I was tagged!!!
So Karen has decided to tag me, which means I have to follow the rules.
The rules: each player starts with 7 random facts/habits about themselves.
People who are tagged need to blog about their seven things and post
the rules as well . At the end of your blog, you need to choose 7
people to get tagged and list their names. Don't forget to leave them a
comment telling them that they have been tagged and to read your blog!
1. When I was young, I had an irrational fear of bees and fire.
2. I am OCD about making sure I lock my doors. And I unplug anything that is not in use. Rachel's family calls me 'Safety Dave'.
3. I have some form of night terrors that recently involve making sure the
dog is breathing in the middle of the night. In the apartment I would
try to keep the ceiling fan from falling on Rachel.
4. Years later, I still have monthly dreams about sleeping through an exam in
school (last night). There has to be something wrong with our education
system when the fear of failing haunts you this long after graduating.
5. I was in the bathroom during the Janet Jackson Super Bowl half time show. Missed all of it.
6. I love board games! The more involved and time consuming the better. Risk, Monopoly, Axis & Allies, Cashflow, Hotels, Trump (the game), etc. I usually want to play again as soon as the 6 hour long game ends. Good thing they make computer games out of most of these.
7. I don't know 7 additional bloggers to 'tag'
I'll have to tag Rachel, Ken, Lucy, Missy...
Monday, April 30, 2007
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Eating Healthy
Ok so it's not Jim's organic peanut butter that wouldn't pass stability 101 for phase separation, but I am eating healthier.
All thanks to my beautiful bride to be (since we are not married yet, I guess she still wants me to live for a long time).
Rachel has been known to offer to cook spaghetti and meatballs. Half way through dinner she will ask what I think of her meatballs. When I say they are good, she starts to smirk a bit and tells me they are turkey meatballs. As long as they taste good and aren't the "wheat balls" they would try to sneak on us at school, I am
OK. I really haven't noticed any difference in switching to whole grain
pastas and whole grain Eggo Waffles etc.
There are many healthy things I do like. We support our local farmer's markets (which should make Discovery Health's Sara Snow happy). We had some amazingly huge
organic grapes this year from a farmers market near Lebanon. Take
normal grapes and inject them with 50% more water and that's what these
tasted like.
But health food has finally gone mainstream in my opinion. Healthy eating used to be a life style choice, but now you can keep your current lifestyle and make healthier choices (see whole grain Eggos).
Exhibit A: Snack Food
During a movie or any sporting event, I like a little snack in my tummy. Rachel found this great product at Trader Joe's.
I don't care if these are healthy, they taste really good. To me they taste very similar to Andy Capp's Cheddar Fries. You can even taste the cooking oil in them which is sunflower etc but still very tasty and 0 g of trans fat!
Exhibit B: Soda
Fact: I drink soda, and that probably won't change any time soon although I do try to drink more water these days.
Organic / Natural Sodas are pretty good. I like Blue Sky which can even be
found in Kroger. Just don't mix up Truly Orange and Orange Divine. One
tastes like a good orange soda (Truly Orange), the other tastes like
orange juice you'd get at Boy Scout camp.
Have I noticed any changes? The most significant change I have noticed is that Fast Food bothers my stomach. I still enjoy a Taco Bell CheesyGordida Crunch and
I had a great double cheeseburger when we went to The Jug today
(www.thejug.com). But Big Mac's etc, they do bother my stomach now that
I don't eat fast food as often. Kinda like your first week eating back
at school before your stomach adjusts. Then you go home for
Thanksgiving and come back and the school food bothers you again.
Rachel may not nominate me for Healthy Eater of the year, but some things are
very easy to try without radically changing my lifestyle.
All thanks to my beautiful bride to be (since we are not married yet, I guess she still wants me to live for a long time).
Rachel has been known to offer to cook spaghetti and meatballs. Half way through dinner she will ask what I think of her meatballs. When I say they are good, she starts to smirk a bit and tells me they are turkey meatballs. As long as they taste good and aren't the "wheat balls" they would try to sneak on us at school, I am
OK. I really haven't noticed any difference in switching to whole grain
pastas and whole grain Eggo Waffles etc.
