Progress!

So 15 months and this is where we're at. That's a lot of progress in one week (with little in the preceeding 70). This shot was taken Saturday morning. More progress was made Sunday (attached front, cut wire/cable access holes in media rack and mantel, make plinths, etc.). So the side pillars are primed, but need to be sanded again before the final paint coat goes on. If I'm at all effective between now and Friday, that should get done, and I'll be able to attach the sides at least before Easter (go me).

The actual mantel top may have a change in plans. We previously purchased some dentil crown molding from HD, but after coming across a molding and millwork gallery, I may took another look at using a build up from cheaper moldings, as I'll have to do some build up any way, and the crown we got was a stain grade, which seems a waste to paint.

So I'm optimistic there will be some finality by, oh, Memorial Day. That's a good and achievable target I think.

I'll try and make some effort to work faster in the future. It's really just a broader application of being content with a good plan rather than hoping the perfect one will one day hit me. I would like to claim that as a large portion of the delay, but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to get away with that.

Anyway, I'll try and keep these type of entries to a minimum--about the only thing less interesting that what I have to say is what I am doing. Oh, the joy and excitement you must feel!

Best in the world

or tenth at least after 6 rounds.

If you didn't know (and why would you?), the World Sudoku Championships are going on this weekend in Prague. The US sent a team of six, one of the members being Jason V. Zuffranieri. You may remember him from such events as the best man at my wedding or the reason I don't stay at the team hotel in Albuquerque. If you don't know him, think of me and the time and thought people think i put into league (apparently not this one though), multiply by that some large number, and that's Jason with logic puzzles and trivial pursuit-style games.

So after 6 rounds/~50 puzzles, very few (none?) of which are the regular sudoku that you see in the paper (but all in the theme), Jason ranks 10th out of 143 participants, and 2nd on the US team (the overall leader is on the US). There's a team competition going on which is limited to 4 of the 6 team members, so Jason should have a spot on that. Team captains select the four, and Jason is the "new guy", but that shouldn't matter, I don't think. The first two rounds of that were day, but results are not posted yet.

As for the overall standings, the US is in second at the moment, with Japan having a healthy lead for first (3 of the top 9 players). It's like they invented the game or something.

Go Jason!

How do you buy your music?

The Monday New York Times had an article about the changes in the music business resulting from declining album sales due to iTunization. Albums will cease to be the label's primary form of revenue, instead shifting to singles.

Many music executives dispute the idea that the album will disappear. In particular, they say, fans of jazz, classical, opera and certain rock will demand album-length listening experiences for many years to come. But for other genres... where sales success is seen as closely tied to radio air play of singles, the album may be entering its twilight.

“For some genres and some artists, having an album-centric plan will be a thing of the past,” said Jeff Kempler, chief operating officer of EMI’s Capitol Music Group. While the traditional album provides value to fans, he said, “perpetuating a business model that fixates on a particular packaged product configuration is inimical to what the Internet enables, and it’s inimical to what many consumers have clearly voted for.”

But is this sustainable? And how is this good for the artists? A female trio is discussed in the article, saying they'll get a two song tryout that will be distributed via iTunes and other formats... to see if they are popular enough for an ALBUM!

Daniel Gross of Slate responds:

What we are witnessing is not so much the imminent death of CDs but the death of the old methods of selling CDs. It's still possible to make money in the CD business—any business with more than $7 billion in retail sales should allow someone, somewhere, to make a profit. The incumbents are getting killed, but upstarts are thriving, using different methods.

At any rate, the coverage of the music industry focuses on the labels primarily and how the consumer wants different means of getting their music. But what does the shift in marketing style mean for the listener?

I like shiny media. I do have an iPod. If given the choice between the two, I'd easily choose the former, largely as a result of me already having a lot of them, my desire (but not the auditory acuity) to be an audiophile, the tangible ownership and me being album oriented.

