Why do we do it that way? We just do.
"You can't have Thanksgiving without turkey. It's like Fourth of July without apple pie, or Friday with no two pizzas."- Joey, Friends
A typical evening at our home, approximately fifteen years ago: It's about six o'clock. Courtney and Ashley (ever-helpful) have volunteered to wipe off the counter where we ate dinner. They're working around Duke, who is still sitting on a stool, kicking his legs against the bar, protesting the meal (the noodles are green. He doesn't eat colored noodles). Currently, my dad is trying to convince him that one no-thank-you-bite won't actually hurt him. He disagrees.
I'm probably following Courtney and Ashley, but not really helping the clean-up process. Sam is opening his second vanilla Eskimo Pudding Pop for the evening. After he opens it and licks it, he will ask my mom if he's allowed to have it. This plan will most likely work, because if she isn't helping my dad persuade Duke, or cleaning up dinner, she's probably balancing her checkbook (being a master of multitasking, she might be doing all three at once).
Checkbook balancing occurred about once a week, because, with five kids, my mom didn't stand a chance of ever keeping cash in her wallet. Therefore, she was once an avid check writer.
Avid is an understatement. She actually tried to write a check at the gas station (it almost worked, too. She's convincing).
Today, though, the Queen of Checks has changed her ways.
Once my mom gave up the practice of check writing, I realized checks really are nearly obsolete. I mean, she didn't go cold turkey, but she's certainly no longer an addict.
Even more obsolete than checks, though, is the need to call to balance your checkbook. It's much easier to log into online banking and look over it quickly.
I'd imagine that my kids will never see me balance a checkbook via the phone, seeing as I've never done it before. It's amazing that something so natural to me growing up will be a completely foreign concept to my children.
But, the more we change, the more we lose sight of the reason we ever did something in the first place.
For example, in 1845, Congress needed to pick a time for Americans to vote. Being an agrarian society, and one that traveled by horse and buggy, schlepping to and from the county seat was quite the pilgrimage. Farmers required a day to get there, a day to vote, and a day to get back.
Of course, under no circumstances could this journey interfere with the three days of worship (separation of church and state? Not yet). So the only possible days were Tuesday and Wednesday.
But, Wednesday was market day. So, the only day left to vote was Tuesday.
It's funny, now, that we still vote on the first Tuesday of November. I'm almost surprised that no one has complained that we still uphold a practice that was created solely to respect worship.
Of course, with so many early voting options, I highly doubt any judge would look twice at their claim.
I, personally, am glad we still vote on Tuesday. Disregarding traditional election day altogether would be like moving Thanksgiving to Saturday. Whether or not it's really necessary to have Thanksgiving on Thursday anymore, moving it would seem sacrilegious. It's important to uphold these traditions because, well, it's just wrong not to (right?).
Whether or not you've spent the last few days worshiping, or still don a horse and buggy to get you to the polls, I hope you're not forced to spend three days voting.
Really, I hope you don't have to spend three hours at the polls either. But, in case you do spend an astronomical amount of time waiting to vote, here are a few things you can do: Read a magazine, make friends with other voters, or, most importantly, balance your checkbook.
If you get confused, call my mom, she'll help you.
A typical evening at our home, approximately fifteen years ago: It's about six o'clock. Courtney and Ashley (ever-helpful) have volunteered to wipe off the counter where we ate dinner. They're working around Duke, who is still sitting on a stool, kicking his legs against the bar, protesting the meal (the noodles are green. He doesn't eat colored noodles). Currently, my dad is trying to convince him that one no-thank-you-bite won't actually hurt him. He disagrees.
I'm probably following Courtney and Ashley, but not really helping the clean-up process. Sam is opening his second vanilla Eskimo Pudding Pop for the evening. After he opens it and licks it, he will ask my mom if he's allowed to have it. This plan will most likely work, because if she isn't helping my dad persuade Duke, or cleaning up dinner, she's probably balancing her checkbook (being a master of multitasking, she might be doing all three at once).
Checkbook balancing occurred about once a week, because, with five kids, my mom didn't stand a chance of ever keeping cash in her wallet. Therefore, she was once an avid check writer.
Avid is an understatement. She actually tried to write a check at the gas station (it almost worked, too. She's convincing).
Today, though, the Queen of Checks has changed her ways.
Once my mom gave up the practice of check writing, I realized checks really are nearly obsolete. I mean, she didn't go cold turkey, but she's certainly no longer an addict.
Even more obsolete than checks, though, is the need to call to balance your checkbook. It's much easier to log into online banking and look over it quickly.
I'd imagine that my kids will never see me balance a checkbook via the phone, seeing as I've never done it before. It's amazing that something so natural to me growing up will be a completely foreign concept to my children.
But, the more we change, the more we lose sight of the reason we ever did something in the first place.
For example, in 1845, Congress needed to pick a time for Americans to vote. Being an agrarian society, and one that traveled by horse and buggy, schlepping to and from the county seat was quite the pilgrimage. Farmers required a day to get there, a day to vote, and a day to get back.
Of course, under no circumstances could this journey interfere with the three days of worship (separation of church and state? Not yet). So the only possible days were Tuesday and Wednesday.
But, Wednesday was market day. So, the only day left to vote was Tuesday.
It's funny, now, that we still vote on the first Tuesday of November. I'm almost surprised that no one has complained that we still uphold a practice that was created solely to respect worship.
Of course, with so many early voting options, I highly doubt any judge would look twice at their claim.