There are many healthy things I do like. We support our local farmer's markets (which should make Discovery Health's Sara Snow happy). We had some amazingly huge
organic grapes this year from a farmers market near Lebanon. Take
normal grapes and inject them with 50% more water and that's what these
tasted like.
But health food has finally gone mainstream in my opinion. Healthy eating used to be a life style choice, but now you can keep your current lifestyle and make healthier choices (see whole grain Eggos).
Exhibit A: Snack Food
During a movie or any sporting event, I like a little snack in my tummy. Rachel found this great product at Trader Joe's.
I don't care if these are healthy, they taste really good. To me they taste very similar to Andy Capp's Cheddar Fries. You can even taste the cooking oil in them which is sunflower etc but still very tasty and 0 g of trans fat!
Exhibit B: Soda
Fact: I drink soda, and that probably won't change any time soon although I do try to drink more water these days.
Organic / Natural Sodas are pretty good. I like Blue Sky which can even be
found in Kroger. Just don't mix up Truly Orange and Orange Divine. One
tastes like a good orange soda (Truly Orange), the other tastes like
orange juice you'd get at Boy Scout camp.
Have I noticed any changes? The most significant change I have noticed is that Fast Food bothers my stomach. I still enjoy a Taco Bell CheesyGordida Crunch and
I had a great double cheeseburger when we went to The Jug today
(www.thejug.com). But Big Mac's etc, they do bother my stomach now that
I don't eat fast food as often. Kinda like your first week eating back
at school before your stomach adjusts. Then you go home for
Thanksgiving and come back and the school food bothers you again.
Rachel may not nominate me for Healthy Eater of the year, but some things are
very easy to try without radically changing my lifestyle.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Public Companies
Here is my opinion on why I don't like the idea of public companies.
I write this knowing that I really enjoy playing the stock market. I have
even made money over the past few years picking my own stocks.
I guess that is really my main point, that the purpose of these companies
is to make money for the investors (I) who buy stock and not the
employees who work there (E).In fact when the economy is down, the goal
is to make money for the investors even at the expense of the employees
(decrease benefits, layoffs, move jobs overseas).
There is a nearby consumer products giant. This company made $8 billion in profit
last year. In order for the stock to go up they need to make $8 billion
plus 5-7% more next year to meet wall street expectations. If they do
not, the stock will go down as people sell stock in the company.
This company employs 138,000 worldwide. So they made almost $60,000 profit
per employee. That is $60,000 per employee beyond everything they spent
on each person including:
salary
benefits
office space
computers
phones
office supplies
order chemicals and running tests
etc, etc
What would be wrong with that company saying "we choose to have no profit this year but give everyone a $60,000 raise?
What would be wrong is the company would then make no profit and the stock would crash.
But what is wrong with having a company whose goal is to make enough money
to create 100,000 well paying jobs with good health care? That would
seem to be nobel goal, but with no profit and no potential to grow that could never be a publicly traded company.
I would argue the additional $60,000 the employees had would do much more for the economy than the company. The economy is barely hanging on right now because consumers are managing to stretch their credit card debt just a bit further every year. Meanwhile the 500 largest companies have a record amount of cash on hand (from profits) that they are choosing not to spend on anything right now (do they know something?). So putting some of that money in the hands real people would get it circulating faster.
So I think the ideal model is a private company. One of my favorites is
Bose. Known for their great speakers, Bose has always chosen to remain
private. The main reason is that they said they do not want to pressure
from wall street to have to focus on making short term money when they really want
to focus on new innovations.
In fact, they spent 24 years developing a new suspension system for a car. Shown here
Why would a sound company work on car suspensions? They discovered that the math involved for working with sound waves could help improve stability of car suspensions.
But it took 24 years because the calculations are so involved and so fast
they had to wait and bet on computer processor speeds to increase
enough to make it work in a car.
