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
Tuesday, August 26, 2003
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?
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
Friday, August 22, 2003
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.
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
Monday, August 18, 2003
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?
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?
Thursday, August 14, 2003
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.
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
Monday, August 04, 2003
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.
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.
National Pastime My Foot
Thursday, July 31, 2003
I am supposed to go to an Angels' game this weekend with my company. In trying to convince me to go, Jenny used the argument, "Well its the national pastime". All I have to say is why the hell do people still call it that?
It actually really bothers me. If baseball is anything it is PAST its TIME. More people in the US watch football. More kids play basketball and it is by far the most popular collegiate sport. So why is baseball still considered the National Past time. I just don't get it. For me the game is much too long, it should be closer to 2 hours than 3. It really bothers me that the players warm up for about 5 minutes before the start of each inning. I mean, do basketball players warm up between quarters or after a time out? Do the players coming of the bench get to shoot a few times at the rim before the game starts up again? In football, do they take a 5 minute break when switching between offense and defense to warm up? No. And these sports are much more grueling from a physical standpoint.
Don't get me wrong. I believe the hardest thing in sports to do is take a wooden bat and get a hit off a 95mph fastball. I would even consider myself a fan of baseball and I follow the game closelsy. But don't tell me that in general baseball players are better athletes than football or basketball players. Don't tell me that its more exciting to watch a baseball game than a football or basketball game. In terms of what people want to watch, it is hands down football. Look at the Superbowl ratings. Look at the ratings week to week. In terms of playing? It's got to be basketball. Anywhere you go there is probably a pick-up game you can get in on. There are a lot more men, at least under the age of 40 and not including softball, that play basketball than baseball.
It actually really bothers me. If baseball is anything it is PAST its TIME. More people in the US watch football. More kids play basketball and it is by far the most popular collegiate sport. So why is baseball still considered the National Past time. I just don't get it. For me the game is much too long, it should be closer to 2 hours than 3. It really bothers me that the players warm up for about 5 minutes before the start of each inning. I mean, do basketball players warm up between quarters or after a time out? Do the players coming of the bench get to shoot a few times at the rim before the game starts up again? In football, do they take a 5 minute break when switching between offense and defense to warm up? No. And these sports are much more grueling from a physical standpoint.
Don't get me wrong. I believe the hardest thing in sports to do is take a wooden bat and get a hit off a 95mph fastball. I would even consider myself a fan of baseball and I follow the game closelsy. But don't tell me that in general baseball players are better athletes than football or basketball players. Don't tell me that its more exciting to watch a baseball game than a football or basketball game. In terms of what people want to watch, it is hands down football. Look at the Superbowl ratings. Look at the ratings week to week. In terms of playing? It's got to be basketball. Anywhere you go there is probably a pick-up game you can get in on. There are a lot more men, at least under the age of 40 and not including softball, that play basketball than baseball.
Praise for Windows XP
Tuesday, July 29, 2003
Yes you read the title correctly. I actually have something nice to say about Windows. For those of you who know me know that I sing the praises of Linux because quite frankly it's better. However, I'm not so biased as to not give credit where credit is due. Windows XP is actually a pretty decent system. Its relatively stable and has the "slick" factor of a pretty good interface.
This weekend I had a good experience with Windows XP. However it was created by a bad experience I had so I guess the two cancel each other out. This past weekend I tried to watch a DVD on my laptop. I've done it before successfully but for some reason it wouldn't work this weekend. I tried several DVDs that I knew worked before but with no success. After much contemplation I figured out that it must have been when I updated the video driver off of Microsoft Windows Update page. Those who have read my rant know how much I hate my Sony Vaio. Well this is the perfect example. I update a driver and something doesn't work. Sony Vaios, and I guess laptops in general, can be very particular about the drivers you use for it. To make a long story short I found this very useful feature in Windows XP that basically allows you to "roll back" your driver in case something went wrong. I use this feature and everything works fine now. Wow, Microsoft did something right.
