I've been looking at my expenses again, and things aren't quite as bleak as I thought. If I get laid off, I can file for unemployment. I can trim down my expenses to absolute bare minimum. I also have about 3-4 weeks of FTO that I haven't used yet. Here are my scenarios, none of which involve tapping into my savings:

3 months severance + FTO money + unemployment = I could survive for 14 months without a job

2 months severance + FTO money + unemployment = I could survive for 10 months without a job

1 month severance + FTO money + unemployment = I could survive for 7 months without a job

FTO money + unemployment = I could survive for 2 months without a job.

I'm talking living at a bare minimum here, plus $150 for my health insurance cobra payment. Without the cobra payment for health insurance, I could go a few months longer.

My company had a layoff when they moved part of the office to Sacramento, and the people who got laid off received 3 months of severance. Three months of severance would be ideal, but I listed all the scenarios.

I've never looked at a lay off scenario before, because I've only ever been laid off once and that was when I was right out of college and it was my first job. I'm glad I did this little exercise, just so the thought of being laid off won't be so scary financially. I mean, I will freak out in any case, but now at least I know it might not as bleak as I thought.

I'm feeling better today, after a serious freak-out yesterday. I don't have enough information on my job to panic just yet, and I just need to wait and see what's going to happen. I'm working on a project right now with another senior VP in our corporate office in New Jersey, so things can't be that bad.

I found this description of the neighbourhood I live in on SFGATE.com. I moved to this area because I wanted to be within walking distance of Golden Gate Park, and I wanted to be near the ocean. I can bike or walk to the ocean from where I live , and Golden Gate Park is just a four block walk away. Most people in this area prefer to live by the Bay, but since I grew up on an island, I prefer to live near the ocean. Living near an ocean reminds me so much of home. This neighborhood is also not as expensive as others, and the parking isn't that bad. It's quiet too. Negatives: no gyms, no yoga studio, could use some better shops, no gourmet grocery store so no proscuitto. Pluses: a See's candy store, a great hardware store, a ballet school where you can take classes, great restaurants, a great picture framing store, lots of fresh veggie/fruit stands, two major grocery chain stores.

The Inner Richmond is a practical and comfortable neighborhood with a citywide reputation for fantastic restaurants. It's often called "New Chinatown" because it's almost as full of Chinese groceries and restaurants and Cantonese chatter as Grant Avenue, but most tourists overlook it, as did early S.F. residents, who wrote off the entire Richmond as a "Great Sand Waste" between the City and the sea.

The Richmond did almost became a miniature Colma, housing the municipal and Chinese cemeteries. But after World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution, Irish and White Russian immigrants and Middle Eastern Jews bought homes in the area. Two waves of immigration after World War II brought Japanese residents and added to the sizable Chinese population.

Since then, the Inner Richmond has become a bustling multicultural soup with cute stucco houses, grand mansions, easy access to the Presidio, a plethora of inexpensive eateries and a good variety of shops. The Richmond lacks the hype of the Mission, and the fog does roll in a little earlier in the afternoon, but on its main dining and shopping drag, Clement Street, you'll find great Burmese, Thai, Chinese, Vietnamese and Korean restaurants, Chinese bakeries that sell siu mai (steamed meat dumplings), BBQ pork buns and other dim sum for under a dollar and produce markets that offer bitter melon, several kinds of choy (greens) or 10 lemons for a dollar. Browse the stacks at one of the city's best bookstores, suck down some Hong Kong-style pearl tea (complete with marble-size tapioca balls) or sit down for a French bistro meal, and you'll come to appreciate the modest neighborhood that has sprouted from the sand dunes.

I told Mr. Zaft I would respond to his questions about my post-modern relativism so here goes.

Seriously, though. How can one claim to accept the teachings of the Bible (for example, the 10 Commandments) if they are situationally interpreted? Is murder wrong for some people but not others?

This is a hard one for me. If you take this commandment literally - thou shall not kill, then what about the following types of people:

1) law enforcement people like police - are they murderers because they sometimes have to kill people in the course of their duty? I for one, am very grateful that the police do exist? But if you interpret the commandment of "Thou shall not kill", then all law enforcement persons are murderers. If the police are considered murderers, what does one call a serial killer or a person who makes a career out of killing?
2) military personnel - you know, the people who defend our country. These pepole must also kill in the line of duty. Are they murderers? I know it's not politically correct to say, where I live, but I happen to appreciate the military and what they do to protect our country. And yes, sometimes to protect our country they have to kill. What about the soldiers who fought in world war 1 and 2? Are they murderers?
3) the founding fathers of our country - those american revolutionaries. There was much blood shed in the creation of the United States of America. Were these people, to whom we owe a debt of gratitude for creating our country, murderers?
4) member of juries or judges who sentence people to die - are these people murderers? True, they did not commit the actual crime, but they decided that a person should die. In intent, juries and judges are as guilty as the person who flips the switch or administers the injection.
5) the jail personnel who administer capital punishment - are they murderers too? They kill people, sometimes it's their job. Are they murderers as well?
6) The president of our country/the congress - he is the commander and chief of the country's military. It is on the president's orders, that the military kills. Or our congress. Congress can declare war, and the last time I checked, war involved murder on a massive scale. We are deciding to go to war with Iraq. Does this mean we shouldn't go because well, we'll be approving the murder of the Iraqi people and whoever else happens to be there at the time the planes are dropping the bombs.
7) Those people in states that have capital punishment? Are they murderers, because well they did approve the murder of people who commit crimes?

Do you see my dilemma? Do you see why sometimes post-modern relativisim is not such a bad thing? Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote in "The Scarlett Letter", that when people start a town, the yfirst create two things, a church and a jail. Our whole notion of law and justice is based on punishment and enforcement. For societies to exist, we've had to create a system of law enforcement, so a community of people can live together in relative peace. If we condemn those that punish and enforce, then what happens to society and community?

Personally, I do believe that killing another person is a sin, yet I find it hard to condemn those who would kill to protect others or who would kill because it is part of their job. I have a hard time with capital punishment, because for me, it means we as a community approve of murder. If you can help me with my moral dilemma, please let me know.

The stock market indexes are so low right now. The Dow is below 8,000. And the Nasdaq is at 1200+. I still remember back in early 2000, when the Nasdaq was at 5,000. This is so not good for the economy, the country and anyone's pocket book right now.