so cute, i want to punch it in the face
Posts
The blog is closing
7 months ago
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Does anyone else feel this isn't democratic?
Does anyone else feel that it's not really fair for the Labor Caucus to suddenly try to replace our prime minister?
It's basically an impeachment.
Has he done anything wrong? Illegal?
How can a few people decide for the entire country, without a vote?
Can't they just wait until the election, to change the party's leader?
Julia Gillard wasn't voted for by me nor anyone else.
I protest.
It's an incredibly bad time for the nation to have leadership changes. The last thing Australia needs is political instability to add to economic instability.
If caucus votes Kevin Rudd out, can an election be forced by the opposition?
It's basically an impeachment.
Has he done anything wrong? Illegal?
How can a few people decide for the entire country, without a vote?
Can't they just wait until the election, to change the party's leader?
Julia Gillard wasn't voted for by me nor anyone else.
I protest.
It's an incredibly bad time for the nation to have leadership changes. The last thing Australia needs is political instability to add to economic instability.
If caucus votes Kevin Rudd out, can an election be forced by the opposition?
Thursday, June 17, 2010
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | ||
| An Energy-Independent Future | |||
| www.thedailyshow.com | |||
|
I clicked on one of those ads: you know "stay at home mum loses weight by using our product..."
I don't know why I did. Desperation?
Anyway, it was talking about "negative calories". The premise being that your body uses more calories to burn certain foods, than the foods themselves contain.
For only 6 easy payments of $66.60 plus p&h, and my first born daughter's soul, I could recieve an ebook listing all these wonder foods. Whatever.
I assume the first 50 food items are lettuces.
Then I started thinking, that practically anything you grow, or make can be classified as negative or nearly neutral calories. Digging a vegie patch, turning the compost, squatting down to weed the garden, all burn calories. So anything I grow, while not only being yummier, also burns more calories than are in the final product.
So if I break a sweat kneading bread, can I eat the whole loaf by myself? And since my mixer broke, any cakes, muffins or brownies I make have to be whisked by hand. Which, by the way, really kills my upper arm. Therefore, not only do they not contain nasty 200s, but they could be approaching neutral calories.
Ha Ha Ha, I'm pretty sure negative calories is hogwash. 1000 calories is 1000 calories whether its a ton of carrots or a cheeseburger.
I don't know why I did. Desperation?
Anyway, it was talking about "negative calories". The premise being that your body uses more calories to burn certain foods, than the foods themselves contain.
For only 6 easy payments of $66.60 plus p&h, and my first born daughter's soul, I could recieve an ebook listing all these wonder foods. Whatever.
I assume the first 50 food items are lettuces.
Then I started thinking, that practically anything you grow, or make can be classified as negative or nearly neutral calories. Digging a vegie patch, turning the compost, squatting down to weed the garden, all burn calories. So anything I grow, while not only being yummier, also burns more calories than are in the final product.
So if I break a sweat kneading bread, can I eat the whole loaf by myself? And since my mixer broke, any cakes, muffins or brownies I make have to be whisked by hand. Which, by the way, really kills my upper arm. Therefore, not only do they not contain nasty 200s, but they could be approaching neutral calories.
Ha Ha Ha, I'm pretty sure negative calories is hogwash. 1000 calories is 1000 calories whether its a ton of carrots or a cheeseburger.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Brisbane house are over priced
How on earth can a real estate agent advertise a AU$500 000+ home as "perfect for first home buyers"?????? (one example but there are more)
The real estate industry is so out of kilter that these agents think half a million dollars is a perfectly acceptable price to pay for a 3 bedroom weatherboard house on a postcard patch of lawn. And somehow they think that people buying their first home can afford something like that.
Let's do some sums kiddies:
"Average" wages in australia in february 2010 are about $1 200 a week.
So average annual income is approx $62 400*
Now let's assume that we have a two parent family, with a couple of kids. One parent working fulltime and one working part time**, so we have $62 400, plus about half to two thirds, or about $36000, before tax.