This weekend I had a good experience with Windows XP. However it was created by a bad experience I had so I guess the two cancel each other out. This past weekend I tried to watch a DVD on my laptop. I've done it before successfully but for some reason it wouldn't work this weekend. I tried several DVDs that I knew worked before but with no success. After much contemplation I figured out that it must have been when I updated the video driver off of Microsoft Windows Update page. Those who have read my rant know how much I hate my Sony Vaio. Well this is the perfect example. I update a driver and something doesn't work. Sony Vaios, and I guess laptops in general, can be very particular about the drivers you use for it. To make a long story short I found this very useful feature in Windows XP that basically allows you to "roll back" your driver in case something went wrong. I use this feature and everything works fine now. Wow, Microsoft did something right.
Pasadena Gold Line
Sunday, July 27, 2003
This weekend I rode the Pasadena Gold Line. It was quite an experience. I liken it to the opening of a big Hollywood movie. We got on the line at the Allen stop, it is the second stop on the line if you are going toward Los Angeles. You would expect to be able to get on the train if you are on the second stop but the train was quite full when we arrived on the platform. We finally did get on, I had to stand the entire way to Union Station. Most people were in a pretty good mood considering how crowded it was but some people were kind of grumpy which I didn't really understand. I guess these people have never been on a subway somewhere else because it gets a lot more crowded on the NYC subway during rush hour.
We took the red line to Pershing Square and caught Shakespeare's "The Merry Wives of Windsor" . It was given by Shakespeare Festival of LA. It was pretty good. Like all Shakespeare, I had to really pay attention to get what was gonig on but I enjoyed it nevertheless.
We took the red line to Pershing Square and caught Shakespeare's "The Merry Wives of Windsor" . It was given by Shakespeare Festival of LA. It was pretty good. Like all Shakespeare, I had to really pay attention to get what was gonig on but I enjoyed it nevertheless.
Should it Be Public
Wednesday, July 23, 2003
OK. I have gotten about a hundred hits today because people are looking for the name of Kobe Bryant's accuser. I just happen to show up in the Google rankings for it. I actually do have the information but have felt conflicted about actually trying to figure it out and further conflicted about posting the info. If you search hard enough on Google you will be able to find it.
Since I am so conflicted I will err on the side of caution and not post the site where you can find the information. However I tend to think that the information should be public. I at first agreed with the mainstream media, her information should be kept private. But after thinking about it I have jumped the fence and am now straddling the other side. Here is my reasoning. For every other crime the victim's name is public record and freely available. It doesn't matter if its a mugging, murder, whatever. Yet with rape they hide the name. The thing is, I think this just further perpetuates the stigma of rape. By hiding the name you are basically saying that the victim needs protection, that it is something they need to hide from.
I just don't see it that way. Rape shouldn't be stigmatized. The victim did nothing wrong yet by hiding her name and "respecting" her privacy you are basically saying she should hide the heinous act that happened to her.
If you are gonig to hide the name of the victim then you really should hide the name of the alleged perpetrator. If the accusations are false, how fair was that to Kobe?
Since I am so conflicted I will err on the side of caution and not post the site where you can find the information. However I tend to think that the information should be public. I at first agreed with the mainstream media, her information should be kept private. But after thinking about it I have jumped the fence and am now straddling the other side. Here is my reasoning. For every other crime the victim's name is public record and freely available. It doesn't matter if its a mugging, murder, whatever. Yet with rape they hide the name. The thing is, I think this just further perpetuates the stigma of rape. By hiding the name you are basically saying that the victim needs protection, that it is something they need to hide from.
I just don't see it that way. Rape shouldn't be stigmatized. The victim did nothing wrong yet by hiding her name and "respecting" her privacy you are basically saying she should hide the heinous act that happened to her.
If you are gonig to hide the name of the victim then you really should hide the name of the alleged perpetrator. If the accusations are false, how fair was that to Kobe?
Dating Math
Thursday, July 17, 2003
I've been reading a lot of books on interview and interview questions to get ready for the person I'm about to hire. One of the techniques is to ask questions that don't really have answers but are meant to see how the person thinks. Questions like, "How many piano tuners are in the world", or "How many cars are in Los Angeles?" So I decided to do one myself. What are the chances that you will meet the perfect person for you? Here is my thought process.
