Pretty good story in today's Boston Globe about the financial problems at Foxwoods casino. Of course, you wouldn't see this kind of story in the Hartford Courant, the paper that should have run this story because Foxwoods is in Connecticut and the Courant is the largest paper in Connecticut, but that's because the Courant sucks.
The wonder, and the fall
A source of pride, plenty for Pequots in boom times, struggling Foxwoods now a looming threat to tribe
By Jenn Abelson, Globe Staff | September 13, 2009
LEDYARD, Conn. - When the doors at Foxwoods first swung open in 1992, more than poker fanatics and bingo mavens began trekking to the sparkling new casino nestled in the thick forests of the Mashantucket Pequot reservation.
Dozens of Pequots traveled from as far away as California and Hawaii to their native lands in southeastern Connecticut. Many came for the promise of a steady job, and to reconnect with a tribe that had come close to extinction. But Foxwoods did not just help revive the Pequot nation; it made it fabulously wealthy. Within a few years, Foxwoods was the world’s largest and most successful casino resort, an entertainment mecca that racked up more than $1 billion annually.
The fortune yielded nice homes, fancy cars, college degrees, community centers for tribal members, and a massive museum of native history. With the money came fame, as Foxwoods’ significance stretched beyond the tribe’s well-being. The Pequots had paved the way for more than 230 tribes across the country to launch their own gaming enterprises and finally become self-sufficient communities - and thus preserve their native unity.
But now Foxwoods faces financial problems that threaten to tear the tribe apart. Crushed by more than $2 billion in debt from exorbitant expansion, the resort is fighting an uphill battle against sliding revenues because of the economy and increased competition from newer venues. More than 700 layoffs in the last year, or about 6 percent of the workforce, failed to stem the bleeding as slot revenues at the casino continued to drop, plunging 13 percent in July to $63.2 million compared with a year ago.
Foxwoods - once the symbol of the Pequots’ greatest achievement - has become the subject of nationwide speculation that the largest Native American casino could fail.
“The casino helped bring this tribe together. People were so proud,’’ said Debbie Frankovitch, 55, a Pequot who has lived on the reservation her entire life and used to work as a tribal clerk. “Now, the casino is a big embarrassment. It’s just a lot of greed. People wanted more and more. It’s like a nightmare. It’s a shame it’s come to this.’’
The Pequots council chairman, an elected leader who serves at the head of tribal government and the casino, was placed on leave on Aug. 31 after he warned of Foxwoods’ “dire financial straits’’ and reportedly promised to preserve payouts for tribal members before paying off lenders. That set off jitters among creditors, and the fallout has already spread to other tribes. Their bonds are trading at lower prices following the Foxwoods debacle, sparking worries that native casinos such as Mohegan Sun will find it more expensive to borrow money. The tumult threatens to unravel years of unfettered success and tribal security, and dampen efforts to expand native gaming to other states, including Massachusetts.
Pequot leaders declined interviews about the crisis they face. In a statement, the council said: “We remain in compliance with our covenants and are current with regard to our debt obligations. As we continue through this process, the Tribe will be pursuing a mutually beneficial resolution with its banks and bondholders.’’
Like so many other industries, casinos rode the wave of easy credit to success in the years leading up to the recession, and Foxwoods was no exception. The Pequots, who had to go to Malaysia to fund the initial $60 million casino because no one else would lend to them, soon had banks lining up with loan offers as Foxwoods raked in customers - and their cash. The tribe quickly expanded the resort, adding hotels, restaurants, and shops to the complex, which now stands at 4.7 million square feet, nearly 20 times its original size. The Pequots also spent big to acquire nearby businesses and invest in other industries, such as shipbuilding -an expensive effort that later flopped. The casino operation was also a major boon to Connecticut under an arrangement that provides 25 percent of gross slot revenues to the state or a minimum of $100 million annually.
“My job was to build as much as we could as quickly as we could, and make as much money for the tribe as we could,’’ said Mickey Brown, president of Foxwoods from 1993 to 1997.
Brown, a veteran gaming executive, said the debt the resort took on in the early years was sustainable given the huge revenues coming in from the casino. But many Pequots wanted an increasing share of the profits, and individual payments to tribal members, known as incentives or distributions, became part of the operation. At one time, the payments exceeded $120,000 annually for members. Brown said these kinds of distributions didn’t begin until near the end of his employment, but he declined to comment further.
