Raising the Minimum Wage

Often you hear politicians talk about raising the minimum wage, including at tonights DNC, and they make it seem as if this will solve a lot of problems for those who are less fortunate. I don't think this subject is so cut and dry. Giving higher wages to those making the least might actually hurt them in the long run. Let me explain.

Let's say the government mandates that the minimum wage is raised. This makes those who were earning minimum wage have more money in their pocket. But what other effects does this have? First you must understand what money represents. Money is just paper, it has worth because somebody's production made it worth something. The US can print all the money in the world but if it isn't backed by something of value it is worthless. So if the US mandates higher wages they can't actually increase the production of the entire country.

Economics is about supply and demand, if something is rare it is worth more and vice versa. Well now money is easier to come by so it is "worth" less. This makes everyone not given a raise poorer, and the money they have saved is worth less. For example, maybe before the raise not everyone could afford a new Honda Civic at $14,000. But because he got a raise a minimum wage earner can now afford it. Well more people want the Civic. More Civics aren't magically produced so the price of them must rise. The guy who was close to minimum wage but wasn't quite there is made worse off.

Now take the next step. The guy who earned a little more than minimum wage is going to see he is doing relatively worse than he was before. He is either going to just stay worse off or demand a raise. Well, this is one big chain so the next guy wants a raise, and the next guy, and so forth. What does this cause? Nothing but inflation. Everything will cost more and nobody is better off (actually people are worse off because inflation is bad for everyone but that is a topic for another time).

There is more. The employer now must make a choice. The higher minimum wage means that he will most likely either:

1. Decide he can't afford it and fire the person making the minimum wage
2. Raise his prices in hopes of recouping his cost
3. Lower his overall cost by reducing wages for others
4. Eat the cost and make less profit

We can all agree one is bad. It is better to have a bad paying job than no job at all

Two and three are bad for the same reasons I stated above. It's a chain reaction where sooner or later all prices will need to rise. There isn't any more production backing the money so all money becomes worth less.

Four while possible is unlikely. People are in business to make money. If they can't earn money at what they are doing they will do something else. It is wishful thinking to believe that if a business man can raise his profits he won't by any means necessary. Some small businesses might, but all the large companies who have millions of stock holders to answer to simply won't. And those are the companies who really move the economy.

So what is the answer? I'm not sure. Like I said, the above may or may not be true but it is important to see all sides of the argument and to make an informed decision. In the end I don't think it helps to re-cut the pie into different size pieces because the people most adept at cutting the pie (most likely those with the bigger piece already) will just find a way to ensure their piece stays just or big or bigger. The only thing to do is to make the whole pie larger.

Slick Willy

Got to give Slick Willy one thing, boy can he deliver a speech.

I'm not one to normally watch a National Convention, but yesterday I did watch Bill Clinton give Monday's key address. No matter what you think of him you have to admit that Bill can walk up to a mike and just flat out own it. For all his failings people still love him and I attribute a lot of that to his ouststanding oratory skills. He style is warm and inviting. His cadence and delivery are always on. His self-deprecating humor makes him likeable. And he gives a speech that not only makes you believe him but makes you believe that HE believes him. Clinton is so good I think he could make Grandma's Tuna Casserole recipe sound enthralling. His repetitive use of "send me (Kerry)" and "vote for them (Republicans)" were absolutely brilliant. Second only to "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit"

When I contrast him to George Bush, Bush looks like a child learning to read. I hate it when I hear Bush speak, not because of what he is saying which I find repulsive enough), but because his style bores me to tears. While Clinton delivers like he memorized the speech and is speaking from his heart, Bush sounds like (and is) reading the teleprompter and saying whatever the latest thing his staff wants him to say and whatever suits him in the moment. I swear Bush can't put together more than six words together without putting some sort of pause in his speech and this drives me nuts.

Sad thing is, no way Kerry tops Clinton's speech. No way he delivers lines as good as.

"When I was in office, the Republicans were pretty mean to me. When I left and made money, I became part of the most important group in the world to them. At first I thought I should send them a thank you note -- until I realized they were sending you the bill."

"During the Vietnam War, many young men -- including the current president, the vice president and me-could have gone to Vietnam but didn't. John Kerry came from a privileged background and could have avoided it too. Instead he said, send me."

Selfish Work

Ricky Williams decided to retire this weekend. For those of you who don't know who he is he was the Miami Dolphins' star running back.

Now in listening to reaction from everyone, people are labeling him selfish. He didn't think about the impact on his teammates or the impact on the fans. His retirement, so close to training camp, makes it difficult for the Dolphins to find anyone else to replace him.

I couldn't agree more but I really don't think that this should be considered a negative thing. Why should Ricky Williams play for anybody but himself (or maybe his family)? Did it say in his contract that he had to play even if he didn't want to? Are we a society that forces people to work when they don't want to? I'm sorry but we fought a war over 150 years ago to make sure that wasn't the case.

I wish more people would do what Ricky Williams is doing. If you don't like your job go find something else that makes you happy. Maybe if people would just do that rather than do jobs they hate maybe we could all get some decent customer service and the world would be a happier place. I applaud people like Jenny, who instead working at a job she hates, decided to boldly set a new course in her life. Most people just don't have the courage to make such dramatic changes in their lives. Maybe I should be mad at Jenny for not taking my feelings into consideration, after all, we have one less person to go to lunch with.

No man should work for the sake of anyone but himself. If he wants to take the opinions of others into account that is every man's preogative, but just don't expect others to think the same way.

Lasik: The Touch Up

So on Tuesday I had the touch up with Dr. Kerry Assil. Jenny was kind enough to drive me there so a special shout out to her.

So how did it go? Well the procedure itself was different than last time. This time I kind of knew what to expect so none of it came as a surprise. The big difference is that they don't recut your cornea. They just peel back the original flap (I think I read that the flap never 100% heals itself) and then zap you again. That part was actually slightly more uncomfortable. Some people don't like the Microkeratome (the blade that cuts your cornea) because it sucks in your eyeball and than you hear a drilling sound as it cuts your cornea. That part didn't really bother me all that much. This time though they kind of move your cornea around to get it loose and that part was kind of strange and uncomfortable.

They zapped me and then sent me home. This time I remember the aftermath being much more painful which is strange since they had to do much less to me. Jenny wrote that she felt like she had shampoo in her eyes afterward. After my original procedure I felt no such thing but this time around I definitely felt it. It stung like a mother f*!#$r for the first few hours. Maybe that is just what you have to feel for the first few hours after to get good sight. :)

So the final verdict. So far so good. You can't really know the final result until a few weeks after the procedure but the initial results are pretty good. I didn't have that far to go to get to acceptable and it seems OK to me now. Whereas before it was a scary proposition to drive at night and I couldn't make out faces from far away indoors (making it impossible to check people out in the gym) I can do those things now. Is it 100% perfect. I don't know. Some things seemed slightly clearer right before the surgery when I had the -0.75 prescription and the glasses. So I would put it at about 98% good. But that may just be because it is so soon after the surgery. If things change one way or another I will of course post it.

Update - See these post

All Lasik Post

Lasik Tomorrow

Tomorrow I'm going in for a touch up to my original Lasik Procedure. Thus far my vision has been pretty much the same for the last 6 months. In both eyes I have a diopter of -0.75. Not horrible but bad enough to be really annoying when I'm driving at night and when I go into a store.

I'm hopeful that Dr. Assil, the doctor performing my Lasik Procedure, will be able to get me close to 20/20. Dr. Assil is supposed to be one of the more respected Lasik surgeons in the L.A. area so I'm fairly confident it will work out. I know two other people who have gotten their Lasik done by him. One was very happy and one not so much so. But the latter was supposed to go in for her touch up recently so maybe it ended up working out for her. It is a little strange because I think I'm more nervous this time around than last. I think its because it didn't work out the way I wanted last time and I don't think I could go 6 more months with my current vision .

Thus far having slightly bad vision has caused me to have a headache on and off for the last few months. There are some people who go their whole lives with my current vision and don't ever get any glasses or contacts. How they manage is beyond me.

So everybody cross their fingers and wish me luck. I'll let everyone know on Wednesday or Thursday how everything went.

Eating what you want

I just heard a radio advertisement that really bothered me.

It was a comercial for Carl's Jr. and it basically started out by saying "Are we really supposed to believe that all those models eat whatever they want and can remain that thin?"

What if there was a commercial that said, "Are we really supposed to believe that all those overweight people are exercising and eating right and still remain overweight?"

