the psychology of breath-taking denial in the context of economic efficiency
(Note: I have my opinions about unneccessary use of SUVs for image purposes, but the following is completely free of any personal pointed judgements about car manufacturers, people who drive SUVs in general, or any comments about environmental impact or anything else. The topic is specifically about the personal finance situations some SUV owners are finding themselves in these days & the problem I see in some commentaries urging people that they'll lose money by trading in their gas guzzling mammoth vehicles.)
I've been reading these articles recently about the SUV falling out of favour because of higher fuel prices. Naturally more of the new cars being purchased now for basic work commute needs are more fuel efficient cars. It makes sense, for people already in the market for a new car, in light of recent oil prices, to pass on a big vehicle if they don't really need it.
But I've also been reading a lot of commentaries that suggest that it's NOT a wise move to trade in your gas guzzler just to get a fuel-efficient car. In essense, advising people who already have inefficient vehicles, to keep on driving them.
But one thing missing from each & every commentary I've found on this subject - where people are urged not to trade-in their inefficient vehicles - is the possibility of getting a, -- god forbid -- used, older, fuel-efficient car. All of these commentaries assume anyone interested in trading in their economic liability is going to run out & buy a brand spanking new car - and lose big in the process.
That's just not the case.
Or at least it shouldn't be for any rational person who is really considering taking a hit on the value of their car in order to economize.
I'm pretty sure the gazillionaires who drive Hummers for fun aren't the ones looking to downsize for fuel efficiency. Even if they want to save on road trips, they could afford to buy a Honda Civic, and keep their prized 5-ton vehicle for being seen tooling around town.
I regularly hear of people saying that they love their SUVs, and they wouldn't get rid of them "even if gasoline hits $10 per gallon"... Because, I assume, apparently they can afford it. (Or they feel/believe that they can.)
No, most of the people who are looking to downsize for economic reasons are people who are already hurting from gasoline prices. (Or at least they worry about hurting in the near future.)
And I think it's sad if people aren't looking further into the math, because they're told it wouldn't be worth it to trade in their money pisser, and continue to let the vehicle bleed them into bankrupcy court. Just because they really want to believe that keeping their SUV as a commuter vehicle is the sensible choice. So they look no further than, 'See, it wouldn't be worth it to switch anyway.'
I used the calculator to do a little experiment...
I'm no economist nor financial advisor, I don't have a degree in accounting... But I'm frugal and I know how to budget. Maybe there's some flaws in my calculations, but I'm really thinking people are missing the obvious.
Let's take a hypothetical example like this that I just came up with in my head, based on everything I've been reading & hearing about in the news:
Mister Smith is in the home building industry, and his wife is a mortgage broker. They live in a big house in an affluent suburb, which, when they bought it 8-10 years ago, in the housing heyday, when gasoline was $1.50 a gallon, they could well afford it. But now that the housing bubble has burst, and the subprime mortgage crisis is in full swing, and their son had an illness requiring a lot of medical expenses, and oil prices have jumped the sharks circling the land yaghts... Well now they're now in trouble, or at least heading that way fast.
The Smiths have taken a good hard look at their projected finances, and they figured out that they need to sell the big house and downsize to a smaller house in a more reasonable neighborhood, or, at their current expense level, they'll be facing foreclosure in less than a year. They're having trouble selling their home, especially not at the price of what they still owe on their mortgage, so it may take awhile. They're looking to cut costs wherever they can, so they can keep up with the mortgage payments, and keep their good credit intact, until they find a buyer.
Mrs Smith has been driving a 2004 Ford Explorer, which is paid off now, for her commute to work, and also to school (now that she's looking to switch professions). She drives about 1,000 miles a month.
Now if the Smiths want to trade in their 2004 Explorer for a brand new Prius or a new Honda Civic, for that matter, of coursethe calculator is going to tell them that it would take 3 years or something crazy to start saving money - way too long for them to wait, and way too much money to throw into the void until then. BUT, let's say they sold their 16mpg Explorer for $10,000, and then went out & bought an older $10,000 car that gets 21mpg - say a 2002 Subaru Forester or something like that. According to that calculator, they'd break even on the switch, and immediately start saving $60 per month in gasoline. Or say they bought a 2001 Honda Civic for about $8,000. They'd immediately have a surplus of $2,000, and immediately be saving $120 a month in gasoline.