No public company would ever wait 24 years to develop a new product, or even be able employ people in a group so far outside their core product base and explain it to wall street for 24 years without any revenue.
I write this knowing that I really enjoy playing the stock market. I have
even made money over the past few years picking my own stocks.
I guess that is really my main point, that the purpose of these companies
is to make money for the investors (I) who buy stock and not the
employees who work there (E).In fact when the economy is down, the goal
is to make money for the investors even at the expense of the employees
(decrease benefits, layoffs, move jobs overseas).
There is a nearby consumer products giant. This company made $8 billion in profit
last year. In order for the stock to go up they need to make $8 billion
plus 5-7% more next year to meet wall street expectations. If they do
not, the stock will go down as people sell stock in the company.
This company employs 138,000 worldwide. So they made almost $60,000 profit
per employee. That is $60,000 per employee beyond everything they spent
on each person including:
salary
benefits
office space
computers
phones
office supplies
order chemicals and running tests
etc, etc
What would be wrong with that company saying "we choose to have no profit this year but give everyone a $60,000 raise?
What would be wrong is the company would then make no profit and the stock would crash.
But what is wrong with having a company whose goal is to make enough money
to create 100,000 well paying jobs with good health care? That would
seem to be nobel goal, but with no profit and no potential to grow that could never be a publicly traded company.
I would argue the additional $60,000 the employees had would do much more for the economy than the company. The economy is barely hanging on right now because consumers are managing to stretch their credit card debt just a bit further every year. Meanwhile the 500 largest companies have a record amount of cash on hand (from profits) that they are choosing not to spend on anything right now (do they know something?). So putting some of that money in the hands real people would get it circulating faster.
So I think the ideal model is a private company. One of my favorites is
Bose. Known for their great speakers, Bose has always chosen to remain
private. The main reason is that they said they do not want to pressure
from wall street to have to focus on making short term money when they really want
to focus on new innovations.
In fact, they spent 24 years developing a new suspension system for a car. Shown here
Why would a sound company work on car suspensions? They discovered that the math involved for working with sound waves could help improve stability of car suspensions.
But it took 24 years because the calculations are so involved and so fast
they had to wait and bet on computer processor speeds to increase
enough to make it work in a car.
No public company would ever wait 24 years to develop a new product, or even be able employ people in a group so far outside their core product base and explain it to wall street for 24 years without any revenue.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Who paid for this?
As I get older, I am more interested in how society works.
Las Vegas is one of my favorite cities (not that I have been to all of
them). I often hear a lot of criticism about how much money was spent
to build all of these casinos and how many better uses there could have
been for that money.
I understand the point but think it is slightly off target. I now pay a lot more attention to who actually pays for things and whether I agree those people should be paying for those things.
Places that do not bother me:
Las Vegas - All casinos have some people who should not be gambling in them. But in general, if you have the money to fly to Las Vegas
you can probably afford to lose a few hundred dollars. To me, building
big casinos from money people could afford to lose is totally fine if
that's what they want to do.
My local Rec Center - I am not normally one for taxes, but I think building a rec center is a great use of tax money (now why I have to pay a membership fee on top is
another question, maybe to pay for employees and operating costs). But
pooling of people's money to build something no individual can afford is
a great idea. Now I have access to a running track, a pool, basketball
corts etc that maybe I wouldn't have if not for the rec center.
Places that really bother me:
Check Cashing Places - Check into Cash, EZ Payloans,
etc. On the surface no one may have an issue with them since they do
try to extend some credit to help people (usually struggling
financially) if they need money. The problem I have is that all of the
money comes from people who don't make a lot of money and therefore
need small short term loans to make ends meet. These people are paying
for the buildings to be built and to employ people at these places that
take advantage of peoples financial situations. They take a short term
need and profit from it. Most end up falling one paycheck behind their
bills and have to use these companies every payday.
Goodwill - Same logic applies here. Goodwill buildings are built with money spent
by people who can't afford full price clothing and other items. I am a
bit jaded since the Goodwill by me just had a recent renovation make it
look like a huge department store "Goodwill Industries" (unnecessary in
my opinion, but maybe a way to hide cash if they are a non-profit?)