As a person who can eat whatever they want and pretty much keep the same physique I am here to say that yes it is possible. Does that mean there aren't models who have some sort of eating disorder? Of course not. But don't make a broad statement people can't eat what they want and remain thin. I can and believe me, it isn't all that it is cracked up to be. I've tried all my life to actually put on weight. Maybe I haven't had it as bad as people who are overweight but don't pretend to understand the flip side unless you have been there.

And then it actually got worse. The last line in the commercial said, "Quit making the rest of us feel fat". I almost lost it. Nobody in this world can make you feel anything you don't want to let them feel. If you don't think you are fat than nobody can make you feel fat without your consent. Quit blaming others for making you feel inferior. If you don't want to live up to the "Ideal" then don't. It is your choice either way, just don't blame others for the things YOU feel.

Gay Marriage Amendment

The proposed amendment that would effectively ban gay marriage died on the floor of the senate today. Apparently, enough of the Senate Republicans decided they were not going to vote for it and so they did not get the numbers they needed for the amendment to move on.

Two thoughts on the matter.

When I first read the article the first thing I thought to myself was that these Republicans only decided to not vote in favor of it because they would not want to be known in the future as people who wanted to discriminate against homosexuals. I believe that as soon as my generation gets a little older homosexuality will become more widely accepted. Maybe its naive on my part but I just feel that my generation is a lot more tolerant than those that came before me. So, instead of making the same mistakes as those during the civil rights era most Republicans have decided to skirt around the issue rather than voting for what they really believe is right. While I'm very glad that they voted this way I can't say I agree with the means by which they arrived at the decision. As leaders, I expect them to vote their beliefs and conscience. If they really believe homosexuality is bad, then they should probably vote that way. Is it cynical for me to believe that they only voted the way they did because they just want to curry favor in the future?

Second thought, are Americans really this dumb? Bill Frist said, "Will activist judges not elected by the American people destroy the institution of marriage, or will the people protect marriage as the best way to raise children? My vote is with the people."

No crap they weren't elected by the people. That's the whole point of the judicial system. Anybody who has taken a course in American Government knows something about checks and balances. The reason that the Supreme Court has life time appointments is to ensure that they do not feel the pressure of being voted in. They make rulings with absolute certainty that their job is not on the line. They do not curry favor to the majority at the sake of the minority. But Senator Frist phrases it in such a way that makes it appear as if something is wrong with the system. WRONG! That is why the system works. But are Americans dumb enough to buy whatever a politician tells him so long as he uses the right language?

Worst Trade Ever

Sorry that this has become the source for all things Lakers but I can't help but write about this. The Lakers have decided to trade Shaquille O'Neal to Miami for a pile of crap otherwise known as Lamar Odom, Caron Butler, and the flies that surround it (otherwise known as Brian Grant)

For those who don't follow the Lakers I'll give a brief synopsis of what is going on. Kobe Bryant is a free agent and the Lakers are bending over backwards to make sure they get him back. Most of you know I'm a Kobe fan so I don't have a problem with this. Even though I will admit that you can't replace Shaq I don't think the Lakers have a choice in the matter. If you let Kobe go but keep Shaq, Shaq eats up so much of the salary cap ($30 out of $45 million) that you can't get more players to stay competitive. So your only choice is to sign Kobe and trade Shaq and hope to get better either via the trade or in the future when you get some more salary cap and Shaq's $30 million comes off the books. I keep Kobe because he is younger and he tries harder. He is more easily replaced than Shaq but I'm pretty sick of a guy who is 7'1" 350 lbs and can't lead the league in rebounds, blocked shots, or be on the NBA first team all defense.

But that doesn't mean you give away the farm either. And what they Laker's got is a pile of crap. Seriously, I would take a pile of crap over what the Lakers got. Why? The three players are all decent but none is a superstar. You need superstars to win, Kobe, no matter how great he is, by himself is not enough. The worse part is that Brian Grant's contract is enormous. $45 million over the next 3 years. That means you are stuck with this team for the next 3 years. Do you really think the Lakers can win a championship with this team over the next 3 years? NO WAY. I would much prefer them to get under the cap as quickly as possible and go after free agents in a year or two. If they can't sign Kobe with Shaq on the roster than so be it. Forget Kobe, and let Shaq opt out of his contract next year and start over. It's better than getting screwed in the ass.

Smart Minds Think Alike .... Or Are Taught Alike

I was reading Business Week this past weekend and read that Gary Becker would no longer be writing a weekly column. I went back to read some of his work and thought to myself, this guy is pretty smart. I agree with a lot of things he has to say since he seemed to be not only fiscally conservative like I am but also socially liberal.

I went online to see if I could find some more information about him. And what lo and behold I find out that he too graduated from Princeton by studying Economics and Mathematics. He went on the win a Nobel Prize in Economics. OK, so I won't go on to get a Nobel Prize. But it makes me wonder. Do I think the way I do because we had the same educational background? I know a lot of my Princeton friends share similar values as I do so did we get there because of that or did we learn it while there?

Coach Komplacency

So Kobe won't be getting the coach he wants. Most of the experts out there urged Coach K not to take the job because it would hurt his "legacy" There is no doubt that except for Coach Wooden, Mike Krychevsky might be the most successful coach in college basketball history.

What I don't understand is why everybody would urge him not to take the Laker's job. Now as a Laker fan I would actually prefer someone like Rudy Tomjanovich than Coach K. But I just don't understand the reasoning most people give for why he shouldn't take the 5 year $40 million job.

1. He has built a dynasty at Duke and shouldn't tarnish his legacy
2. Few other college coaches have succeeded in the NBA

Well the first one in my eyes is ridiculous. Could you imagine if someone told me, "You are a great programmer. You should just continue programming and not become a manager." Or how about, "You got great grades in High School. You shouldn't go to college because you can't do nearly as well." Could you imagine how hard I would laugh in that person's face? Just because I was successful at something else in the past doesn't mean I should be afraid to try something new. In fact my past success should make me want to take the next step. I can't imagine anything worse than complacency. I could never rest on my laurels. Being great means taking great risk. Nobody every scored a point who was too afraid to shoot.

About the second point, who cares? What do the people who came before me have to do with me? Just because others failed doesn't mean I will. Before me, nobody else in my high school's history went to an Ivy League school. Does that mean I should have turned down Princeton and just gone to a community college?

So tell me, why does it seem like so many people are afraid to take risk?

Smart TV

Yesterday I was flipping around the tube and stopped on PBS. It was showing a biography on Ulysses S. Grant. There really wasn't anything better on so I stopped it there and continued doing what I was doing. (I rarely watch TV and only watch TV. I like to multi-task and have the TV on as background noise)

When I was younger I use to watch PBS all the time. First it was Sesame Street, than it was the nature shows, and then it was all the science shows. Somewhere along the way I stopped. I don't know why but I think it was probably because I started watching much more mainstream shows like Friends and ER.

After watching the biography I felt a lot smarter. I knew a lot of the things they talked about since I'm very interested in the Civil War but I still felt like I had learned a great deal. Is it a coincidence that I think I was a much smarter child than I am an adult? Maybe watching TV, at least the wrong TV, really does make you dumber.

Wanted: A Rich Woman

MSN has an article about women who make more than their partners. I guess they created an article for all those couples out there who have problems because the woman earns more than the man.

Is this really a problem? I wish I could meet a woman who makes more than me. I don't see someone else's ability to achieve and earn as a threat to me. My partner's great achievements don't make mine any less significant and if anything enhances them. I don't think that making less money than my partner would make me less of a "man". You all know that I think money is important (not in and of itself but what it connotes) but I will be the first to say that it isn't everything.

So seriously, what does everyone else think? Would most men really have a problem with their partner earning more? If so why do you think that is the case?

So if there is a woman out there reading this and you earn a lot of money and feel most men don't understand this please contact me. I am a young, single, successful male who enjoys reading and walks on the beach. I earn a good living myself so I wouldn't need to leech off of you and I would appreciate you for all the things that make you great.

Luxury Hotel vs. Budget Hotel

I'm finally back from Chicago. Overall it was a good trip both from a business perspective and from a personal perspective. Had a good time, got to see a friend of mine I haven't seen in a while, and even caught a baseball game.