1. There are approximate 300,000,000 people in the U.S. I'm limiting myself to the U.S. because I don't really travel outside the U.S. that often.
2. 1/2 those are women. I don't plan on going the other way anytime soon
3. I find myself physically attracted to about 10% of the population.
4. I think that 1 out of 4 women are really nice and caring.
5. I need a girl who is inteligent. Probably in the top 5% of the population.
6. I need a girl who is athletic or at least keeps in good shape. This probably applies to 1 out of 4 women
7. She has to love my cat. That applies to 100% of all people. (Okay fine. Maybe only 50% since some people refuse to be cat people)
8. She has to be able to watch sports with me and not complain. That's only about 5% of the female population.
9. She has to be trustworthy. I would say that only applies to 1 out of 4 women. (Maybe worse but I'm being generous. Have you seen Cheaters and Jerry Springer?)
10. She has to be happy with herself and emotionally stable. With all these other things going for her she probably is but lets just say that I think only about 15% of women fall in this category.
11. She has be between the ages of 18 ( I know this is young but if she was all of the above who could say no?) and 35 (This is kind of old but the same logic applies). If the average age is 70 than this would apply to approximately 25% of the population.
12. She has to have not been married before and have no kids. Since I already eliminated certain age groups above lets just say that this number stands at 50% for women of ALL ages so that we can make each criteria mutually exclusive.
13. I'm going to throw in a "TILT" factor of 25% for things I've missed like, "Not a muderer, not from outer space, etc" and because I tend to be picky.
Now do the math. Let's assume that all of the above are mutually exclusive properties. This will simplify the math. This leaves me with exactly 1.37 people in the US that are perfect for me. Since I can't date a .37 of a person that leaves just 1 PERSON! What makes this problem much worse is that I will never meet all 300,000,000 People in the U.S. If I only meet lets say 25,000 of those people then my number drops to 0.0001. What's worse is that she has to
A. Like me too
B. Be single at the time
Lets just say that A is a 5% likelihood (probably worse but who knows) and B is only 1% (If she is so great chances are she's attached). I have pretty much a 0% chance of finding the right girl. This is very disturbing to me.
1. There are approximate 300,000,000 people in the U.S. I'm limiting myself to the U.S. because I don't really travel outside the U.S. that often.
2. 1/2 those are women. I don't plan on going the other way anytime soon
3. I find myself physically attracted to about 10% of the population.
4. I think that 1 out of 4 women are really nice and caring.
5. I need a girl who is inteligent. Probably in the top 5% of the population.
6. I need a girl who is athletic or at least keeps in good shape. This probably applies to 1 out of 4 women
7. She has to love my cat. That applies to 100% of all people. (Okay fine. Maybe only 50% since some people refuse to be cat people)
8. She has to be able to watch sports with me and not complain. That's only about 5% of the female population.
9. She has to be trustworthy. I would say that only applies to 1 out of 4 women. (Maybe worse but I'm being generous. Have you seen Cheaters and Jerry Springer?)
10. She has to be happy with herself and emotionally stable. With all these other things going for her she probably is but lets just say that I think only about 15% of women fall in this category.
11. She has be between the ages of 18 ( I know this is young but if she was all of the above who could say no?) and 35 (This is kind of old but the same logic applies). If the average age is 70 than this would apply to approximately 25% of the population.
12. She has to have not been married before and have no kids. Since I already eliminated certain age groups above lets just say that this number stands at 50% for women of ALL ages so that we can make each criteria mutually exclusive.
13. I'm going to throw in a "TILT" factor of 25% for things I've missed like, "Not a muderer, not from outer space, etc" and because I tend to be picky.