If you look at our cd rack, Joanne & I would be considered loyal listers--for the most part, if we have more than 1 cd of a band/group/artist, we have all/almost all of their studio material.

To me the ideal new band is not a new band, but a band that is new to me and has 3 or more CDs in their back catalogue. I'm more interested in establishing a listening relationship with a musical entity, than an individual song. If I don't like a song enough to get an album, then what's the point? It's a 4-5 minute experience, rather than an hour-plus.

But I digress...

A large shift to a song-based model i think is bad for music, particularly the artist. It creates less loyalty, so lower concert turnout, which for smaller bands is where they make their money. There are a lot more songs than artists (naturally), so i think would make it more difficult to find an audience with less material. (Joanne points out that iTunes doesn't stop the production of the album; similar to Gross's point that the issue isn't albums, but marketing).

From a listener perspective, the economies of scale of producing an album, i would think, lend themselves to high quality/more thoughtful productions, than one or two songs here or there. Of course, a lot of terrible albums get made, so I may be off base there. There's also the experience of listening to full album, as opposed to getting a single song.

Sowell style

So I got called out for a lack of posting. Which is fair. Last week was light on the output. I started a couple of drafts, but didn't finish, so my blogging abilities seem commensurate with my home improvement skills--decent enough at starting, not so good about finishing.

So complete draft #1: A notes post!

From Harper's Index, via Marginal Revolution:

• Percentage of American adults held in either prison or mental institutions in 1953 and today, respectively: 0.67, 0.68
• Percentage of these adults in 1953 who were in mental institutions: 75
• Percentage today who are in prisons: 97

In my investing approach post, i mentioned that S&P index funds beat 85% of all mutual funds over long periods. I also said I wouldn't consider myself a strict indexer. The main reason which I should have included is that the universe of funds I would consider is not 5000 or whatever the current number is up to--load funds are out, most sector funds are out, growth funds are out, and high expends funds are out. So that shrinks the probables quite a bit... But there doesn't seem to be a lot of readily accessible research on the comparison of low cost funds compared to index funds. Of course, even if this knocks to the index fund back to average, the issue becomes picking the fund that will do better than the index in the future, rather than the one that did so in the past...

The move up of the primaries, such as California's from June to February, means the money will decide the main party nominations. I guess the Republican side is still open, unlike the Dems 2 candidates. Knowing who in all certainty will be the nomination 8 months before the election though may mean a viable third party gets involved.

Remember line 71 on your 1040--Credit for federal telephone excise tax paid. Those who filed by march 9 skipped this about 1/3 of the time, even those using paid preparers. $30 for one exemption; $60 for two. If you have the records and time another form is available for a credit of all taxes paid.

TWOP is getting bought by Bravo, which is owned by NBC. Hopefully they don't screw up a good thing.

Progress has been made: Construction of the mantel has truly started, and there is an end in site. The side pillars are nearly done, and I'm hoping that's the hard part (wire/cable routing and issues), as that's where most of the unlevelness I have to deal with is. It's only taken... too long.

A plug for microfiber towels--a package of 12 costs ~$10 at Costco. They're very soft, water absorbant, and more the most part, streak free. I think they also have some natural "cling". After last weeks rain, I took a damp towel to the car, and it looks almost washed--much better job than one of those Car duster thingies.

I was optimistic last week in Get Fuzzy that B&S's "friends" would be moving on. Today's strip concerns me. Mac Manc McManx, Foodar, Chubby Huggs and Shakespug aren't doing it for me. Shakespug has some potential , but then again I'm a dog person...

Apparently Jon Talton is leaving the Arizona Republic. Hopefully this means the technology-based economic development crowd (my work sphere in many ways) gets a better press voice. Talton always bugged by repetitive, demeaning and intellectually arrogant. I found his writing to speak more to the choir than being convincing to those undecided or those opposed.

My first request!

I'm quite open to taking topic requests, and I got my first--thanks Roland--what to look for in a plasma TV.