And I'm thinking that could most certainly, at the very least, assist them in trying to avoid financial disaster, and allow them to transition to their new circumstances in the nick of time.
(Note: in the calculator, I input my own figures instead of taking their monetary values based on Make & Model. I actually adjusted the sell price of the SUV to be lower than the calculator estimated, and adjusted the buy price to be higher than the calculator estimated. So actually, the calculator is saying they'd be saving even more than I'm thinking they would.)
Of course, I imagine that some mortgage brokers, for example, who've been livin' large & flyin' high, living in McMansions, driving SUVs, & spending $4 a morning at Starbucks, wouldn't even consider driving a *gasp*, old car, until the repo man came, and then the sheriff forced them out of their foreclosed house & they found themselves living in a rusted out van down by the river.
I imagine that many people in that position have started living on hope & credit cards, and haven't looked far enough ahead to avert disaster.
Denial can be a funny thing.
I could easily see the proverbial Smiths continuing to believe that they're in the same financial position as Mr. Burns, when they're NOT, no matter how much they wish it to be so.
And that unavoidable human psychological factor is why it bothers me that all these financial experts keep pushing this general idea that downsizing is a bad bet for any SUV owners, when that's simply not the case.
Sure, if every SUV owner absolutely insists on driving, if not an SUV, then some other image of wealth that just happens to get better gas mileage, then yeah, those commentaries make sense.
But in the real world, where formerly wealthy people, middle class people, and regular joes who thought themselves wealthy, are heading into credit nightmares & mortgage disasters, with no relief in sight, that kind of generalization just doesn't wash.
And I find it troubling that little old shoe-string budget 17 year old car driving me is seeing logic that so-called financial experts seem completely oblivious to.
Is our culture's group psychology really so irrational that the thought of going older when buying another car is so unthinkable that even financial experts feel compelled to 'enable the denial'?
I guess this is the kind of thing that anthropologists have a field day with years later.
A bald eagle flying at Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge in Sequim, Washington.
I took these during my trip to the state of Washington to visit my parents in May 2007.
They were taken at the start of the spit from the beach in Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge in Sequim.
This was the only time I can recall seeing a bald eagle in the wild.
Though I saw several bald eagles at Dollywood park in Tennessee when I was there in 1993. I have heard the eagle aviary at Dollywood was instrumental in repopulating the bald eagle since then.
Ironically, I'm talking about a message about legal drugs.
I am by no means against medications, modern medicine, etc. I'm not some kind of nutty Scientologist or anti-vaccination type, by any stretch of the imagination.
I use prescription medication myself, and I consider it a lifesaver... literally and figuratively.
And I think many medications have had a positive impact on many humans. Not to mention on many animals.
However, I find the whole pharmaceutical television commercial thing somehow very unsettling.
I had the television on the other day while I was washing dishes in the kitchen, so I didn't see the commercial, and I didn't even hear the whole thing. I don't even know what drug this commercial was advertising.*
But the part I did hear was the mandatory side-effects being disclosed, and though none of the rest of the commercial caught my attention, one of the side-effects mentioned certainly did.
They said, "May cause death."
I told my mother about it. And a few days later she told me that while she was doing something in another room, my step-father saw the same or similar commercial, and called her in to tell her about it. So I'm not the only one to notice the peculiarity of this commercial.
I know that they're required to mention the side-effects. But I just think, with a side-effect like that, why advertise at all?
It seems to me with a side-effect like DEATH, it kind of defeats the purpose of the commercial.
Another thing I've noticed is that in the pharmaceutical commercials, they don't even say "doctor" anymore. As in, "Ask your doctor." They simply tell you to go get it from "your provider". "Provider" sounds an awful lot like dealer to me.
It's like they've basically reduced doctors to the mere role of dispensing their products. It gives me the impression that they want doctors to just be their storefront.
Makes me wonder if eventually they're going to push so that doctors aren't even necessary.
