The ACC's Next Television Contract

I think it's safe to admit that if my blog were judged based on how often I make new entries, it would be a complete failure. I should probably stop acknowledging the fact that I'm slack. Still, to anyone that may still regularly check for updates, I apologize. I suppose I've made other things such as work and TV higher priorities. Anyway, the beginning of football season also got in the way. Just like the last few years, I was really excited for the beginning of college football season. Clemson had a new coaching staff, more experience at the line, and CJ Spiller was returning. I had high hopes. Unfortunately, we haven't performed quite as expected. It wouldn't be so bad if the ACC still garnered respect as a football conference. Alas, we're mediocre in a mediocre conference.

Over the last few years, the SEC has gradually established itself as the dominant conference in college football. They sealed the deal with a $3 billion television contract that took effect this year. The value of the ACC's television contract? $258 million. ACC schools on average earn about $3M a year from television rights, and SEC schools will now make approximately FIVE TIMES that. Beyond the obvious questions of whether such disparity is even healthy for college football, it's clear that the ACC (and other conferences) needs to at least somewhat close that gap or SEC schools will be so flush with cash no conference will have any hope to ever catch up. John Swofford (the head ACC honcho) has made it apparent that the conference is at least a little worried about the television contract situation, and is beginning to look at options. It'll be interesting to see what happens, but I developed a theory today on what I think could happen.

Comcast, the nation's largest cable provider, is worried that their business model is dying. They believe that to guarantee their survival they need to acquire content. Their current strategy is pursuing the entertainment giant NBC Universal. Their shareholders don't seem to agree (their stock dropped upon announcing their new strategy) and Time Warner doesn't either (they recently separated their cable division from their content division). Still, management is adamant so the naysayers don't really seem to matter right now. Acquiring NBC Universal would give Comcast a plethora of channels and content and give them significant leverage they previously lacked. They've hinted that one of their first priorities would be to create a challenger to ESPN.

While Comcast's new sports network will start out with whatever rights Comcast and NBC currently have, they'll need more if they want to become a serious challenger to ESPN. In the realm of college football, the SEC is pretty much off limits as they are deep in bed with ESPN and CBS. IF comcast succeeded at purchasing NBC Universal, the birth of their sports network would probably occur fairly close to the time the ACC's current contract expires in 2011. The logical move for Comcast would be to acquire the rights to a conference with a large foothold within its subscriber base since it may take a few years to convince other cable networks to broadcast its new sports behemoth. Comcast has a heavy presence on the east coast in areas such as Atlanta, Florida, South Carolina, Virginia, and Boston, all ACC markets. The ACC would most likely be happy to oblige to save the expense of starting its own network (something they seem hesitant to do anyway). Comcast would be betting on an ACC resurgence and the ACC would be betting on Comcast leveling the sports broadcasting playing field.

Will the ACC narrow the gap with the SEC in its new contract? Probably, but by how much? The SEC signed its contract just a few months before the economy took a nose dive (and they hired away one of ESPN's best negotiators in hopes of getting a better deal, which seems to have worked). Also, even if the ACC improves by 2011 it won't be as appealing as the SEC. Maybe the ACC could double its contract value to $500M or $600M but it won't get anywhere near the SEC's $3B. Sure, my prediction doesn't leave a lot of room for error (such as Comcast shareholders voting down a NBC acquisition) but it's definitely possible. If it happens, you read it here first.

Jambalaya and Evil Prehistoric Dodo Birds

My weekend was fairly uneventful yet not boring. If you read my 'downtown' blog you may be shocked to find out that I only went downtown once this week. My liver and credit card statements both owe me thank you notes after the last few weekends [DISCLAIMER: I have multiple family members who read this blog so I feel obligated to reiterate that 1) No, I'm not a raging alcoholic. 2) My liver is quite healthy 3) Yes, mom, I follow the disclaimer on Bud Light bottles that advise one to 'drink responsibly' and there is no cause for alarm or reason to worry at night.] On Saturday night, I actually went to the driving range and realized with the help of a friend that my golf technique is quite awesome with the exception of nearly every aspect of my swing and my handling of of a) irons b) woods c) the putter. I do, however, have under control the operation of the ball retriever for those times when I aim for the water. Time to hit the reset button on my golf game.

On to the main topic of discussion. As I was eating the chorizo and bell pepper jambalaya that I made for lunch, I realized that there was nothing of particular interest to me on television. So I ended up watching this show on BBC called "Primeval". I had heard it did pretty well and had decent ratings and I admittedly was quite the dinosaur nerd as a kid so I figured the show had to be awesome. The premise of the show is apparently that anomalies start appearing all over England that allow 'creatures' from both the past and present to travel into our time period, of course wrecking havoc on everything in sight. There's a British intelligence agency apparently set up to track and contain these anomalies. So, apparently you get to see both dinosaurs and alien-looking things from the future in one show. How cool is that? (as a kid I was a huge space nerd. I'm definitely losing cool points with at least one person reading this blog). At first I was somewhat into it, it seemed (and still does seem) like an interesting concept for a show. Yet... the show kinda sucked. By posting this, I'm hoping that some Primeval fan out there reads this and runs to the defense of the show to explain to me how the show makes sense. I'm really just confused as to how such a big network could produce something so terrible. (I should point out that I did hear BBC declined to renew the show this year, but it took them a few seasons to figure it out.)

First, these anomalies are apparently just doorways from other time periods which you can go through from either direction. I don't claim to know anything about aliens from the future, but why would dinosaurs (in this episode the evil creatures were actually prehistoric birds that looked like dodo birds) see a doorway of blinding light and feel obligated to run INTO it. Then, apparently running through the anomaly gave these dodo looking birds a massive injection of rabies AND supernatural steroids because they proceed to chase after every human in sight with no good intentions AND when these poor folks try to speed away in their shiny new SUV the dodo birds OUTRUN them and cause them to wreck. Really? Apparently the natural instinct of a giant bird placed in unfamiliar surroundings is to kill and eat everything in sight. I suppose acting confused and bewildered would be too boring. Luckily, one of the main characters devises an ingenious, fool-proof plan to kill one of the birds. As everyone is fleeing through a field of unexploded mines he steps on the trigger of one of these mines. He waits until the bird catches up, and jumps off of the trigger just in time for the mine to detonate and obliterate the bird into "featherines" [pardon my newly created corny word]. Somehow, the person is so quick that he gets away unscathed. I've never stepped on an unexploded mine, but I have a feeling that minefields would be a lot less dangerous if you could simply run REALLY fast and outrun the blasts. In the end, the birds are fooled into running back through the anomaly by one of the humans cleverly deciding to play the sounds of a prehistoric dodo bird distress call via record player. Doesn't everyone have at least one vinyl of the classic prehistoric dodo bird distress call in their collection? The acting and story line were also far from exemplary. It was one of those shows where someone says "I think they're gone" and you immediately know that 3 seconds later the birds are going to somehow appear as if on cue.

The preview had me enticed to watch the show again for a few seconds until I remembered that I was not enjoying the episode that I was already watching. Please don't watch this show. On second thought, please watch it and tell me if the show I saw was a fluke or if BBC executives really were shortsighted enough to hire either the writing staff from the last "Indiana Jones" movie or perhaps some ninth grade English class from Iowa. Apologies to crystal skull fans and Iowans.