First, a couple of caveats. We bought ours over a year ago, so I'm not as up-to-date as I was, but things haven't changed too much. Actually, that's not true, the size overlap and price competitiveness of big LCDs has gotten better.

But I know less about LCDs. At the time of our purchase, for our preferred size, LCD was not really an option. But a recap of the differences:

Plasma: wider range of brightness and contrast, better blacks, better with action, some risk of burn-in (when a static image is left on the screen too long--not really a big deal anymore after watching 100 hours or so), performs better in a dark setting.

LCD: no risk of burn-in, tends to be lighter and less fragile, performs better in a lighted environment (fewer issues of glare)

Power, while not a huge issue, is more difficult to determine. My understanding is that the power for an LCD is constant--if it's on, it uses "x" watts. Plasma power depends on the image on the screen--white images use more power, dark images less. Plasmas will generally be rated to use more power, but that's the upper limit, not constant.

At this point though, there is a lot of convergence between the pluses/minuses of each, so there is no "correct answer". What/where you watch may be the best way to pick a

Focusing more on plasma, of the main brands, Panasonic is generally regarded as having the best glass (picture). Panasonic sells their glass to other manufacturers. Our Toshiba has panny glass, but Toshiba now uses Samsung or LG (forget which). HP still uses panny glass. Other well regarded manufacturers are Pioneer (more expensive), NEC (less commercially available), and budget-wise, Vizio gets decent reviews.

One thing hurting the Vizios now is Costco doing away with their return policy on electronics. Previously, you could return an item at any time, but now it is limited to 90 days. But I digress.

Things to remember/consider:

• How a TV looks in a showroom is immaterial unless you are able to adjust the picture. Brightness, color, contrast are all boosted so as not to be a realistic representation of what you'd see in your house. By all means, go look, but remember what you see isn't really accurate.
• What features do you need? do you need an internal tuner, speakers, cable card, memory card slot, computer hookup, etc. if you're able to forgo tuner & speakers because of cable/satellite feeds and HT setup, that opens the options to commercial lines from Panasonic and NEC that have additional features and a cleaner aesthetic look. one of the reasons we didn't get a panasonic was because the model we would have gotten didn't have separate picture settings for each input, which i viewed as a important.
• If you get a plasma, in the initial picture adjustments, turn down the brightness a lot. Color and Contrast will probably need to be turned down as well. THis all helps with the break in process
• When/if you get your new flatscreen, don't tell someone how has already bought how much you spent. It will aggravate them.

If you find a model you're interested in, AVS Forum is likely to have a dedicated thread (or at least a lot of commentary) on the model from owners. Not necessarily reviews, but pros/cons, likes/dislikes, problems, etc.

Penultimate thing, as with all big purchases, remember to use a credit card that doubles your warranty and skip the extended. Most Visas, Mastercards and AmEx do this. Discover doesn't, but check first.

If you're ready to buy, and aren't afraid of purchasing online, Visual Apex and Plasma Concepts are well regarded etailers.

Last thing: As I mentioned, Panasonic is generally considered best in terms of picture quality, but remember that when it's in your house, you'll only be looking at that one, not that one next to those you didn't buy. More important to picture quality is proper calibration of the picture settings.

Investment approach

Back to the descriptive titles...

So I mentioned in my inaugural message I would probably be spending a fair amount of time on investment topics, which I haven't really done yet. Regardless, if I do start producing in that area, I figure I should have on record my current approach/strategy.

Or more correctly, my long term strategy. I am not a stock picker. Despite however much time people think i have, I don't have quite the time, or gumption, to make large bets on any one particular company. That wasn't always the case--back in 1993, I identified Microsoft as a company I'd like to work for (if that can be used as a proxy for buying stock)--not that I took a curriculum that would produce that result. But I digress...