The only reason they might like to keep the dealers with medical licenses in the loop, is because they're useful to the pharmaceutical companies as at least a mere failsafe barrier so that the pharmaceutical company isn't responsible for keeping their drug from being taken by someone it would most definitely effect badly or kill.
Rollerskating in a china shop accidentally on purpose
A sign reading "Absolutely No Heeleys" on the door of the Big Lots store in Dunmore, Pennsylvania
For those who haven't been slammed into by a kid on "Heelys" yet, and haven't learned about what they are... They're half rollerskate half sneaker shoes, a fashion trend, where kids wearing them can roll around everywhere on wheels in their heels. They look like shoes, so you may have no warning that the kid is going to start wheeling about around you.
I noticed the huge blatant sign on the door of the Big Lots store today, prohibiting heelys, and I'm actually surprised a sign like this isn't hung in more places. Like the grocery store, for example.
They're not just dangerous for reckless kids wearing them, but anyone around them. Nothing like awkward uncoordinated pre-teens with burgeoning hormones, hopped up on soda, or heaven knows what, rolling haphazardly around shopping carts, store displays, & elderly women.
I suppose the sign on the Big Lots store is an indication that they've had an incident there involving 'heelys', if you subscribe to "It must've happened once".
The most assinine place I've seen kids on 'heelys' was a few months ago, when some little girls from a church group were at the Just Paint It ceramic pottery painting studio in Clarks Summit, PA, scooting around in the small room between the painting tables. Yep, not only was one girl whizzing around people trying to paint breakable items, but the girl let her friend try them on for the first time, and they probably weren't even her correct size. There were a couple of falls, naturally, and it was just dumb luck nothing was broken, be it bone or ceramic.
I don't get this, I really don't. I would think it should be obvious that rollerskating, without protective gear, in a confined area full of moving obstacles, would involve risk. And it is rollerskating. The shoes have wheels and the kid wearing them is rolling. Furthermore, I find shopping malls to be somewhat hazardous in sturdy sensible orthopedic shoes. You really ought to have combat boots during the holiday season.
Beyond the dangers of physical injury to themselves & others because of mishaps... I wonder about the orthopedics of these shoes.
I took figure skating lessons in the past, and my sister Marie is an amateur adult competition figure skater, so I know very well that there are proper postures and positions for ice skating on figure skates. Those positions, I believe, apply also to ice hockey skates, rollerskates, rollerblades, inline skates, etc. And unlike ice skates & rollerskates, 'heelys' only have wheels in the heel, which would make it impossible to roll in proper form.
So I can't help thinking that frequently wheeling around on heels would constantly force a growing body into odd postures, and might have some detrimental effect on the physiology somehow.
I'm not trying to single out 'heelys' as uniquely dangerous or bad, or more detrimental than drug addiction, or anything crazy like that.
According to my physical therapist friend, ideally, we should all be wearing orthopedic shoes regularly. So of course things running around on pavement & tile all day on high heels is bad for your body, and the sport of ice skating can be risky. But in the proper setting, in sensible circumstances, or in moderation, those detriments can be mitigated.
What makes 'heelys' unique is that they're specifically designed, made, and marketed for kids to slyly wear wheels when & where they shouldn't be rollerskating.
But mostly, I just find it bloody annoying to have to dodge these kids for my own safety. It's bad enough when unsupervised children accidentally ram shopping carts into me at the grocery store. Call me stodgy, but I just don't see the point to adding unnecessary hazards to shopping, what's to me, an already annoying errand.
Recognizing tainted rice crispy treats & believing what you observe
(people don't just snap, and violence is predictable)
When I first read the book The Gift of Fear by Gaven DeBecker, I felt like I was reading what I already knew all along, but finally had some confirmation about it all.
I've been reminded of many parts of this book in the past few days. Here are a few parts I've been reminded of particularly...
The Gift of Fear by Gavin DeBecker
From Chapter 1 "In the Presence of Danger"
A television news show reports on a man who shot and killed his wife at her work. A restraining order had been served on him the same day as his divorce papers, coincidentally also his birthday. The news story tells of the man's threats, of being fired from his job, of putting a gun to his wife's head the week before the killing, of his stalking her. Even with all these facts, the reporter ends with: "Officials concede that no one could have predicted this would happen."