Why the U.S. Should Support the "Coup" in Honduras

The most obvious question I ask of myself right now is: why am I sitting down to write a blog entry on Friday, July 3? Have I no life? I console myself with the fact that I did just get off work (yes, I had to work today) and ... the events that I'm seeing in Honduras right now are.. very troubling to me and I'd like to spread the word.

As you may already know, there was recently a coup in Honduras, with the president being exiled out of the country at the crack of dawn. The U.N. has almost unanimously condemned the coup, with even President Obama calling the coup illegal. Most of the world is isolating Honduras and demanding that the president be reinstated. The problem is... from what I can tell, it's not a coup! The actions of the Honduras military are legal and fall within the country's legal framework. Before reading further, it should be noted that the person who took over in this "coup" is actually from the same political party as the president who was ousted! I found a chronology of events on another blog called 'Atlas Shrugs' by Pamela Geller. While I haven't independently verified all of the facts, the chronology conforms with what I've been reading in The Wall Street Journal, which also maintains that the "coup" is legal and should be supported by the United States. I'm going to for the most part copy that chronology here, as it is already well worded. I've removed some background and events that I've deemed less important or more speculative. The original chronology builds background by painting Mr. Zelaya as an extreme leftist. That may be so, but he was democratically elected so I have no issue with that. What's important is that we help Honduras maintain their democracy. Keep in mind that the chronology is not written by me but by a source of the author of the blog I mentioned earlier:

[

· Mel Zelaya was elected 3 ½ years ago with an underwhelming 49% of the vote. He was seen as a fairly conservative member of the liberal party.

· Somewhere along the way, Mel decided to take a lesson from his mentor (Chavez) and arrange it so that he could remain in power for as long as he wanted. There was a little problem with this. The Honduran constitution, enacted in 1982, has 378 articles. 6 of these articles are “cast in stone”, meaning that they can NOT be changed. These 6 articles deal with defining the type of government, territory claims, and presidential term limits. They are the basis of the Honduran democracy.

o One other tidbit from the constitution – Article 42, Section 5 says that anyone who is found to “incite, promote, or aid in the continuation or re-election of the President” would face loss of citizenship. Remember this one later on in this saga.

· To further complicate things for Zelaya, ANY changes to the constitution have to be initiated by the legislative branch. The congress has to convene a constituent assembly. That’s basically a group of people selected by the congress to analyze any proposed changes and form those ideas into the new constitution. After the proposed changes are formulated, the congress would approve them to be put to a national referendum. The executive branch (the President) has nothing to do with that process.

· Mel didn’t think that the congress would go along with his ideas of staying in power so he decided he’d call his own referendum. He doesn’t have the authority to do that – remember that constitutional changes can only be done by the legislature AND the term limits are one of the articles cast in stone – but he goes ahead and calls one anyway.

· The Honduran Supreme Court says “Sorry Mel, you can’t do a referendum. That’s not within your power as president”.

· Mel, or more probably one of his advisors, figures out that if a referendum can’t be done, we could probably do a survey or a poll instead! Great idea – nobody will figure out that the poll that we’re now going to do is exactly the same thing as we were going to do with the referendum.

· Damn those people on the Supreme Court! They figured out the ruse! They ruled unanimously that regardless of what you call it, if it acts like a referendum the president can’t do it. If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck . . . .

· Mel continues to talk of doing the poll on June 28 regardless of the Supreme Court

· The Congress looks at the poll that Mel wants to do and gives an opinion that the poll would be illegal and they will not support it. Remember that Mel’s own political party is in control of the congress.

· The Attorney General also analyzes the poll and determines that it is illegal. Over the course of the weeks leading to June 28, the AG reiterates many times that the poll is illegal and anyone participating in the poll would be committing a crime and could be arrested.

· Mel runs into another logistical snafu. He needs some ballots printed. The entire political structure of Honduras (except him) has ruled that the poll is illegal. It’s a pretty sure bet that he can’t get the government to print the ballots for an illegal referendum so he asks his buddy Hugo Chavez to print the ballots. Of course Hugo says “No Problem Commrade!”

· The rhetoric in the 2 weeks before the “poll” gets tense. Every legal opinion in Honduras says that the poll is illegal. The Supreme Court reaffirms its ruling that the poll is illegal. The Attorney General keeps saying that the poll is illegal and that anyone participating is committing a crime. Mel’s own political party says that the poll is illegal. There literally is not one legitimate group in the country that is siding with Mel about the poll.

· Traditionally the military handles the distribution of the ballots and voting materials. The head of the military, Romeo Vasquez Velasquez says that the military will not participate in the poll because the Supreme Court is the entity that determines what is legal and what is illegal in Honduras. The Supreme Court has determined that the poll is illegal, so the military will not participate.

· Mel Zelaya promptly fired Romeo Vasquez. The other heads of military (Navy and Air Force) as well as the Minister of Defense resigned in support of Vasquez.

· The next day the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Vasquez was fired without reason and demanded his reinstatement. Zelaya refused.

· The ballots arrive in Honduras (from Venezuela on a Venezuelan flagged plane). The Attorney General demands that the ballots be confiscated and held at a military installation.

· Mel decides that if the military won’t distribute the ballots, he’ll get his own people to distribute them

· Mel gets a couple of buses and a few cars full of supporters. They drive to the Air Force installation that was holding the ballots. They forcibly entered the installation and took the ballots. Not only was this “breaking and entering” it was a complete betrayal of a lawful order of the Attorney General

· The Attorney General says that the President has committed treason and asks for him to be removed from office. The congress created a commission to examine Zelaya’s actions and determine if removal from office is appropriate.

· A side note here about removal from office. I’m in no way a Honduran constitutional expert, but from what I understand, there’s not a clear means to impeach a sitting president. In a lot of constitutions, the impeachment of a president would be done by the legislative branch. In Honduras, there’s no such structure. There could be criminal charges brought against the president and the trial would be handled by the judicial branch. Not much different than anyone else accused of a crime. I’ve not heard of any provision to temporarily remove a president from office until the criminal charges were adjudicated. What would you do? Let a man accused of treason remain as the sitting president until the trial was completed? That would be insane, but that may be the only choice.

· On Saturday, June 27, Mel got most, if not all, of the ballots distributed around the country. The polls were set to open at 7am on Sunday.

· The Supreme Court voted to remove Zelaya. The Congress decided to remove Zelaya. The Attorney General stated many times that Zelaya was committing illegal acts and in fact committing treason. The military determined that the poll was illegal and that their responsibility was to uphold the constitution as opposed to supporting the president.

· Early Sunday morning, about 6am, the military went to the president’s house and removed him from the building. He was put on a plane to Costa Rica. This was done to enforce the ruling from the Supreme Court.

· This is where Article 42 of the constitution comes into play. The way that I read that article, Zelaya should have lost his Honduran citizenship at this point.

· Once Mel had been removed, the President of the Congress (Roberto Micheletti) was sworn in as the new President of Honduras. This was exactly the person that is indicated by the constitution. It was a proper and legal succession of the presidency. The first thing that Micheletti did was confirm that the regularly scheduled elections would be held in November. His post is temporary until the new President was duly elected.

