2014 Lenten Discipline - Kat tries to live/enjoy her busy social life on $60 a week - aka "She CRAZY"

Every year, even though I long ago abandoned my Catholic upbringing and although I currently regularly attend Methodist services I wouldn't call myself very religious, I commit to and benefit from observing Lent.
Lent is a Christian religious observance that in the liturgical calendar begins on Ash Wednesday and covers a period of approximately six weeks ending on Easter Day. The traditional purpose of Lent is for “believers” to show their faith through prayer, penance, repentance, atonement, and denial. Its institutional purpose is heightened in the annual commemoration of Holy Week, marking the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.
But what I've always used the Lenten season for is as a forced time to discipline myself and give up something that I rely on too much; an annual 6-week break from a vice. Over the past decade or so this practice has devolved into a rather stale and predictable pattern. Each year I'd give up either alcohol or sugar, sometimes caffeine, and I'd patiently (sometimes not so patiently) bide my time until Easter Day where I'd binge on whatever thing I'd denied myself for the previous 6 weeks.

But at the beginning of this year I was hit by a car as I crossed the street, and although I escaped with only minor injuries, those injuries have been slow to heal. I've also had to deal with an already ill father getting sicker and more dependent, and family members being either unreasonable or unavailable to help.
I bring these events up to say that I've been in a very stress-filled yet contemplative head-space. I've been forced to make some changes in my life that I have been resistant to, and it's thrown some things into perspective for me.
One realization has become clear - I SPEND TOO MUCH MONEY

Listen, I know I'm a pretty lucky person. I have a fairly stable career that pays me well, and I have a nice looking balance in my bank accounts and retirement money markets and stock portfolios. I don't have any kids that I have to pay for, and just a 20+ lb cat that I treat to fancy food and filtered water.
I have a nice house, but also a nice fat mortgage. I have a fairly decent well-running car but it's also almost a decade old and I could use an upgrade, which would mean a car payment. And that no kid thing? Try having an elderly, sick parent whose meager pension and SSA benefits only cover a quarter of his expenses, so guess who gets to cover the rest?

I in no way want or need your pity - I am well aware that I travel regularly to nice locales, fly first-class, and generally get to do things that many of my friends and family only dream about. I have nice clothes and accessories, a collection of fancy handbags, I like fine wines and top-shelf liquors and I treat myself to them liberally, I'm a "foodie" who never hesitates to go out to fancy dinners and never balks at laying down $100 for a good meal.
All of this is to illustrate that while I have the means and wherewithal to afford to comfortably indulge myself and do what I want, - I SPEND TOO MUCH MONEY.

So I decided last week that this year for Lent I wouldn't do the safe, predictable thing; where each year the biggest inconvenience has been that my birthday inevitably falls smack in the middle of the Lenten season and boy isn't it a drag that I can't have a birthday cocktail or a piece of cake. This year I would really challenge myself; I would use Lent as a true time of reflection and atonement. I would put myself on a very strict budget.
I'm not counting my bills, my medical expenses, or things like gas for my car. This is strictly a budget for my personal spending; the money I use for groceries, clothes shopping, eyebrow waxing, pedicures, movies, going out to dinner, or drinks with my friends.
My goal is to spend no more than $60 a week between March 5 and April 20.

YIKES! Am I right?
So far it's gone fairly well; but it's only been three days. I'm keeping a spending journal, and seriously, I've already had several eye-opening moments. In just the past three days I've been way more conscious of what I do with my money. And that's really the whole point of this Lenten practice - to be more aware and conscious.
I don't know if I'll be successful every week, in fact I probably won't, but I will be more mindful. I will be cognizant as I choose that $15 glass of Pinot Noir; I will be attentive. And that's all I'm really asking of myself. I may post some of my progress over the next 6 weeks. Feel free to mock, criticize, or pity me. I probably deserve it.

And this year's Oscar nominations go to...NOT Ben Affleck?!

The 2013 Academy Award nominations came out today. And I'm in a bit of a daze. Not because of the films that got nominations, like the 12 for "Lincoln" and the 11 for "Life of Pi", but for the individuals that didn't get a nomination in categories that they have dominated over these past months in other award nomination fields like the Golden Globes, SAG, DGA, and Critic's Association.

So while there were nominations that were not surprising at all, - I easily predicted 8 out of the 9 Best Picture nominees - like the Academy's continued love over nominating Steven Spielberg and his works, or their aversion to nominate action films (sorry "Skyfall"!), there were far more nominations this morning that knocked me out. Let's analyze those surprises, both good and bad.

Ben Affleck didn't get a Best Director nomination -
Hello? Did Academy members see "Argo"? Well they must have, they did give it well-deserved Best Picture and Best Adapted Screenplay nominations. But still, Affleck's brilliant direction is what gave this movie its energy and suspense. Anytime I'm on the edge of my seat, biting my knuckles, when I not only know what happened to the real people, but also read the autobiography that was the source material? That's a well directed film that deserves a nomination. Whom among the Direction nominees would I have eliminated instead? Probably David O. Russell. Silver Linings Playbook is great, but not necessarily because of the way it was directed.

Zero Dark Thirty got kind of shafted -
Okay, no it didn't, I'm being dramatic. It got 5 nominations, including Best Picture and Best Actress for Jessica Chastain. But still, it feels very strange and very wrong that Kathryn Bigelow didn't get a Best Director nomination. Is it because she already won an Oscar for directing a war film and the Academy voters decided that one was enough? Bigelow should've had the nomination that was given to Ang Lee, or dare I say it, Steven Spielberg.

Silver Linings Playbook locked up ALL 4 acting nominations -
A feat that hadn't happened in over 30 years; the last time being Reds in 1981. Both supporting and both lead acting categories have nominees from this quirky movie. Listen, I loved this film and think that Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence both earned their Best Acting noms. But DeNiro and Weaver? Not so much. I like both of these actors and thought they were very good in their roles, but they weren't Oscar-worthy performances. I mean damn, compare Jackie Weaver's other supporting actress Oscar nominated performance in "Animal Kingdom" to her character work in "Silver Linings Playbook". It's no contest! She was sooo flat in "Playbook". Her nomination should've gone to Nicole Kidman or Samantha Barks.

The Academy didn't neglect Quvenzhané Wallis or “Beasts of the Southern Wild” -
Because I saw this movie way back in early June 2012 at SIFF, it feels so strange to me to be talking about award nominations for it. I just figured that anyone who cared about this movie had blown their trumpets about it months ago and it was largely forgotten by now. But instead it was rewarded with not only a Best Picture nomination, but also a Best Actress nod for Wallis (will I ever be able to pronounce or spell her first name without looking it up 45 times?), and a surprising and yet worthy Best Direction nomination for Benh Zeitlin. Yay!

Amour wasn't too depressing for the Academy members after all -
I have yet to see this movie (doesn't open in Seattle until January 25), but everything I've read about it seemed to be summed up thusly - an amazing film, but depressing as hell, and not in a "moving" way. I thought for sure Amour would get snubbed by the nominators, except for the inevitable Best Foreign Film nod. But surprisingly, not only did Emmanuelle Riva get nominated for Best Actress, Michael Haneke got a nom for direction, and "Amour" was also nominated for Best Picture. Speaking of...why does it irk me so much when films are nominated in both the "Best Picture" and "Foreign" categories? I don't know, it just does!! It's annoying to hog both film categories - The Artist I'm looking at you. Grrrrr