employed in whatever activity this job turns-out to be. That is a lot of pressure.

The same can be said for looking for a lady. In theory, you date to find the woman you are going to spend the rest of your life with…that too, is a lot of pressure. (I'm not saying there's anything wrong with coming across a couple Miss Right-Nows while on the search.)

But all that aside, back to comparing the tasks of finding a job and finding a lady.

First off, there's the whole gussying-up to better your chances of finding that perfect job or lady.

In the case of the job search, you try to present yourself as best as possible, on paper. You dust-off the resume and use it to talk yourself up a bit. You buy fine paper, with a watermark, even. Just to show that you really care. And much like when you are hitting the town, you roll with a posse. In job search terms this posse is referred to as "References."

In the case of a lady, you do the same thing, but you present yourself in person. You shower just before you go-out, to ensure maximum "So Fresh and so Clean"-liness. You then toss on a nice shirt, one that even buttons-down. You then rally the crew for some back-up and hit the scene.

I'll admit, the approaches are not similar, but both are highly scrutinized. And in both you are trying to set yourself apart from everyone else.

In the case of the job search, the initial application is usually done online, but your resume is poured-over. You aren't guaranteed an interview, and if there are typos or anything wrong with the application you won't even get an interview.

In the case of a lady, the approach is far more difficult, as it is face-to-face. Your application is that button-down shirt, your shellacked hair and your approach. If she doesn't like what she sees, you won't even make it to the interview.

One observation in my recent job search is that group interviews seem to be the norm. As such, you'll have to know your resume inside-out and how it applies to the position you are applying for. You'll also have to be confident enough to speak-up in front of others who are trying to take the job away from you.

The same can be said for asking a lady out. Chances are you aren't the only game in town, if you've noticed her, so has another dude. And once you've bought her a drink (which means you are officially into the interview portion of the night) many poachers will be on the look-out to move-in and take the lady away from you.

Just remember, the interview is your chance to shine. You put-in the leg-work to get to this point, so now it's time to dazzle!

In the case of the job search, you have your resume and know the job description. So tailoring your responses is relatively easy. You simply tie past experiences to the responsibilities listed. You may have to adjust to a couple off-the-wall questions, but layer that with a bit of schmoozing and you should be on to the next interview. Maybe even one that only features you!

Now in the case of a lady, you do have a mental resume (sometimes referred to as 'Game') but no job description. This is where you have to engage in the fine art of conversation. Not only do you have to sell your finer points, but engage the lady to figure-out what she's looking for. You have to adapt on-the-fly and tailor your resume to her requirements. Do that, along with a sprinkling of compliments and you should be on your way to getting a date. Maybe even on that doesn't feature your crew!

What happens next is up to you.

Now I am no expert on getting a job or dating.

But the one thing I have learned is to remember to have fun with each.

An interview is the only time you are expected to talk- or even brag-about yourself. No one is more familiar with the topic than you. And remember that you are the biggest benefactor from the effort.

It's also not that big of a deal. There are plenty of jobs out there and plenty of ladies as well.

If you don't like your job, get another one.

If she doesn't pan-out, just move-on.

Whether looking for a job or a date, it's all about putting your best foot forward and meeting new people.

I've found that as long as you are putting your best foot forward, things tend to work-out for the best.

So keep your head-up and have fun.

A farewell to arms, at least Mack Strong’s arms (and legs)

I was deeply saddened this AM, to learn that the esteemed fullback of my Seattle Seahawks, Mr. Mack Strong, retired.

The epitome of a role-player, Strong has been a pillar of consistency in a 15-year career that spans all the way back to Rick Mirer and Brian Blades.

I am grateful for the many years of thankless service Strong provided to the, until recently, hapless Seahawks.

They don't keep stats on such things, so who really knows how great running plays were sprung by a Mack Strong block. I'm guessing quite a few, especially with Alexander running behind him.

He is a throwback to old-school football and a hard-nose player who was underappreciated in his time.

It is players like him that put the Team into team sports. He did all of the things no one else wanted to. He simply got the job done, better than most, for 15 years. That's commendable.

So I just wanted to say,

"Thanks again, Mr. Strong and enjoy retirement. You deserve it."

Are those low-fat Biscuits and Gravy?

This year I turned 28, which meant I officially left my mid-20s.

Such a milestone got me to pondering. (Which is what one does in an over-priced kitschy bakery…it makes you look deep.)

So as I sat in said kitschy bakery eating breakfast by myself, I was dogged by one simple question:

How old is too old for biscuits and gravy?