Now do the math. Let's assume that all of the above are mutually exclusive properties. This will simplify the math. This leaves me with exactly 1.37 people in the US that are perfect for me. Since I can't date a .37 of a person that leaves just 1 PERSON! What makes this problem much worse is that I will never meet all 300,000,000 People in the U.S. If I only meet lets say 25,000 of those people then my number drops to 0.0001. What's worse is that she has to
A. Like me too
B. Be single at the time
Lets just say that A is a 5% likelihood (probably worse but who knows) and B is only 1% (If she is so great chances are she's attached). I have pretty much a 0% chance of finding the right girl. This is very disturbing to me.
You must be joking
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
I don't understand religious conservatives sometimes. Most religious people I know are kind and compassionate so I guess its just a few of the crazys that get my attention.
Pat Robertson recently requested that his audience pray for the "removal" of three justices from the Court in the wake of its ruling that decriminalized sodomy. The three justices he refers to are of course liberal. He states, "One justice is 83-years-old, another has cancer and another has a heart condition. Would it not be possible for God to put it in the minds of these three judges that the time has come to retire?"
I mean seriously. Whatever your beliefs are and how you feel about the ruling that is no reason to pray for the "removal" of three judges from the Supreme Court. Maybe I'm reading too much into it but he is basically asking God to do something to get rid of three sick people on the court. Do you really think God would do something like that? If that was his plan and God chose to interfere wouldn't he just not let those people on the Court in the first place? Wouldn't that have been easier than just killing them to remove them?
Pat Robertson recently requested that his audience pray for the "removal" of three justices from the Court in the wake of its ruling that decriminalized sodomy. The three justices he refers to are of course liberal. He states, "One justice is 83-years-old, another has cancer and another has a heart condition. Would it not be possible for God to put it in the minds of these three judges that the time has come to retire?"
I mean seriously. Whatever your beliefs are and how you feel about the ruling that is no reason to pray for the "removal" of three judges from the Supreme Court. Maybe I'm reading too much into it but he is basically asking God to do something to get rid of three sick people on the court. Do you really think God would do something like that? If that was his plan and God chose to interfere wouldn't he just not let those people on the Court in the first place? Wouldn't that have been easier than just killing them to remove them?
Good news for Gum
Thursday, July 10, 2003
Singapore has finally lifted the ban they had on gum.
I have been to Singapore and have a number of friends who are from there. I always thought this was a pretty silly law. Basically, Singapore is proud that it is one of the safest and cleanest places in the world. And it really is. They have very strcit laws concerning littering, smoking, etc. A fine for littering starts at $1000 and they are very serious about it. Not only do they ban firearms but it is a captital offense to carry or import them. Remember Michael Faye and the caning. That wasn't an isolated incident. It's funny because people from Singapore love to live there. They feel so safe and they appreciate their almost pristine surroundings.
I have been to Singapore and have a number of friends who are from there. I always thought this was a pretty silly law. Basically, Singapore is proud that it is one of the safest and cleanest places in the world. And it really is. They have very strcit laws concerning littering, smoking, etc. A fine for littering starts at $1000 and they are very serious about it. Not only do they ban firearms but it is a captital offense to carry or import them. Remember Michael Faye and the caning. That wasn't an isolated incident. It's funny because people from Singapore love to live there. They feel so safe and they appreciate their almost pristine surroundings.
How to Pick a Checkout Line
Thursday, June 26, 2003
Lately I've been noticing that when checking out I definately have a formula on how to pick a checkout line. If anyone else has insight please feel free to comment. Here are my criteria in order of what I think is important.
1. The number of people in line matters more than the number of items. This is why the express line is not always better. The more people in line the more idiots there are that need price checks or something like that.
2. Look at the cashier. Not to be ageist but younger is better. Too young is bad though because they don't know what they are doing. If you can, pick the line with the manager (s/he will be dressed up, most likely wearing a tie) because they tend to be faster and can resolve all problems without having to ask someone else.
3. Look what makes up the line. Often times what looks like a long line is not because there is an entire family waiting together in which case there is really only one customer ahead of you, not 5.