END.]

Wow. If all this is true than we are doing a great disservice to the people of Honduras by condemning them for trying to protect their democracy from the illegal actions of their president. Public opinion of the United States in Latin America has already been damaged by years of neglect. Let's do the right thing and support a country that has actually taken a stand against attempts to hijack it by a president who tried to over-ride every other branch of his government. This is a perfect weekend to reflect on and be grateful for the freedoms that we have as U.S. citizens. As a country we should also reflect on the role we play in supporting freedom and democracy around the world. If this concerns you, please spread the word. Now that I've posted my thoughts I think I'll spend the rest of my weekend doing more exciting things than thinking about Honduras. Happy July 4th.

Ahhh! We're All Going to Die from Global Warming! Wait... what? why?

I've always been somewhat of a skeptic when it comes to the notion of human-induced global warming, and even more of a skeptic when it comes to the whole idea of trying to stop or even reverse it. I have no gripes with trying to help the environment, but where do you draw the line when it comes to sacrificing economic health, safety, and personal choice all in the name of helping the environment? Unfortunately, society over the last few years has taken on the belief that global warming is fact (despite a lack of hard scientific evidence) with a tendency to label disbelievers as radical. I've noticed over the last few months that there is a growing backlash around the world against the theory of global warming and now seems as good a time as any to address it with this week's passage by the House of a new climate change bill.

First, the bill. Basically the government wants to create a cap-and-trade system in the U.S. to cut down on our nation's energy use. I'm not going to explain how such a system works, but if you don't know I'd encourage you to look it up. The short story is that it would amount to a tax on almost anything that uses energy in order to give people incentive to conserve energy. Environmentalists love it, but do we want environmental legislation that the Heritage Foundation estimates will cost the average family of four $1,870 a year by 2020 and $6,800 a year by 2035? Britain has a similar system that costs Brits an estimated $1,300 a year in taxes per family.

Second, CAFE legislation. CAFE is the acronym for the U.S.'s fuel mileage requirements for cars. Currently, automakers must have a fleet-wide average fuel economy of 27.5 MPG, though this is slated to rise to 35 MPG in the next several years under new legislation that I believe already passed, though maybe it's in the climate change bill. Having fuel efficient cars is great, but there are trade offs to such standards. Cars must be built with lighter, less durable materials in an attempt to meet fuel standards. A 2002 National Research Council study found that CAFE standards of 27.5 mpg for cars contributed to about 2,000 deaths per year because of restrictions on car size and weight. With standards rising to 35 mpg, the death rate will surely be higher. Also, when it costs less to drive, as it does when you have a more fuel efficient car, many Americans respond by simply driving more and consuming more gas. Setting the bar too high may force American car companies to abandon cars such as the Mustang and the Camaro (or at least high performance versions) and give Americans fewer purchasing options. If I want to buy a gas guzzling car, then that's my choice, and I'll pay for it at the pump. What's next? Telling Americans they can't buy plasma televisions because they consume so much energy (plasmas actually do consume a considerable amount of energy relative to older tvs) ? Some automakers, such as Mercedes and BMW, merely ignore our environmental standards because they realize it is impossible to build the cars their customers want with that kind of fuel efficiency. Since the U.S. created CAFE standards, $735M has been collected in fines, 2/3 of that amount paid by Mercedes and BMW. Unfortunately, American car companies don't make the same profit as Mercedes and BMW do per car and will be forced into making cars that their customers may not want just to appease environmentalists.

Third, global warming. While the GOP argues against the climate change bill by attacking its economic consequences, Americans have for the most part been ignoring the changing tide overseas. Australia is soon expected to vote down their version of a climate change bill because of a growing number of Australians that doubt the science behind human-induced global warming. New Zealand recently dismantled their cap-and-trade program after the government that enacted it was voted out weeks later. The number of scientists who disagree with the UN's claims on global warming has increased 13-fold in the last 2 years to more than 700. A Japanese environmental physical chemist who originally helped write the UN's climate change report now calls man-made global warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Here's a few other tidbits I've seen recently worth considering:

-At the 2008 meeting of Nobel Laureates in Lindau Germany, half the laureates on the climate change panel disputed the 'consensus' on global warming.

-According to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Earth's average rate of warming over the past 30 years was just 0.32 degrees Fahrenheit per decade. The Global Surface Temperature has remained flat since 1998.

-NASA claims that the majority of the top 10 warmest years on record occurred in the first half of the 20th century. They have found no evidence of warming in the U.S. over the past several years.

-The founder and director of the International Arctic Research Center, which exists purely to study climate change in the Arctic, has extensive research that shows that temperatures have actually decreased since 2001.

-A study done by Yale University estimates that without addressing global warming, it will cost the global economy $22 trillion. However, if we adopt the policies promoted by Gore, those policies will decrease the cost of global warming to $10 trillion, but the policies themselves will cost $34 trillion (all estimates of course, but it is clear that adopting those policies run the high risk of costing more than they're worth).

The point of this posting is not to argue that global warming doesn't exist. I don't think there's clear scientific evidence either way. However, with growing evidence against the original scientific analyses that caused us to panic over global warming, we would be wise to place a higher value on our economic well-being, safety and right to buy what we want over the possibility of preventing or diminishing a problem that may not even exist.

Why I Go Downtown [and why you're missing out if you don't!]

This weekend has been pretty eventful. I went to the driving range and actually saw some improvement in my shots. I also ran Race for the Cure, which is the largest foot race in NC, drawing about 24,000 participants. I ran it in 25:48, which is my best time since I've taken up running again, though my high school self would balk at that time. The race raised $2 million for breast cancer research, which is awesome of course. I also saw The Hangover tonight.. hilarious, I'd recommend it. I haven't used a bicycle in years but Saturday I got the sudden urge to buy one. About 2 hours later I was the proud owner of a new mountain bike.. I was advised not to make any 'rash' purchases when I told a friend I was considering buying it but I'm thinking I'll get some decent use out of it. Anyway, enough with the weekend update. You know, it's no secret that I like to go out on the weekends. In fact, most weekends don't feel complete if I don't. I think a lot of people, or at least some, view such behavior as something that correlates to 1) immaturity, 2) being single, and/or 3) some level of being an alcoholic. While it's true that such assumptions apply to many people that regularly go out (and I'm guilty of being single, I won't claim that's not a big reason why I go out), I've always known that a lot of it for me is just being out amongst friends and meeting new people. I think last night while I was walking across downtown on a quest to get some of the best nachos I've ever had I further narrowed it down.