Except our remaining Motorola stock (shoulda sold in October!), we're all in mutual funds. My belief is that costs (the expense ratio of a fund, loads, and other fees) matter, as that is the only prospective part of returns (or anti-returns) you can project. So this means Joanne & I are largely in index funds when available (ie, not her 401k), such as the S&P index, MSCI interntional, Wilshire 5000, etc. Index funds only try to match those returns, rather than making bets to beat that benchmark.

The virtues of this strategy is that an investor basically gets the returns of the market. So you're saying to yourself, "sounds like you're getting average returns. I can do better." And that thought is common and one that most people are susceptible to, and one I haven't completely escaped yet.

The bigger picture, though, is that there is a price paid for active trading--additional costs. Everyone has heard about how a monkey throwing darts beats some majority of professional fund managers or stock pickers, which demonstrates the randomness of returns. So if a pickers returns are random--just as likely to beat the market as get beaten--active fund managers not only have to beat the market, they have to beat it by more than the extra costs incurred (active funds tend to have expense ratios at least .5% higher). This is doable in the short term, but more difficult over longer periods. The day-to-day "noise" of the market obscures talent versus luck. But, in the end, over periods longer than 10 years, index funds tend to finish in the top quartile of performers.

Other advantages: tax efficiency (no need to get in and out of funds, lower turnover), easier to diversify across asset classes and no issues of manager turnover, style drift or asset bloat.

Given these advantages though, I still wouldn't classify myself as an indexer, as I am willing to own active funds, but the key is low costs, and that narrows the universe quite a bit. Active management does hold some appeal in terms of shying away from market bubbles (though they are just as likely to be "all in" like the 2000 tech bubble). Also tax issues are less of concern in tax advantaged accounts. But in taxable accounts, index funds are a good choice--since one has accepted the market return, there won't be any need to every sell the fund unless necessary, so this delays capital gains as long as possible, rather than churning to buy into new funds.

The second main part of my approach is holding funds in diverse asset classes: large, large value, small, small value, international, reits, fixed income. This "slice and dice" approach, when using index funds, increases returns by giving more latitude to buying low and selling high through periodic rebalancing.

Currently we're at 30 us large/15 us small/30 international/20 stable/5 reit. Some of that is cheating though--the stable is not all in bond funds. A fair chunk is in a balanced fund that holds about 40% bonds, but it's a fund that held up remarkably well during the 2000-2002 bear. When to incorporate a more legitimate bond fund(s) is one of three things that still needs to be addressed in terms of our portfolio makeup, the others being the divesture of MOT and proper diversification in international.

Actually, there's a fourth. Since this asset allocation is fairly new, it is strongly likely there is recency bias in how I've decided to allocate. We are small and value tilted, with a healthy percentage in international, and have established not insignificant positions in emerging markets and real estate, all of which have outperformed over the last 5 years.

Given the allocations, it's possible we bought in high to some of these areas. The key for us is to stick to this general strategy. So if the next 5 years involves those asset classes underperforming, I don't make changes with that as the sole reason. Adjustments to the portfolio plan are based our acceptance/need to take risk and the ability to increase diversification.

A general reminder for investment planning: "the greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan." The more important thing is to be invested for the long term, to start sooner rather than later, to develop a strategy and risk tolerance that you can live with, and follow through with it. I think Joanne & I are on our way.

A reading list:
The Four Pillars of Investing
A Random Walk Guide to Investing
Investment Guide
Diehards
Intelligent Asset Allocator

Part III: More of less, or less of more

So now that I've taken some superficial look at actual meaning of my "no crap" philosophy, I want to take a just-as-superficial look at what drives this need to consume.

In college, I took a course that dealt with environmental politics. The professor was an ardent communist who started with the same 15-20 minute rant every class, and I ended up dropping the course after a couple of weeks. The one primary take away from the class was the idea that society, when given the choice between more production/same time or same production/less time, invariably chooses the former (I fairly certain this was from EF Schumacher's "Small is Beautiful", but I could be wrong).