4. Look at the demographics of the people ahead of you. Again, not to be ageist or sexist but younger men are the best. They tend not to ask questions and they almost always seem to pay in cash or credit card. For whatever reason the older and more female =) you get the more likely you are to write a check or need something answered. Men hate writing and hate even more admitting they don't know something.
5. This will contradict one somewhat but all else being equal, the less items the people in front of you have the better. Just don't bet that the "express" lane is any faster because it usually has 3x as many people. You need to find the right balance.
6. Don't get behind a hot girl and a male cashier or any guys and a hot female cashier (unless you want to check out the girl). I swear there is much to much flirting going on in the checkout line. Yesterday I had a male cashier practically walk out with the hot girl to put the groceries in her car.
7. Check out at an alternate location. Places like Target allow you to check out in their Garden or Electronic section even if you aren't buying anything in that department. These lines are usually much shorter.
1. The number of people in line matters more than the number of items. This is why the express line is not always better. The more people in line the more idiots there are that need price checks or something like that.
2. Look at the cashier. Not to be ageist but younger is better. Too young is bad though because they don't know what they are doing. If you can, pick the line with the manager (s/he will be dressed up, most likely wearing a tie) because they tend to be faster and can resolve all problems without having to ask someone else.
3. Look what makes up the line. Often times what looks like a long line is not because there is an entire family waiting together in which case there is really only one customer ahead of you, not 5.
4. Look at the demographics of the people ahead of you. Again, not to be ageist or sexist but younger men are the best. They tend not to ask questions and they almost always seem to pay in cash or credit card. For whatever reason the older and more female =) you get the more likely you are to write a check or need something answered. Men hate writing and hate even more admitting they don't know something.
5. This will contradict one somewhat but all else being equal, the less items the people in front of you have the better. Just don't bet that the "express" lane is any faster because it usually has 3x as many people. You need to find the right balance.
6. Don't get behind a hot girl and a male cashier or any guys and a hot female cashier (unless you want to check out the girl). I swear there is much to much flirting going on in the checkout line. Yesterday I had a male cashier practically walk out with the hot girl to put the groceries in her car.
7. Check out at an alternate location. Places like Target allow you to check out in their Garden or Electronic section even if you aren't buying anything in that department. These lines are usually much shorter.
The Brilliant Bush Tax Cut
Wednesday, June 25, 2003
So I just received the first benefit of Bush's Jobs and Growth Act of 2003. I got a whole $30 more in my paycheck. Big Deal.
Over the course of the year that means I will have saved $720. That is the keyword SAVE. This is why Bush's tax plan makes absolutely no sense to me. Do I really feel richer with my additional $30 twice a month? Not really. Do I really plan on spending this new found money on anything? Not really. The money will go nicely away somewhere in the computers of my bank.
Maybe its because I don't have a family and I have the ability to save a lot every month. I understand that most people my age aren't in the position to save very much money and would welcome the extra cash. Those with families, struggling and in my income bracket probably really do need the relief. But that being said, if those familes are really struggling how about those who earn minimum wage? How about those who struggle to get by and make 1/4 or even 1/5 of what I make. How do you think they feel? Trust me, I know. My mom raised 3 kids on her own and put me through college on 1/3 of what I make today. Why don't you just give her some more money back?
Maybe I'm more magnanimous than most but come on people. Let's forget the human part of my argument for a second. After this, it's basic economic theory. My marginal propensity to consume is MUCH lower than someone like my mother. I MIGHTspend $10 of my new found $60 a month. Someone who is poor? They WILL spend all $60. However, for a cut this small I probably won't spend ANY of that $60. So I, the "rich" (I don't consider myself wealthy but in this context I would have to be), really do just get richer. And or course this doesn't at all help the economy now since I'm not consuming any more. It doesn't help the economy later because we just put ourselves into a bigger deficit in the future.
I'm not promoting communism, quite the contrary. I'm probably the biggest Capitalist and fan of Adam Smith there is. Let's just be honest with ourselves. If you want to help the wealthy fine, but don't cloak it behind the charade of trying to stimulate the economy. Clearly there are better ways to do that than with this bogus tax cut.