“Over time, the tribe developed some different thoughts and philosophies on how to do things, and it was not a facility I could continue to work for, and they didn’t want me to continue to work,’’ Brown said.
As competition intensified from nearby casinos, such as Mohegan Sun in Uncasville and Twin River in Rhode Island, Foxwoods embarked on a $700 million project to create MGM Grand at Foxwoods, a partnership with one of the premier Las Vegas operators that was intended to redefine Foxwoods’ reputation as a destination for high-end rollers and star talent. As part of a deal announced in 2006, MGM Mirage promised to provide up to $200 million in loans to fund joint casino expansions in new cities, and had scoured for locations in Kansas and Massachusetts.
But by the time the MGM Grand at Foxwoods debuted in May 2008, the recession was well underway, and gambling receipts were dipping sharply nationwide. Plans to export the Pequots’ success to other states were scrapped, and the millions of dollars that Foxwoods expected from new ventures with MGM never materialized as the Las Vegas giant also began to teeter under the recession. Now, the shimmering tower stands as a symbol of excess, with unbooked rooms, empty stores, and a sparsely populated gaming floor. One measure of the slide: Even with the new slot machines at MGM Grand, Foxwoods’ annual contributions to the state have dropped 14 percent since the high of $205 million in 2005.
“Yes, we spent too much money. Of course we made mistakes. We made the same mistakes that everyone else has made across the country,’’ said Roland Fahnbulleh Jr., 33, a tribal member who moved from Boston to the Pequot reservation more than a decade ago. “Why would people expect to hold us to a higher standard? We know we have to buckle down. More than anything, we have to come back together as a tribe.’’
The future of Foxwoods and the Pequots, which have swelled to 832 tribal members from 250 in 1992, has Fahnbulleh worried. The casino employs his wife as a special events coordinator and has helped him start his own multimedia business. Foxwoods is where they held a baby shower, meet up for family dinners, and watch shows. But it’s not just personal income and amusement. Revenues from Foxwoods support the entire community, funding a child-development center Fahnbulleh’s 7-month-old attends, a police force, a post office, and other services for tribal members. Already, the Pequots have seen their distributions slashed by about 30 percent, and many have lost jobs at the casino and are in danger of losing homes.
“The casino is not just equity. They don’t just own it,’’ said an adviser to the tribal council who is not authorized to speak publicly. “They are it.’’
So, dealing with the financial troubles at Foxwoods isn’t just about solving a business problem at a casino. It’s about finding a way to salvage the economic engine that sustains the Pequot nation. And if the Pequots - as one tribal leader suggested - decide to pay members before paying their bills, it could create serious problems for lenders. Because the casino is on reservation land that is considered, under federal law, part of a sovereign nation, lenders cannot turn to the typical remedies in the event of a default, such as foreclosing on Foxwoods and taking ownership. The Pequots have hired a financial firm to try to restructure their debt by cutting interest rates, extending due dates, and exploring whether a bankruptcy is even possible, according to the adviser.
Clyde Barrow, director of the Center for Policy Analysis at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, said Foxwoods has been beset by various problems, and said he believes the casino’s lenders were not fully aware of the magnitude of debt that Foxwoods was accumulating. Other casinos, such as Mohegan Sun, have fared better because they suspended expansion plans when the economy crumbled.
Gaming analysts and casino operators say the ongoing struggles at Foxwoods and the threat of default could have a chilling effect on the entire industry.
“Everyone is reeling a bit from the Foxwoods issues. It has not made things easy,’’ said Leo Chupaska, chief financial officer for the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority. “What occurred at Foxwoods is a negative for the entire Native American gaming sector.’’
Across Foxwoods and the surrounding reservation, the anxiety and frustration are palpable. Nervous employees try to untangle rumors and express worries about job security. And some tribal members have talked of clashes within their own families over the right course of action. On almost every street corner, Tony Beltrane, who is running for tribal council in November, has stuck white signs emblazoned with the question: “Haven’t we had enough yet?’’
Charles Rogers, a Pequot who now lives in Groton, said the tribe looked at Foxwoods as a bottomless pit of money and it poisoned a community of people who suddenly achieved a lifestyle they had never imagined.