In other words, work is favored over leisure. On a strict time comparison, we do work less today than decades ago (the average US worker worked 100 hours less in 2005 than in 1970), but the level of production is many times greater. Schumacher's point was that what if we trade some of this production for more time? If the production rate increases 20% from 100 to 120. Instead of working the same amount of time to fully realize that increase, how about working 90% of the time, so production is still up (108), but that is accompanied by a 10% reduction in work time?

And the answer, of course, is that growth/wealth/consumption drives the competition that results this greater productivity. The notion of giving up production/profits for time is antithetical to the operations of a capitalist free market. To some degree this happens in certain markets--most of Western Europe generally ranks ahead of the US for quality of life issues, part of which is the work/life balance.

An interesting point--a column i read this week equated the tax burden with the work burden. A key point of the tax debate is relief for the middle and lower class. But the middle/lower class, on average work fewer hours (more leisure) than those earning higher salaries, but you never hear anything about "time relief" for the wealthy.

Accepting that this is more correlation than causation (or work time is dependent on salary), why is that?

Well, going back to the WSJ column in part II, work gives them some level of fulfillment/accomplishment. And more resources in which to consume and consume well (ie pay the incremental cost of perceived quality without having to invest anything in the decision making process).

But I'm digressing again. Let's get back to the consumer side, rather than producer side.

To simplify, if given a choice between a pay raise and the same pay for fewer hours, what would you pick? That may be unfair, as few get the opportunity to make this "choice", but the default is to take the raise. So know you have more money, consumption ensues.

There are a myriad of social factors for this: marketing, keeping up with the joneses, inexplicable wants, personal satisfaction/interests/hobbies, adventure, etc.

Now it's come full circle (or at least let's say we have), you're going to consume. Do you consume for convenience, for value, for quality, some combination? And who's going to notice/care what you get (outside of your house and car) anyway? And who cares what they think? Then again, you have to live with what you get, so that's who needs to be impressed.

Part II: Decisions, Decisions

In Part I, I discussed my "no crap" philosophy, but now I'm going to look at some of the ramifications of that approach...

Today's (Friday) Wall Street Journal had an commentary piece entitled "The Joys of Workaholism" (although WSJ allows free access to most of their op/ed page, this column doesn't qualify). Here's a snippet:

I have always looked down on people who are addicted to work. As a group they don't admit to being happy... But they've never seemed wholly convincing to me in their unhappiness. And now I know their secret.

They're not unhappy at all. They've discovered a way to reduce one of the most stressful aspects of modern life: having to make a seemingly unlimited number of choices...

The column goes on mention the book "The Paradox of Choice", which centers on the idea that people are paralyzed by the multitude of choices they face, so the "freedom" is actually not.

This made me think about how I spend so much time looking for the best value and/or best deal. Months agonizing over the best car or the best way to deal with a home improvement project. Weeks over the best new piece of audio/video equipment. Concern over the proper investment strategy. And what takes all this time? The multitude of choice.

Two issues are at play here:

1. The array of choices leads to inaction, as there is doubt about what is the best decision
2. If you noticed, my philosophy is primarily centered on physical goods. Is it true (borrowing from Chuck Palahniuk) that our possessions end up owning us?

I am often crippled by 1 (always looking for more information), and give some credence to #2.

Returning to the WSJ article, the point, which is alluded to in the clip, is that by working so much, you have decisions made for you (you must finish this project, you attend this meeting, achieve this goal), or at the very least, the scope of options is limited. By spending more time "working", you have less time to "work" at life--decisions are abruptly made, or made for you; projects get put off, goals get delayed, and so on.

But I have plenty of time, and I've consciously decided to address the multitude of choices I/we have and direct my time to making what I hope are good decisions. But is my time time best spent on these decisions of consumption?

I don't feel like I'm owned by my possessions, but there is a certain amount of pride and/or self worth that I derive from what I own. How much of my propensity to want to host TV events, for example, because of the plasma is to gain affirmation for the purchase. Or is it my equivalent of Martin Prince's swimming pool?

