March 2006 Archives

Just got home from company end of month happy hour. I'm so tempted to share what I'm thinking and feeling about my current personal state of affairs, but I know I'll regret it in the morning. So I'll restrain myself. What I will say is that I think London is an amazing city. I know I've said this before, but it bears repeating. I love being here.

One day soon, I'm going to create a postcard to submit to: PostSecret. Of course, you'll never know its me. Or will you now? Hmmmm!

So London Mayor Ken Livingston was suspended late February for a month for making, making anti-semitic comments. Specifically,

on tape the mayor is heard asking Oliver Finegold (a journalist) if he is a "German war criminal".

Mr Finegold replies: "No, I'm Jewish, I wasn't a German war criminal. I'm quite offended by that."

The Mayor then says: "Ah right, well you might be, but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?"

Now I'm not sure his remarks rise to the level of being anti-semitic, but they are definitely insensitive. More importantly, I just do not think that non elected board members of an obscure government body, The Adjudication Panel for England should have the right to suspend an elected politician even for a short period. As such I do agree with the Mayor when he says that by doing so, this "strikes at the heart of democracy. Elected politicians should only be able to be removed by the voters or for breaking the law."

Btw, here are some other colorful quotes by the Mayor:

"Anybody who enjoys being in the House of Commons probably needs psychiatric help."

"What a squalid and irresponsible little profession it is. Nothing prepares you for how bad Fleet Street really is until it craps on you from a great height."

"World wide capitalism kills more people everyday then Hitler did. And he was crazy."

"If voting changed anything, they'd abolish it."

Reading these additional quotes brings back memories of Mayor Richard M. Daley in Chicago. They both fly off at the mouth often and say things, regardless of the fact that it may not be politically correct to do so.

The problem with people lying in their online dating profile is so great, that there are more and more companies cropping up to try and offer a solution. A recent entry into the market is: Truedater.com.

Q: What is TrueDater.com? A: TrueDater.com is a community Web site where you can post and read reviews about the truthfulness of profiles on online dating sites like Match.com, Yahoo Personals, and MySpace as well as meet other online daters to share information and stories. TrueDater.com is free and anonymous to use.

Q: Who enters the reviews on TrueDater.com?
A: The reviews on TrueDater.com are entered by other TrueDater.com members. Some reviews are edited to remove content that might be offensive or does not speak directly to whether the information and pictures in the profile are accurate.

Q: Can I post a rebuttal to a review of my profile?
Yes, if you have updated the information in your profile or you feel that information entered about you was untrue, you can post a review of your own profile to set the record straight.

Q: Will you remove a review of my profile if it's wrong?
Under certain circumstances, such as if a review contains offensive language or focuses mainly on a subject other than whether the information in the profile is accurate, we may remove a review. Removing reviews is solely at the discretion of TrueDater.com. If you feel untrue information has been entered about your profile you can post a rebuttal to provide a correction.

Just brilliant I tell you! Brilliant! Having said that, I still have no intentions on going back on an online dating site anytime soon.

I moved to London almost one year ago and I have yet to figure out who the real celebrities are in the UK.

In all honesty, I tend to gravitate more towards the American shows on television and in the theatre. Also, when I'm at the newsstand looking through the celebrity magazines, its mostly American actors and actresses on the covers. Or else, it will be clothing models like cokehead Kate Moss or glamour (really nude) models like Jordan aka Katie Price. Worse yet, celebrity Big Brother winner, Chantelle, who wasn't a celebrity before she won Celebrity Big Brother.

Now I don't begrudge these chavs their time in the spotlight. But I do think it is disgraceful that talented UK actors and actresses aren't the ones gracing the covers of the local celebrity magazines. Also, I find it quite appalling that the public's appetite for these magazines that continually promote people not because of their singing/acting/dancing/athletic talents – but mainly because of their anti-social behavior continues to grow.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of celebrity gossip but only when it involves people who have some real talent -- and I'm sorry but being a cokehead, chav footballers wife, glamour model, Big Brother winner, etc. does not count as actual talent.

