Searchers.

There seem to two kinds of searchers: those who seek to make their ego something other than it is, i.e. holy, happy, unselfish (as though you could make a fish unfish), and those who understand that all such attempts are just gesticulation and play-acting, that there is only one thing that can be done, which is to disidentify themselves with the ego, by realizing its unreality, and by becoming aware of their eternal identity with pure being. -

Fingers Pointing Toward the Moon by Wei Wu Wei

Sex email blow for banker

A CITY investment banker has been humiliated after photos of her preforming oral sex were emailed to her boss and colleagues.

The anonymous email also found its way on to the internet, giving thousands the chance to see her perform the act on the unidentified man.

The highly paid woman, in her 20s, has been off work, with her bosses’ permission, since the email was circulated last Thursday.

The bank said that she was “extremely distressed”.

Now bank chiefs have launched a probe to identify the emailer who could also work for the bank.

It is understood the photos were stolen from a memory stick that the woman owned.

They were attached to an email and sent from a Yahoo account set up in her name.

The email also contained a weblink to another website where the pictures were also displayed.

But that site now appears to have been disabled. One recipient of the email said: “Whoever sent it clearly went to some trouble.”

Sides...

One side will make you larger; the other side will make you smaller.

Lewis Carrol

Can a single man force a nation to fight an unpopular war? Here's how Congress can stand up to Bush.

For the Republic

World opinion is against it. The American people are against it. The Democratic Party is against it. The Congress of the United States is against it. The Iraq Study Group is against it. The Iraqi people are against it. The Iraqi government is against it. Many Republican lawmakers are against it. The top brass are against it. But George W. Bush is going to do it: send 21,500 more troops into Iraq. Can a single man force a nation to fight a war it does not want to fight, expand a war it does not want to expand--possibly to other countries? If he can, is that nation any longer a democracy in any meaningful sense? Is its government any longer a constitutional republic? If not, how can democratic rule and the republican form of government be restored? These are the unwelcome questions that President Bush's decision has forced on the country.

The troop increase itself is not likely to change much in Iraq. Troop strength fell to about 115,000 in early 2004. By late 2005 it had risen to 160,000, only to fall to 130,000 again in mid-2006. Neither the 2005 increase (much larger than the one now ordered by Bush) nor the 2006 ebb had any demonstrable effect on the course of the war. In any case, almost everyone declares by now that there is no military solution in Iraq, only a political one. But the hard truth is that there is probably no political solution, either. Certainly, it is beyond the power of the United States to achieve one. Only Iraqis have the capacity to solve their political problems, yet there is no sign that they are headed in this direction. On the contrary, they are sliding deeper into a sort of half-smothered, underground civil war of extraordinary brutality. The professed mission of the American troops is to stop this internal war. But how can that be done with an M-16? "Whom do you shoot at--the Sunni or the Shia?" Senator John Warner has appropriately asked. Perhaps both? In that case, which Iraqis are American troops fighting for?

The only thing new about the increase is its prime-time announcement by the President and its label, the "surge." But the Iraq War is not going to be won by a label--or by the very modest military step that it refers to, either. Indeed, the problem with American policy was never that it chose this or that bad strategy in Iraq but that it planted itself in Iraq at all. Once that was done, all strategies were bad, condemning the United States to stumble from error to error--doing more of the fighting, doing less; attacking Shiites, attacking Sunnis; helping Shiites, helping Sunnis; writing a Constitution, letting "the Iraqis" write a Constitution; disbanding the Baath Party, inviting back the Baathists; letting Kurds opt out of Iraq, dragging them into Iraq. Now, four years into the game, American policy has gone from mistaken to unintelligible--its actions not so much misguided as irrelevant to the ghastly conflict now under way. The killing is real, but Bush's war is a fantasy.

The President, then, has not bought victory, but he may have bought more time. But for what? One much-mentioned possibility is a wider war, perhaps against Iran. That possibility was explicit in his announcement that he will "interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria," "seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq" and also deploy Patriot missiles to Gulf allies. The very implausibility of the "surge" as a solution forces us all to ask now what will happen when it fails. When the President said his support of the Maliki government is not "open-ended," he fanned dovish hopes that his escalation was one last roll of the dice, after which he would order a withdrawal. However, nothing else he said supported that prospect. It was only from the Maliki government, not from the American intervention in Iraq, that Bush withdrew open-ended support. Regarding the war itself, he was still staying the course. "Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States," he said. And, "for the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq." The new Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, said to the press, "At this pivotal moment, the credibility of the United States is on the line in Iraq." Nothing in these statements suggested a readiness to withdraw.