I mean at what point does one have to trade-in Sausage McMuffins and Black Coffee for Bran Muffins and Green Tea?

When you're a youngster, you can have whatever you want, no matter how terrible and it's chalked-up to "Oh, it's OK, he's a growing boy."

However, the only growing I've seen in recent years is in my waistline and credit card debt.

It makes me wonder, is this middle age?

I mean, I still keep a schedule similar to my younger days in college. I am more often at bars during the week than I am absent and I still wake-up dragging a bit from the night before. And I do own an mp3 player, a smart phone, multiple computers and know what Blog means…I am not that old.

But I digress, back to the biscuits and gravy.

They are truly one of the great breakfast foods.

I am pretty sure that they will be off of the menu after my first heart attack.

And yes, I am planning on a heart attack.

Don't worry, this isn't a nutritional diatribe in the vein of reputedly pudgy ex-President Bill Clinton who recently got full-calorie soda banned from public schools.

It's more a question of responsibility versus having fun.

I am not the first to ask the question or wrestle with the issue.

I just hope that the biscuits and gravy analogy hits home. As something that was enjoyed freely and undervalued as a youth and is sorely missed and over-valued as an adult.

So here I am at the crossroads of 401Ks and Xbox 360s.

How is one supposed to make sense of it all?

I feel like the late-20s are the Grimace to the early-20s Ronald McDonald.

One is the star of the show. The one everyone remembers.

And the other just has a large mid section.

So am I too old for biscuits and gravy?

Probably.

Will I order them the next time I am at the kitschy bakery?

Hell yeah.

Maybe I'll walk.

After all, the bakery IS only 6 blocks away.

Screw campaign finance, take a look at higher education

So I am sure most of you have seen those ads on TV hocking student loans.

Has anyone bothered to ask why we’re seeing those so often nowadays?

It’s been over a year since a cutback in federal funding for student loans.

Anyone see a correlation?

After doing a bit of research, and by research I mean typing “Student Loan” into Google, I came to some disturbing realizations.

First off, I am lucky. I am a college graduate and benefactor of the old student loan program. I also happened to graduate at a time when interest rates were at 40 year lows. I was able to consolidate my student loans and lock-in a rate below 4%. That’s darn near free money.

Especially when weighed against going the route some of my classmates, who charged books and other expenses on their credit card(s). At rates ranging from 9.99-24.99%, and being that most of their cards were “baby’s first credit card” the rates were at the higher end of that spectrum.

So the Federal Student Loan Program did me quite a favor. It allowed me to educate myself, paid for me while I was in school and created enough earning potential that paying my student loans off was a reasonable expectation. (The fact that I am now unemployed notwithstanding.)

The same cannot be said for those who allowed Visa, AmEx, or Mastercard to foot the bill.

Is starting-off in the world with 4- to 5-digit debt the best way for a young person to enter the workforce?

No.

But then again, I didn’t want to borrow the money to buy my condo. But such is the cost of being an American and living the dream.

There has been quite a bit of scrutiny of the credit card industry and the tactics they use, especially the targeting of younger college-age consumers.

One worry was that these poor college kids, who didn’t understand the financial ramifications of high interest credit, were being saddled with debt before they even finished college. Student loans were ok, as they were a bargain that was offered by the government for the betterment of American society.

Student loans seemed to be alright, until July of 2006.

That’s when the gravy train went away.

The sentiment behind the move seemed reasonable enough. Why should the government take the financial risk when plenty of private financial institutions were willing to?

We’ve all seen how good private institutions are loaning out money, just look to the mortgage industry. (Which I used to be a part of.)

By taking the government out of the mix, the move was promoting business. And the free market would keep rates at a reasonable level, as there would be multiple lenders to choose from.

Which is all well and good, until you start looking at the APR’s from these various lenders:
Astrive.com: Rate: 9.67%. Total finance charge & principal: $23,280.80
Thinkfinancial.com: 9.22%. Total finance charge & principal: $21,663.00
*All rates/finance charges are on a $10,000 deferred repayment loan with a 240-month term. Rates/fees are from each lender’s web site obtained on 10/4/7

All of the sudden, the reality of allowing the free market to determine how much it really costs to go to school doesn’t look too rosy.

If it’s a bad idea to give an 18-year-old a $500 credit card at 15%, how does it make sense to give that same youngster $10,000-30,000 at over 9%? And these are variable rates, meaning they can change.