They take donated clothes and resell them. I personally don't think
their prices are much lower than buying something new atWal*Mart.
Publicly Funded Sports Stadiums - Cincinnati, OH where the 2 stadiums ($1 bill
total) were almost 100% publicly funded by a 0.5% increase in sales
tax. What a great social scam. Sports are a big business and all
expenses should be paid by those who profit from the business. In
Cincinnati, you had teams with ticket prices around $20-$30. Now you
make everyone pay a tax to build new stadiums so you can now charge the
same tax payers $40-$50 for these seats (more if you have to pay seatlicences
for season tickets). Now the owners thank the fans for increasing the
value of their franchise by several hundred million and usually sell
the team and take the profit. Of course there is always the threat of
moving the teams if people don't buy them a free stadium. Most cities
cave in hoping to keep the jobs and economic benefits in town. But
football only plays 8 home games in a year, how many jobs can you
really create by doing that? And are they worth charging your residents
$600 million? Casinos find a way to pay off their massive debts in 5-7
years without adding to taxes.
I will wait for another time to discuss why I don't like publicly traded companies.
Las Vegas is one of my favorite cities (not that I have been to all of
them). I often hear a lot of criticism about how much money was spent
to build all of these casinos and how many better uses there could have
been for that money.
I understand the point but think it is slightly off target. I now pay a lot more attention to who actually pays for things and whether I agree those people should be paying for those things.
Places that do not bother me:
Las Vegas - All casinos have some people who should not be gambling in them. But in general, if you have the money to fly to Las Vegas
you can probably afford to lose a few hundred dollars. To me, building
big casinos from money people could afford to lose is totally fine if
that's what they want to do.
My local Rec Center - I am not normally one for taxes, but I think building a rec center is a great use of tax money (now why I have to pay a membership fee on top is
another question, maybe to pay for employees and operating costs). But
pooling of people's money to build something no individual can afford is
a great idea. Now I have access to a running track, a pool, basketball
corts etc that maybe I wouldn't have if not for the rec center.
Places that really bother me:
Check Cashing Places - Check into Cash, EZ Payloans,
etc. On the surface no one may have an issue with them since they do
try to extend some credit to help people (usually struggling
financially) if they need money. The problem I have is that all of the
money comes from people who don't make a lot of money and therefore
need small short term loans to make ends meet. These people are paying
for the buildings to be built and to employ people at these places that
take advantage of peoples financial situations. They take a short term
need and profit from it. Most end up falling one paycheck behind their
bills and have to use these companies every payday.
Goodwill - Same logic applies here. Goodwill buildings are built with money spent
by people who can't afford full price clothing and other items. I am a
bit jaded since the Goodwill by me just had a recent renovation make it
look like a huge department store "Goodwill Industries" (unnecessary in
my opinion, but maybe a way to hide cash if they are a non-profit?)
They take donated clothes and resell them. I personally don't think
their prices are much lower than buying something new atWal*Mart.
Publicly Funded Sports Stadiums - Cincinnati, OH where the 2 stadiums ($1 bill
total) were almost 100% publicly funded by a 0.5% increase in sales
tax. What a great social scam. Sports are a big business and all
expenses should be paid by those who profit from the business. In
Cincinnati, you had teams with ticket prices around $20-$30. Now you
make everyone pay a tax to build new stadiums so you can now charge the
same tax payers $40-$50 for these seats (more if you have to pay seatlicences
for season tickets). Now the owners thank the fans for increasing the
value of their franchise by several hundred million and usually sell
the team and take the profit. Of course there is always the threat of
moving the teams if people don't buy them a free stadium. Most cities
cave in hoping to keep the jobs and economic benefits in town. But
football only plays 8 home games in a year, how many jobs can you
really create by doing that? And are they worth charging your residents
$600 million? Casinos find a way to pay off their massive debts in 5-7
years without adding to taxes.