I never know what's going to happen when I go downtown. I go out because I love the variety of experiences. I love not knowing what the night has in store. Here's the problem with NOT going out: Although some people substitute 'going out' with other social activities, oftentimes the alternative is staying at home or spending time with a good friend. That's great and important, but when I stay home I know with pretty good certainty what the night will bring. How is that interesting? Part of what makes life awesome is that we don't know what it has in store for us. As human beings, we are instinctively social creatures. In general, we thrive on social interaction. Social interaction is vital to experiencing randomness in life. Meeting people not only makes life interesting, it expands your network. It's amazing the cascading effect that meeting just one person can have in your life. If you've never thought about it, I'd highly encourage you to. The most seemingly insignificant decisions are the ones that change the rest our lives. We make hundreds or thousands of them a day, so odds are at least one of them is going to have a significant effect on your life. The decision to go to one restaurant over another, to walk left or right in a crowded concert, to arrive at a place at one time or five minutes later: those are the decisions that can change your life. Think about it. For example, when I got offered the job I have at IBM I was asked when I wanted to start. The recruiting manager made a passing comment about how other people were taking a month off after graduating to go to Europe. I didn't end up going to Europe, but I decided to wait a month before starting. The start date I chose determined which orientation session I went to. The friends I met there became the foundation for many of the friends I have here today. If I didn't choose the start date I chose, I would not have the friend base I have now and I would not be living in the apartment I have now and would likely not be writing this blog.

I'll give an example of something that happened this weekend to illustrate my point. Last weekend, my friend Joe and I went to a bar nearby for a few minutes where we befriended our waitress. When we were downtown at a concert last night, we saw the waitress a few yards off (small odds since there were a few thousand people present). She gave us free passes to the after party, which determined the bar we went to after the concert. There, I saw her talking to a group of guys. I decided to join in the group for no particular reason because I'd become bored with whatever I was doing at the time. Within a few minutes, I discovered that the guys lived a couple doors down from me in my building! Now I know some neighbors that I would have likely never met if Joe and I had not sat at the table we did a week before. I also would not have ever met them if I did not have a desire to 'go out' nearly every weekend!

When I first moved here, Raleigh's downtown nightlife was... so-so. I went out, but more rarely, because it wasn't that exciting and the odds of meeting someone interesting was much lower than what I was used to in Clemson. There was a lack of vibrancy. Fast forward two years and the difference between Raleigh now and then is substantial. There is a vibrancy and level of excitement in the downtown that was fairly non-existent two years ago. As Raleigh is now the fastest growing city in the country, I expect for the trend to continue. I look forward to it and the energy and opportunities it will bring. I thoroughly believe that a vibrant nightlife is crucial to a healthy downtown and a healthy city full of many opportunities.

Some say that the course of one's life is determined by fate and some say by choices. I say it's a combination of the two, but there is no doubt that it is largely determined by one's choices. The more time you spend at home the fewer choices there are to make and the less chance you allow yourself for opportunities and an interesting life overall. If the nightlife isn't your scene, then so be it. There are other opportunities to network. However, if you're just sitting at home, you're missing out. Friendships, business deals and experiences that will last a lifetime are being created while you're sitting at home watching re-runs of Jeopardy.

Airport Randomness and Misc.

Wow, I have gotten... very slack at keeping this up. I may have even waited longer to make a new post if it wasn't for Caroline reminding me multiple times that my blog was falling by the wayside. Perhaps it's because my last posting had so many views (easily set a blog record) that I knew that the views for whatever I wrote next would disappoint me. Or maybe I've just been busy... we'll chalk it up to that. Since my last posting, I went to New Orleans, went to the World Beer Festival in Raleigh, spent a long weekend in Charleston and had a few friends come up for a long weekend here.. all of which could have made potentially good blog topics! One thing I will mention is the large number of random airport occurrences I've had since moving here... I suppose I didn't fly that often before I moved up here but Raleigh is a decent sized city (the Raleigh-Durham MSA [Metropolitan Statistical Area] is larger than the Charlotte MSA, though Charlotte has a bigger airport) and you wouldn't expect to see people you know very often... one thing I've learned is that no matter where you are, we live in a small world.

So these are not all people I know, but here's a few instances off the top of my head:

1) I flew to West Palm Beach last summer. A friend of mine drove me to the airport, and as I was getting my bags out of the car we discovered that she knew the girl getting out of the car in front of us.. they went to high school together I believe. I ended up talking to the girl, she was going to WPB too! We ended up hanging out on the flights/connecting airport down there and then when I was in WPB I ended up seeing her and her family at a restaurant I was at.. I've seen her in Raleigh since then too.. small world!

2) When I flew to Dallas last fall as I was boarding the plane I noticed a girl I know hanging out in the terminal.. unfortunately too late to talk to her but still random. When I arrived in Dallas I saw another girl I know who was on her way to Vegas with her bf.. I later found out that her ex (whom I knew her through) was randomly in Vegas at the same time and saw her (or so I'm told it was random)!

3) When I flew to New Orleans last month, I parked at a private parking area a few miles from the airport and took a bus to the terminal.. when I was in the New Orleans airport restroom later that day I noticed the guy next to me was on the bus with me that morning in Raleigh.. small world.

What blows my mind is that these things seem to happen every time I fly... I'll let everyone know if anything happens next time I fly.

On a side note, I watched Star Trek a few weeks ago.. I don't really advertise it too often, but admittedly I'm a Star Trek fan... the new movie is great and I recommend it to anyone regardless of whether you've seen or liked any of the prior movies/shows (wouldn't normally recommend this but the movie is awesome). I say this for the sole purpose of leading into this video that I found online a few days ago with Jay Leno.. pretty hilarious:

What if God is an Ocean?

So they say there's two topics above all others you should try to avoid in conversation. One is politics, which I've dived into pretty much head first already. The other is religion. What kind of blogger would I be (any serious blogger would probably take offense to me calling myself one) if I didn't try to tackle one right after the other? I suppose I did make some references to religion in my values blogs but I wouldn't really call those religious posts. This is actually a post that I intended originally to write on Easter, but I got sidetracked and forgot about it until now.

One thing that a lot of Christians have problems with (as do I) is the concept of the trinity. Growing up, I was taught the concept of the trinity in vague detail but the church more or less avoids the topic. It wasn't until college that I learned exactly what the trinity was and how critical it is to Christian beliefs. I struggled for awhile because I was surprised I never understood the concept before. Father, Son, Holy Ghost, three in one. All God Himself. I always more or less saw Jesus as God's son, and part of God in some way, but not actually God. I saw Jesus as a somewhat separate entity. There are verses in the Bible to back up this belief too, such as when Jesus says there are certain things that He doesn't even know, only His Father in heaven does. This implies that Jesus does not know everything God does, so he cannot be God, correct? Well, no, but many people point to that as evidence that it does imply that. A lot of Christians understandably shy away from discussing the trinity in detail or from questioning it at all. They don't fully understand it (nobody does, some believe the church made up the concept) and are afraid that questioning it will somehow damage their faith or put some kind of giant crack in their religious beliefs. I think this is dangerous. Christians should not be afraid to question the tenants of their faith. If you don't question your faith, how can you defend it against others that question it? Indeed, the trinity is one of the primary complaints Muslims have against Christianity because they see it as Polytheism. Nobody can claim to understand the trinity for sure, but by discussing it and understanding it better, one's faith might even be strengthened.