Earlier, I mentioned earning potential, which is the idea that as a college graduate you can command more pay over the span of your career. According to the 2000 US Census, graduating from college nearly doubles one’s lifetime earning potential. Earning potential is all well and good, until you look at the real cost of college. Per the rate quotes above, borrowing just $10,000 will cost the average student ~$12,000 in interest. Higher interest means higher payments, which may mean that entry-level job coming out of college won’t pay the bills.

For the record, I went to a public university, graduated in 5 years and accumulated over $22,000 in debt. Yet, my relatively meager student loan payment allowed me to take a lower-paying job to get my foot in the door and establish myself. I am not so sure that will be an option for future college graduates.

Just imagine what school will cost future college students, as tuition, not to mention interest rates, continue to increase. According to the website postsecondary.org, tuition increases have out-paced inflation by 4.6%.

Which brings me to my point.

Is privatization of the student loan industry really in the best interest of the students? A simple look at the increased costs, will say no.

So is pricing education out of the reach of common Americans in the best interest of American society? The obvious answer is no.

As Federal funding of education continues to decline and the credit industry continues to contract, it returns college, once a luxury of the elite, to its exclusive status. As the rest of the world continues to educate itself to make its populace more competitive, America is taking steps backwards. One big example of this is the decrease in access to college education via finance.

By making college something that has to be paid out-of-pocket, the American dream is relegated to a relative few in America, effectively ending the American dream for many lower- to middle-class American families.

Is education really still the great equalizer?

Bush is no Michael Jackson

So I saw that President Bush vetoed the most recent incarnation of a bill that would have provided health coverage to children. And he did so in the confident, decisive manner we’ve all become accustomed to with his administration…behind closed doors.

I’d like to say that I am surprised.

But alas, I am not.

Bush has a history of putting children on the back burner if it means a happier federal budget. But I’ll come back to his track record in a moment.

First off, I’d like to point-out that this was a health care bill that, although carrying a $30 billion dollar price tag, had bi-partisan support. Almost enough support to over-ride Bush’s veto, almost. So it wasn’t like Bush was circling the wagons for a show of Republican solidarity in preparation for the upcoming election year. It was simply the president doing what he does best, which is whatever he wants to do, regardless of the effect on America’s youth.

That can be read many ways, Bush doesn’t care about young people’s healthcare, or he doesn’t care about young people’s education as I’ll lay-out in a moment or he simply doesn’t care about young people period. Perhaps because they cannot vote or he expects to ship them off to various parts of the world in HIS war on terror.

Healthcare should be a right, and it pretty much is. If anyone was to stride into an emergency room in serious need of medical attention, you’d receive it. The problem arises when the bill comes. And any doctor will tell you that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. So why not allow kids to get regular medical attention, such as physicals?

The answer is that it would cost $30 Billion dollars. Which is roughly equal to how many months of fighting in Iraq?

Let’s look at education for another example of disregard for the welfare of America’s youth by the Bush administration. Some of you may remember the No Child Left Behind program. It was supposed to hold everyone accountable in order to allow our children to succeed in school and return America’s ailing education system to its previous “not broken” status.

But No Child Left Behind, much like the Patriot Act, allowed the Bush Administration to take a great idea and run amok. In 2001, the administration tried to cut back the Federal Free and Reduced Lunch Program, under the guise of No Child Left Behind. Citing numbers that stated the program was being misused, the administration wanted to look tough on any program that failed to pass muster. If getting tough on education meant kids went hungry, then so be it. They stated that the program was inefficient and that 20% or more of the children receiving benefits didn’t qualify.

In a classic misdirection that is the hallmark of the Bush Administration, the obvious point that 80% of the children on the program needed the food was overlooked. Which meant that 4 out of 5 children who were on the program actually qualified for the program. And I think most people would agree an 80% success rate is quite agreeable, especially for a government program.

Never mind the fact that taking food away from a child is one of the few proven items that harms development and prevents achievement in the classroom. How does it make sense to use a program, supposedly aimed and restoring the educational system, to hinder the ability of America’s youth to succeed in school?

But as has been the case for Bush, reason gives way to “The War on Terror” or “No Child Left Behind” or “Cowboy Diplomacy” or any other catch phrase that allows Bush to misdirect the American public and continue his bullish run though the proverbial china shop of American rights and civil liberties. We’ve already seen him secretly take away many rights we took for granted.

Now Bush is so emboldened, that he’s taken to removing food from the mouths of America’s youth and taking away their ability to visit the doctor.

Good thing we’re not a third world country or anything…