I will wait for another time to discuss why I don't like publicly traded companies.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Must See TV
TV is awful in general.
In the past year I have done a lot more reading than normal.
There aren't very many original shows on, and the good ones try to play games
with the ratings by saving new episodes for sweeps months.
This causes a huge gap with weeks of reruns that kill the momentum.
In the past couple years I have bailed on several shows including "Lost"
which I really liked. Even this spring I have noticed Rachel has moved
"Gray's Anatomy" from appointment TV toDVR since they have had a ton of reruns.
My only surviving mainstream shows:
1. The Office
2. The Soup (E tv)
So I find myself hunting for more informative shows. Here are some of my new favorites:
Planet Earth (Discovery HD) - Amazing in HD,
the first couple episodes were the most amazing things I have seen. The
slow motion replay of a Great White shark jumping out of the water to
attack is crazy. Although, like most nature shows, there is quite a bit
of cute animals hunting other cute animals that can be sad. Also, the
last couple of episodes have had a lot of footage overlap the the first
few.
Grade: A+
1,000 Places to see before you die (Travel
Channel) - Based on the book. I thought it was neat that the first 2
episodes went to places I have already been (Alaska and Italy). The
couple is surprising not annoying, unlike the pair on "Road Trip" (INHD).
The show is the opposite of Amazing Race, here the goal is to enjoy
each exotic location you go to, not be the fastest rude American to get
through. This show may put Peru on my list.
Grade: B+ (sometimes I feel like the show sets them up to do things I could never experience if I went there)
World's Deadliest Catch 2
(Discovery?) - Hosted by Mike Rowe (Dirty Jobs). Follows King Crab
fisherman from Alaska. Very dangerous work. In a few weeks time a boat
can bring in $500,000 - $1,000,000 worth of king crab. Each crew member
can earn between $30,000 - $50,000 in one short season. These boats
face freezing ice and 70 ft waves. I was scared for my life when we
used to sail in 6-8 ft waves.
Makes me wish I had joined Dale for a leg of king crab while in Alaska.
Grade: B
In the past year I have done a lot more reading than normal.
There aren't very many original shows on, and the good ones try to play games
with the ratings by saving new episodes for sweeps months.
This causes a huge gap with weeks of reruns that kill the momentum.
In the past couple years I have bailed on several shows including "Lost"
which I really liked. Even this spring I have noticed Rachel has moved
"Gray's Anatomy" from appointment TV toDVR since they have had a ton of reruns.
My only surviving mainstream shows:
1. The Office
2. The Soup (E tv)
So I find myself hunting for more informative shows. Here are some of my new favorites:
Planet Earth (Discovery HD) - Amazing in HD,
the first couple episodes were the most amazing things I have seen. The
slow motion replay of a Great White shark jumping out of the water to
attack is crazy. Although, like most nature shows, there is quite a bit
of cute animals hunting other cute animals that can be sad. Also, the
last couple of episodes have had a lot of footage overlap the the first
few.
Grade: A+
1,000 Places to see before you die (Travel
Channel) - Based on the book. I thought it was neat that the first 2
episodes went to places I have already been (Alaska and Italy). The
couple is surprising not annoying, unlike the pair on "Road Trip" (INHD).
The show is the opposite of Amazing Race, here the goal is to enjoy
each exotic location you go to, not be the fastest rude American to get
through. This show may put Peru on my list.
Grade: B+ (sometimes I feel like the show sets them up to do things I could never experience if I went there)
World's Deadliest Catch 2
(Discovery?) - Hosted by Mike Rowe (Dirty Jobs). Follows King Crab
fisherman from Alaska. Very dangerous work. In a few weeks time a boat
can bring in $500,000 - $1,000,000 worth of king crab. Each crew member
can earn between $30,000 - $50,000 in one short season. These boats
face freezing ice and 70 ft waves. I was scared for my life when we
used to sail in 6-8 ft waves.
Makes me wish I had joined Dale for a leg of king crab while in Alaska.
Grade: B
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)