That's because we want to believe that people are infinitely complex, with millions of motivations and varieties of behaviour. It is not so. We want to believe that with all the possible combinations of human beings and human feelings, predicting violence is as difficult as picking the winning lottery ticket, yet it usually isn't difficult at all. We want to believe that human violence is somehow beyond our understanding, because as long as it remains a mystery, we have no duty to avoid it, explore it, or anticipate it. We need feel no responsibility for failing to read signals if there are none to read. We can tell ourselves that violence just happens without warning, and usually to others, but in service of these comfortable myths, victims suffer and criminals prosper.
From Chapter 3 "The Academy of Prediction"
The blind eye, of course, will never recognize {the human predator}, which is why I devote this chapter and the next to removing the blinders, to revealing the truths and the myths about disguises someone might use to victimize you.
I'll start with the hackneyed myth you'll recognize from plenty of TV news reports: "Residents here describe the killer as a shy man who kept to himself. They say he was a quiet and cordial neighbor."
Aren't you tired of this? A more accurate and honest way for TV news to interpret the banal interviews they conduct with neighbors would be to report, "Neighbors didn't know anything relevant." Instead, news reporters present noninformation as if it is information.
If someone causes me & others to be uneasy or speaks or writes in a way that's disturbing... That's a clue.
If you compound that with trouble with the law, a pyro incident, and a history of stalking women... Those aren't just "red flags" --- They're actual incidents of wrongdoing. They are blatant examples of actual dangerous behaviour.
It does everyone a disservice to claim there's "no way anyone could have known this was coming".
Perhaps not a specific this, but definitely a something. Particularly if other somethings have already preceded.
Violence might be shocking by its very nature... But it isn't completely random & unpredictable.
But even if law and law enforcement, administrators in workplaces & schools, and your neighbors, choose to believe in the myths of ignorance, and stay invested in non-responsibility... I know now that I don't have to operate under that ignorance, I need not labour under that convenient delusion. And neither do you.
There are ways to predict trouble. There are ways to keep oneself out of most harm's way. There are signs to utilize, and choices to make.
If you're interested in more about how, I highly recommend the following books on this topic that I found both helpful and fascinating...
The Gift of Fear by Gavin DeBecker
The Sociopath Next Door by Martha Stout
Where to Draw the Line by Anne Katherine
There is Nothing Wrong with You by Cheri Huber
There's more to life than instincts, but they do come in handy. I've learned to trust my gut -- It's so invariably right it startles me sometimes.
Recently when my 'My #1 Fan' came to visit my place with some friends, I left them hanging out on the front porch when they first arrived. 'My #1 Fan' happened to notice a hooked-cross symbol on the doorstep threshhold of my neighbor's entrance door.
Sherry said to me, "Your #1 Fan wants to know why there are swastikas on that doorstep. I think he's concerned Nazis live there."
I hadn't noticed it myself before, but luckily I had already met my new neighbor, a cute & friendly old Indian man.
I took a look, and said, "That's not a Nazi swastika, it's a Hindu symbol."
It really is too bad that Nazis have inflicted so much damage, that continues in the form of having corrupted an age-old benign, even positive symbol -- the swastika.
The swastika has been a symbol of 'the wheel of life', representing the positive energies of the universe in the Hindu tradition, for thousands of years before it was adopted by Adolf Hitler & the Nazis. The word "swastika", itself, is from the ancient Sanskrit language, and usage of the swastika symbol apparently dates back to the Paleolithic era at least.
The Citizens Voice - BREAKING NEWS: Monsignor McGowan dies
Monsignor Andrew J. McGowan, 80, a longtime priest, ubiquitous community leader and sought-after speaker known for his quick wit, died today at University of Maryland Medical Center in Baltimore.
The renowned toastmaster and philanthropist once upstaged comedy legend Bob Hope and spoke before hundreds of organizations across the country.
I didn't know him personally, but I was many times in the position of taking photos of him, and he was always a spritely subject, and, well, just a cute old tweety.