What I'm here to write about is a comparison of the two hotels I stayed in while I was in the Chicago Area. The differences between the two were great but I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

The Hampton Inn - Naperville
Cost - $82.80 per night
Size of room ~ 250 sq ft
Internet Access - Free (wireless)
Bottled water - Free
In Room Snack - Free
Breakfast - Free
Shower - Waterpik head
Cookies - Free at Front Desk

The Palmer House Hilton - Downtown Chicago
Cost - $217.16 per night
Size of room ~ 200 sq ft
Internet Access - $10 per day (wired)
Bottle Water - $5
In Room Snack - none
Breakfast - None
Shower - standard shower head
Cookies - None

Is there something wrong with this picture? I'm sure Jenny will have much more to say about how much she loved the Palmer House but I'll let her do that. Just to be fair the Palmer House does have its advantages. It is downtown so you are closer to things (the best attraction in Naperville is a AMC 36) and the decor of the building is much nicer and plush. But who really cares about the decor? It also has things like a bell desk, restaurants, a kitchen to order room service, a mini-bar, a bar, shops, etc. But these are all things that as a traveler I don't really care all that much for. Also it frustrated me that to get to the 15th floor from the 11th floor I had to either take the stairs or take the elevator to the 8th floor first and then catch a different elevator to the 15th floor. How stupid is that?

A Different World

For those who don't know I'm in Chicago for the week. Actually I'm in Naperville for the rest of this week and in Chicago starting this weekend. We are going to a show, SUPERCOMM 2004, and my department put together all the demos. I'm here to make sure they work.

So here is my take on Chicago so far. (I've been here before but here is what I've noticed this time)

- There are no non-white people here. Maybe in downtown there are but here in Naperville, I haven't seen anybody of color

- There are no foreign cars around. I use to wonder when I was young how Ford and GM were always the best selling cars in America when most people I knew had foreign, Japanese or German, cars. Come to mid-america. The mystery goes away.

- Its too humid. Then again, anywhere above 5% humidity is too much for me

- Houses are HUGE. I'm so use to living in NYC and in California that its strange to see these houses that are 2x as big as those in California and probably cost 1/4 the price.

- I really like traveling. I know most people don't but I really do. I waited 1 hour to even board the shuttle (they screwed up my reservation) and I didn't even get that mad. I like having my bed made and my clothes picked up for me. I like not worrying about having to make dinner. I like seeing different places and cultures (see above). Even when I was a consultant and traveled every week I didn't mind it too much. I figure I'm young and single and might as well do it now.

Money = Your Life

People spend too much money. At least in America they do. We are a nation in love with debt. We love to buy things on credit because it seem to cost no money. We figure we can always pay for it later when we have that mythical better paying job that never seems to materialize.

The people who are the most in debt seem to be the people who can least afford it or who hate their jobs the most. Maybe spending money they don't have makes these people feel better about themselves? I'm not sure but whatever it is I've never really understood it.

But don't these people realize what spending the money they earned actually means? Think about it. You earn your money by working at a job. Whether it is sititng in front of a computer all day or flipping burgers you are paid to spend time doing something when you would probably rather be doing something else. Now lets say you earn $10/hour. Now you decide you need to treat yourself so you go buy a brand new pair of shoes that cost you $80. You just speant 8 hours of your life earning that pair of shoes. For most people that is one day of their lives. You are basically equating that pair of shoes to be worth one day of you sitting in front of the computer bored out of your mine. Was it really worth it?

I'm not saying don't buy things that make you happy. By all means, spend all your money on whatever you want. Next time you want to complain about your job though, remember, at least you have those nice pair of shoes.

Why I Hate Laker Fans

Kobe Bryant is the Man. Let me say that again. Kobe Bryant is the Man. For those who don't know Kobe Bryant saved the Laker's championship hopes by draining a deep three pointer with 2.1 seconds left and the Lakers down by three.

Now why do I hate Laker Fans? They whine and complain so much about Kobe. Kobe is the best player in the NBA. If you don't believe it just watch SportsCenter today, they will replay that shot a few times for you. I will be the first to admit that every once in a while Kobe Bryant will frustrate me when he takes a horribly difficult shot late in the game. But you have to live with this. Why? Kobe has definitely won more games than he has lost. Remember Portland where he hit two absolutely ridiculous threes to give the Lakers the Pacific Division title?

If you love Kobe when he is making impossible shots to save the Lakers' butt than you can't hate him when he is jacking up impossible shots and missing. He isn't going to make all of them. You have to take the good with the bad. That is how basketball works.

And just because the L.A. media seems intent on coddling Shaq and crucifying Kobe let me say this. SHAQ, GET A FRIGGIN REBOUND!!!! You are the biggest guy on the court. You should average 20 rebounds a game. Are you going to really let Ben Wallace, who is only 6' 9" because of his fro, dominate you on the boards. I don't want to hear this crap about feeding the big dog so he will take care of the yard (which by the way may be the most selfish thing ever said in sports). Yes nobody can stop you. But just because you are unstoppable on the offensive end does not mean you don't have to play defense. And just because you don't get the ball every time you want, and anyone who plays basketball knows how difficult it can be to get the ball into the post all the time, doesn't mean you don't have to play defense. Defense is about effort and heart. How much heart do you have Shaq?

Can We Please Stop This?

How come J-Lo can get married whenever she wants to, to whomever she wants to, however many times she wants to but we prevent two men from getting married because it ruins the sanctity of marriage?

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world" - Mahatma Ghandi

I realize something about myself. I'm very different than most people. I actually like my job which I'm realizing more and more is not true for most people.

This week has been a long week work wise. I've worked on average something like 12 hours each day. I have left work each day only to come home, boot up the computer, grab dinner, and sit and do some work. I will be going into the office this weekend to hopefully finish up a project I have been working on. And the thing is, I don't really mind any of it. Sure I'm a little tired, sure I'm underpaid, and sure I would like to change the way certain things work at my company, but overall I would have to say that I at least like what I do. I can't control some of the other things but in the little world I have carved out in my company I actually like what goes on.

I'm not sure what it is about me that makes me this way. Is it that I just like my job and that I don't mind putting in the long hours or is it that I can find happiness in the work I do regardless of the situation? I could make an argument for either case.

How is it that people get stuck at jobs they hate? Everyone growing up has these dreams of what they want to be when they grow up. For most, these dreams have long since vanished and they are faced with the harsh reality that is their life. I'm not saying that when I was five I wanted to be the manager for a software department. All I wanted (besides to be Superman which I have a hunch isn't going to happen) was to do be remembered for doing something great. I still have that as a goal in life and I plan on making it happen. Maybe I'm different because I've refused to let go of this dream. Am I crazy or are more people than I realize really happy where they are and are on the right path to doing what they have always wanted to do?

Finding the Truth

I had a conversation with someone the other day that made me do some thinking. If we should have as little government as possible who will defend the poor in criminal manners?

Now some take my beliefs as I don't want to do anything to help the poor. Nothing could be further from the truth. I do want people to take responsibility for their own actions and situations in life. The logical path from this is that people should be responsible for paying for their own defense. I simply don't believe this.

What? Isn't that a contradiction? As I always say, I try not to contradict myself. So what's going on? Well this only follows if the assumption is that government is only interested in winning whatever case the prosecution puts forth. I don't believe that is government's role. I believe governments role is to find the truth in all matters. It should have an equal interest if someone raped someone or someone is being falsely accused.

This leads me to why I thought about this, the Kobe Bryant case. Being a Laker fan I realize I am a little bias as I tend to think Kobe Bryant is innocent. However I am fully willing to admit that anybody is capable of anything and nobody knows what happened in that hotel room. However, what really disturbs me is how the D.A., Mark Hulbert, is acting in this case. The government should care as much about Kobe Bryant as it does about the alleged victim. It should care if they put an innocent man behind bars. But Mark Hulbert is treating this, ironically, like a basketball game. Win at all cost. Forget about the truth, lets slam dunkd this case and make sure we put Kobe Bryant behind bars.

What makes me say this? Kobe's defense team has asked for text messages sent between the accuser, her ex-boyfriend, and a third party just hours after the alleged assault. To me this has a huge bearing on the case as it may further strengthen the accuser's arguments or may completely shatter her credibility. Either way the prosecutor should want to know. Instead he fought the defense teams motion to obtain these records. According to the federal Electronics Communication Privacy Act, "A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication, that is in electronic storage in an electronic communications system." All the D.A. had to do was make the request and the information would have been made available to him. Was he interested in the information. Absolutely not. Does it scare anybody else that the government really only cares about winning the cases it decides to prosecute?

A Statement of Philosophy

It occurs that me that any writing that purports wanting to make people think differently about certain things should provide a statement of philosophy that acts as its guiding principle. Why do I think this is important? I think it is important because it allows a user to objectively analyze a situation and come up with consistent outcomes. I hate hypocrites. I also hate people who so blindly follow a line of reasoning without really knowing why they are doing it. This happens when people think the Democrats are always right and that the Republicans are always wrong. Why do you think that? What basis are you analyzing your arguments? Just because George W. Bush said it is not a reason to discount it. I have often come out on the opposite side of an issue when I analyzed it against my own internal philosophy. This allows me to not be so rigid with specific ideas and concepts and to see the merit of my own convictions. When I get into arguments with other people I find inconsistencies in their arguments (i.e. Government should not make decisions on how to spend more of my money but it should tell other people they need to follow my religious beliefs) When I find those in my own ideas I have no problem reversing course because I have one guiding principle in my life.