I was thinking over this subject a month ago or so and trying to think of how the trinity could be explained to fit into human logic. The problem of course is that the trinity (if our understanding of it is accurate) is probably all too complex for humans to understand, and believing in it is more a matter of faith than logic. Still, theorizing can't hurt. We know that we were made in God's image and as a result we tend to imagine God as some old guy propped up on a cloud... and we wonder how that old guy could also be Jesus on earth (did he take a vacation from heaven?) and then also the Holy Ghost. It's very possible that God's form is so complex that imagining him as one entity up on a cloud is ridiculously off. What if... instead of an individual like ourselves, God is more like... water? Humans are made up of mostly water, so that could possibly explain us being made in his image. Also, water (besides air, which would also fit into this analogy) is the thing that we can go the shortest time without consuming. Water is life-giving, just like God. So, let's imagine God is like a body of water, the ocean. Jesus could be like a drop of water that was sent to live among us. That drop of water is still water, and is completely identical to the larger ocean, only smaller. They are physically separate but yet identical and the same. When Jesus died, perhaps like a drop of water he returned to that ocean that is God. Like before, the drop of water is now a part of the ocean again. They are one and the same, but now together again.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not actually suggesting that God is an ocean... but what if the ocean-drop of water relationship is a good analogy for the God-Jesus relationship? Seems feasible to me. Just something to think about... Happy Easter (belated).

South Park Ends Economic Crisis

Hahahah. That was my response to South Park's 3/25/2009 episode entitled "Margaritaville." The show was a hilarious attempt to explain the current economic crisis. I thought Kyle impersonating Jesus was hilarious, along with the scene at the Treasury. They even made a great statement a few times when they referred to the economy as 'people' rather than a 'thing'. That's really all the economy is, people engaging in mutual beneficial transactions. I don't want to give too much away, just watch the episode. This video is part 1 from YouTube, which links to the second two parts at the end of the video. For better quality I'd recommend watching the video legally at www.southparkstudios.com.

Hope for U.S. Economic Policy?

I'll be honest, the last blog of mine (which you should read before this one if you have time) rambled a bit. The economy is such a tough topic to tackle, especially in one sitting. I know I left out a lot of great points and probably included a few lesser ones. Still, it would only seem appropriate that the day after I post it, our economic policy received a big update. Yesterday, Treasury Secretary Geithner unveiled a new plan to have the government auction off 'toxic' banking assets to potential buyers. The stock market soared. Awesome! This would mark the first time off the top of my head that the stock market has reacted favorably to any economic policy announced by Geithner and perhaps even President Obama. If I was writing for a national newspaper instead of a personal blog with only a few readers, I might suggest that Geithner checked out my ramblings yesterday. Odds are likelier that I'll win the lottery tomorrow (I'd prefer the latter anyway). Why did the stock market go up? The plan acknowledges that the private banking sector is necessary to a recovery-the private sector is the answer, not the government!

A 'toxic' asset is basically an asset that is worth nothing. These are assets such as subprime mortgage packages that were purchased when they seemed valuable. When the economic crisis hit, nobody wanted to buy these assets so the 'market' value turned to '0'. In reality, the assets are worth something because they could eventually turn profitable, but if nobody wants to buy them right now the market value is nothing. Banks have had to write down these assets to 'nothing' because of government-instituted (by President Bush I believe) mark-to-market accounting regulations. Those write-offs led to huge artificial losses at banks across the country and translated into shaken investor confidence. The Treasury is hoping that by guaranteeing some portion of the value of these assets and auctioning them off, they can create some demand for the assets and improve bank balance sheets. While there are plenty of reservations with the plan, I think the idea is one of the best policy ideas put forth by this administration. I welcome President Obama's move to boost confidence in the banks in addition to recent comments by his administration expressing confidence in the economy.

Unfortunately, many banking executives will likely be reluctant to take part in this program because of recent government efforts to villify Wall Street. The administration realizes that they now need the help (and backing) of some of the same executives they have criticized. Still, President Obama realizes this and has expressed some disapproval over Congress's attempt to "tax away" bonuses paid to certain executives (i.e. AIG). Maybe he's starting to realize that an approach designed to aid the private sector is better than spending money like a teenage girl left in the Mall of America with a no-limit credit card.

Perhaps the no-limit credit card analogy is a bit overboard considering it's likely that the recent stimulus bill has some positive effect on economic recovery. Consider this though: the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office recently projected that under Obama's budget the federal deficit will reach over 80% of GDP by 2019. It's currently less than half that. Consider also that Europe has long passed spend-happy budgets to finance their welfare states. Europe has fairly unanimously (the European Central Bank agreed with this viewpoint today as well) rebuffed U.S. requests to pass a European stimulus package and insists that the government spending more money is not the answer. The current president of the E.U. today called the U.S. stimulus package "a way to hell." Interesting when you consider the continent this statement comes from.

Anyway, the stimulus package is already passed, and all we can do now is hope that we don't further test that no-limit credit card. I'm not going to hold my breath, but I do think some positive steps are now being taken. I may not be confident enough to put anything new into the market right now, but I'll go ahead and keep in whatever I already had invested (too much).

Perception in the Current Economy

Clearly, perception is very important to the economy. I made my case for this in my previous blog, so it would be a good idea to read that one first if you haven't already. So, if we assume that to be true, then it should also be true that perception is incredibly important in any economic recovery. I don't claim to be an expert on the economic crisis, I think that the causes are incredibly complex and it will take time for economists and historians to pinpoint the exact causes and what solutions helped to improve the economy. Obviously, a big cause was a housing bubble, which was encouraged in large part by the Federal government through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Too many people were encouraged to buy more than they could afford on dubious terms. Too much credit was loaned to risky borrowers. I think that perception has also played a role in this. The first major collapse in terms of credit was Bear Stearns. From the pages of information I read on the collapse soon after it happened, I gathered that noone expected the firm to collapse (not even executives) even a couple days beforehand. A few creditors stopped lending money to the firm, which turned into a domino effect. No company wants to be one of the last creditors of a company, so when other investment firms/banks saw creditors withdrawing credit lines from Bear, even though the company may have ended up fine, they followed suit. Bear's credit lines dried up, the firm collapsed. Sure, the issue was much more complex than this, but still, when the firm's perceived reputation tanked, so did the firm. More firms proceeded to fail and the government's response was inconsistent. Some firms were 'rescued', some were not. Investors were nervous; the stock market does not like uncertainty.

The government responded by spending money. Lots of money. Most of it went to banks. Americans were looking for reassurance from the government. Instead, they saw inconsistent behavior. Furthermore, since most Americans did not understand the complexities of the crisis, they did not understand why banks were receiving bailouts while other industries were not. The government was relatively quiet for a few months as economic policy transitioned from President Bush to President Obama. I think that President Bush addressed the crisis fairly poorly, but as his term is now over there's no point in looking at it in detail. What I'm concerned about is President Obama's policies.

I think that a lot of the problems that caused this crisis have eased. Home values have plummeted and any market-based price corrections are probably complete. Bad assets have been identified, the government has injected billions into banks that were on the verge of failing. Now the issue is how to get the economy back on the right track. A significant obstacle that must be overcome is improving investors/consumers' perception of the economy. Obama's first order of business in addressing the economy was to put together a massive "stimulus" package that increases government spending to an unprecedented level in comparison to post-WWII history. The budget deficit over the next 20 months will be greater than the deficit over the previous 8 years. So, we're fixing an economic problem caused in part by too much borrowing by borrowing substantial amounts of money. Even if we assume this is sustainable, and perhaps it is, there's the whole issue of spending to fix the economy.