So total income for the family is $98 400.
minus $17 000 for tax, $81000
Lets put these figures through a mortgage calculator:
The maximum this fictional couple can borrow is $467000.
If they can comply with all the terms and conditions and come up with the deposit, which for most loans is 10%.
So if my fictional average income couple have saved up 50 grand, they can buy what the industry considers an "entry level" property. And then pay $1000 a week, which is two thirds their combined income and hope to god interest rates don't go up, ever. I hope the kids don't eat much, or wear clothes, or go to school.
I'm not really convinced that average families are earning nearly $100 000 a year. I can't find a statistic for family incomes.
Btw There are plenty of nice properties out there for less than $500 000, my problem is with real estate agents who seem to think that First Home Buyers are looking for something in that price range.
I can remember my mother buying her first house for $42000 in th 80s. Her second house was less than $100 000 in the early 90s and sold for more than double that ten years later. That's just ridiculous! The same house, rose over 100% in ten years? Wages have not risen enough to compensate... House Prices are seriously over inflated and unaffordable.
I can remember the gossip when a friend built a house in the early 90s and spent around $450k. Everyone was positive they had over capitilised. I shudder to think what that property would be worth today. I shudder mainly because the house is not my taste, actually it's a hideous cliche of a McMansion. Not to mention a vast waste of resources.
Will house prices ever deflate back to their "real" worth?
Let's say house values rose at the same (ish) rate as everything else, between about 3% and 5% a year. A particular postwar 3 Bedroom house in Brisbane, purchased in 1990, was $100 000. 10 years later that house rising in value 5% a year should have cost about $162 000. instead it sold for $50 000 more than that. 20 years later it should cost around $265 000, yet houses in that area now sell for a median price of $557k. Let's say that house is worth a lot less than it's neighbours and give it a conservative value of $440k. (it was actually advertised for this amount in 2007, lol) By my reasoning, (most likely flawed/naive) this house is over valued by nearly $200 000.
This problem will most likely not go away. The GFC (which is not over despite media consensus, schmucks), will create rises in the real cost of living, wages will stagnate, inflation will rise and even if the real estate bubble bursts, the price of houses will remain unaffordable.
*imo this amount could be skewed by including mega earners in these calculations. For example, the highest 20% of earners earn 39.4% of all income and the middle 20% earn 17.4% of all income.
**if the second earner has a casual job, which is more likely, considering the 2 kids, then the bank will not regard the income as reliable, reducing the amount the family can borrow.
The real estate industry is so out of kilter that these agents think half a million dollars is a perfectly acceptable price to pay for a 3 bedroom weatherboard house on a postcard patch of lawn. And somehow they think that people buying their first home can afford something like that.
Let's do some sums kiddies:
"Average" wages in australia in february 2010 are about $1 200 a week.
So average annual income is approx $62 400*
Now let's assume that we have a two parent family, with a couple of kids. One parent working fulltime and one working part time**, so we have $62 400, plus about half to two thirds, or about $36000, before tax.
So total income for the family is $98 400.
minus $17 000 for tax, $81000
Lets put these figures through a mortgage calculator:
The maximum this fictional couple can borrow is $467000.
If they can comply with all the terms and conditions and come up with the deposit, which for most loans is 10%.
So if my fictional average income couple have saved up 50 grand, they can buy what the industry considers an "entry level" property. And then pay $1000 a week, which is two thirds their combined income and hope to god interest rates don't go up, ever. I hope the kids don't eat much, or wear clothes, or go to school.
I'm not really convinced that average families are earning nearly $100 000 a year. I can't find a statistic for family incomes.
Btw There are plenty of nice properties out there for less than $500 000, my problem is with real estate agents who seem to think that First Home Buyers are looking for something in that price range.