So I believe everybody should follow something. Whether it be, "Treat others as you would have them treat you" or "What would Jesus do?" you should try to break down your belief system into something simple and see how consistent your arguments are. You might be amazed on how inconsistent you are with yourself, I know I was.

So here is my philosophy, "Individual Choice and Personal Responsibility". Everything I believe in comes from this. What does it mean? It means I should have the right to make choices for myself. Given this right I must be willing to reap the benefits and suffer the consequences for any thing my choices create. This implies that if I have this right others must also have this right and that none of my choices must infringe on theirs. That is I do no have the right (but I suppose you do have the choice) to kill someone else because that would remove their right to make a choice.

So there you have it. When I contradict myself let me know. I'll be happy to look at your arguments and see if I really know what I'm talking about.

Freedom - So Long As You Agree With Me

On my way to work today I heard an argument going on about Fahrenheit 9/11 It was on a sports talk radio show and one of the guest labeled Michael Moore "Anti-American".

Is it me or is it anytime someone speaks out agasint something the far right supports they are instantly labeled Anti-American. I couldn't believe my ears as I listened to this guy. I mean what can be more American than speaking your mind and exercising your right to free speach? Its the first friggin amendment for heaven's sake. Could you imagine if in 1776 someone labeled the founding fathers as "Anti-England" After all, they were planning on overthrowing the entire government.

How come to be an American I have to believe that killing people 10,0000 miles away from me that I have never met is a good thing? How come I have to be "anti-troop" if I don't believe in the war? Just because I don't think we should be in the regime-toppling business does not mean I want to see a U.S. soldier shot and killed.

If you don't like it than don't watch it. Simple as that. I don't like listening to politics when I'm trying to listen to sports so guess what, I changed the channel.

Women and Their Contradictions

Many of the women I know are not happy with their love lives. I'm not saying ALL women but many. I believe one of the reasons that these women are unhappy is because women are full of contradictions when it comes to what they want in a man. Let me expound on this subject by giving examples of common things women say they want in a man and why they contradict each other. My point is NOT TO SAY THESE ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE but only to point out that there is a very fine line. Its a tightrope act most men can't perform.

I want a man who is ambitious and successful but not a workaholic or married to his job
Unless you are born into wealth there is really only one way to be truly successful and great at what you do, work harder than the next guy. That isn't to say you can't be successful at what you do without working 100 hours but the higher you go up the food chain the harder you have to work. Women love doctors, lawyers, bankers, etc but hate the hours these guys put in and the passion they put into their jobs. How do you think these men got into the position they are? Do you think they breezed through med school? You knew what they were before you started dating them, what else do you expect?

I want a man takes care of his body but isn't in love with himself
Unless the guy is a pro-athlete very few men have reason to work out. Don't give me that crap that you do it to be healthy and feel better about yourself. You do not have to do lat pulldowns and bench presses to get a work out. You could do just as well playing a game of tennis or running a few miles. Men lift weights because they care how they look. It is almost completely superficial. I know, that's why I do it. Do I love myself, of course. Do I stare in the mirror all the time? No, but I do occasionally. How else am I supposed to gauge my progress?

I want a real manly man who is kind and sensitive with me
Men who have high levels of Testosterone and are willing to get into a fight with a 6-5 300lbs bouncer rather than walk away are aggressive by nature. There is a genetic reason these men are alpha males. They don't take crap and they aren't "sensitive". Do you really think a man who can punch his wall through a door is going to want to watch "Bridges Over Madison Country"?


I want a man with confidence but who is not cocky
This is probably my favorite one. This one is almost a complete contradiction in the way that women mean it. Women want a man who is sure of himself but somehow doesn't know it or won't talk about it. But men who are confident must believe it themselves and have no shame in admitting it. That is not to say that I should go around and say, "Hi. Nice to meet you Joe. I went to an Ivy League School". But if someone asks me a question like, "You must be pretty smart to do a job like that" am I to reply, "No anyone could do my job"? Its simply not true and if I'm willing to say it I must either be A) Lying B) unsure of myself C) ashamed D) care so much what this person thinks that I just met that I feel a need to evade the truth. Well if it is B, C, or D then I'm not really so confident am I?


There are many many more but I think my point is clear. I often think women make themselves unhappy in their relationships because they want things which are impossible and when they don't get everything they wonder, "Why can't I just find Mr Right?".

Photo Blog

To force myself to take more photos I've decided to start my very own photo blog. I've had Photography for a hobby for a long time but have been really lazy when it comes to going out and taking photos. I figure if I'm under pressure to post that I will be more likely to go out and take pictures. I don't know if I will post too often but hey, with people like Amanda and Ryan who only post once every few months, I figure I'm OK.

The Rising Cost of Gas

Today, the price of a gallon of gas rose to above $2.00 a gallon across the nation (It's over $2.30 at my local gas station). This is the highest that it has ever been. My point is, yeah so what?

Americans just don't realize how good they have it. Take a look at the price of gas around the world. It isn't cheap. Making it worse is that many of these prices are from seven months ago when gas was cheaper AND these countries are all less wealthy than America so relatively gas is even more expensive.

Americans love their SUV's. Americans love to drive. Americans hate public transportation. I'm one of those who fall in the latter two. If you own a SUV or drive when you don't have to (And most people do. You can always walk that mile to the store, it won't kill you) then I feel you have very little reason to complain. We are a society that has created our own problems by ignoring public infrastructure and building communities where the nearest grocery store is 5 miles away. We did it to ourselves and have to live with the consequences.

Does that mean I don't feel bad for those who are truly poor and are severely affected by this? Of course not, but that doesn't apply to most of America, especially those who have enough money to buy an SUV in the first place and drive to their local air conditioned mall whenever it pleases them.

Gay Marriage - Who Cares?

Today is the first day that Massachusetts will allow Gay couples to get married.

What has always struck me as strange is that a majority of American's oppose Gay Marriage. I just don't understand this. I can see somebody believing that marriage is between a man and a woman. But why should government make that distinction?

The argument against gay marriage is that it is against the will of God. Fine, let those people go to hell. Why should you get to judge them while they are on earth? Let God do it when these people face judgment. But the US government is not supposed to support religion one way or another. If marriage isn't a religious thing then you can't argue that homosexual couples shouldn't marry and if it is a religious thing then government shouldn't be involved.

And don't argue the morality of the whole thing. Who's morality are we to use? If it is a morality issue than you shouldn't allow divorce, you shouldn't allow people to have pre-marital sex, etc.

Can someone please explain to me their position that the US government should be involved in this debate. I would really like an argument so if you have one please share. I won't accept any argument that as its basis is based on religion or morality. This person has a good post that describes some of the arguments I find particularly frivolous.

The Uselessness of Meetings

This won't be a very controversial topic but it is something I can't quite explain fully. Companies seem to love meetings. I don't quite understand this. It has been my experience that meetings are almost useless.

Now one of the things I strive to do in my life is not look at situations strictly from my point of view . If there is one thing I do know is that I am not the average person. For me any meeting longer than an hour makes almost no sense unless it is one of those things which is truly interactive. Most meetings consist of people talking endlessly about the same thing, things that should be covered outside the meeting, or things that could easily be learned by oneself.

I will admit that in my meetings at work I pay attention maybe 10% of the time. The other 90% I'm trying to actually get some work done. However, even though I never pay attention I seem to come out of the meeting with the same or better knowledge than most of the others. Now that can only mean that everybody is tuning out or I just learn that much better than everybody else even though I receive only 10% of the information. (I probably receive closer to 100% since like I said, meetings tend to be highly repetitive or they state the obvious like "You company should make more money").

But if the first case is true than doesn't everybody realize what a waste meetings are? If so how come we keep having them. I'm with Jenny, we should have a meeting department whose only function is to attend meetings. But then I suppose I would have to have a meeting with the meeting department to learn what they talked about.

The New Blogger

This isn't really going to be on topic but I just wanted to post something in the new blogger to see how it is. So far I like the new interface. It is definitely slicker at least. I like that I have more choices in templates. I use to just try and create my own but for someone who only has limited HTML and CSS skills it is nice to be able to choose from a few that are at least decent. Now my blog will look like everyone else's blog but at least it will look good.

Are Athletes Paid Too Much?