I'm thinking about purchasing a house in London when my current rental lease expires in May 2007 and so praying to God that by the time this date roles around I will have saved up enough money to purchase in my desired area. More importantly, that I find an honest estate agent amongst all the property sharks out there.

Estate agent 'lies' caught on film By Devika Bhat

TV investigators have exposed potentially illegal sales practices
Debate: should estate agents be regulated?

ESTATE agents have been exposed engaging in unethical and potentially illegal practices, including putting forward false offers to vendors, misleading surveyors and faking signatures on key documents.

Footage in a BBC programme, due to be broadcast tonight, even shows one estate agent supplying an undercover reporter — posing as a potential buyer — with a false British passport in exchange for £750, in order to apply for a mortgage.

The revelations come on the same day that the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) sets up a code of practice for estate agents, aimed at ensuring that buyers and sellers get a fair deal and are less likely to be duped by maverick agencies. The programme, Whistleblower, shows two reporters who worked undercover in estate agents across London over a four-month period.

During the investigation, they are shown to have witnessed unscrupulous activities, including agents lying to surveyors about the value of other properties that had sold in an area, so that buyers would potentially pay more than they should. In another instance, buyers are encouraged by an agency to sign up to a firm of financial advisers, who pass their apparently confidential financial details back to the agency so that they can see how much clients can be pushed to spend on properties.

The agent who is shown providing a fake passport to an undercover reporter, is also filmed supplying other false documents to aid with the mortgage application, a service for which he accepts a separate cash payment.

Employees also describe how sellers can be lured to sign up to an agency with the promise of a high asking price, only to be subsequently encouraged to lower their expectations following false low bids placed by the agents.

Agents are also shown lying to vendors about real bids, initially lowering their value so that the seller is led to believe that they have gained a good deal when the true price of the bid is eventually quoted.

In an illegal practice, an agent is shown acknowledging instances of flyboarding — putting up “For Sale” posters at properties not actually on the agency’s books. Elsewhere, an agent claims he can sell a property to a developer — one of the whistleblowers — at a price much lower than its actual value, in exchange for a personal payment of £10,000.

Anna Adams, one of the reporters involved in the investigation, said: “I found the practices used by some estate agents really shocking. Clients are often paying them thousands of pounds in fees so this brings into question whether agents really are acting in their clients’ best interests.”

An OFT spokeswoman said that unfair and unethical practice within the industry was prominent and well-known. “For many people it is the biggest transaction of their lives and if it goes wrong, it can go horribly wrong. There are plenty of horror stories that we have heard about,” she told The Times.

For my fellow Wolverines and others who have the ability to give to a worthy cause.

Little BigHouse Project: Many Michigan alumni and friends were affected by recent hurricanes, and thousands are still without adequate housing and funds to rebuild.

That's why the Alumni Association is partnering with Habitat for Humanity to construct The Little Big House for an evacuee family now living in Dallas, Texas. The Association is working to raise $150,000 to cover costs of the Little Big House project. Generosity has always been the way of the Leaders and Best, and participating in The Little Big House project is a great way to make a difference!

Visit www.umalumni.com/littlebighouse for more information.

I am back on British soil. Actually got back last night. I am extremely tired from the non stop activities for the last four days, but it feels so good to be "home." Don't get me wrong, I had a lovely time in Prague (I'll do a full write up later), but I also had some of my worst traveling experiences.

Two things top the list: 1.) being harassed by Metro police for not having a validated ticket to ride the trains and 2.) having my wallet stolen from my hand bag while out shopping on Saturday morning (this apparently is a huge problem in Prague). Thankfully, since I never travel internationally with my everyday wallet, they only got some loose change and two credit cards which I was able to quickly cancel. Luckily my cash and passport where elsewhere, so I was able to continue on with the vacation, but it did put a damper on my mood.

Even still, I'm not turned off from visiting other European cities. I just have to remember to be a bit more careful next time. No doubt about it, I got caught up in how cheap things were and let my guard down while shopping. So which city is next on the list? Well, I would like to go to a city where I can better communicate with the locals in their native tongue and since I studied french at University, top of the list is Brussels or Paris. But that trip won't be for a while -- maybe not until the summer. In the interim, thinking I’ll spend my weekends being a tourist in London. There is so much I have yet to experience in this wonderful city I now call home.