“The casino allowed people to come forward and admit who they are, and it offered a sense of pride and stability. But then it evolved into a sense of entitlement,’’ Rogers said. “This entitlement and one-upmanship and ego is really what’s ruining this tribe and ruining the casino. How much money is enough? At what point do you ask yourself that question? For some people, there’s never enough.’’
Jenn Abelson can be reached at abelson@globe.com.
© Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
Michael Jordan, now a Hall of Famer
The Sox had a rain delay tonight, but, lucky for me I changed the channel and caught Michael Jordan's Hall of Fame induction speech in Springfield.
Jordan, arguably the best basketball player ever, spoke well, used humor, and complemented his teammates, opponents, coaches (especially the ones who wouldn't start him), for "putting logs" onto his competitive fire. It is clear that Jordan still has drive, and he said he wouldn't rule out returning to play in the NBA when he's 50. He's 46, now.
So I went onto ESPN's site and they had lots of content dedicated to Jordan, including the top 23 (Jordan's uniform number)highlights of his career. Included were many game-winning shots, the 63-point (losing) performance against the Celtics in 1986, which I think I watched as a 13-year-old, monstrous dunks, including one when he drove the baseline and dunked over 7-foot-tall Patrick Ewing, and the layup he made when he switched hands in midair even though he didn't have to.
It is difficult to compare players. For a long time, Jordan didn't play for competitive teams. The Bulls sucked for the first few years he played. But then Jordan learned, thanks to the astute coaching of Phil Jackson, to involve his teammates and make them better. This launched the careers of Scottie Pippen, John Paxton, and even Will Perdue. Jordan ended up making everyone on his team better.
Was Jordan, though, better than Magic? Or Larry Bird? How would he fare in a one-on-one game against LeBron James? One-on-one ball may not be an appropriate measure of one's ability on the basketball court, but I'd have to believe Jordan would take these guys. True, there were better passers, rebounders, and long-range shooters. But, man, Jordan was clutch. Watch the ESPN videos and you'll (if you watched hoops back in the 80s and 90s) remember.
Jordan was the perfect combination of grace and power. This, coupled with his skills, led to his dominance. Few could guard him well. It was hard even to keep up with him and foul him. After many of his best plays, opponents were left shaking their hands and walking away from the play. He was that good.
Watching Jordan, I began to realize, although it was a bit late in his career, was a spectacle worth doing. You he wasn't going to play forever, and that what he was doing was special. I felt the same way when Pedro Martinez was in his prime while pitching for the Red Sox. The way he dominated, with power and location and deceptive speed changes, was amazing to watch.
Jordan, whose name now graces steakhouses and obviously the Nike brand even in retirement, talked in his speech about hard work. When you watch him, though, it seems effortless. But he lost often, has said he was frustrated when he played because of these losses, and ultimately it made him more determined. He could have been an Allen Iverson, a player with outstanding skill but unwilling to make sacrifices and do what it took to win. Jordan changed his game over the course of his career, and the improvements he made - learning to make assists consistently, rebound, and make his teammates better - turned him into an improved player.
Years ago, after Jordan's retirement, or one of them, I saw a Jordan poster that was so good I had to buy it. It's posted in my classroom, and has a quote on it that says:
"I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."
Clearly, Jordan was in control of his emotions during his playing days. One point he drove home tonight was his absolute desire to win and how that motivated him. Tonight, he closed his speech, speaking about his own confidence and commenting that, for him, "losing, like fear, is an illusion."
Jordan, arguably the best basketball player ever, spoke well, used humor, and complemented his teammates, opponents, coaches (especially the ones who wouldn't start him), for "putting logs" onto his competitive fire. It is clear that Jordan still has drive, and he said he wouldn't rule out returning to play in the NBA when he's 50. He's 46, now.
So I went onto ESPN's site and they had lots of content dedicated to Jordan, including the top 23 (Jordan's uniform number)highlights of his career. Included were many game-winning shots, the 63-point (losing) performance against the Celtics in 1986, which I think I watched as a 13-year-old, monstrous dunks, including one when he drove the baseline and dunked over 7-foot-tall Patrick Ewing, and the layup he made when he switched hands in midair even though he didn't have to.
It is difficult to compare players. For a long time, Jordan didn't play for competitive teams. The Bulls sucked for the first few years he played. But then Jordan learned, thanks to the astute coaching of Phil Jackson, to involve his teammates and make them better. This launched the careers of Scottie Pippen, John Paxton, and even Will Perdue. Jordan ended up making everyone on his team better.