Msgr. Andrew J. McGowan at "Operation Thank You", by the Luzerne Foundation in honour of veterans, held at Kirby Park in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. June 14 2005
On my way home from 'the Cottage' to Scranton last week, I spotted a flying saucer and an alien in someone's yard on Falls Road between Falls and Route 307.
I was kind of hoping to also spot a nude D.B. Sweeney in the vicinity, but no such luck.
Since the Independence Day celebration at Kirby Park in Wilkes-Barre was cancelled because of the flooding last week, I was very disappointed.
This will be only the 3rd time I've missed 4th of July at Kirby Park in the past 15 years. (In 1992 I spent July 4th at Lake Wallenpaupack, and in 1997 I spent it in New York City.)
However, I did see some nice fireworks in Moscow, Pennsylvania, on July 3rd.
Not quite the same without the Northeastern Pennsylvania Philharmonic, but I must say the display in Moscow was much longer than I would've expected it to be.
If you live in Northeastern Pennsylvania, specifically - anywhere near Pittston, for long enough, you'll eventually hear the ghost story of "The Suscon Screamer".
Now that prom season is over, I won't be spoiling too much fun by letting out the boring truth, and putting the word out that other states don't have a monopoly on this ghost story.
This this enduring urban legend is just a locally tweaked version of the well-known tale of "The Vanishing Hitchhiker".
I recall seeing various versions of this on Night Gallery or Tales from the Dark Side type television shows, including one that was pretty much an exact duplicate of the one "The Suscon Screamer" story I'd heard.
It's a widespread ghost story all over the United States, (if not the world), the origin of which is unclear.
Vanishing hitchhiker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The vanishing hitchhiker (or phantom hitchhiker) is a reported phenomenon in which people travelling by vehicle meet with or are accompanied by a hitchhiker who subsequently vanishes without explanation, often from a moving vehicle. Vanishing hitchhikers have been reported for centuries and the story is found across the world, in many variants.
ALT.FOLKLORE.GHOST-STORIES FAQ It is interesting to note that this legend has made it into many regional folklores. In Hawaii, for example, the hitchhiker is often said to be the goddess Pele. It has already been mentioned that La Llorona has also been connected with the story. In the Chicago area, the vanishing hitchhiker takes the form of Resurrection Mary.
I found references to the prom version, attributed to 4 states including West Virginia, New Jersey, Arkansas, and Mississippi. And this is just what I found in a quick internet search.
West Virginia's True Ghost Stories City: Huntington
At the bottom of fifth street hill a couple was in a wreck on prom night. The girl can be seen standing near the bridge in her prom dress as if waiting for a ride.
About.com - The Ghosts of Arkansas Imagine, a young girl on the way to the prom gets killed in a horrible car accident. I think every place has their own version of this urban legend and I think every town swears theirs is really true. The same is true for Arkansas. This ghost sighting takes us to highway 365 just north of Little Rock. Ask anyone who lives around this area and they will swear that they know the hitchhiker is real.
The Zappa Award for Incredibly Strange Ghost Stories New Jersey - Totowa (Passaic County) - Annie's Road (Totowa Road)
The stories vary, but most involve her prom night: one version says she was decapitated in an accident afterward, one says she got drunk after her date stood her up and was walking along there when she was hit by a carload of her drunken classmates, and yet another says she was waiting for her date along the road when a truck driver nailed her.
Either way, Annie's dead now. Said to be buried along this road, Annie has been known to make appearances. Described as "short" and dressed in white, her fleeting image has been spotted near the I 80 overpass and all along the road. Some say she appears at 2 AM, and you should drive down the road with your headlights off to see her.
Haunted Places in Mississippi Hattiesburg - Burnt Bridge - The legend has it that on the old bridge there would be a young girl in a prom dress ride across the bridge on the hood of your car around midnight. Seems she and her boyfriend were killed on prom night on that bridge.
Sorry if this puts a damper on anyone's storytelling around the campfire this summer.
Though there was considerable damage to the area involving hell of a lot more than soggy paper cups, it turned out that the Susquehanna River not only didn't go as high in 2004, but also did considerably less damage to 'the Cottage' than the flood in 2004. The highest crest coming in at 34.14ft.
At this time, the river is no longer at flood stage, and has now gone within its normal banks.