Unwanted war, the threat of a wider, even less wanted war, a constitutional crisis: The United States has experienced this combination before, and not so long ago. The war of course was Vietnam, ending in defeat in 1975, and the President was Richard Nixon, driven out of office under threat of certain impeachment the year before. Commentators of every stripe have been reaching back to this period for analogies. Is the present moment a repeat of 1968, when President Johnson, facing defeat in his renomination bid in the Democratic primaries, resigned from the campaign and opened peace negotiations; or of 1970, when Nixon widened the war by invading Cambodia and touched off an explosion of protest around the country that forced him to reverse course (and led Congress to prohibit funding for Cambodian operations); or of 1974 and 1975, when the Nixon Administration and the war ended (not accidentally) seriatim? Iraq is different from Vietnam and Bush is different from Nixon, yet the elements of the crisis are the same, as if we were still looking through the same kaleidoscope but after it had been given a shake. Again, we have the war launched on the basis of deceptions, again the duel between popular opinion and executive power, again executive secrecy, again the contempt for law, again the smearing of political opponents as abettors of the foe, again wiretapping, again defiance of Congress, again the imperial pretensions.

But more important than the similarities is the direct continuity between the two crises. The war in Iraq was framed as the culmination of a long campaign to overcome what the current President's father called the "Vietnam syndrome." The goal--probably the most important of the many aims of the whole enterprise--was to demonstrate that the United States had at last restored its ability, thrown into question by Vietnam, to determine the political future of nations (to accomplish regime change) through the use of military force. And this aim was in turn a pillar of the grandiose ambition, announced in White House documents, of achieving global dominance for the United States. Likewise, the most important theme of Bush's other usurpations--for example, of power to wiretap without a warrant, in contravention of statute, and to imprison and torture citizens as well as foreigners without due process--was to swell the power of the presidency at home. For in the minds of the Bush officials, Nixon's pre-impeachment presidency was not a cautionary tale but a model to be imitated, as Vice President Cheney, for one, has stated on many occasions. It is not only the Vietnam syndrome but the Watergate syndrome that they want to overcome. If the keynote of Nixon's character was covertness (not for nothing was he called Tricky Dick), then the keynote of Bush's character is brazenness: He seeks to carry out in broad daylight, as his formal right, the usurpations that Nixon committed under cover of night.

Thus, the deepest theme of the whole three-decade story, now presented in almost outlandish caricature by the President's tug of war with the nation and the world over Iraq, is the issue of power and how it shall be constituted in the United States, and the deepest question the crisis presents is whether this country will continue to be a constitutional republic or bow down to the new system of one-man rule asserted by President Bush. It's an issue that must concern every citizen, and the antiwar movement is in fact reviving it. It is calling its renewed effort a "peace surge." Meanwhile, Congress faces concrete choices. For the time being it is picking its way through a minefield of remedies. Should it simply pass a resolution disapproving of the troop increase, as favored by Senator Carl Levin? Should it aim at a reauthorization for the war on the ground that its fundamental purposes defined in the original authorization have changed, as proposed by Senator Edward Kennedy? Should it condition new funding on policy requirements (no more escalation, no wider war), as proposed by Representative Jack Murtha? Should it provide funds only to protect and withdraw the troops, as proposed by Representative Jerrold Nadler? Should it simply set a date for withdrawal and look at cutting off funds after that date, as proposed by Senator Russell Feingold? Should it attempt to pull many of these elements together in a broad proposal, such as that being advanced by Progressive Caucus co-chairs Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey? Or will it be better to pursue the myriad investigations that may produce the evidence for impeachment?

