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
Monday, July 26, 2004
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."
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.
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
Thursday, July 22, 2004
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
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
Monday, July 19, 2004
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.
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
Friday, July 16, 2004
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.
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
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
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?
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
Monday, July 12, 2004
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.
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
Friday, July 09, 2004
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?
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
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
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?
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
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
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.
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
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
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.
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
Friday, June 25, 2004
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?
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
Thursday, June 17, 2004
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.
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
Monday, June 14, 2004
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.
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
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
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?
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?
Monday, June 07, 2004
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
Saturday, June 05, 2004
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?
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
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
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?
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
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