Over the course of the year that means I will have saved $720. That is the keyword SAVE. This is why Bush's tax plan makes absolutely no sense to me. Do I really feel richer with my additional $30 twice a month? Not really. Do I really plan on spending this new found money on anything? Not really. The money will go nicely away somewhere in the computers of my bank.
Maybe its because I don't have a family and I have the ability to save a lot every month. I understand that most people my age aren't in the position to save very much money and would welcome the extra cash. Those with families, struggling and in my income bracket probably really do need the relief. But that being said, if those familes are really struggling how about those who earn minimum wage? How about those who struggle to get by and make 1/4 or even 1/5 of what I make. How do you think they feel? Trust me, I know. My mom raised 3 kids on her own and put me through college on 1/3 of what I make today. Why don't you just give her some more money back?
Maybe I'm more magnanimous than most but come on people. Let's forget the human part of my argument for a second. After this, it's basic economic theory. My marginal propensity to consume is MUCH lower than someone like my mother. I MIGHTspend $10 of my new found $60 a month. Someone who is poor? They WILL spend all $60. However, for a cut this small I probably won't spend ANY of that $60. So I, the "rich" (I don't consider myself wealthy but in this context I would have to be), really do just get richer. And or course this doesn't at all help the economy now since I'm not consuming any more. It doesn't help the economy later because we just put ourselves into a bigger deficit in the future.
I'm not promoting communism, quite the contrary. I'm probably the biggest Capitalist and fan of Adam Smith there is. Let's just be honest with ourselves. If you want to help the wealthy fine, but don't cloak it behind the charade of trying to stimulate the economy. Clearly there are better ways to do that than with this bogus tax cut.
Too Much To Worry About
Monday, June 16, 2003
I decided that I'm never having kids. My cat had emergency surgery on Saturday because he basically couldn't urinate all day. I watched him climb into the litter box every few minutes and sit there for about 10 minutes with only a few drops coming out. He became lethargic, wouldn't you after sitting on the toilet all day while accomplishing nothing, and started trying to go anywhere he could. After he threw up I decided that was enough and rushed him to an emergency vet.
All is ok right now. He is still at the vet and they are watching him but he seems to be ok. He's a little pissed at me (no pun intended) but otherwise doing fine. What this whole thing has taught me is that I don't want kids. It's way too much stress. I guess I'm like Marlin in "Finding Nemo" (which I saw on Sunday and highly recommend) who can't help but worry about Nemo all the time. All day Saturday and Sunday all I could think about was if my cat was going to be ok. I can't imagine how I would have felt if it was my own child.
All is ok right now. He is still at the vet and they are watching him but he seems to be ok. He's a little pissed at me (no pun intended) but otherwise doing fine. What this whole thing has taught me is that I don't want kids. It's way too much stress. I guess I'm like Marlin in "Finding Nemo" (which I saw on Sunday and highly recommend) who can't help but worry about Nemo all the time. All day Saturday and Sunday all I could think about was if my cat was going to be ok. I can't imagine how I would have felt if it was my own child.
Monrovia Trolley Schedule
Wednesday, June 04, 2003
I keep getting hits about the schedule for the Monrovia Trolley even though I myself have never posted it. However, the city of Monrovia has failed to do so as well so as a service to those looking to find out here it is. I've also included approximate routes. I am in no way associated with Monrovia and in no way can I guarantee that the below hours of operation are correct or won't change.
Weekdays 11 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. * every 12 minutes (Goes form the Albertson Shopping center, down Huntington, to Myrtle and Foothill)
Fridays 4 p.m. to 12 a.m. * every 15 minutes (Goes from Fifth and Huntington, down Huntington, and up Myrtle. On Myrtle it turns left on Walnut, goes Up Primrose before heading back to Myrtle on Lemon)
Saturdays 4 p.m. to 12 a.m. * every 15 minutes. (Essentially same as above but without the turn on Walnut.)