I swear this is not a sports all the time blog but I wanted to briefly touch on the subject of if athletes are overpaid. Often you hear that sports athletes are paid way too much to play a child's game. To give you an idea of what I am talking about here are the salaries of the highest paid athletes in each of the major sports.

Kevin Garnett - $25,000,000
Alex Rodriguez - $25,000,000
Donovan McNabb - $15,000,000

So are these athletes overpaid. Absolutely not. How the heck can I say that? I don't think anybody in our society can really ever be overpaid. We live in a society where you are free to accept a job and someone is free to hire or not hire you (more or less but I won't get into the details here). This is especially true in sports where the ONLY thing that matters is how you perform and do your job. Obviously the owner of each of these clubs believes that each of these athletes is worth the money. Nobody put a gun to any of their heads and forced them to give the money to the players. Just to put into perspective you need to see what each of these teams are work and make

Team/ Value of Team/ Yearly Revenue

Minnesota Timberwolves $230 $85M
New York Yankees $849M $223M
Philadelphia Eagles $617M $134M

Now if the players don't get the money who will? The owners. A lot less people whine that they are making too much money. Some people complain that instead of making all this money that they should reduce ticket prices. Well if you ran a business and you could sell a product for $10 or $20 what would you do? I think most of you would probably charge what the market would bear.

What I don't understand is that many of the same people who complain that athletes make too much money are those clamoring to get more money for either themselves or working class America. If average Joe American has the right to make as much money as possible how come the same can't be said for athletes? I realize that $25,000 is quite different than $25,000,000 but the principle is the same.

Everyone should be paid what they are worth. Sports just happens to be very big business in America and it makes lots of money. How can you begrudge a man his money which he rightfully deserves. I mean a star athlete, more than any other employee, has a direct impact on the revenue of his company. He plays well, fans come to see games, fans buy more merchandise, etc.


If you like this post you may like these other post:
List of Overpaid Athletes
Athletes
Overpaid
sports

Being A Team Player

There is a lot of news right now because Eli Manning has told the San Diego Chargers he does not want t be drafted by them.

As background for those who don't know, the NFL draft is this weekend. San Diego, because they had the worse record in the league, has the rights to the first pick in the draft. Most experts consider the best quarterback in the draft to Eli Manning, son of Archie and brother of Payton.

Most people are calling out Eli Manning and calling him all sorts of names saying he is being selfish and that not a team player.

Now think about this. Why doesn't Eli Manning have the right to come out and say he doesn't want to play for a team. I agree he is being selfish but isn't it his right to speak his mind. Isn't this America or do we throw out the first amendment when it comes to team sports? What if someone told you you had to change jobs and work for a company that might go under in a few months but, since you are the best at what you do, you have to go work for this other company. What would you say?

I'm not arguing that San Diego doesn't have the right or shouldn't draft Eli. My point is that get off the kids back. If he doesn't want to play for them he is just being honest. If the Chargers draft him it is his choice to play or not play for them. If he wants to sit out then let him. We are all allowed to speak our mind and make our own choices, if Eli is willing to live with the consequences then who are we to say what his best interest are? And in the NFL, as the NFL teams are often so willing to point out to everybody when it works for them, its all about business. It's nothing personal its business, or so they tell us. Well when Eli Manning wants to make a business decision for himself then he is labeled selfish. How hypocritical is that?

In The Beginning

This is the start of a blog that should make you all think. The purpose of this blog is to talk about various topics and make you think about if what you believe is really right. So often I find that people accept as their own beliefs what they have been taught to think, either by their parents or by society. I will admit that I have been guilty of such acts and continue to be even as I write this. But as I journey down the path of my life I find that when I actually sit and think about certain things I use to take as givens I end up discovering I was completely wrong.

The use of your mind is not automatic. You must exercise your own mind if you ever really want to uncover what is right and wrong. Don't take what I say as truth. Just think about what I have to say and determine for yourself the veracity of my statements.

To see where I am coming from you must understand the man writing this. I'm a male in his mid-twenties. I'm Asian and I have a job as manager for a technology company. I was not raised in a wealthy family by any stretch of the imagination but I did grow up in a nice middle class neighborhood. My mom struggled to put me through college. I attended an Ivy League university by obtaining scholarships and taking out loans. I do not have a political affiliation but I tend to vote Democratic. If I had to describe my political bent I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative but I refuse to be pigeon-holed into any sort of ideology. I am a man who takes each topic on a case by case basis and try to find my own truth in the situation. I'm avid sports fan and follow most of the major American sports.

Mandatory Tipping

On the subject of tipping. Why is it compulsory to tip? When did this happen? Whenever I go to a restaurant, no matter how bad the service is, I always tip the 15-20% standard. Why? I'm getting to the point where I'm thinking I'm going to refuse to do this but then I get badgered into thinking otherwise (like in Reservoir Dogs).

People always say one of two things. That its part of the waiter's wage and they need to make a living or that you are paying for the service in a restaurant. I'm sorry. I have to completely disagree with both these arguments.

A waiter is paid a wage. Now I understand that restaurants may pay their waiters less than they would otherwise but that should still not make tipping mandatory. Could you imagine if I went to my boss and said, "I wrote an excellent piece of code for that module. I think you should give me a 15% bonus this week"? My boss would laugh me right out of the building. If a waiter needs the money that badly then they should work harder to earn that tip. I have absolutely no problem leaving a big tip if I think the service is exceptional. (I've left tips in excess of 50% before) Somehow we have become a society where we think we are owed certain things. That's BS. Life doesn't owe anyone anything.

And the argument about paying for the service. Are you kidding me? That's why you go to a restaurant!! The price of the service is built into your meal. You don't tip your dentist do you? He provides a service for you does he not? Most people don't tip their mechanic but how is this much different than a waiter?

My point is not to say that you should never tip. Quite the contrary. I probably tip more than almost anyone I know. I just think its ridiculous that we have become a society where we think you HAVE to tip.

My Lasik Experience

As a public service I am re-posting this which is from my original blog. Toward the end of my other blog this became one of the more popular searches to my site. I enjoy sharing my experience with others so that they can decide for themselves if Lasik is right for them. If you have any comments feel free to post a comment and I will be happy to share some more.


I was going to wait to discuss my Lasik procedure until things settled down somewhat but my roommate Sandy suggested that I blog about it on a daily basis so I have some record of my experience. So here goes.

I got my eyes done by Dr. Kerry Assil of the Assil Sinskey Eye Institute in Santa Monica. I traveled all the way to Santa Monica because I had heard that Dr. Assil was one of the best in Los Angeles and figured I had only one set of eyes so I might as well get it done by the best. He also came highly recommended by an ex-coworker of mine and he was a VSP doctor so I got a significant discount on my procedure.

Dr Assil used the latest WaveScan technology with a VisxS4 laser. This particular technology is especially suited for someone like me because I have very large pupils.

The entire process was VERY quick. The speed at which everything happened made it both easier and more uncomfortable. I got to the office and signed in. They immediately gave me some meds and told me to wait a few minutes. They called me back to get one last reading of my prescription. I thought that after they got my prescription it would be a few minutes because I was pretty sure there were some more people ahead of me. As it turned out Dr. Assil came in at the end of my measurement and I was escorted into the operating room.

Dr. Assil checked out my eyes again and made a few markings on my eye. Then I was placed in the chair and the whole thing began. From the moment I sat in the chair until I got up and could see again was about 15 minutes or so. The actual part of the procedure where they cut open the cornea and apply the laser to my eye probably only lasted about 4 minutes each eye. They cut open the eye (which only took about 20 seconds or so) and removed the flap. They did another quick scan of the eye and than applied the laser with the actual laser being used maybe 30 seconds or so. After they used the laser I could spell something funny which may or may not have been the fried smell of my own eyeball. Kind of disgusting when you think about it huh? As I got up from my seat and looked around things were somewhat cloudy. It was described to me that it would look like I had vaseline on my eyes and that is exactly what it looked like.

They did one last look at my eyes, put these stupid plastic cups over me (which I had to wear all day and the tape hurt like hell this morning removing it. Removing the tape was the most painful part of the whole thing) and I was sent home. I was told not to do any reading or computer work (which if you know me drove me nuts) but I could watch TV. I was annoyed at only being able to watch TV so I went to bed early, 9:30 or so (I was specifically told not to nap yesterday because it dries out your eyes but everyone else I know is told to sleep immediately after), and just got up early and came to work.

So what do I think now? Like I said the rapidness of the procedure made it both good and bad. Good because I didn't have any time to be nervous, it just happened so quickly. Bad because it all seemed kind of rushed and the last thing I wanted was something to be rushed during the operation.