The experience of the earlier round of the crisis in the Nixon years offers food for thought. That episode presents a paradox. Faced with the most dangerous President in American history so far, the public passed up the easy route for getting rid of him--voting him out of power in 1972--and instead chose the harder route of impeachment two years later. More paradoxical still, opposing the unpopular war had a political cost attached, whereas impeachment did not. The challenge to Nixon's misguided war policies in 1972 by Democratic candidate Senator George McGovern, leading to Nixon's landslide re-election that year, created a horror of opposing any President's war policies that has paralyzed the Democrats down to this day. But the more drastic remedy of impeachment produced no such backlash, leading in fact to huge Democratic gains in the Congressional races that fall and to Jimmy Carter's election as President in 1976. It is true that between the 1972 re-election and the 1974 impeachment, American combat operations in Vietnam had ended. Therefore, a vote for impeachment was no longer a vote against the war. The curse of looking "weak" on national security had been lifted. Still, it remains a noteworthy fact, on which today's Congress members may want to reflect, that the drastic remedy of impeachment was more acceptable to the public than the apparently less drastic one of defunding a rogue President's war. Should Congress, then, impeach President Bush while letting him fight his war? Decency and respect for human life forbid such a conclusion. What is quite permissible, however, is to recall that investigations that could lead to impeachment may, as one ingredient of Congress's activity, strengthen rather than weaken the efforts to end the war. Investigations, resolutions, legislation, not to mention citizen action, can all find their place as part of the common effort. For the Republic, for peace, let all these surge together.

My Way - Syd Vicius

Sex Pistols - My Way

Add to My Profile | More Videos

If programmers have make a plane

Astonishing Lemon Power

Why using batteries when there are lemons.


Astonishing Lemon Power - video powered by Metacafe

Portrait of Abraham Lincoln in Pennies

Grandfather of Soul

Grandfather of Soul
Uploaded by keytoon

The greatest one: Alf

alf music video

Add to My Profile | More Videos

"America is under attack" - Henry Rolling

One of the most visits video in My Space..

This is a Shit, isn´t it?


Add to My Profile | More Videos

Grate musician

The best dancer

If you like to ride your bike...see this..

Buddha

If you do not tend to one another then who is there to tend to you? Whoever who would tend me, he should tend the sick.

Kenya tightens border with Somalia

MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) -- Kenya sent extra troops to the Somali frontier, stepped up security checks and said it saw no reason for Somalis to flee, underlining fears about Somali Islamic militants slipping across the border after losing a power struggle.

Kenya stopped short of closing the 675-kilometer (400-mile) border Wednesday after troops of Somalia's transitional government and Ethiopian forces routed Islamic militiamen who had controlled most of southern Somalia. Antonio Guterres, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, said in a statement that neighboring Kenya had a humanitarian obligation to take in civilians at risk.

"Anyone coming to the border has to be screened properly," Kenya's Foreign Affairs Minister Raphael Tuju told journalists in Kenya. "There's no reason at all to allow an influx of people unless there are women and children and it's really, really obvious that they are in danger in their own country. At this particular time, we don't see that danger."

Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Gedi has said he believes major fighting was over. But fighting in recent weeks has displaced hundreds, many of whom have headed toward Kenya, and the Islamic movement has declared itself unbowed. In the southern town of Jilib, a lone gunman shouting "God is great" killed three Ethiopians, including a commanding officer, before another Ethiopian soldier killed him, witnesses said Wednesday.

Government forces have captured two more southern towns from Islamic militants, and were moving to take a third, Defense Minister Col. Barre "Hirale" Aden Shire said in Kismayo.

Three al Qaeda suspects in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa are believed to be leaders of the Somali Islamic movement. Islamic movement leaders deny having any links to al Qaeda.

In Washington Wednesday, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said U.S. Navy vessels were deployed off the Somali coast of Somalia looking for al Qaeda and allied militants trying to escape.

In Brussels, the European Union and Norway called on the government and Islamic militants to hold talks to forge a lasting peace plan that could be backed by African-led peacekeepers.

Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni planned to fly Thursday to Ethiopia to meet with Prime Minister Meles Zenawi about a peacekeeping mission. Uganda has said it had a 1,000-troop battalion ready to deploy in a few days. Nigeria also has promised troops.

Meles has said his forces cannot afford to stay for long.

Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki told his Somali counterpart Tuesday that his country had strengthened patrols along the border, a statement from the presidential press service said.

A Kenyan police report seen by The Associated Press said that unidentified gunmen fired smalls arms at a Kenyan security helicopter Wednesday from Ras Kamboni, a region at Somalia's southernmost tip where remnants of the Somali Islamic movement were believed holed up. The report did not give further details.

Later Wednesday, two patrolling Kenyan Air Force planes came under fire after flying over an unidentified armored vehicle to observe it, another police report said. One plane was hit and the windscreen damaged, the report said, without giving further details.

A day earlier, four Ethiopian helicopters apparently mistook a Kenyan border post at Harehare for the Somali town of Dhobley, one of the towns the Somali government reported capturing Wednesday, and fired rockets at several small buildings, a security officer said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media. There were no reports of casualties, the officer said, adding that Kenyan tanks had been sent to the area.