My problem with the current response to the economic crisis is that the government seems to be aiming to improve the perception that the government can help us out of the crisis rather than the perception of the actual economy. It's true that there's something to be said for this. Consumer confidence is extremely important and knowing that the government is spending massive amounts of money to prop up the economy undoubtedly is reassuring for some people. However, consumer confidence is also significantly affected by the stock market, which theoretically is a fairly accurate representation of the value of all publicly traded companies. I don't think that the economy can recover to a large extent until the stock market begins to recover (true, they kind of go hand in hand, so that statement could be argued). Government spending CANNOT replace private spending in the economy. The economy IS private spending, and the more the government spends the less capital is available to the private sector. A short-term stimulus to the areas of the economy hurting the most could be used to potentially boost private spending in those areas as well. Instead, we have a stimulus bill that increases spending for years and funnels money to areas of the economy that aren't suffering, i.e. education and healthcare. These areas may be deserving of more funding, but a lack of funding there is not ailing the U.S. economy. Investors agreed, as the stock market tumbled when the stimulus package was announced. If our goal is to improve the economy, i.e. the private sector, than how is legislation that causes the stock market to tumble good for the economy?

My impression of the stimulus package is that it's a massive spending bill filled with pet projects for which the Democrats have been wanting funding for years. Analyses I've seen suggest that at most 12 cents of every dollar spent are going to something that could remotely be considered 'stimulating' for the economy. Obama further convinced me of this by his change in attitude before and after signing the bill. Before the bill, Obama stated that the economy is the worst it's been since the Great Depression. He attacked McCain for saying the economy was fundamentally sound. After getting his stimulus bill passed, he claimed the economy is fundamentally sound (in different words, I don't feel like looking up the quote right now). Also, he signs a bill filled with some 9,000 earmarks and then starts talking about the need to cut down on earmarks. I congratulate President Obama on realizing that it's about time to start building Americans' faith in the economy itself by saying it's fundamentally sound, it was a good sign of his intentions. However, the timing suggests that the 'stimulus' bill was political and nothing that needed to urgently pass to save the economy. Granted, I think that if McCain had been elected, he would have also created a stimulus bill, but it would have gone to Republican pet projects rather than Democratic pet projects. My point: I'm not trying to demonize President Obama or the Democratic party, but as they are in charge they get to answer for the policies.

I'm sure that the stimulus bill will create jobs, but they are jobs that depend on government funding. If government was the answer, then fixing the economy would be a cinch. We must not create dependencies on the Federal government, but create incentives for the private sector to grow and for the stock market to increase in value (when investors see added value in the economy). Tax cuts, incentives, and healthy regulation would be far more beneficial than adding trillions of dollars to the national debt. If we lowered the capital gains tax, then investors would pour money into the stock market as it would be cheaper to own stocks. This would ease the difficulty many companies are having in borrowing money. If President Obama is convinced that we need to spend our way out of the recession, than perhaps limits should have been put on the bill to significantly scale back or halt spending when key economic benchmarks were met i.e. Dow Jones reaching 9,000 and unemployment less than 5.5%. Just a suggestion, but it would clarify his intentions for people like me. Many of the other policies being proposed right now (i.e. cap and trade, ending secret ballots for unions) are anti-business and will not increase confidence in the economy. These policies should not be debated until the economy is back on its feet.

On a side note, it's important to notice that the stock market DID jump when Citibank unexpectedly announced they expected to make a profit. That announcement was apparently more beneficial to the economy than the announcement of the stimulus package. Let's not advertise the government as the answer to our problems, but use the government to clear the way for the companies that are the bread and butter of our economy to be successful on their own.

The Importance of Perception in the Economy

It's amazing how important perceptions are. I would argue that in many ways perception is more important than reality. In some circumstances, perception is reality. If enough people perceive something as true than it becomes true. There's really a lot of areas this could be applied to, including individual personalities. Perhaps I'll cover some of those other areas in a later blog. For now, let's think about the economy.

The economy today, more so than at any point in history, is dependent on perception. The purpose of the economy, in essence, is to allocate resources in the most efficient way possible. Before the adoption of currency, barter systems ensured that items involved in all transactions were useful to the individuals who were on the receiving end of the trade. When currencies were later adopted, currency had a set exchange rate to something of value, usually gold because of its relative global scarcity and perceived value. When the world left the "gold standard," a fairly unpopular decision led by the United States, the world's currencies became valued only by their exchange rates to other currencies. No longer could a U.S. dollar be exchanged for a set value of gold, its value now rested solely on faith in the United States government. Perception. People perceived the dollar to have continued value because everyone else did too. In other words, if suddenly everyone in your community lost faith in the U.S. economy and perceived little to no value in carrying U.S. dollars, your cash would be worthless.

The banking industry is another aspect of the economy heavily dependent on perception. Many banks collapsed during the Great Depression because depositors lost faith in them. Hence the creation of the FDIC to help prevent 'runs' on the banks by individuals unnerved by the hint of bad news. One of my favorite stories illustrating this is one I learned in economics class in college. I don't have my notes readily available from freshman year and so I don't remember the details but the big picture is still fresh in my mind. Back around the Great Depression there was a bank that was rumored to be running out of cash. With no such thing as the FDIC to calm people down, a massive crowd began to form in front of the bank after the rumors had circulated. Everyone was fighting to be first in line to get their money out before the bank crashed. The problem: the bank WAS low on cash! They weren't low enough to be in danger of failing, most of the bank's assets were loaned out... but they did not have enough to give depositors back all their savings [no bank does, banks use their deposits to make loans, so banks only have a small fraction of deposits available at any given time]. The bank manager called the local Federal Reserve office. In an attempt to save the bank, the Fed rushed over a truck full of government cash. When the bank opened, the manager showed off the vault full of cash to the nervous crowd. Assured by the sight of cash, most depositors left their money in the bank. The extra cash was returned to the Fed, and the bank was saved because the bank was no longer perceived to be in danger of failing. If enough people believe a bank will fail, it WILL fail.

Another crucial aspect of the economy dependent on perception is the stock market. The stock market is where investors buy and trade shares of public companies. A company's stock price represents the market's (i.e. investors) collective valuation of that company. A stock price is theoretically equal to the present value of all future profits of a company combined with a few other things, such as assets-liabilities. Since the present value of a company is by no means perfectly scientific (unless you can read the future) then in essence a stock price represents investors' perceived value of a company. This is why when companies don't meet their expected earnings, EVEN IF those earnings were higher than last year's earnings, the stock price will go down. The company didn't do as well as expected. Stock prices are continuously fluctuating as "the market" (investors) digests a never-ending stream of information. Hence, the total value of the stock market is the perceived value of all companies publicly traded on a particular stock exchange! Since exchanges such as the NYSE and NASDAQ list such a large number of companies, the value of the stocks on those exchanges is an excellent barometer of the perceived value of the United States economy. When the stock market goes down, this usually means the perceived value of the U.S. economy has gone down. When the stock market soars, new information has given investors the perception that the expected future performance of the U.S. economy has improved. If enough investors believe a company (or all companies, i.e. the stock market) will fail, then the chances of that company failing significantly increase. When a company's stock price plummets, the ability of that company to raise cash by selling ownership rights to the company (equity/stock) is severely diminished.