Greetings from Prague. I arrived safely from London a few hours ago and the exploration and drinking of Czech beer has begun. Damn this stuff is strong! More later.

For the first time in my life, I'm feeling nervous about getting on a plane. So nervous in fact, that I spent the past half hour, reseaching the airline. Truth be told, my anxiety has less to to with the actual flight, and more to do with the destination: Prague. I know it will be beautiful and I'm sure I'll have a good time but the mystic of the place makes me feel a little nervous.

During the Summer and Fall of 1987, I spent many hours obsessing and preparing applications to 8 Universities. At the time, I thought 8 was too many. But the wise college counselors I had access to via the Urban Scholars Program assured me that as the college admissions process was becoming more and more competitive, this was necessary to ensure I had choices. Partly because it wasn't just about where I got accepted, it was also about who gave me the best financial aid package.

Now, here it is almost 20 years later and many students are applying to twice as many schools as I did. To me, this seems excessive. But then again, what do I know. I am far removed from the process. As such, I just thank the Lord that that period of my life is behind me. Don't get me wrong, I LOVED school. In fact, I consider my four years at Michigan to be some of the best years of my life. But the whole entrance process never mind the cost associated with getting the degree has just gotten out of hand.

In New Twist on College Search, a First Choice, and 20 Backups By ALAN FINDER Published: March 21, 2006 Michael Martin has done well in the college admissions sweepstakes, having been accepted by eight universities and rejected by one.

But he expects to hear from 12 more colleges in the next few weeks, including Georgetown, Wake Forest and the University of California, Los Angeles. Worried about the increasingly competitive race to get into the nation's top universities, Mr. Martin decided he needed to apply to as many colleges as he could, 21 in all.

"Compared to my dad's day and my grandfather's day, it's much harder to get into college," said Mr. Martin, 18, a senior at St. Margaret's Episcopal School in San Juan Capistrano, Calif. "I just think I needed to get my name out to many schools."

His strategy is no longer that unusual. A generation ago, high school seniors applied to three, four or five colleges. But now students aiming for the most selective universities frequently apply to as many as 10 or 12; a significant number of students, especially in the last three years or so, apply to many, many more, guidance counselors and college admissions officials said.

The main reason for this, guidance counselors and admissions officials say, is a growing anxiety about admissions, stoked by college ranking guides, the news media and, often, parents. Some students are desperate to do anything to get into a brand-name institution — including applying to many of them.

The growth of the common application, which more than 270 colleges accept, has contributed as well by making it easier to apply to a large number of institutions; so has an increase in the number of colleges that waive fees for online applications. Most colleges charge about $50 to $75 per application. And some students cast a wide net to increase their chances of snaring a substantial merit scholarship.

He just gets cuter every day.

Now that I’ve ended my moratorium regarding discussing work matters on this blog, just let me say how much I detest open-plan work space. I know it allows organizations to pack more people into the space and it is also suppose to foster better communication between team members, but it’s also distracting as hell. Plus, one has no privacy. Now granted I don’t expect the sort of privacy I get when I enter my own home, but for someone like myself who is extremely territorial (I'm a leo), I find myself getting upset when people invade or hover around the boundaries surrounding my desk. Or worse yet, comment on matters on my commuter screen. Also really annoying is having to listen to the pretentious xenophobic prat who sits next to me. God, on days like this, I do so miss working from a cube or better yet working from home.

The University of Michigan Alumni Association has come to its senses and made inCircle, their online directory and networking community, free for all alums. As such, I'd encourage all Michigan graduates to sign up. Yes, that means even you Best Guy Friend :) Afterall, the more people in the network, the more useful it becomes.

Attention all club leaders! inCircle, our online directory and networking tool, is now available to all U-M alumni for free. Inform alumni in your area that inCircle will allow them to get in touch with long-lost college friends, make valuable professional connections, find alumni who share their interests, get tickets for the big game and meet other alums who live in a particular city.

