Cool postage on a letter I received the other day:
Cool postage on a letter I received the other day:
As I looked around the lake this Friday morning at 7:00am I turned to my friend Dave and said, "There are no other boats on this lake right now, which means one of two things. Either we're crazy, or everyone else is."
We literally had the lake to ourselves and the water looked like glass. Our mutual friend Paul - a tournament-level skier who has been featured in the pages of Waterski Magazine - was making huge cuts behind the boat. Both of us admired his textbook-like form.
It's considered late in the season when you're skiing past Labor Day and you know it because when you get out of bed to go the stars are still out. That, plus my car's temperature gauge read a chilly 43 degrees as I sped down the road to meet Dave at 6:15.
After filling the boat with gas we put onto the water at roughly 6:50 with the sun just coming up. That didn't warm things up much because a string of clouds circled the horizon. Above us to the west, though, the mountains reflected the sunlight.
I had been first to ski and, as always, entering the water was the tough part. That, plus getting out of bed in the first place at such an early hour. But once you're in and used to the water you're glad to be out there. And the lake water remains warm, driven by the fact that 75+ degree days aren't uncommon in September and October in Colorado.
The boat pulled me out of the water and settled at 34mph. That's when you really feel the chilly air, especially on your ears and face which aren't protected by a wetsuit. But then after you make your first cut any concerns about the air, the water, work, school, life and and everything else, dissipate - you're too busy having fun, speeding across the wake at 50+mph to make another turn.
Paul went next, shortening the rope to 28 off. The longer we pulled him the more aggressive his turns got until his body was practically flat against the water. And then Dave, a long-time skier who I've skied with all summer, took his turn. Some skiers can make a handful of turns - enough to ski a course - before they become fatigued. Dave's endurance rivals anyone I've seen as he can make turns around the entire lake and then some.
Then, as is customary and almost required if you're going to get out of bed that early, we each skied a second time.
So are we crazy? Or is everyone else for not being out there? The latter for sure (even though if everyone else was out there they'd ruin our water). There are few better ways to start a morning. Surfers might say surfing is better. Fine - depends what you know. Runners may say running is better - I'm a runner and would disagree but it's better than nothing when the weather gets too cold for watersports.
It would be easy to let the weight of sleep or threat of cold keep me back. But I don't. And it makes me happier and in better spirits for the rest of the day because I've done it, even if it took a bit of a push to get there.
We're not crazy, we're just out there doing it and wondering why everyone else is so out of their minds.
I discovered this video on Brett's blog. It's been viewed millions of times and rightly so - it is fascinating to watch. It's a battle between lions and buffalo and one finds himself stunned at each turn of events - first there is suspense, followed by fascination and despair, followed by resignation. But then it really gets interesting when an expected party arrives on scene and even more so when the lions find themselves on the defensive. And then suddenly one experiences hope and can't help but cheer for the buffalo through the end.
Try doing something non-routine tomorrow and see how it changes your day:
I've hit a milestone: 100 blog posts on orangehornet.com. Might seem like just a few to some of you, and a whole lot to others, but it's a milestone nonetheless. To commemorate the achievement orangehornet is sporting a new look tonight and aims to hit 1,000 posts in short order. Enjoy reading in the meantime.
The thing about celebrating Lent is that everyone wants to give something up.
Popular choices are our vices - coffee, alcohol, cigarettes (might as well quit for good), red meat, junk food, Facebook (yes, it's a vice for some) or swearing, to name some. For 46 days you're golden and then right back to your bad habits.
How about not giving up anything for Lent this year? Instead, add something. Smile at everyone you see. Tell your significant other you love them every day. Start a blog. Run each morning. Call up one old friend each day to reconnect. Donate to charity. Read three books. Spend a weekend visiting a relative you haven't seen in a long time.
Or change something. Go to bed at 10pm instead of midnight. Eat granola for breakfast instead of Frosted Flakes. Drink coffee instead of Diet Coke. Dress more professionally. Drive a different route to work every day. Go to a different coffee shop than the one your'e used to. Only watch one TV show per week instead of three.