About 4,000 Somalis were reportedly in the Dhobley area, unable to cross into Kenya, the U.N.'s humanitarian agency said.

UNHCR expressed concern in a statement Wednesday that Kenyan authorities may have forcibly returned Somalis from near Dhobley. UNHCR's Guterres acknowledged that governments had to ensure border security, but said "Kenya also has a humanitarian obligation."

"Most of those in Liboi are women and children, and they should not be sent back to a very uncertain situation," he said.

Kenyan Foreign Minister Tuju said Kenya would enforce a tight screening process as long as the refugees waiting to cross were not in immediate danger.

The Islamic movement had filled a vacuum in a country that has been without effective central government since clan-based warlords overthrew longtime dictator Mohamed Siad Barre in 1991. The warlords then turned the country into a chaotic patchwork of armed, clan fiefdoms.

The transitional government was formed in 2004, after two years of talks in neighboring Kenya. It has international recognition, but little military strength, and was riven by clan politics. Two weeks ago it controlled only one town, central Baidoa, while the Islamic movement held the capital and much of southern Somalia.

Ethiopia sent at least 4,000 well-trained troops into Mogadishu on December 24, dramatically changing the government's fortunes.

Land Rover signs Zara Phillips to star in campaign

LONDON - Princess Anne's daughter, Zara Phillips, has become the first member of the royal family to star in an advertising campaign after being signed by Land Rover.

Phillips, who in August won gold at the World Equestrian Games in Germany riding Toytown, was photographed by Mary McCartney, daughter of Sir Paul, several weeks ago for the press campaign, which breaks this week.

The queen's granddaughter is pictured staring into the camera in a long mud-splattered Roberto Cavalli dress with a plunging neckline under the headline "Beautifully Poised".

News of the ad campaign came as Phillips, who is a talented rider, three-day eventer and show jumper, triumphed at last night's BBC Sport Personality of the Year. She picked up the trophy, beating golfer Darren Clarke into second place, 35-years after her mother, the Princess Royal, won it in 1971.

The campaign promotes the Land Rover's 4x4 vehicles, which are closely associated with horse riding and the countryside. A second ad for the Land Rover, which has sponsored Phillips for some time, will appear next year showing Philips in action as a three-day eventer.

However, by agreeing to appear in the ad, Phillips, who is eleventh in line to the throne, is likely to face criticism that she is cashing in on her fame and royal position.

The 25-year-old royal, who is the girlfriend of England rugby player Mike Tindall, receives no money from the civil list and she uses the cash from the Land Rover sponsorship to pay for the seven horses she keeps as part career as a three-day eventer, which is thought to cost around £500,000. The ad appearance is part of the sponsorship deal.

A Land Rover spokesman said: "We've been supporting her for some time now. This is part of our long-standing support for her. We will be doing another advert with her next year that sees her in action as a three-day eventer."

If you have an opinion on this or any other issue raised on Brand Republic, join the debate in the Forum.

Joel Stein Doesn't Want To Talk To His Readers

L.A. Times journalist Joel Stein expresses his opinion on the trend of interactivity: in a nutshell, he hates it. Joel thinks that the concept of instant interactivity -- where readers can have input into a writer's work via internet comments or other feedback -- is a terrible trend that should be reversed. He views the trend of making journalists' emails and phone numbers freely available on their columns as the beginning of the death of the once-proud newspaper industry. His email is at the end of his columns, but he warns readers: "Have something to say? I don't care Don't bother sending anything to that e-mail address below -- because I don't care."

Here's what my Internet-fearing editors have failed to understand: I don't want to talk to you; I want to talk at you. A column is not my attempt to engage in a conversation with you. I have more than enough people to converse with. And I don't listen to them either. That sound on the phone, Mom, is me typing.

Some newspapers even list the phone numbers of their reporters at the end of their articles. That's a smart use of their employees' time. Why not just save a step and have them set up a folding table at a senior citizen center with a sign asking for complaints?

Where does this end? Does Philip Roth have to put his e-mail at the end of his book? Does Tom Hanks have to hold up a sign with his e-mail at the end of his movie? Should your hotel housekeeper leave her e-mail on your sheets? Are you starting to see how creepy this is?