Was Jordan, though, better than Magic? Or Larry Bird? How would he fare in a one-on-one game against LeBron James? One-on-one ball may not be an appropriate measure of one's ability on the basketball court, but I'd have to believe Jordan would take these guys. True, there were better passers, rebounders, and long-range shooters. But, man, Jordan was clutch. Watch the ESPN videos and you'll (if you watched hoops back in the 80s and 90s) remember.
Jordan was the perfect combination of grace and power. This, coupled with his skills, led to his dominance. Few could guard him well. It was hard even to keep up with him and foul him. After many of his best plays, opponents were left shaking their hands and walking away from the play. He was that good.
Watching Jordan, I began to realize, although it was a bit late in his career, was a spectacle worth doing. You he wasn't going to play forever, and that what he was doing was special. I felt the same way when Pedro Martinez was in his prime while pitching for the Red Sox. The way he dominated, with power and location and deceptive speed changes, was amazing to watch.
Jordan, whose name now graces steakhouses and obviously the Nike brand even in retirement, talked in his speech about hard work. When you watch him, though, it seems effortless. But he lost often, has said he was frustrated when he played because of these losses, and ultimately it made him more determined. He could have been an Allen Iverson, a player with outstanding skill but unwilling to make sacrifices and do what it took to win. Jordan changed his game over the course of his career, and the improvements he made - learning to make assists consistently, rebound, and make his teammates better - turned him into an improved player.
Years ago, after Jordan's retirement, or one of them, I saw a Jordan poster that was so good I had to buy it. It's posted in my classroom, and has a quote on it that says:
"I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."
Clearly, Jordan was in control of his emotions during his playing days. One point he drove home tonight was his absolute desire to win and how that motivated him. Tonight, he closed his speech, speaking about his own confidence and commenting that, for him, "losing, like fear, is an illusion."
Monday, September 7, 2009
Land of Confusion
While traveling toward Hartford on Route 2 last week, I looked over to my right and saw an interesting - if confusing - sight. A white SUV was moving in the right lane -nothing unusual about that. It was a Pratt and Whitney security officer driving the truck. Again, Pratt, the jet-engine maker, is in East Hartford, so one might expect to see a Pratt vehicle on the highway.
What was odd, though, was the make of the car - a Toyota.
With American companies constantly concerned about foreign "outsourcing", I was surprised to see that Pratt and Whitney, owned by United Technologies, based in Hartford, purchased a Japanese car for its security fleet. I would have thought that they would buy American.
But perhaps Toyota had the lowest bid. Still, you would think that a large American company would purchase a Ford or a GM vehicle, or some other American vehicle. Maybe Toyota or some cousin company in Japan purchases Pratt products, I don't know. But I found this peculiar.
Another thing I found peculiar was a short blurb I read recently in a magazine that reported students who were home-schooled performed better than non home-schooled students on standardized tests. This was baffling, since a major reason why parents home-school their children is to avoid standardized testing.
I'm not sure about the validity of this study. How many students who were home-schooled and then switched to public schools were included?
While I support public education - I am a public school teacher, after all - I understand when parents choose to home school their kids. I didn't used to. But school districts, even the supposed "better ones", are increasingly under pressure to meet state and national standards, and it's getting more difficult even for the independent educational mavericks to ignore ridiculous federal and state policies. Independent schools, I think, are a good way to go, since home schooled kids tend to lack some important socialization experiences. But independent schools are expensive, and they can be elitist.
These two examples are but a small illustration of how we live in a "Land of Confusion," a place that doesn't always make sense. Perhaps we need to think a bit more about what we do before we do it. To quote the Genesis song of the same name:
This is the world we live in
And these are the hands we're given
Use them and let's start trying
To make it a place worth living in.
What was odd, though, was the make of the car - a Toyota.
With American companies constantly concerned about foreign "outsourcing", I was surprised to see that Pratt and Whitney, owned by United Technologies, based in Hartford, purchased a Japanese car for its security fleet. I would have thought that they would buy American.
But perhaps Toyota had the lowest bid. Still, you would think that a large American company would purchase a Ford or a GM vehicle, or some other American vehicle. Maybe Toyota or some cousin company in Japan purchases Pratt products, I don't know. But I found this peculiar.