I, personally, am glad we still vote on Tuesday. Disregarding traditional election day altogether would be like moving Thanksgiving to Saturday. Whether or not it's really necessary to have Thanksgiving on Thursday anymore, moving it would seem sacrilegious. It's important to uphold these traditions because, well, it's just wrong not to (right?).
Whether or not you've spent the last few days worshiping, or still don a horse and buggy to get you to the polls, I hope you're not forced to spend three days voting.
Really, I hope you don't have to spend three hours at the polls either. But, in case you do spend an astronomical amount of time waiting to vote, here are a few things you can do: Read a magazine, make friends with other voters, or, most importantly, balance your checkbook.
If you get confused, call my mom, she'll help you.
boo
Although I don't have time to leave an appropriate post, I wanted to be certain to wish everyone a HAPPY HAPPY HALLOWEEN! Enjoy your tricks and treats!
Fashionistas turn Recessionistas
"This is a bit ridiculous."
"This, Madame, is Versailles." -Marie Antoinette
Marie Antoinette had three palace rooms devoted entirely to housing her wardrobe. During a time when the French didn't have enough money to buy flour to make bread, she was still sporting her signature hairsyle, the pouf, which stood three feet tall and was covered in flour.
While the people of France were starving and cold, she was disposing of her entire wardrobe (all three rooms full!) at the end of each season, and buying a new one-- all on their tax dollar.
And while Sarah Palin might not be crying, "let them eat cake," she did recently receive criticism for her September shopping spree at Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. The outing produced a brand new wardrobe for Palin and amounted to a fee of $150,000, which the Republican National Committee funded.
Of course there are a number of women who frequently manage to ring up such a bill (especially at Saks and Neiman Marcus).
But just because the rest of Versailles was doing it, didn't mean Marie Antoinette should do it. She was supposed to be leading the elite and showing compassion toward her people. So should Palin be spending $150,000 on her clothing when there are people who's homes, some of which are less than $150,000 are being foreclosed?
Personally, I'd rather watch a well-dressed candidate speak than a poorly dressed one (judge me). And although I admit that I am often drawn to labels (judge me again) maybe Palin should have considered the economy before running to Neiman Marcus.
I'm not saying she needs to replace Saks for Sears or anything. However, she could consider following in the footsteps of the transformed fashionistas, the recessionistas. These women admit that they love Isaac Mizrahi's newest line. But, they also like to shop. Therefore, instead of buying his line at Saks, they're going to buy his line- for Target.
So, as opposed to being able to buy one purse at full price, they can buy the entire collection from Target.
Of course, if you're spending just as much, it might not really be that much of a save (the ever-burning question: quantity v. quality. Will we ever know?).
I don't really know if Palin would have seemed less guilty if she bought everything from the Women's section at Target, as opposed to buying her favorites at Saks.
Besides, maybe Neiman's promised her that if the could outfit her for the campaign, they'd all support the Republican party...(this would bring a whole new slew of controversy, I'd imagine).
In the end, I guess Palin decided to remain a fashionista, and steer clear of the new, and oh-so-enticing trend: Recession Chic. She just must be one of those women that really believes you pay for what you get.
Sure, she might be criticized for saying a few dumb things and spending a couple extra dollars, but as far as I've heard, she hasn't told anyone to eat cake just yet.
"This, Madame, is Versailles." -Marie Antoinette
Marie Antoinette had three palace rooms devoted entirely to housing her wardrobe. During a time when the French didn't have enough money to buy flour to make bread, she was still sporting her signature hairsyle, the pouf, which stood three feet tall and was covered in flour.
While the people of France were starving and cold, she was disposing of her entire wardrobe (all three rooms full!) at the end of each season, and buying a new one-- all on their tax dollar.
And while Sarah Palin might not be crying, "let them eat cake," she did recently receive criticism for her September shopping spree at Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. The outing produced a brand new wardrobe for Palin and amounted to a fee of $150,000, which the Republican National Committee funded.Of course there are a number of women who frequently manage to ring up such a bill (especially at Saks and Neiman Marcus).
But just because the rest of Versailles was doing it, didn't mean Marie Antoinette should do it. She was supposed to be leading the elite and showing compassion toward her people. So should Palin be spending $150,000 on her clothing when there are people who's homes, some of which are less than $150,000 are being foreclosed?
Personally, I'd rather watch a well-dressed candidate speak than a poorly dressed one (judge me). And although I admit that I am often drawn to labels (judge me again) maybe Palin should have considered the economy before running to Neiman Marcus.
I'm not saying she needs to replace Saks for Sears or anything. However, she could consider following in the footsteps of the transformed fashionistas, the recessionistas. These women admit that they love Isaac Mizrahi's newest line. But, they also like to shop. Therefore, instead of buying his line at Saks, they're going to buy his line- for Target.
So, as opposed to being able to buy one purse at full price, they can buy the entire collection from Target.
Of course, if you're spending just as much, it might not really be that much of a save (the ever-burning question: quantity v. quality. Will we ever know?).
I don't really know if Palin would have seemed less guilty if she bought everything from the Women's section at Target, as opposed to buying her favorites at Saks.
Besides, maybe Neiman's promised her that if the could outfit her for the campaign, they'd all support the Republican party...(this would bring a whole new slew of controversy, I'd imagine).
In the end, I guess Palin decided to remain a fashionista, and steer clear of the new, and oh-so-enticing trend: Recession Chic. She just must be one of those women that really believes you pay for what you get.
Sure, she might be criticized for saying a few dumb things and spending a couple extra dollars, but as far as I've heard, she hasn't told anyone to eat cake just yet.
Quisque iaculis facilisis lacinia. Mauris euismod pellentesque tellus sit amet mollis.