I can't say that the procedure was life-altering. Right now it looks and feels like I have a very dirty and dry pair of contacts on. My vision isn't super clear and my eyes are somewhat irritated. From my understanding this is all very normal in the first few weeks and I will probably discuss it more with the doctor today during my post-op check up. I hope that my vision sharpens up significantly. I'm hoping that I get vision at least as good as it was when I had contacts otherwise I'm not so sure it was all worth it. I like not being tied down to my contacts or glasses, it was nice to be able to see my clock at night and not have to fumble around for my glasses this morning, but I wouldn't necessarily want that at the expense of the clarity of my vision.

I will write about it a few more times over the next few weeks to let you know if things get any better or any worse. I will reserve final judgment until a few weeks from now when my vision should be more or less stable.

UPDATE: For the full story you should see these followups

All Lasik Post

Bright Light Hell

In preparation for getting Lasik I had my comprehensive exam yesterday. It is an exam where they do all sorts of things to you to make sure that your eyes are healthy enough to undergo the procedure.

One of the things they do to you is check the health of your retina. They do this by dilating your eyes and shining a VERY bright light into them. Yesterday when they did this to me I decided it would be an excellent way to torture someone. I can't tell you how painful this was for me yesterday. Just thinking about it now brings tears to my eyes.

No I know what most people are thinking. I have had this done to me before and it wasn't that bad. Well I have too but I don't remember it being this painful. Maybe the light they used was extra bright. Maybe the doctor just took a lot longer than most to ensure the health of my eyes. Whatever it was it hurt like hell. And I only had to endure it for about a minute and a half in each eye. If you did that for a long period of time to someone I can't imagine them not passing out from the pain.

Americans are Sheep

OK, that may sound a little harsh but I really do believe it is true to some degree. Today Saddam Hussein was captured and America rejoiced. Consequently Bush's approval rating will go through the roof as American's jump on the bandwagon and applaud his great leadership.

Most American's will forget that the war is a farce. A part of me is relieved that he is finally captured but truth be told what does it really matter? Does that mean the troops can come home now? No. Do I feel America is safer now? Not really.

We all must remember what really happnened here. We overthrew a foreign government. Granted he was oppressing his people but the fact remain that we took it upon ourselves to say what was good for the Iraqi people and ousted their leader. Its a little self-righteous if you ask me.

Oh I forgot, the war wasn't about getting rid of Saddam. It was about finding the Weapons of Mass Destruction. We found those right?

Wait I'm sorry again. This war was about stopping terrorism. I mean after the 9/11 attacks we had to stop Al Queda. Wait, wasn't that Osama Bin Laden? Oh, I guess it doesn't matter. All Muslims are the same anyway right?

Nice Guys Do Finish Last

Haven't blogged in a while because work has been really busy.

There was this show on NBC called Average Joe. It is another one of those reality shows but this time all the men from which to choose are just "Average" and some were way below average. Now I only watched half of one show but the show recently ended and I thought it was interesting.

Toward the end of the series they introduced a few good looking guys. The twist being that would this beautiful girl choose the nice average guy or the studly hunk. The show came down to two guys, "average" Adam and "hunky" Jason. To keep a long story short she chose Jason.

Now here is my take. Like I said, I didn't really watch the series too much but here is what I do know. Adam seemed like a genuinely nice guy. He wasn't ugly but he wasn't good looking. He is a very successful stock trader in NYC and at age 27 has amassed a small fortune. Jason on the other hand is a 26 year old student in Irvine and lives at home with his parents. He seemed nice enough, not terribly arrogant, but didn't have the "sweet" quality that Jason had. Now, not that money is everything but I think what you do in life and how you live say a lot about who you are.

Before I say anything else I have a disclaimer, I know what I am about to say DOES NOT apply to all women so don't barrage me with comments how all women aren't like this.

It did not surprise me to see her pick the live-at-home hunk. Most women, actually every women I have ever talked to, say that they prefer personality to looks and blah blah blah..... I have always contended that when it comes down to it though, women are as bad as men and will often overlook every other quality in a guy if he is good looking. Not that this show proved my point but it just reinforces my belief.

Its funny because last night I was talking to two women who were berating their love life and how all guys they have dated were either losers or liars. Well Duh. I think the problem that a lot of women have who continunally get in bad relationships is that they tell themselves that they really care about personality but when push comes to shove they choose the looker. They wonder why the hunk they chose isn't nice to them or is a bum or cheats on them when they probably looked passed a hundred decent guys because they were in love with their boyfriend's pecs. Let me let all you women in on a secret. Now while this doesn't apply to all men (I don't think it applies to me) a man's likelihood of cheating is DIRECTLY proportional to his opportunity to do so. Since a man's opportunity to do so is directly proportional to his relative attractiveness you can see why a lot of good looking guys cheat on their girlfriends.

I think we would all be better off if most women just admitted that they are like most men, looks come first and carries much more weight than most women are willing to admit.

Wal-Mart and the Middle Class

I don't normally like to touch on similar topics relatively close together but I read several articles about Wal-Mart in the past week and it made me do some thinking. The first article, by Fast Company, is a nice, albeit long, article about Wal-Mart's tactics in the Market Place. The Los Angeles Times did a three part story where it too addressed Wal-Mart's tactics but also touched on its Global influence as well as it's Global Image.

Here is the topic of the day. Why do people who should know better shop at Wal-Mart and what should be a middle-class job?

Wal-Mart is a behemoth. It is the largest company in the world. Notice I didn't say "largest retailer", it is the largest company period. Bigger than Microsoft, bigger than GM, even bigger than GE. It's revenue tops $245 Billion a year.

The only way it does this is through pure volume. That means a lot of people are shopping at Wal-Mart. Even though I have given up shopping at Wal-Mart I don't hold it against anybody if they do because you can't argue that they don't have lower prices. My problem is that I don't think people realize what they are doing. Or maybe they do but they just don't care. I don't shop at Wal-Mart, partly out of deference for Sergio, but partly because I have problems with some of their practices. The economist in me thinks its great, they eliminate waste at every turn, but I realize that there is a human cost to that.

American's are funny. We want high-quality products. We want them to be environmentally friendly. We want them to be humanely produced. We want a good lifestyle. However when push comes to shove we will forgo some of these things for a great bargain. I don't think people realize that cheap prices have a cost. Something has to give and with Wal-Mart they push so hard for quality that it almost inevitably comes from someone's lifestyle, the worker who produced the good. They not only use cheap labor in their stores but they basically force their suppliers to have cheap labors in their plants. Its a double-edged sword. Wal-Mart has such low prices that people will shop there to stretch out their dollar more. This in effect makes them "wealthier" because they have money for other things. However, everything is interconnected so eventually to sustain these low prices cost must be reduced at the supplier level which eventually leads to lower wages. Of course this makes shopping at Wal-Mart even more of a necessity and the cycle continues.

Not everyone has the luxury I do in that I can choose to pay slightly more for products by not shopping at Wal-Mart. I'm sure some people think that there small little purchases won't make a difference. Well let me tell you something, it does. That's how Wal-Mart gets you, Billions and Billions of small little purchases.

Like I have said, I don't really have a problem with Wal-Mart, at least not like some people do. I kind of agree with them that if you can do it for less than you should. If someone is willing to do the same job for less money why shouldn't an employer hire the other person? Don't argue that the quality of the work won't be the same because if that were the case the consumer wouldn't buy the product, the consumer has the loudest voice of all, their money.

One of their VPs, Robert S. McAdam, said "If we have an advantage,it's that we are offering what people want." I couldn't agree with him more. In the end it is the consumer which decides what will and will not work. The basic point of this rather long blog is this. What is a middle class job? Is packing groceries deserving of a middle-class income? How about a check out clerk? If Americans believe that these are then they would need to make that decision and be willing to pay more for their groceries and other sundry items. However, I think America is speaking loud and clear, they want what is best for themselves RIGHT NOW, and that means the low low Wal-Mart prices. I think the middle-class is about to get a lot smaller.

Union Clarification

I light of my stand on the current California labor strikes I have been labeled by some to be "anti-union". I want to clarify my position a little.

I am not anti-union. In fact I believe Unions are a good thing under certain circumstances. If the employer has a monopoly on employment then I believe the workers should have a monopoly on the labor. This is the case in pro sports and in small towns where one factory is the life-blood of a community. I believe that unions have created a strong middle class in America and are responsible for many of the gains that workers now enjoy.

However, my belief is that people need to be somewhat realistic. In this day and age unions make less sense. With people having the ability to find work at a variety of places I believe that if you are unhappy with your employer you should find a new one.

That is not my point. I actually have no problem with Union grocery workers on strike. In fact, I really hope they win because what they are fighting for is health care, and everyone should have health care.