But, in what seems like habit at this point, I went to check out the damage and the water at 'the Cottage' in Falls on Thursday June 29th, the day after the crest.
Traffic was insane, it took me almost an hour to get from Throop to Falls because 81 North was blocked, and traffic through Green Ridge Street in Scranton was at a crawl. Everyone milling about after all the river excitement, I suppose.
damaged road to the cottage
After having seen the dirt road that leads to 'the Cottage' all flooded out on Tuesday evening, I figured I'd have to leave my car at the top of the hill and walk in.
I was right. The road was broken, the water that ran through there cut a big & rather deep canal right through the road. It also created a sort of gorged out area next to the road there, because the road was obviously damming up the water flow to a certain degree.
Despite having an entire nice sunny day, the rest of the dirt road was still muddy and full of puddles.
By the time I arrived, the flood waters had receded to just within the riverbank. Though the entire yard between the cottage and the river bank was mushy, and the sidewalks muddy. Inside the cottage, the cellar was still completely flooded, and there was mud in the kitchen at the front.
However, the water didn't make it into the entire living room. And overall it was far less horrible than the damage and mud that I found left behind after the 2004 flood, when I spent 2 hours dragging out sopping wet carpets 2 inches deep in mud.
There was some debris strewn about the yard.
I also watched a lot of whole trees that had been ripped up from their roots, floating down the river.
Buttermilk bridge in Falls
I took a photo of the little Buttermilk bridge in Falls, taken from the exact same spot & viewpoint as from Tuesday, and as is shown, the creek by Thursday was back to a more normal level.
When I was there on Tuesday, it looked like the water was about to come right over the bridge.
It didn't, but right nearby, a house slid right off the hill, and nearly into the street. I saw it first posted on the WNEP Channel 16 web site's slide show, and then I saw it for myself, and it looked even more bizarre in person.
So it looks like "The Flood of 2006" will take its place at the #5 spot of "Historical Crests", as reported by The National Weather Service, which of course means it was quite severe.
Susquehanna River in Falls
Historical Crests
01. 40.91 feet - 1972, 24 June
02. 35.06 feet - 1975, 27 September
03. 34.96 feet - 2004, 19 September
04. 34.45 feet - 1996, 20 January
05. 33.10 feet - 1865, 18 March
06. 33.07 feet - 1936, 20 March
07. 31.60 feet - 1946, 29 May
08. 31.50 feet - 1940, 01 April
09. 31.40 feet - 1902, 02 March
10. 31.02 feet - 1979, 07 March
I remember visiting the 'the Cottage' during the 1975 flood. And my father giving me stern warnings about the dangers of getting too close to the water's edge, which I did anyway, I'm afraid. Though the water wasn't really moving in the yard like it was out past the river bank.
The Falls Bridge
I also remember the 1979 flood, the water lapping up over the river bank into the yard at 'the Cottage'.
During the 1996 flood, me, my parrot Jacq, and my roommate Eve were evacuated from our apartment in downtown Wilkes-Barre near the River Commons. We spent the weekend at my sister Joanie's house in the Poconos. According to my father's records, the water was 6 inches deep in the living room at the cottage during that crest.
There was also a flood in March 1993, that was caused by the snow melt from Blizzard of 1993. I'd be interested to know what it crested at. It was definitely at flood stage, but I assume it was no higher than 28 feet, because though Kirby Park in Wilkes-Barre was under water, I was actually on the Black Diamond Bridge during the crest of that flood. (I don't recommend that sort of behaviour now, by the way.)
And speaking of Kirby Park in Wilkes-Barre, the annual Independence Day celebration scheduled for the 4th of July has been cancelled. I think I've only missed being at Kirby Park for Independence day twice in the past 15 years. (In 1992 I spent July 4th at Lake Wallenpaupack, and in 1997 I spent it in New York City.) So that's very disappointing as well.
superficiality >>If the facade is what's important to you, all you wind up with is an illusion. Disillusionment is the gift of substance.
-- Chloe<<
(more)
March is NOT the beginning of Spring. March is a sort of transitional month, it's kind of a halfway house. It's a month God designed to show people who don't drink what a hangover is like.