I make it a rule never to talk about my job here for fear that anything I say might cause me to get dooced, but I had such a shocking conversation with a prospect this morning, that I'm almost at a loss for words.

Situation is that I've been chasing the managing director of this private equity firm that we wanted to make an introduction to for months. Finally get him on the phone today and he's being extremely difficult. Nothing unusual there. He fires one question after another to which I promptly respond -- all the while keeping my cool. I'm a profesional. He then says that he won't take a meeting without looking at information first. I then respond by saying that I'd already sent information and that it must have gotten overlooked as he was in China the last few weeks. He then retorted, probably not. Maybe we just weren't that interested.

Now, I've had these sorts of difficult conversations with prospects more times than I care to count, so I'm not rattled. I just continue with the mission at hand, getting the meeting. But Mr Prospect isn't having it. Out of the blue he says, “you know, I don't like Americans and frankly won't work with Americans.” I was so shocked to hear this from a senior executive (who really should know better) that I just laughed and said something to the effect: "wow, that was brutally honest."

The conversation then came to conclusion after another 30 seconds. Now, as I reflect, I'm somewhat shaken and completely angry. Also slightly turned off. His comment was unprofessional and racist. In my opinion, it’s almost like he said, I won't work with black people.

So, I’m wondering, am I off base here? Am I being too sensitive? Truth be told, if said comment was made to me by someone in a bar, I probably would have laughed it off. But to hear those words spoken by a senior level executive in a professional environment, is just shocking!

Not sure how I'll swing it, but I'd like to live, even for a short while in one of the 21 cities below deemed to offer the best quality of life. London by the way, is number 39 of the list. Chicago, my previous city of residence is number 51.

So which country would I choose if I could waive a wand and make it so? Well, New Zealand and Australia are quite appealing but as they are so far from everything else, not sure I'd go through with such a move. Canada is also appealing but its perhaps too much like America to really consider. Germany is another contender, but thinking I'll just take a pass. As such, top of my list like the list below would have to be Switzerland. No I've never been, but based on everything I've read, it does sound like a wonderful country to visit and live, if even for a short while.

1 1 Geneva Switzerland 106.5
1 2 Zurich Switzerland 106.5
3 3 Vancouver Canada 106.0
3 3 Vienna Austria 106.0
5 5 Frankfurt Germany 105.5
5 10 Munich Germany 105.5
5 12 Düsseldorf Germany 105.5
8 5 Auckland New Zealand 105.0
8 5 Bern Switzerland 105.0
8 5 Copenhagen Denmark 105.0
8 5 Sydney Australia 105.0
12 10 Amsterdam Netherlands 104.5
13 13 Brussels Belgium 104.0
14 12 Melbourne Australia 103.5
14 15 Berlin Germany 103.5
14 15 Luxembourg Luxembourg 103.5
14 15 Stockholm Sweden 103.5
14 12 Toronto Canada 103.5
14 15 Wellington New Zealand 103.5
20 20 Ottawa Canada 103.0
20 20 Perth Australia 103.0

Survey methodology
The data for the 2005 survey was largely collected between September and November 2004 and was regularly updated to take account of changing circumstances.

The overall quality of life ranking is based on an evaluation of 39 quality of life criteria. The covered topic in 2005, “personal safety and security,” is based on an evaluation of six criteria that have been drawn from the overall quality of life survey. New York has been used as the base score for quality of life with a score of 100 points.

Mercer’s study is based on detailed assessments and evaluations of 39 key quality of life determinants, grouped in the following categories:

• Political and social environment (political stability, crime, law enforcement, etc)
• Economic environment (currency exchange regulations, banking services, etc)
• Socio-cultural environment (censorship, limitations on personal freedom, etc)
• Medical and health considerations (medical supplies and services, infectious diseases, sewage, waste disposal, air pollution, etc)
• Schools and education (standard and availability of schools, etc)
• Public services and transportation (electricity, water, public transport, traffic congestion, etc)
• Recreation (restaurants, theatres, cinemas, sports and leisure, etc)
• Consumer goods (availability of food/daily consumption items, cars, etc)
• Housing (housing, household appliances, furniture, maintenance services, etc)
• Natural environment (climate, record of natural disasters)