Few people have a thorough understanding of the stock market, or the economy for that matter. This is a very dangerous fact that I may address in another blog. However, even people who do not understand how the stock market works understand that the stock market is important. They see green arrows or red arrows every day on CNN and in the newspaper. Regardless of someone's understanding of the stock market, people know that poor stock market performance is bad. Therefore, stock market performance, which is rooted in the perception of the economy by investors, then affects overall perception of the economy. A crashing stock market tells people the economy is bad. Those people get nervous. They invest less, they spend less, they save more. Companies make less money, investors see this nervousness and diminishing profits and they sell. The stock market continues to go down, creating a vicious downward spiral. Sound familiar?

There are so many other areas of the economy where perception is important, but I think I've covered what I believe to be the most important. In my next blog I'll tie my ideas on economic perception to the current economic situation that we've seen during the past year or so.

The Source of Values

Well, guess I spoke too soon in my last post... Clemson lost. End of discussion. Anyway, if you haven't done so already, I'd recommend reading the post below this before reading this one. Previously, I rambled on a bit about values. Perhaps a more interesting topic is the source of values. This is something that I've had discussions with friends on before and there's just no way I can piece together all my thoughts on the topic in one sitting, so perhaps I'll revisit the topic another time.

So where do values come from? When I refer to values here, I'm thinking about the values that people live by. Are people born with values or do they learn them? The last time I debated this topic, I leaned towards the idea that people are born with a very basic value set. In other words, when someone is born, do they have a basic idea of right and wrong? This is a debate that is almost impossible to settle! To settle this debate, one would have to take a human being at birth and place them in solitude for a few years until they were old enough to make conscious moral (or immoral) choices. Even then, you would have to take into account the potential effects of such an extended period of solitary confinement. After further thought, I think that more than likely people are NOT born with any sort of value set. HOWEVER.... I do believe that people instinctively have a desire to do what is "good" over what is "evil." Human beings in my opinion must be taught values. What we are born with , I believe, is the desire to do what we are taught is right in the absence of any motivating factors. If there is no benefit to doing what is "wrong" over what is "right", I believe that people will always do what is "right". The problem is, when is this ever the case? Evil exists for a reason, and that reason is because being evil is easier than being good. In light of this, the question we should be concerned about at this point is not whether people are born with values or whether they learn values... but HOW they learn values.

Values are primarily learned through two different perspectives: the rule of law and religion. Nearly everyone learns values through the rule of law, whether it be the sole method of instruction or in addition to religion. This method says "If you [fill in the blank] then [fill in the blank] will be the consequence." If you steal you will go to jail. If you eat a cookie before dinner you will get a spanking. If you cheat on a test you will get an F. This method is necessary, but inadequate by itself. This method encourages individuals to avoid poor behavior unless they know they can't get caught. For some people, this is all they ever need because they have a deep fear of what would happen in the remote chance they got caught. Some people would just never take the chance. While this still results in good behavior, that person's value system is fairly shallow.

Religious values are taught through a variety of methods. Many forms of religious teachings follow the same approach as the rule of law, focusing on fear. The difference here is that many people who would take chances without religious values are now much more hesitant because they believe/know that there is a higher being "watching" them and that there are eternal consequences for evil deeds. Still, a shallow value system in my opinion, but a more solid one. Other religious values are taught through the form of love. Instead of teaching what to avoid, this method teaches "Do [insert action] out of love for others (or for some kind of eternal benefit). This creates a much deeper value system I believe because it instills in people the desire to do good just for the sake of doing good. Even in the absence of consequences for negative actions, people with this type of upbringing are more likely to "do the right thing." However, how values are taught is not everything. Also very important is how values are reinforced.

Many of you may be thinking that I'm implying that people who aren't religious can't have deep, solid value sets. Absolutely false. I believe that if people learn values through a religion rather than through other sources, they're off to a better start. However, proper reinforcement can easily make up lost ground. I think that values can be reinforced both by logic and by experience. I've come to the realization that even religion alone often cannot prepare a person for real world situations. As I said in my previous blog, anyone can live in a cave for eternity and follow the Ten Commandments. Something greater is needed to equip a large proportion of human beings for real world situations.

Logic is a great value reinforcement tool. Logic is what separates human beings from animals. Teaching someone by the 'rule of law' method without logical reinforcement is no different from training a dog. What an insult to the intelligence of an individual! Animals often disobey rules knowingly when they know they aren't being observed. People are no different. When someone is instilled with a value set, they must be taught not only the consequences of negative behavior, but the consequences of positive behavior as well! People must understand how the consequences of their actions can affect others and how it can affect them in the long term.

Experience is another great reinforcement tool. In fact, it often is the only guaranteed method. Sure, some people take their values seriously and would not compromise those values under any circumstances. However, I think a lack of experience (and/or logic in many cases) is a primary reason that we find people like "Person A" in my previous blog... people that share our value systems but can't be trusted to necessarily stick to those values. Unfortunately, we can't ever know for sure how we will react to a situation until we have been there. We can't say we would never steal until we have been in a situation where we felt the need to steal. We can never say we would never cheat on a significant other until we have had to face temptation. We are not fully equipped to fight temptations such as those until we've been there and we know what feelings we have to be able to conquer and we fully understand the potential consequences of our actions because we've had to think about them first-hand. Think about it as a vaccine... our bodies are not equipped to fight many diseases until it is exposed to them... through vaccines. Generally, trace amounts of virus in a vaccine do not get us sick, but we're exposed to them and our immune system has an opportunity to prepare.

I think many people are too sheltered. Many parents keep kids in private school or home school their children to avoid sending them to public schools. Some people avoid being around alcohol because they don't want to get drunk. There are countless other examples. Sure, sometimes there are valid reasons to avoid public school. Some public schools are despicable and genuinely dangerous. However, most public schools are not. So your child avoids the temptations found in public schools and grows up with perfect behavior. What happens when they graduate and get into the "real world?" They are often not as well equipped to handle the stresses and temptations that you find in everyday life because they were sheltered growing up. Who is the stronger person, the person who goes to bars and drinks but always avoids the "wrong" decisions or the person who avoids alcohol altogether but would succumb to poor decisions if they did happen to drink? Sure, some people avoid situations with alcohol not out of fear, but simply lack of interest. This statement does not apply to those people.

Lastly, but in a sense similar to the topic of experience, I believe that people should be deeply entrenched in the complex social structure that human beings have developed to ensure proper behavior. The more social connections an individual has, the higher the consequences of inappropriate behavior. Someone with only a few friends has much less to lose from abandoning their values then someone with a large group of friends. Quiet individuals with few active friend connections are the ones that have the highest likelihood of being dangerous, even those that appear perfectly safe and moral on the outside.