After all, it is just stuff. The Atlantic ran a piece last year about the happiness derived from experience versus possession, and how the majority of people get more satisfaction of the former rather than the latter. But a lot of that preference, i think, stems from the idealization of the experience (a moment in time) versus the luster wearing off of possessions (them being taken for granted).

I can see how that can be misconstrued as me favoring possession over experience. I don't believe that's the case--it's just that the "who with" in the experience matters a lot more than the "what". Back in part I, I said i was cheap, so that makes me disinclined to assume the materials cost of experience when that cost is unnecessary to the interpersonal contact that results.

O.K., that was a couple of tangents too many and too focused on me, but there is a connection. Is it better to have passion and interest in many things (maximizing utility), or is it better at a certain point to select a couple of areas of interest, and then accept what is satisfactory (or acceptable) for the rest? And what does that continuum look like?

Part I: No Crap!

This is part one of a three-parter. This first part is about my approach to maximize value/quality in my life, mostly in terms of the acquisition of goods and services. The second part will be a more philosophical look (i hope) at the repercussions/utility of that approach. Part three is a bigger picture look at the culture of consumerism.

Part I

In making the transition a couple of years ago from someone without money to someone with (thanks Joanne!), I adopted a "no crap" philosophy. It's pretty simple, really. There's a lot of crap in the world ("like this blog" you're saying to yourself), and i want no part of it.

So does that mean when given the choice between something cheap and something expensive, i go the expensive route? No. After all, I am still a frugal miser.

What it does mean is that I'm willing to spend hours in researching a simple purchase like a chef's knife, or an SD memory card, or my lamest example, actually being concerned about the quality of a silicone case for our iPod (in the end, i went with a $1 offer i heard about on fatwallet)

Let's use knifes as an example. You can get something cheap and then work forever to actually cut something. Sharp knives are actually safer than dull/unsharp knives since you don't have to work as hard to do the cutting. But you can also spend gobs of money on a good knife--$90 for a good Wustof, or more for even fancier knives. Or, you do some research a find out that a Victorinox whomps ass and costs $22. Quality and value. You just have to give up some heft and the fancy, bolstered handle, but it you get a blade that cuts with the best.

But something like knives is easy--plenty of web reviews and expert reviews.

Any number of other items, though, are harder to discern quality--furniture, water heaters, or a mechanic for your car. You're left with word of mouth, or hoping price=quality. And I struggle with the lack of information issues a lot, but I do make every effort to avoid as much crap as possible.

The virtues of this "no crap" philosophy are (or supposed to be) better quality stuff, which means easier to use, more pleasing to use, more reliable and less of a bother. It's also environmentally-sound, since you escape from the cycle of manufactured obsolescence by having longer lasting items. And if you make the investment in something, whether that investment is money, time or personal interest, shouldn't it be something more than just satisfactory?

Of course the difficulty here is where is the line of what demands the time and attention to find that quality? Does having an interest in gardening require having the best tools, or is it enough to know the proper methods? For investing, should one take the vested interest in knowing what their money is doing and understanding what your strategy is, or is there value in having someone else take care of it, and let you focus on other things? And does it really matter how good your blender is? The stuff will get blended eventually.

My feeling is that yes, it is worthwhile to find that quality/value in as many things as possible. But is that necessarily a positive?

continued...

Bringing the funny

It's one thing I haven't done yet.

And it's not going to start now.

Despite being 30, my tax situation has largely been simple (actually, that's probably very normal). Last year (2005) things started to get complicated, as Joanne had a stock option that was sold. And this year (2006), more capital gains fun with the Freescale sale, dealing with cost basis, qualified disposition, unqualified dispositions... It makes for a swell weekend.

So I think I speak for everyone when I say the income tax code is suboptimal. Even though it's unlikely to change in any meaningful way, it is fun to dream of changes.