Based on the stages of cultural adjustment uncovered while browsing the forums at UK-Yankee, some days I find my mood fitting anywhere between stage 1 and 3. I suppose that's natural really, since my move from Chicago to London was only 11 months ago. But I must say that the most difficult has been stage 2. This mood normally happens when I enter into conversation(usually with a British National) who is upset at the erosion of the culture and how he or she is thinking about fleeing to Australia, France, Spain, etc. With continuous talk like that, its made me doubt my choice to move to London. Not enough to move on yet -- but one never knows. Now that I'm here, I must say that I like the concept of living someplace for awhile and moving on. I want to see and live in different parts of the world. So who knows where I'll be in five years.

STAGES OF CULTURAL ADJUSTMENT

Stage One: Enthusiasm/Excitement:
The Individual: is very positive about the culture.
is overwhelmed with impressions.
finds the culture exotic and fascinated by it.
is largely passive, doesn't confront the culture.

Stage Two: Withdrawl/Loneliness:
The Individual: begins to interact with the culture.
finds the behavior of the people unusual and unpredictable.
begins to dislike the culture/reacts to the behavior.
feels anxiety.
begins to withdraw.
begins to criticize the culture/people

Stage Three: Re-emergence/Adjustment:
The individual: begins to understand more of the behaviors of the people.
feels more comfortable living in/encountering the culture.
feels less isolated.
regains his/her sense of humour.

Stage Four: Achievement/Enthusiasm:
The individual: enjoys being in the culture.
functions easily in the culture.
prefers certain culture behavior to that of his/her own culture.
adopts certain behaviors as their own.

Symptoms of Culture Shock:

- homesickness - irritability
- boredom - hostility toward local people
- lethargy - irrational anger
- withdrawal - excessive sleeping

For the first time in years, today the anniversary of my mother’s death hasn’t sent me into a deep depression. Oh sure I’ve cried a bit, but I’m not so angry anymore. Plus I’ve stopped trying to think about what could have been, and what is. I’ve also stopped trying to think of people to blame for her premature death – she was just 42 years old. Now I think more about the good times, the early years. As such, perhaps I’m finally at the acceptance stage of my grief. It’s taken me 12 years.

For anyone out there who might be thinking otherwise due to my posts below, Racquetball Guy did not have a criminal record. He has other faults, but thankly, that was not one of them.

In response to my posts below re background checks and online dating, Shasta asked some really interesting questions, and I thought I'd share my response in a new post.

QUESTION: Are they [True.com] only filtering out people that have been to jail? Are they filtering out people based on what they were convicted on? Do you have to do any jail time at all? Do they get filtered on having a police record?

RESPONSE: From the company website:

“TRUE® better protects members' safety with multiple layers of security. We screen the name you give us for U.S. felony and sexual offense convictions using one of the largest criminal records databases on the Internet....

Anyone with a felony or sexual offense conviction recorded in this database is prevented from communicating with TRUE members. Only U.S. felony and sexual offense convictions (not arrests) are covered by the searches. Members are only screened for convictions in the United States.”

From the above statement, it appears that you have to be convicted of a crime, not just arrested. Also, it doesn’t really matter what the crime was, if you have a conviction, you are automatically excluded.

QUESTION: As far as getting into people's financial history, yeah, I don't want to deal with anyone else's financial burdens either, but I consider this a gray area. If we allow this, why not try to get access to people medical histories to see if they have STDs or STIs, or other health issues that may hurt us or that we just don't like/want to deal with?

RESPONSE: I would agree that it’s a gray area and as such, for this part, the data should not be available for everyone to see. Also, it should not be a full credit record. The company would do the screening and based on a formula provide guidance. It could be as simple as having green (ok to proceed), yellow (stop and ask a few questions) and red (stop and ask a lot of questions) buttons.