I've started to cover a host of topics that would probably be more appropriate covered in multiple other posts, and hopefully this isn't too much to ponder in one sitting, but let me try to wrap this up. I believe human beings have a basic desire to do what is right, but they are not born with a knowledge of right and wrong. They must be taught their moral standards, always through the 'rule of law' but preferably in combination with a religious upbringing to increase the desire to follow those values. These values must then be reinforced through both logic and experience. A lack of reinforcement could lead to the appearance of strong values, but in reality an individual who in the face of temptation in new circumstances fails to live up to their alleged standards, especially in the absence of a well-connected social structure.

Values

Wow, I got off to a great running start by posting blogs for three consecutive days after starting this thing! So much for that... it's hard to find time to sit down and write one of these things while trying to juggle work and an attempt at a personal life. Anyway, let's talk about values. No, I'm not referring to the fact that Harris Teeter is currently advertising buy 2 get 3 free cans of tuna. Nor am I referring to the fact that Fox and the Hound serves half-price bottles of wine on Wednesdays (local business owners, feel free to contact me for some low-cost sales pitches). Granted, I love value items, but the other day I chose a double cheeseburger over the cheaper McDouble and that extra slice of cheese was worth every additional penny... no, I'm talking about a more important form of values.

A few weeks ago I was driving home from work and I realized how refreshing it is to know people who have solid values. Yes, even more refreshing than [insert product advertising here]. I've always gravitated towards people who have similar values to me... it's natural and I think most people do the same thing, whether it be a conscious or unconscious decision. I've realized that while a person's set of values is extremely important, what is probably more important is how strongly that person clings to those values. Obviously this statement can't be true 100% of the time; don't post any comments asking me whether I'd rather be friends with someone who follows the teachings of Jesus 75% of the time or someone who follows... I don't know, Satan, 100% of the time. Think about it though, imagine person A and person B. Person A believes everything you do, you have the exact same values and beliefs, at least on paper. You think person B is a pretty decent human being, but you don't see eye to eye on some details. Person A is weaker, and when their values are seriously tested, they falter. Person B is probably the most stubborn person you've ever met when it comes to what they believe is right. No situation compromises their integrity. Whom do you trust? I know what my answer would be.

I know a few people who are, for lack of a better description, stubborn as hell. Sometimes it's a pretty frustrating trait, especially when it carries over into decisions such as what kind of food to eat. In the end though, it can be a bit refreshing. I admire these people for a lot of reasons... except for when I don't get the food I want.... but deep down most of us are conscious of our weaknesses and it's just encouraging to know people who convey such strength sometimes. These people know who they are and what they want/value in life and they stick to it. On the other hand, when you discover that people who give the appearance of having strong values really can't stick to them under pressure, you feel a sense of disappointment in not only them but in humanity. An individual's set of values cannot be (though it often is) measured in terms of the belief system they claim to have or the religion they claim to follow. Any person on earth can sit in a cave for eternity and successfully follow the Ten Commandments. A person's values can only truly be measured by how well they fit into and positively affect the complex social structure that human beings have created and their reactions to those events that only other human beings can create. A person whose values have not been tested cannot necessarily be trusted on certain things any more than a person with no values at all.

This realization naturally led me to consider the source of values, something I'll address in my next blog. Clemson's coming out strong against Virginia Tech so I'm going to have to concentrate on that instead.

The Climb

You know, I have really no clue what influenced me to write the phrase below. I was sitting here one afternoon about a month ago and I found myself in a reflective mood. I realized that too often, people make rash short-term decisions without thinking about the future. Too often, people think they know what they want in life or think they know everything when in reality they have no idea what they want and their perception of the world is way too narrow.Too often, people settle for what they have rather than pushing themselves to achieve their best. I think that everything happens for a reason and rarely will we know what that reason is until after the fact. Not until we've reached the end of life's journey will we be able to look back with near-certainty and determine why an event happened or why someone came into our life. Rock climbing seemed like a good analogy (something I rarely do, but I do enjoy)... specifically, outdoor rock climbing. I don't think this is what I would consider a final version, and someday I'd like to touch it up, but here it is:

Fate and life, I believe.... is like climbing the side of a mountain. Everytime we hoist ourselves on the next rock, we're convinced that we can see everything in life for what it is because we're one rock higher than we were before. We think that the spot we are standing on is where we're meant to be. When we make it to stable, flat rocks we stand our ground and think 'this must be where I should be for I could stand here forever, why bother with the jagged, unstable rocks ahead of me?' These rocks can be people, places, or many other things...but you see, we're not meant to stand still. As human beings, we're meant to keep climbing, to keep looking ahead. You see, those rocks are the means to an end and not the end in themselves. We never know why we choose the rocks that we choose until we get to the top. It's not until then that we know what our fate is. So stop worrying about what's at the top or why you're on any specific rock, you'll find out soon enough. Life is about the climb.

The Secret to Happiness

The next few blogs of mine are going to be more serious in nature. Knowing me, a lot of them will be. Part of the reason I decided to start this blog was because I had some thoughts that came to me and I wanted a place to write them down. I may have something that seems profound, at least to me, pop in my head every day for a week. Other times, I may go a whole week where the most profound thing that goes through my brain has something to do with whether I'd rather have blue cheese or ranch with my chicken wings (80% of the time I'll say ranch). Better yet, the never-ending battle between regular soy sauce and low-sodium soy sauce when I'm eating sushi. In this epic battle between health vs. slightly minor taste improvement, regular soy sauce is currently winning with a record of something like 42-3. Wow, that's worse than Clemson's historic domination over South Carolina in football...

Anyway, I wrote the quote below in September 2008 for someone who was very close to me at the time. I felt that she wasn't taking her own happiness into consideration like she should and I felt the desire to write her something that she could look at and think about whenever she wasn't sure she was making the right decisions. I think it helped, and I'd like to post it here in case anyone else sees any substance in it:

Do all that you can to enrich your soul and maintain your personal faith and deepest beliefs.

Pursue your own happiness and that which you want in life above all else on this earth,
but never to the detriment of your soul.

Always help those in need to the best of your ability,
but never to the detriment of yourself.

This, I believe, is the secret to happiness.

Introduction

Why "The Yellow Brick Roadway?" You see, that's a great question. When I decided to create a blog, I had no idea that a blog had to have a title.. but it makes sense doesn't it? I couldn't just call it "Chaise's Blog".... would you ever bookmark this site if I gave it such a dull name? Don't flatter me, you wouldn't. I thought about something related to my nickname from college, 'Cheez'... but who would take a blog called 'Cheez' seriously? My mom. That's about it. So... I decided on The Yellow Brick Road initially... but some jerk beat me to the name... imagine that, somebody else on this site has seen The Wizard of Oz. I made the slight addition of 'way' to the end ('way' to go Chaise!).

Again you ask, 'Awesome story Chaise, but why The Yellow Brick Roadway?' Alright, I'd like to every once in awhile put things on here that are worth reading so that it's worth following for at least a few people. Follow my blog. Follow the Yellow Brick Roadway. Follow follow follow follow follow the Yellow Brick Road[way] (to the tune of follow the yellow brick road)! Also, I always imagined the yellow brick road to be made of gold.. or at least a combination of gold and some other substance painted to resemble gold. Theoretically I'll say a few things on here with some value, just like gold.

Corny? Absolutely...but you won't forget it.