Another thing I found peculiar was a short blurb I read recently in a magazine that reported students who were home-schooled performed better than non home-schooled students on standardized tests. This was baffling, since a major reason why parents home-school their children is to avoid standardized testing.
I'm not sure about the validity of this study. How many students who were home-schooled and then switched to public schools were included?
While I support public education - I am a public school teacher, after all - I understand when parents choose to home school their kids. I didn't used to. But school districts, even the supposed "better ones", are increasingly under pressure to meet state and national standards, and it's getting more difficult even for the independent educational mavericks to ignore ridiculous federal and state policies. Independent schools, I think, are a good way to go, since home schooled kids tend to lack some important socialization experiences. But independent schools are expensive, and they can be elitist.
These two examples are but a small illustration of how we live in a "Land of Confusion," a place that doesn't always make sense. Perhaps we need to think a bit more about what we do before we do it. To quote the Genesis song of the same name:
This is the world we live in
And these are the hands we're given
Use them and let's start trying
To make it a place worth living in.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Which side of the bed do you sleep on?
As I'm sitting here, on the left side of the bed, I wondered if there was any actual research on this subject by gender or sorted out another way, and if there was, what the findings say about people who sleep on the left or right side.
I've historically been a left side of the bed sleeper, pretty much since I was a kid - although when I was in elementary school, right before I fell asleep, I used to be on the right side, against the wall, with my face pointed down in the gap between the mattress and the wall. I claimed (to myself) that the air there was cooler to breathe. But then I'd turn over and fall asleep in the middle of my bed, if I remember right.
But for the last 20 years or so, I've slept on the left, sometimes very near the edge of the bed.
According to the limited information I found by doing a Google search on the subject, men tend to sleep on the left side of the bed more than women. Men also sleep on the side facing the door, presumably to protect his wife. Although one website listed women sleeping toward the door so that she could wake up and get the kids. Both genders justify sleeping facing the door so that they can have a direct route to the bathroom.
I was looking more for something that described what sleeping on the right side and left side means. What's the symbolism and significance of sleeping on the right or left sides? Is one side more "powerful" than the other? Is one side the "submissive" side? It would be interesting to know.
Perhaps a surveymonkey survey is in order here.
OK, it's down below. Take a minute and fill it out! Send it to your friends! Maybe we'll learn something.
Click Here to take survey
Here's the link for non-blogspot(Facebook)sites - paste it in your browser:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=cQZoHXSKGsHvXmALiBevOg_3d_3d
I've historically been a left side of the bed sleeper, pretty much since I was a kid - although when I was in elementary school, right before I fell asleep, I used to be on the right side, against the wall, with my face pointed down in the gap between the mattress and the wall. I claimed (to myself) that the air there was cooler to breathe. But then I'd turn over and fall asleep in the middle of my bed, if I remember right.
But for the last 20 years or so, I've slept on the left, sometimes very near the edge of the bed.
According to the limited information I found by doing a Google search on the subject, men tend to sleep on the left side of the bed more than women. Men also sleep on the side facing the door, presumably to protect his wife. Although one website listed women sleeping toward the door so that she could wake up and get the kids. Both genders justify sleeping facing the door so that they can have a direct route to the bathroom.
I was looking more for something that described what sleeping on the right side and left side means. What's the symbolism and significance of sleeping on the right or left sides? Is one side more "powerful" than the other? Is one side the "submissive" side? It would be interesting to know.
Perhaps a surveymonkey survey is in order here.
OK, it's down below. Take a minute and fill it out! Send it to your friends! Maybe we'll learn something.
Click Here to take survey
Here's the link for non-blogspot(Facebook)sites - paste it in your browser:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=cQZoHXSKGsHvXmALiBevOg_3d_3d
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
James Taylor talks about Tanglewood, the Berkshires
JT plays four shows starting tomorrow at Tanglewood. Here's a pretty good Q and A style interview with the musician.
And the story has good news! JT is playing the 4th of July at Tanglewood next year.
http://www.berkshireeagle.com/ci_13204217?source=most_viewed
And the story has good news! JT is playing the 4th of July at Tanglewood next year.
http://www.berkshireeagle.com/ci_13204217?source=most_viewed
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Obama struggles with bipolar disorder
Don't take it from me. See for yourself.
Follow this link if the shortcut doesn't work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9k_nAbsNfI
Follow this link if the shortcut doesn't work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9k_nAbsNfI
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Wrestling with the $%^&#!* carseat
This summer, I've surpassed every around-the-house self-expectation concerning yard, house and car maintenace - except for one thing.