One approach from the political side, is to raise the standard deduction/exemptions by a lot to be basically relieve, say, those making under $25,000 ($50,000 for couples) from even having to file. And the party that got behind this you would think would gain a lot of support from the lower working class without actually giving up a lot of revenue. I don't have the numbers handy, but the bottom half of taxpayers pay a really small percentage of overall taxes paid to the Federal government.

That doesn't really simply the code that much, unless you make that part of a flat tax that is basically "x(y-z)," where "x" is the flat tax rate, "y" is income and "z" is the standard deduction. so that's option B. so then the question is to include unearned income (non-wage income such as dividends, capital gains, etc) or not.

And then there's the "fair tax", ie national sales tax, which has a lot going for it (and it has its own blog).

the main pluses:

• very simple and transparent
• it is progressive because of the rebate check
• sales tax revenues are more stable than income tax revenues
• improves savings habits
• investment is more fluid (could be a minus as well)

but there are negatives

• sales taxes stability is likely in part its small percentage. having a 30% rate will eventually be viewed as an extra cost that will attempt to be avoided (black and gray market)
• the exemption for used items may depress certain sectors/industries (new home construction, transportation, etc), though this could be an example of Schumpeter's Creative Destruction.

there are other pluses/negatives, but it's probably moot. This large of a change to the tax code is too revolutionary to be realistic.

so what to do...

one thing that occurs to me, literally just now, is to make investments a deduction, and then make their sale all regular income. there's probably a number of reasons this is a terrible idea, but i just want to say adjusted cost basis is a pain.

Eating better

No, this isn't about the dietary habits, but cooking. A while back, we made some changes to our cooking habits that immeasurably improved the quality of our dinners. They were:
1. Better cookware
2. Fresh meat
3. A better grill

Number one came first, but is more involved, so I'll explain 2 & 3 first. We stopped defrosting, instead stopping by the store a couple of times a week to buy fresh. This may be the smallest impact, but it does make things easier to make. As for the better grill--they last for quite a while, and a quality grill will definitely make you want to grill more. We had a cheaper Charbroil for a while, and didn't use it that much. Then we found a good deal on craigslist for a Weber Silver, and now we grill often. It also helps that we have a better idea of what we're doing, but the better quality is definitely noticeable.

As for the cookware... I grew up with non-stick and regular old stainless steel. Never really tried anything fancy, but when I did, meals turned out... ok. if that. So when our cheap, college, non-stick cookware was finally done, I started researching cookware. Coming across a special for Calphalon at amazon and wanting more information about anodized aluminum, I came across this tutorial at egullet.com that is more detail than you would expect about what to look for in cookware.

This opened my eyes a bit in terms of food preparation, why our dinners were ok, but nothing special. If you're looking to sear or brown meat, it's basically impossible for non-stick to do that, as the teflon creates a layer that essentially steams items. And from what I've learned in the last two years, a good sear is key. It develops the fond and allows a cook to deglaze (adding liquid to a hot pan), which is always a fun for the instant poof of steam and the resulting sizzle.
But getting back to the actual cookware, a key part of cooking well (particularly frying or sauteeing) is to have a pan that can hold heat and transmit it to the food without losing temperature. Sounds obvious, I know, but the thermal properties of cheap non-stick and stainless steel make that nearly impossible.

So the lesson learned: thick aluminum disc, thick anodized aluminum, thick copper, or thick cast iron is the way to go. And nonstick is NG (ng=no good). It's good for eggs and that's about it.

IMO.

Future of VOTS

So I announced my resignation 3 months ago as VOTS president, but I'm still in office. That will need to change, as I'm close to starting, in honor of Derek Bell, Operation Shutdown.