I can remember my mother buying her first house for $42000 in th 80s. Her second house was less than $100 000 in the early 90s and sold for more than double that ten years later. That's just ridiculous! The same house, rose over 100% in ten years? Wages have not risen enough to compensate... House Prices are seriously over inflated and unaffordable.
I can remember the gossip when a friend built a house in the early 90s and spent around $450k. Everyone was positive they had over capitilised. I shudder to think what that property would be worth today. I shudder mainly because the house is not my taste, actually it's a hideous cliche of a McMansion. Not to mention a vast waste of resources.
Will house prices ever deflate back to their "real" worth?
Let's say house values rose at the same (ish) rate as everything else, between about 3% and 5% a year. A particular postwar 3 Bedroom house in Brisbane, purchased in 1990, was $100 000. 10 years later that house rising in value 5% a year should have cost about $162 000. instead it sold for $50 000 more than that. 20 years later it should cost around $265 000, yet houses in that area now sell for a median price of $557k. Let's say that house is worth a lot less than it's neighbours and give it a conservative value of $440k. (it was actually advertised for this amount in 2007, lol) By my reasoning, (most likely flawed/naive) this house is over valued by nearly $200 000.
This problem will most likely not go away. The GFC (which is not over despite media consensus, schmucks), will create rises in the real cost of living, wages will stagnate, inflation will rise and even if the real estate bubble bursts, the price of houses will remain unaffordable.
*imo this amount could be skewed by including mega earners in these calculations. For example, the highest 20% of earners earn 39.4% of all income and the middle 20% earn 17.4% of all income.
**if the second earner has a casual job, which is more likely, considering the 2 kids, then the bank will not regard the income as reliable, reducing the amount the family can borrow.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Pacific Garbage Patch, Albatross Chicks
Hungry Beast: The Great Garbage Patch
"Simply allow yourself to feel whatever it is that you feel about this, without jumping to the way to solve it, because I think we really need to feel these things and if we can feel them deeply, even if the feelings aren't comfortable then those are the feelings that will turn into the fuel that can drive passionate action." -Chris Jordan
Midway: Message from the Gyre
"Simply allow yourself to feel whatever it is that you feel about this, without jumping to the way to solve it, because I think we really need to feel these things and if we can feel them deeply, even if the feelings aren't comfortable then those are the feelings that will turn into the fuel that can drive passionate action." -Chris Jordan
Midway: Message from the Gyre
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Does anyone else freeze poppers (tetra pack, juice box) as a cheap and slightly healthier alternative to ice blocks?
I thought this was universal, until my husband said he had never had a frozen popper before. He thought I was crazy and teaching my son to be weird until he tried it. Mmmm, frozen icy goodness.
A 250mL popper which takes 2 seconds to for a hot, thirsty kid to drink, can take 15 to 20 minutes to eat.
Ask any mother how much she would pay for 15 minutes silence, on a long, hot, "Boooooring", weekend day....
Use a serrated knife, like a bread knife to score the package all around the middle, then cut the frozen popper in half. You will have to give it a bit of a whack. Give the child a teaspoon and half the popper, and tell them to go outside. It can get quite messy, little flecks of ice get flicked everywhere and melt into sticky droplets. Leave the other half in the freezer for later.
I thought this was universal, until my husband said he had never had a frozen popper before. He thought I was crazy and teaching my son to be weird until he tried it. Mmmm, frozen icy goodness.
A 250mL popper which takes 2 seconds to for a hot, thirsty kid to drink, can take 15 to 20 minutes to eat.
Ask any mother how much she would pay for 15 minutes silence, on a long, hot, "Boooooring", weekend day....
Use a serrated knife, like a bread knife to score the package all around the middle, then cut the frozen popper in half. You will have to give it a bit of a whack. Give the child a teaspoon and half the popper, and tell them to go outside. It can get quite messy, little flecks of ice get flicked everywhere and melt into sticky droplets. Leave the other half in the freezer for later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