Weekdays 11 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. * every 12 minutes (Goes form the Albertson Shopping center, down Huntington, to Myrtle and Foothill)
Fridays 4 p.m. to 12 a.m. * every 15 minutes (Goes from Fifth and Huntington, down Huntington, and up Myrtle. On Myrtle it turns left on Walnut, goes Up Primrose before heading back to Myrtle on Lemon)
Saturdays 4 p.m. to 12 a.m. * every 15 minutes. (Essentially same as above but without the turn on Walnut.)
Rich People Do Have a Heart
Tuesday, May 20, 2003
I was very impressed by a statment made by Warren Buffet. For those who don't know who he is he is the head of Berkshire Hathaway which is basically one of the most successful investment companies on the planet. He is known to be an absolute genius when it comes to picking stocks and is probably rivaled by only Bill Gates as the richest man in America.
Anyway, Buffet recently commented on the proposed tax break on dividends that recently passed through the senate. Now you would think for someone so deeply invested in the stock market that Buffet would be all over this tax break. Afterall, he stands to gain millions if this bill goes through. But he actually came out against it. I couldn't believe my eyes when I read it. A rich capitalist with a soul. (Actually, who am I to call him a rich capitalist?) Read the article. He actually makes a very cogent argument. Everyone and their brother knows this will only benefit the rich but somehow Bush and the republicans want to make it seem like they care for the poor. How many poor people do you know own stock?
Anyway, Buffet recently commented on the proposed tax break on dividends that recently passed through the senate. Now you would think for someone so deeply invested in the stock market that Buffet would be all over this tax break. Afterall, he stands to gain millions if this bill goes through. But he actually came out against it. I couldn't believe my eyes when I read it. A rich capitalist with a soul. (Actually, who am I to call him a rich capitalist?) Read the article. He actually makes a very cogent argument. Everyone and their brother knows this will only benefit the rich but somehow Bush and the republicans want to make it seem like they care for the poor. How many poor people do you know own stock?
Should College Athletes Be Paid?
Thursday, April 24, 2003
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. Most of what you find on the net for this subject are all paid essays. Obviously this is not one of them. Feel free to use my ideas but just make sure you quote me or reference me if you use any of it in a paper. Otherwise you could get caught for plagerism :)
Someone found their way to my site by doing a search for 'Should college atheletes get paid'. Not that I've ever talked about this but in one of my blogs I did talk about athletes getting paid and how my mom put me through college. This subject is interesting to me so I figure I would touch it.
I know its not like me but I really don't have a strong opinion about this subject. I really do see both sides of this argument. I tend to lean toward no, college athletes should not get paid. Here is my reasoning. I actually have to start with the opposite view, Athletes should get paid. Basketball and Football teams bring millions of dollars to the universities. Not only do the directly bring in cash through ticket sales, merchandise, and fees for playoff appearances but they bring in money through higher alumni donations and higher enrollments. They put in grueling hours both practicing, training, and going to school (well some athletes). However NCAA rules stipulate that an athlete can not have a job that pays him/her more than $2000 during the year.
To me this is a little unfair. The reasoning behind this is you could mask paying the athlete by giving him a bogus job where he does nothing but gets paid a huge amount of money. Now I had a summer job that once paid me a lot. I also kept a job during the year where I worked 8-10 hours a week and probably collected several thousand during the year. Now under NCAA rules I wouldn't be eligible to play. I didn't do anything unscrupulous. I definitely didn't get the jobs because I'm an athlete. Why should an athlete be treated differently? Probably less than 1% of college athletes have the ability to go pro and make millions yet all athletes are governed under the same rules.
That being said, college athletes do get a full scholarship. This can be worth upwards of $120,000. A lot of athletes don't care but this is quite a deal. Further there would be terrible inequities in the system. Using my reasoning only Men's Basketball and Football players would get paid. Well how fair is that? You know that would never fly. Further, at least in Basketball, thereare other choices now. There are developmental basketball leagues out there. Athletes have other, albeit less desirable, options than to go to college. I don't buy the argument that they put in so much time training and practicing and get nothing in return. My roommate in college was a world-class rower. He probably put in more hours training than anyone else I knew yet he still found time to study and be a model student. We all have our own unique situations which take large amounts of time.