So both interested parties would have to agree to allow the online dating company to share their financial health status with the other person. Thus, for some, it would happen in the early stages, some later down the line. For others maybe never at all. Part of what this is really trying to do is to encourage people to be honest with one another from the start. Truth be told, if I started dating someone and found out that he had bad credit due to some prior life altering experience (i.e. illness, death in family, etc), I wouldn’t completely discount him. However, I would want to know up front. I don’t want to be deceived or worse yet simply kept in the dark. Considering that financial stress/problems is one of the main reasons for the increase in the divorce rate, I want to know early one what I’m dealing with to help guide my decision on whether or not I want to continue exploring a romantic relationship. Without all the facts, I can’t make a sound decision.

As for the whole sexual and medical history, since there is no compiled national database, both parties will have to stick to relying on each other to be truthful about their history. Strangely, I’m fine with that. Since I don't plan to jump into bed with a potential partner immediately, and I won't then have to worry that person may be hiding a criminal conviction and or bad debt, then I can relax a bit and make a determination when the time is right about whether or not I really like the person enough to take the risk involved with a sexual relationship.

QUESTION: Exactly how far should we be allowed to go into someone's life without saying a word to them...and how do you justify going so far in one area, but not another?

There are lots of dating sites out there and I’m sure that not all will subscribe to background checks unless of course there is some sort of legislation. Thus, people will have a choice as to what kind of service they want to use to potentially meet a partner. One that does background checks or one that is more free for all. Personally, I’d take the one that does background checks – even if it meant paying a much higher fee. eHarmony.com matches people based on their personality, to me screening out those with criminal and bad debt history is just an extension. No it’s not going to be able to screen out all the bad/crazy people, but its going to give me some assurance that the pool of candidates closer fits my own morals and standards. To start, that means no criminals.

QUESTION: How much right to privacy do we have?

People can have all the privacy they want. This system is totally voluntary. No one has to go online to use a dating service to meet someone. Furthermore, just like some banks have strict lending policies and some have more riskier practices at various interest rate levels, so should we have different levels of offerings as it relates to online dating services. So people should have the option of continuing to use popular sites like match.com that have all the basic features, or they can step it up a bit, and use a service like true.com that screens out married people and those with criminal background. That to me is a more attractive product because it’s safer. Now, I’m not foolish to think that its going to be 100% safe – but it will make it safer than it currently is today.

STATEMENT: And just because someone doesn't have a record, and stellar credit, doesn't mean that person couldn't have some other very serious and potentially threatening issues.

RESPONSE: I totally agree. Crazy is everywhere -- at church, at the local bar/pub/night club, work, etc. However, if I am going to pay for the privilege of getting an introduction, I want to know that the pool is more targetted, more qualified. Basically, I'm only interested in the good leads. For a lot of people like myself, to start, that means no criminals. The system won’t be full proof but it will sure as hell be a lot better than it is now.

True.com, an online dating service has started conducting criminal background screening on all applicants.

Before True™ members are allowed to communicate with you, they are screened by Rapsheets.com, one of the largest databases of criminal records on the Internet. Anyone with a U.S. felony or sexual offense conviction recorded in this database is prevented from communicating with you.

Unfotunately, not all states and jurisdictions are covered, but this is definitely a step in the right direction. Thinking other dating sites need to follow suit.

Based on my own personal experience, as well as stories shared by friends(see February 14th post) and random strangers, thinking that if online dating services are to continue at current level or even thrive, they need to start conducting background checks on their members. So, no longer is it acceptable for them to just take people's money in the hopes of a possible introduction. They have to help their members screen out the fraudsters by conducting criminial and financial background checks. Thus, searching public records information to screen out married people, those with criminal records and bad credit history. I'm not saying these people should be automatically disqualified from being on the site. I just think that since there is a growing population who insist on being less than honest in their profile, online dating service have to step things up and protect their members. Otherwise, as the negative press increases, there businesses will continue to suffer. I myself at this point, have no interest in going back on another online dating service. I know, never say never. But for now, I'd rather just stick with meeting people the old fashion way.

One of the goals that I set while working with my life coach is to visit every continent excluding Antarctica by the time I'm 45. Since that timeframe is 10 years away, thinking this goal is very achieveable.

create your own visited states map
or check out these Google Hacks.

create your own visited countries map
or vertaling Duits Nederlands

Quiz uncovered via If You Don't Like It Blog