But this is my point. They have to realize that there union drives up prices at their stores. Don't believe it? Go to a Wall-Mart superstore where they don't have unions. The prices there are significantly less.

Now I believe most people if given the choice will shop where there are lower prices. A few people, myself included, refuse to shop at Wal-Mart because of what they stand for. But not everyone has that luxury. I can easily see a scenario where the Grocery Union wins (which by the way I don't think will happen because the grocery chains seem adamant) but they really lose because the Grocery stores will be unable to compete against non-union labor and be forced to close. That will leave everyone unemployed and probably working at Wal-Mart anyway. Worse, it will reduce competition in the market making things worse off for the average consumer.

Basketball Double Standard

I really don't understand why when it comes to sports there is a double standard in regards to the age in which people can start playing professionally.

Every time the NBA draft comes around and the latest High-school phenom gets drafted people are up in arms about how he should go to college and he is missing out on so much by not attending a university.

Today a 14 year old soccer phenom, Freddy Adu, signed a 6 year contract with MLS today. The kid is 14 years old but nobody is saying anything. This happens all the time in sports like Tennis and Golf but nobody says anything then either. In Baseball, kids go straight out of high school into the farm systems of Major League clubs and guess what .... nobody says a word.

So how come when some kid comes out to play some hoops all of a sudden it's the end of the world?

Local Number Portability

Local Number Portability is about to take effect at the end of the month. For those of you who don't know what this is it basically gives you the right as a consumer to take your cell phone number with you to a new carrier. It used to be that if you switched from say Sprint to T-Mobile you would lose the number associated with your cell phone.

Well all that is going to change. And my comment is, big deal. I think people over-estimate the importance of their phone number. I recently switched my cell phone number and you know how many people called me on my old phone looking for me? 0. I kept the old phone for a month and I didn't receive a single call as soon as I sent out an email telling everyone that my number had changed.

All the important people in your life will just update their own cell phone or organizer with your new number and not even think twice about it. The only concern are those few people who you might talk to once a year or something but how important is it that they be able to call you anyway. If they are that important I'm sure you would have emailed them to the change in your number. If they really want to get a hold of you I'm sure they could if they tried.

I Knew Microsoft Was Evil But This ....

I actually have a whole list of topics I could talk about but I don't really feel like any of them today. So I'm going to write about something interesting that Sergio sent me.

Here is a page that describes what software all the different presidential candidates are running on their websites. Now I kind of doubt that they have any say, or even really care, what software their ISP is running but I think it is kind of funny that W is running Microsoft and IIS while most of the Democratic candidates are running some flavor of Unix and Apache. Gephardt isn't but isn't he really a Republican anyway?

Now most of you know how I feel about Microsoft and how I feel about Republicans. I just think that this is pretty funny. My favorite fact though is how the RNC is also running Microsoft and it measures its uptime in days where as the Democrats run Linux and have an uptime measuring in Months.

Kobe Or Shaq?

This topic is getting kind of old huh? Once again Shaq and Kobe are at it in the media taking jabs at each other. Is it me or is this straight out of Kindergarten? These two need to realize one thing, they don't win three championships without each other. That's why the Lakers didn't win it last year (no Shaq) and that's why Shaq never won anything until Kobe became the player he is today.

That being said, what should the Lakers do? If you had to choose one what would you do? Let me say one thing is for certain, without Shaq the Lakers aren't doing anything right now. The way they are built, they need Shaq. He is truly unstoppable when he wants to be and he is in shape. Nobody in the league has anybody else who can match up. That being said I take Kobe. Huh?

OK, first off Kobe is younger. You're going to get 7 more years out of Kobe than you are with Shaq if not more. Shaq is on his way down the hill, Kobe is still looking up. Kobe, albeit not this year, stays in much better shape than Shaq. He improves on his game year in and year out. The NBA is a guards league. Guards dominate the game because they have the ball in their hands. Its a fast paced game where things have to happen quickly and throwing it in the paint is not wise unless you have a Shaq or a Tim Duncan. Now the last few championships have been won by teams with either Shaq or Tim Duncan which would seem to suggest that having the big man is more important. Well I would argue, yeah if he is Tim Duncan. Tim Duncan, as much as I hate to admit it, is better than Shaq is. Why would I say such a thing? Because Shaq is inconsistent. You know what Duncan is giving you, he gives it to you every night. Shaq has 1 MVP, Duncan 2 and Duncan is younger. The reason, Shaq gets hurt. He misses too many games.

But given all the above I was still leaning toward Shaq until I thought, would I rather have the Bulls teams of the 90's or the Lakers of now. The answer was the Bulls. How come? They had Jordan and he dominated the game from the two guard with almost no big man to speak of (unless you count Luc Longley?) In fact, he routinely beat Shaq and the Magic.

So for the long term I take Kobe. You're simply going to get more out of him, unless he goes to jail.

I'm Back!

Hi everyone! Sorry for the hiatus but I really didn't have internet access for a few days. For those who know me well know that I had withdrawal but now I'm back and feel much better.

Trip to NYC was fun. I got to see everyone I really wanted to. Didn't do anything really crazy or fun but that's because I lived there and didn't really feel like doing any of the touristy type things. Also didn't do the whole stay out until 4:00 a.m. NYC thing since I've been there and done that. Really just met up with some friends I hadn't seen in a while and had lunch or dinner. I miss my New York friends.

However, going back to the city convinced me of one thing, I was absolutely right to move back. Here is a partial list of why I never liked living in NYC.

• It's way too crowded. People bump into you and don't say "I'm sorry".
  
• Drivers are way too impatient. You can be stuck with 20 cars in front of you but the driver behind you insist on honking at you anyway.
  
• There always seems to be a police or ambulance siren.
  
• I pay 1/2 in rent what my other friends pay and have 3x the apartment.
  
• You have to sit next to people you don't know in restaurants.
  
• I had to wait 45 minutes to get a table for brunch in a small little cafe.
  
• The subways are great but being a native California I felt I had to walk way too much.
  

I'm sure I could think of other things but those just came off of my head. Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of advantages, but being who I am I just don't think they are worth it. Sure, some people love to stay out until 4:00 a.m. and then hit a diner afterwards. Those people just aren't me.

Friends My Ass!

OK, what is going on with Friends? I've written about this before but with this latest episode of Friends I have to write about it again. Ross and Rachael belong together. He is her Lobster. Joey isn't even Rachael's Tuna much less her lobster.

I mean, he has wanted her since High School. He dumped the nice Asian girl (Friends definately doesn't have enough Asian people though. Have you seen NYC. Lots of Asian people) for her. He dumped the hot bald girl for her. They have a baby togehter. He said her name at his second wedding. They were married. The list goes on and on and on .......

I shouldn't talk (All my High school friends stay quiet) but isn't this show called Friends? Not, hook up with whoever is next to you?

Renting vs. Buying

I had all these things I wanted to talk about before but forgot all of them. Oh well.

Today's topic is renting vs buying. The age old question that doesn't seem to have an answer. Are you one of those people who believe that renting an apartment is like throwing you money out the window? I use to be one of those people but I'm recently converted. Let me explain why.

Renting has MANY advantages. Chief among those

1. It's less expensive
2. You don't have to do your own repairs
3. You have freedom to move

You really can't underestimate the last two. I would eventually like to own my own home. I'm the type of guy that would be very much into fixing up my own home and being able to decorate the way I want to. However, when I thought about it I realized that I'm definitely not in the position to buy a house. It's not that I can't afford it, I probably could if I tried, but it really doesn't make any sense for me to. Here's why.

I have no idea what I'm going to be doing or where I will be in the next 5 years. At this age, I think it is really important to keep you options open. Buying a house locks you down for at least the next 5 years. It is pointless to buy a house only to sell it within 3 years because for the first 3 years you are paying mostly the interest and very little of the principle. If you do need to move you basically burned even more money by just handing it over to the bank, the real estate agents (Don't forget closing cost which can run Thousands of dollars), and insurance agents.

What if I get a great job offer in Seattle? The nice thing about my situation right now is that I could take it without much though. Not only do I not have a family but I don't have a house I have to sell. Freedom has its price, and for now, it is well worth it.

Ahead of my time

If you follow my blog you know that the two most popular searches are for "Should College Athletes get Paid" and for "Hard Drive Wrong Size"

Well today it was announced that there is going to be a lawsuit against Hard Drive manufacturers for the misleading practice of overstating the capacity of their hard drives. I of course complained about this months ago when I got my new hard drive and I found there to be significantly less capacity than I expected.

State of Women's Sports

The WUSA (Women's Soccer League) announced today that it will be closing up shop. They made the announcement because support of the league has dropped significantly sine its inception in 1999.