So where does the organization/community go from here? I think part of my frustration/burn out was the result of spending more time thinking about doing things than actually doing them. Yes, I made sure leagues and NYF happened, there were fields for pickup and so on, but those were all established duties--I was essentially a caretaker. The value add was pretty low--ultimate hasn't really spread geographically or been introduced to youth groups because of me/VOTS. Tournament participation is lower as well--despite increased interest in Sprawl & Ironwood. My personal feeling is there is a malaise in the community, but that could entirely be my projection of my own lack of enthusiasm for playing/organizing.

So then it becomes a matter of why expand and grow? Well, the main reason is the larger the pool of players, the more likely you have more better/serious players, which makes competitive scrimmages and tournament teams easier to form. And, heck a bigger league. I think most people would be in favor of that. They play ultimate, they like ultimate, so they'd like to see more people play ultimate. And it means more to win a bigger league.

So then let's expand league to get more people playing. But... that means different times. Different locations. And this change is viewed as a negative. A common comment I've received is "i really like when league was all on one night". yeah, that's great--but that's at odds with growth.

So there's two issues in the community that are not complementary: togetherness (one community) and growth (more people playing and more geographic diversity). What is the approach to take?

The set up for this spring league may set the tone for the future. I think the best means to achieve growth is to establish multiple 8 team leagues. Get an 8-team Tempe league. 8-team league at Cap Basin. Support efforts to get an 8-team west side league going (which would take some time). and so on.

The second main goal is greater efforts in developing youth ultimate. This is kind of sore point in that I never did get around to addressing this, but it is what will make the community more vibrant. But this isn't a one-person or even small group job, because a number of people will need to be committed to be available as coaches, advisors, etc.

The third goal for the future is a change in the leadership model. Less Keith and Jills and more Jots. The community is so familiar with one person being in charge that it makes that position seem to daunting. Contrast that with the role Jot plays--takes care of Sunday open play & is the video guy for NYF. Jot has carved out his niche, finds it manageable and is in charge. So more Jots need to be found--people willing to do a couple of things--not everything--and do them well and do them responsibly. That spreads the burden, gives more people ownership in the community, and makes it easier to do more.

But why I resigned wasn't the lack of ideas, it was a lack of initiative to get started and loss of purpose of why something like this needs to happen.

Why do you support the health and growth of ultimate in Greater Phoenix?
What are you willing to do help that along?

The Best Deal in Investing

For now, and assuming you have 25K, that is...

A couple of weeks ago to compete with Bank of America (as well as offerings from regular investment firms) Wells Fargo upped the ante in the commission battle. It began providing 100 free trades through its WellsTrade brokerage account when linked with a portfolio management account if you meet the minimum balance (the aforementioned $25,000).

Unlike BofA, which requires 25K in a low yield savings account specifically, you just need $25,000 in assets at Wells Fargo. Checking, savings, brokerage, even 10% of outstanding loans qualify.

With 100 free trades you can get any stock, and even better, any mutual fund or ETF at no cost. Most brokerages have a selection of 'no transaction fee' funds, but they aren't always the best. With the Wells Trade account, you can get Dodge & Cox, Bridgeway or Vanguard funds (or almost any of your choosing) without having to set up an separate account with each fund (or pay transaction fees if at a broker).

Granted, the 100 free trades probably won't be a long term offer, but it's a great deal if you're looking to reorganize your investments or want to consolidate and simplify accounts. Unfortunately Joanne & I already did the consolidation thing with Fidelity in December, so we can't take advantage of this right at the moment.

Who's all jacked up?

That would be me. I'm all jacked up.

And no, this isn't a blog about Mountain Dew. But it will probably demonstrate the fidgety, unfocused nature that you might expect from someone downing their third Dew of the day (i should note I am trying to cut back--only one today!).

Anyway, this won't be a themed blog. Or if it is, the theme will be constantly changing as I discover new interests (happens every couple of months) and share my experiences in learning something new.

My current fixation is investing/personal finance, so initial posts will probably lean that way, but if I end up not sucking as a blogger, I should be able to include general interest items I come across, as well as hitting on past areas of focus.

Good times!