Not everything should be interactive. A piece of work that stands on its own, without explanation or defense, takes on its own power. If Martin Luther put his 95 Theses on the wall and then all the townsfolk sent him their comments, and he had to write back to all of them and clarify what he meant, some of the theses would have gotten all watered down and there never would have been a Diet of Worms. And then, for the rest of history, elementary school students learning about the Reformation would have nothing to make fun of. You can see how dangerous this all is

Traditionally, the way that writers get feedback on their books is through sales. If sales start slipping, it means his readership is slipping. Actors have the same process: if people decide they hate Tom Hanks' last performance (or him) they just don't go to his movies (Note: this is not a problem Hanks is having, by the way. He was voted as one of American's most likeable movie stars).

But back to Joel's complaint. It's true that the concept of interactivity has run amok. We don't believe the purpose of a blog is to have an immediate discussion with readers: rather, it is to provide a forum for a particular point of view (like a magazine column) and to spark a discussion. The discussion part comes when a reader then writes about a discussed issue in his blog or by emailing the blog to give his thoughts. The discussion doesn't need to happen in a comment section because then you've turned a blog into a message board. We know there are people who think that blogs need comment sections: like our sister publication The Internet Writing Journal, we don't agree with that line of thinking.

We'd email Joel to give him our thoughts about his column, but instead we've just blogged about it. And we now know that he wouldn't read our email anyway. And by the way, if you're wondering, we at WritersWrite.com love to hear our readers' feedback: just fill out the feedback form.

How to Save Money

Whether you want to go on a vacation, buy a house, or enjoy a comfortable retirement, you’ve got to learn to save money. Unfortunately, many of us tend to spend whatever we earn or more. We know savings are important for unexpected emergencies or major life changes, but we just can’t seem to put some cash away for a rainy day. Want to stop living from paycheck to paycheck? Read on and start saving today.

Steps

1. Don't buy things you do not need. Sure, it's easier said than done, but sometimes you might want to forgo that extra bottle of soda or bag of candy at the supermarket exit, or anything else that won't benefit you in the long run.
2. Figure out what you need to save for and how much you need to save. For short-term goals, this is easy. If you want to buy a video game, find out how much it costs; if you want to buy a house, determine how much of a down payment you’ll need. For long-term goals, such as retirement, you’ll need to do a lot more planning (figuring out how much money you’ll need to live comfortably for 20 or 30 years after you stop working), and you’ll also need to figure out how investments will help you achieve your goals.
3. Set savings goals. Once you determine how much you need to save, establish a timeframe (i.e. “I want to be able to buy a house two years from today.”) Set a particular date for accomplishing shorter-term goals, and make sure the goal is attainable within that time period. If it’s not attainable, you’ll just get discouraged.
4. Figure out how much you’ll have to save per week, per month, or per paycheck to attain each of your savings goals. Take each thing you want to save for and figure out how much you need to start saving now. For most savings goals, it’s best to save the same amount each period. For example, if you want to put a $20,000 down payment on a home in 36 months (three years), you’ll need to save about $550 per month every month.
5. Add together the installment amounts (monthly, weekly, or per paycheck) for all your savings goals. Can you afford to save this total each period? If so, great; if not, proceed to the next step.
6. Pay yourself first. Savings should be your priority, so don’t just say that you’ll save whatever’s left over at the end of the month. Deposit savings into an account (or your piggybank) as soon as you get paid.
7. Keep a record of your expenses. Write down everything you spend your money on for a couple weeks or a month. Be as detailed as possible, and try not to leave out small purchases.
8. See where you can trim your expenses. You’ll probably be surprised when you look back at your record of expenses: $300 on ice cream, $100 on parking tickets? You’ll likely see some obvious cuts you can make. Depending on how much you need to save, however, you may need to make some difficult decisions. Think about your priorities, and make cuts you can live with.
9. Reassess your savings goals. If there’s absolutely no way you can fit all your savings goals into your budget, take a look at what you’re saving for and cut the less important things or adjust the timeframe. Maybe you need to put off buying a new car for another year, or maybe you don’t really need a big-screen TV that badly.
10. Make a budget. Once you’ve managed to balance your earnings with your savings goals and spending, write down a budget so you’ll know each month or each paycheck how much you can spend on any given thing or category of things. Try to leave a little room for minor unexpected expenses.
11. Stick to your budget. A budget won’t do you any good if you don’t follow it religiously. Build some self-discipline, and remember why you’re on a budget in the first place.
12. Open an interest-bearing savings account. It’s a lot easier to keep track of your savings if you have them separate from your spending money. You can also usually get better interest on savings accounts than on checking accounts (if you get interest on your checking account at all). Consider higher-interest options such as CDs or money-market accounts for longer savings goals. You can also open an online savings account with one of the companies that offer them. Look around for the best savings interest rate and try to find one that adjusts its rate as the federal interest rate changes. You can then set up an automatic transfer from your checking account to your high interest savings account. Many employers allow you to deduct savings from your paycheck. The money is directly deposited in your savings account so you never even see it on your paycheck. You can also have investments for retirement taken directly out of your pay, and the taxes may be deferred with this option. If you typicaly keep a large balance in your checking account, consider moving most of that money into a linked savings account. Keep the money in savings until it is time to pay bills, then transfer enough from savings into checking to cover your bills. Make sure you check with your bank to see what the minimum balance requirements are for your checking account so you don't get hit with additional fees.
13. Don't use your credit cards. This is one of the most effective ways to reduce spending. Use cash for as many purchases as possible - you'll be more conscious of what you are spending your money on.
14. Kill your debt. Simply calculating how much you spend each month on your debts will illustrate that eliminating debt is the fastest way to free up money. Once the money is freed from debt payment, it can be easily re-purposed to savings.