I don't have all the answers to this question but this was my 2 cents.
If you like this post you may like these other post:
Athletes
Overpaid
sports
Someone found their way to my site by doing a search for 'Should college atheletes get paid'. Not that I've ever talked about this but in one of my blogs I did talk about athletes getting paid and how my mom put me through college. This subject is interesting to me so I figure I would touch it.
I know its not like me but I really don't have a strong opinion about this subject. I really do see both sides of this argument. I tend to lean toward no, college athletes should not get paid. Here is my reasoning. I actually have to start with the opposite view, Athletes should get paid. Basketball and Football teams bring millions of dollars to the universities. Not only do the directly bring in cash through ticket sales, merchandise, and fees for playoff appearances but they bring in money through higher alumni donations and higher enrollments. They put in grueling hours both practicing, training, and going to school (well some athletes). However NCAA rules stipulate that an athlete can not have a job that pays him/her more than $2000 during the year.
To me this is a little unfair. The reasoning behind this is you could mask paying the athlete by giving him a bogus job where he does nothing but gets paid a huge amount of money. Now I had a summer job that once paid me a lot. I also kept a job during the year where I worked 8-10 hours a week and probably collected several thousand during the year. Now under NCAA rules I wouldn't be eligible to play. I didn't do anything unscrupulous. I definitely didn't get the jobs because I'm an athlete. Why should an athlete be treated differently? Probably less than 1% of college athletes have the ability to go pro and make millions yet all athletes are governed under the same rules.
That being said, college athletes do get a full scholarship. This can be worth upwards of $120,000. A lot of athletes don't care but this is quite a deal. Further there would be terrible inequities in the system. Using my reasoning only Men's Basketball and Football players would get paid. Well how fair is that? You know that would never fly. Further, at least in Basketball, thereare other choices now. There are developmental basketball leagues out there. Athletes have other, albeit less desirable, options than to go to college. I don't buy the argument that they put in so much time training and practicing and get nothing in return. My roommate in college was a world-class rower. He probably put in more hours training than anyone else I knew yet he still found time to study and be a model student. We all have our own unique situations which take large amounts of time.
I don't have all the answers to this question but this was my 2 cents.
If you like this post you may like these other post:
Athletes
Overpaid
sports
Diesel Jeans: Worth it?
Sunday, April 13, 2003
So I went and did it. Every year for my birthday I buy myself something kind of frivolous. One year I bought some rollerblades, another year I bought some RayBan Sunglasses. This year I topped myself, I bought a pair of Diesel Jeans.
I went to South Coast Plaza because they have a Diesel Store. You can buy Diesel Jeans in stores like Nordstroms but I figured my first trip into the world of designer jeans I would go straight to the source. I must say that I love South Coast Plaza. I know there are a lot of people who have a problem with this bastion of capitalism but people who know me know why I love this place. Its big and it has infinite choices . If you can buy it its probably somewhere in South Coast. People in OC just have too much time and money.
So are the jeans worth it? People who own them swear by them. For me the jury is still out. I like the way they look, and I like the way they feel so right off the bat I will say that they are better jeans. But are they worth 3x-4x the cost of regular jeans. Well supposedly Diesels don't wear out as fast and are really good about keeping their color so I'll have to let you know in a few months.
I went to South Coast Plaza because they have a Diesel Store. You can buy Diesel Jeans in stores like Nordstroms but I figured my first trip into the world of designer jeans I would go straight to the source. I must say that I love South Coast Plaza. I know there are a lot of people who have a problem with this bastion of capitalism but people who know me know why I love this place. Its big and it has infinite choices . If you can buy it its probably somewhere in South Coast. People in OC just have too much time and money.
So are the jeans worth it? People who own them swear by them. For me the jury is still out. I like the way they look, and I like the way they feel so right off the bat I will say that they are better jeans. But are they worth 3x-4x the cost of regular jeans. Well supposedly Diesels don't wear out as fast and are really good about keeping their color so I'll have to let you know in a few months.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