I've replaced a rear tail light in my car, the rear windshield wiper on my wife's car. I've even replaced the flapper thing in the tank behind the toilet upstairs.
These may seem to be normal, simple things to take care of, but for someone who truly despises, and has no talent for, mechanical things, they took sincere effort. The only thing that kept me from paying someone else to do them was that I'd be laughed at when doing it.
Recently, though, we got a new car seat for me to install, a feat which brought me to the breaking point. Again.
I hate installing these things. The companies do not make it easy. The process makes me sweat intensely and swear to myself. This time I got rug burns on my knees from trying to use my body weight to push the seat down.
This is the fifth or sixth one I've put in (even though we have only two kids). But they tend to get nasty after a certain time (the carseats, not the kids) - about one year - since kids eat and drink and spill and vomit in them. Kids also grow fast in a year, outgrowing them pretty quickly.
And then there's the latest safety regulations that seem to change every three or six months. The car seats that we have now, for instance, make the ones we first bought five years ago, look like they belonged to the Flintstones, or some similar time period.
The old seat that I ripped out was supposed to be "the best one" and it cost more than $200. But it didn't hold up very well for a one-year-old; our daughter Alison pretty much destroyed it.
I lost the instructions for the new one, a Graco, but wasn't worried since the prodeure is more or less the same. Our car has LATCH clips which are supposed to make it easier. However, it is difficult to get the belts tight enough. This led to the scabs on my left knee as I pounced on the car seat with all my weight.
The thing with car seats is you're not supposed to put them in half-ass, like I usually do things. You've got to really secure them; they're not supposed to move at all.
Once, when we went to a police station a few years ago to get ours checked, the cop asked, "Who installed this seat? as it wobbled around like a loose tooth. "Um, I think it was my brother-in-law," I said. (We'll see if my brother-in-law really reads this now.)
After spending an hour in the driveway putting in the latest car seat, even taking it out and starting over because of a folded-over belt (ugh!), I felt relatively satisfied. It shook a little, but seemed generally safe. No, it's definitely safe. It barely shakes.
But if anyone knows how to get them to remain completely still, I won't resist the help.
I've replaced a rear tail light in my car, the rear windshield wiper on my wife's car. I've even replaced the flapper thing in the tank behind the toilet upstairs.
These may seem to be normal, simple things to take care of, but for someone who truly despises, and has no talent for, mechanical things, they took sincere effort. The only thing that kept me from paying someone else to do them was that I'd be laughed at when doing it.
Recently, though, we got a new car seat for me to install, a feat which brought me to the breaking point. Again.
I hate installing these things. The companies do not make it easy. The process makes me sweat intensely and swear to myself. This time I got rug burns on my knees from trying to use my body weight to push the seat down.
This is the fifth or sixth one I've put in (even though we have only two kids). But they tend to get nasty after a certain time (the carseats, not the kids) - about one year - since kids eat and drink and spill and vomit in them. Kids also grow fast in a year, outgrowing them pretty quickly.
And then there's the latest safety regulations that seem to change every three or six months. The car seats that we have now, for instance, make the ones we first bought five years ago, look like they belonged to the Flintstones, or some similar time period.
The old seat that I ripped out was supposed to be "the best one" and it cost more than $200. But it didn't hold up very well for a one-year-old; our daughter Alison pretty much destroyed it.
I lost the instructions for the new one, a Graco, but wasn't worried since the prodeure is more or less the same. Our car has LATCH clips which are supposed to make it easier. However, it is difficult to get the belts tight enough. This led to the scabs on my left knee as I pounced on the car seat with all my weight.
The thing with car seats is you're not supposed to put them in half-ass, like I usually do things. You've got to really secure them; they're not supposed to move at all.
Once, when we went to a police station a few years ago to get ours checked, the cop asked, "Who installed this seat? as it wobbled around like a loose tooth. "Um, I think it was my brother-in-law," I said. (We'll see if my brother-in-law really reads this now.)
After spending an hour in the driveway putting in the latest car seat, even taking it out and starting over because of a folded-over belt (ugh!), I felt relatively satisfied. It shook a little, but seemed generally safe. No, it's definitely safe. It barely shakes.
But if anyone knows how to get them to remain completely still, I won't resist the help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