Tips

• If your savings timeframe is very long, such as for retirement, you may want to structure your monthly savings so that they grow larger later in life when you will (hopefully) have more income coming in. On the other hand, money invested while you are young will have more time to grow. Start when you are in your teens!
• Consider setting up an automatic weekly or monthly transfer from your checking account to your savings account. With many banks, this can be accomplished online.
• If unexpected expenses cause you to deviate from your budget from time to time, cut unnecessary expenses before you cut money from your savings goals. Other than the bare necessities, your savings goals should be your top priority.
• In this day and age, many of us have cars, so saving money on gas can contribute to your effort considerably. Consider getting rid of the car altogether if you can. Another option is to avoid maintaining multiple cars. Failing that, drive less and shop around for insurance even before you buy a car. See the related wikiHows for more information.
• If unexpected circumstances render you unable to meet your savings goals, reassess them and figure out which ones you can delay or cut out. Get back on your program as soon as you can.
• For very important or very large savings goals (such as a down payment on a house or saving for your kids’ college tuition), consider opening up a separate account. You’ll be able to keep better track of that particular goal, and you’ll be less tempted to dip into it.
• If you receive unexpected cash, put all or most of it into your savings, but continue to set aside your regularly scheduled amount as well. You’ll simply reach your savings goals sooner.
• As you satisfy the payment of a car loan, or your mortgage, you will have extra money. Set aside that money into savings. This way, the money you used to pay to somebody else now goes to you.
• Use a piggy bank or jar for your coins. Coins and change may look insignificant but when accumulated over time they can help you save. Some banks now offer free coin counting machines. When you redeem your coins, ask to be paid by check so you won't be tempted to spend your newfound cash.
• Don't save money solely for the purpose of spending. Setting some amount aside for emergencies can keep you out of a lot of trouble. Decide on some number of months' worth of salary as a cushion, and make a point to replace this stash anytime you must use it.
• Interest on debts, especially high interest rates on credit cards, is a huge, unnecessary expense. If you are in debt, pay off your loans right away to get out from under that debt as fast as you can.
• One option to get started saving is to find out what your take-home pay per hour is (net pay divided by hours worked) and save the "change" from each hour. For example, if you worked 25 hours and your check is $164, you would be making $6.56 "take-home" per hour. Save $14 that paycheck, and you have saved all the "change" per hour. If your hourly take home pay is an even number somehow (like $6) then just save $1 or 75 cents per hour.

Warnings

• Never loan cash to others that you cannot afford to lose.
• Never borrow money that you cannot repay.
• Do not go out "window shopping" with any money on you. You will only be tempted to spend money you cannot afford to lose. Shop instead, only to a predetermined shopping list.
• Be sure to keep track of automatic deductions from your paycheck and any automatic transfers you set up. Sometimes mistakes happen, and if you’re not paying attention, you might not get all your money.

Related wikiHows

• How to Retire in Your 30's
• How to Live Without a Car
• How to Save Money on Gas
• How to Save Loose Change
• How to Save Money on Auto Insurance
• How to Start Saving Using a CD Ladder
• How to Budget Your Money
• How to Buy Nothing
• How to Get Out of Debt