On several different radio shows today I have heard commentary how this is just terrible for sports, how it sets women back, how corporate America should sponsor these leagues, blah blah blah. I personally don't care if the WUSA, WNBA, and every other Women's pro sports team goes under. For that matter, I don't really care if the MLS (Men's Soccer League) closes either. I just don't particularly care about these particular leagues.

The fair-minded side of me wants to come out and say how bad it is that the Women's leagues don't really get a fair shake. How, if people would just give it a chance, we might really see something. That it is good for little girls everywhere to see women playing sports. But the rational, free-market side of me thinks that these leagues should not be alive if they can't sustain enough revenue.

I think that the reason it bothers me so much that people complain that we need these leagues is that people aren't putting their money where their mouths are. If it doesn't bother women that these leagues aren't surviving should it really bother anyone. Last time I checked, Women make up 50% of the population. For the most part, women have the same earning potential as men. Women obviously don't prioritize sports the way men do, or at the very least don't really care to pay to see other women play sports. If women really cared about seeing the advancement of women's sports than they would start attending games and buy merchandise. That isn't happening so if women don't care about other women how do they expect men to?

I heard an argument today that the reason corporate America doesn't sponsor women's sports like they do men's is because there are 50 year old men sitting in the CEO's office. What a load of S#!T. Do you think there is a CEO on this planet who, if he believed sponsoring a women's leagues would make him millions of dollars , wouldn't jump on that chance? Of course not. CEO's have jobs to make money, not neglect something because they are in the 'Old Boys Club' . This is a ludicrous as the WNBA threatening to go on strike. That's another story for another day.

Learning to Drive a Stick

Jenny was nice enough to take me to Forest Lawn to practice on a stick shift. I want to learn stick because I think its a practical thing to know how and everyone thinks I do anyway. For whatever reason whenever I say I don't know how to drive a stick someone always comments, "Really? I thought YOU would know how to drive a stick." I don't know why people assume that.

Thanks to the great teaching I was finally able to smoothly get the car into first gear. I can even get the car moving when I'm stopped on a hill. I still roll back a little but I was getting better toward the end and I wasn't stalling very much.

The lowlight of the experience is when I decided I was going to tackle my first major hill. I had been practicing on lots of little hills but decided I was going to go after one of the steeper ones. I went down the hill and turned it around to begin going up. I was stil on a relatively flat part of the hill on my first attempt but the car stalled. The first stall I had in the previous 5 or so minutes. Undaunted I tried again .... and again, and again. For whatever reason I couldn't get it moving. Jenny commented, "Don't be intimitaded". I knew it must be in my head because I had done this before. Well after about 7 stalls or so and me about to give up Jenny asked, "Are you in third?" Sure enough we put the car in first and I had no problem. Boy did I feel stupid.

In the end I had a huge headache, my driving wasn't too smooth at the beginning. However I definitely feel like I got the hang of it. I just need a little more practice.

The $180 Haircut

On my way into work this morning I was listening to Mike and Mike in the Morning on ESPN radio. One of the host, Mike, is well known for being a feminine man. That is, he moisturizes regularly, gets pedicures and manicures, and otherwise cares way too much about his appearance (Not that I don't).

However he went a step to far this morning. The other host, Mike, noticed that Mike had gotten a haircut. Mike often espouses the virtues of Hair Stylist over barbers. I personally agree with him which is whiy I go to 18/8. However today he related a story about how he went to a new stylist on the recommendation of a friend. At the end of the haircut he went to the front and got a bill for $180. No that is not a typo, $180.

Now I'm all for paying more than the $10 you will at a barber, I pay $25, but $180, are you serious? Even Mike was a little flabbergasted, he normally pays $60. This DID NOT include a manicure, pedicure, massage, highlights or anything like that. It didn't even include a tip. Just a haircut. How can any guy in his right mind pay that much for a haircut. Even if I had millions of dollars I wouldn't pay that much JUST for a haircut. Maybe if I got the full treatment but there is no way that there is a $155 difference between what I get and what I could get at a much fancier place. Since a guy has to get his haircut once a month how the heck can anyone afford $180?

Were #1

I was going to do the Friday Five today but it was really stupid this week and right before I found some great news. Once again Princeton is ranked #1 in the US News and World Report. It is the fourth year in a row, the first being in 2000, my last year there. This year we were tied with Harvard(sucks!).

It's funny. Even though I make a big deal of this in my blog in truth I really don't care. The people who take this ranking the most seriously are the incoming students and parents which is a real shame. These rankings have very little to do with how good a school really is. I guarantee that you can get the same level of education at any of the top 20 schools. I would go to certain school for certain things. I would never go to Princeton if I was going to be an actor (However we can claim Brooke Shields, David Duchovany, and Dean Cain) but I would go to USC. If I wanted to study Engineering I would go to MIT but maybe not Yale. . If I wanted an exciting Social Life or to meet lots of girls I would avoid Cal Tech altogether.

Something for Nothing

How unfair is this? The New York Jets are going to start charging their fans $50 to be on the waiting list for tickets. Not to actually get tickets, TO BE ON THE WAITING LIST.

How idiotic is this? Could you imagine being charged money while you wait in line to pay for groceries or a movie ticket. "Umm, excuse me. I know you haven't made up your mind yet on which movie to see but since you have the privilege of waiting in this very long line to buy your tickets we need to charge you a small fee." Yeah, that would go over well. The excuse, they want to "keep the fans in the family." What a load of S#!T. I don't know what type of family they have but I certainly don't charge my family money for nothing.

First 9/11, than the blackouts, now this. Is there ANY question now why I left this godforsaken city?

Are Teachers Underpaid?

A recent study suggest that teachers are paid better than the average american, even better than accountants and many engineers. The study is based on the fact that teachers make an average of $44,000 (I don't know how accurate that is but it is coming from a teacher's union) but work only 9 months in the year. Doing the Math you would see that that would be the equivilant of almost $60,000 a year which is a pretty good salary.

Now teachers will argue that they put in a lot of hours outside of their normal school hours. They have to grade papers and they often participate in after school programs. However, I am going to take a controversial stand (what's new) and agree with the study (I hope my teacher friends like Christina and Michelle forgive me). How can I say this?

Well first let me take the first point, working extra hours. Some teachers argue they work 3000 hours a year. Spread over 40 weeks that means 12 hours a day 6 days a week resting only on Sundays. My point is yeah? When I was a consultant I worked WAY more than that. 72 hour weeks were good weeks. Working 100 hour weeks were not unheard of. My Investment Banking friends AVERAGED 100 hour weeks sometimes "sleeping" (if you can call 2 hours sleep) at the office several days in a row. Even now, I probably work on average 60 hours a week. Its just part of the job. Additionally, teachers receive compensation outside of their actual pay. I know in California there is a box on tax forms that give teachers a tax break on mortgages and other consumer type loans. This could add thousands to a teachers income.

But none of this is my point. My point is that I believe people get paid what they are worth. We live in a free society. People are free to move jobs if they want to. Now do I think I should be paid more? Like every other American of course I do but if it is really the case I should go get a different job (and I probably will if I continue to get underpaid). If I'm worth more I could easily prove it to my company by getting an offer somewhere else. Teachers have the same freedom.

The real problem is Economics. It's simple suppy and demand. There is a strong demand for teachers but an even larger supply of capable teachers. The key word is capable. The reason I say that is because one of the underlying problems is that we have very low standards for teachers. We tend to think that anybody with a a pulse is capable of teaching. We as a society don't really care if they are capable of teaching as long as they stand in front of the students and watch them a few hours a day. The DEMAND is for anybody who is basically willing to babysit the students. Since a lot of people are qualified for this there is the large supply.

Now this creates a problem for teachers who actually teach. Since we as a society don't put a premium on actual teaching skills great teachers are dragged down by their less capable brethren. We as a society therefore refuse to pay more taxes to increase teacher salary because we don't feel that it is a difficult job and that anyone off the street can do it. Do I agree with this? NO. But it is the sad state of affairs. So given our expectations and criteria for teachers I do not beileve teachers are underpaid. I believe the actual problem is that our expectations and criteria for teachers is much too low.

Apparently Everyone in Heaven is Blonde

I'm sitting at home trying to do some work and I have the TV on for background noise. There is a show on the WB called 7th Heaven. I have heard of it before but never watched it. Well first off let me say I'm glad I have never watched it before.

The point of this blog is to ask, how come every girl on the show is blonde? This despite that blondes only make up about 20% of the population. This despite the fact that Blondes are an endangered species. I guess Blondes are considered more attractive but this is a little ridiculous.