The possibilities are endless. Giving up something that's perceived as bad is akin to the glass-half-empty approach. Adding something, whether it's completely new or via a change, is the glass-half-full approach. And if you do that your bad habits might change right along with it. Maybe even try to implement that addition or change for more than 46 days if it works for you.
To some extent it just boils down to a mental attitude. But try it.
I have two daughters (as you know if you've read my other blog). I often have people ask me whether I have time to see them or how I manage other activities like work and social life (and blogging) and still manage to be a parent. And regardless of my response, they confess they're just not ready and are waiting for some future event to occur before they pull the trigger.
My reaction to that? Whether or not that future event comes there's never a perfect time. If you're only 20 years old you should probably wait, but otherwise there will always be financial issues, career and social demands and other perceived conflicts. Always. That's not to say you don't need to make sacrifices and re-prioritize things once your'e a parent - you do. But you also just learn to work everything else in.
In fact, once you have kids it's almost hard to imagine what life was like before they were there. Yes, you spend more time with other couples who have kids. Yes, you might reminisce about the fact you could once go skiing every weekend. But life just moves forward and you still do lots of the same things you used to do, if maybe to a lesser extent.
Your window with each of your kids is roughly 18 years. After that window they (usually) move out and you see them every once in awhile. Effectively you get to pick which part of your life that window occupies. Maybe you have two kids, two years apart, and that window for you is ages 30-50. Or maybe you wait until you're 40 to have kids and that window is 40-60.
I'd argue that the latter window does you a disservice in at least two ways though. One is pretty easy to identify: birth risks to the mother and child increase significantly as women get into their late 30s and beyond. The other requires some forward thinking. How old will you be when your child graduates from high school? 50? That leaves lots of time for you to engage in the same activities they do as an active participant. But what if you're 60 or older? In that case you might be sitting on the sidelines, watching, instead of playing ball with them on the court.
There is no perfect time to have kids, just like there is no perfect time to get married, go to grad school, get a job, start a business or travel the world. There are times when those things may be impossible. But when they are possible there are just degrees of difficulty. Or, put another way, degrees of ease. And most of the time it's really tough to ascertain whether things will get more or less easy down the road.
I'm not suggesting that you go out and have a kid today. Not at all. Just that you recognize there's never a perfect time and there are always trade-offs.
What works hard but has zero real-world skills, eagerly fetches flowers, bath soaps and Spanish language gossip magazines for their bosses, hangs out exclusively in clubby groups, is prone to cheesy social behavior and is subject to periodic unemployment?
Well, yes, you're right - actors. But investment bankers too. Or so suggests the latest episode of 30 Rock:
I only bother to write about it here because it's amusing, and kind of true, even if it is Alec Baldwin alleging such things.
I'm going to get in trouble for writing that. But let's consider the economic realities of this holiday - one in which consumers will spend tens of billions of dollars, even if it's a little less this year than last.
Roses are the key culprit of course.
Why do roses suddenly get so expensive? Supply and demand. Valentine's Day is easily the biggest rose demand day of the year. Roughly a third of a rose grower's annual sales and two months of a florist's annual sales come from this day. When demand rises so sharply, prices do too.
But the supply side of the equation is just as responsible. It's a daunting and expensive task to get millions of roses to tens of thousands of florists and supermarkets within a few days of Valentine's Day. Growing roses in the midst of winter, at least in the northern hemisphere, takes longer and requires more artificial heat and sunlight. Getting them from warmer, farther-away places is expensive too. And shipping so many roses in a timely manner while keeping them fresh is a logistical challenge.
The key thing is that roses are perishable. They can't be supplied or bought ahead of time except by maybe a few days. So a demand spike, met by a high cost of meeting that demand, burdens your wallet more than on other days. Same goes for your Valentine's Day meal - it can't be bought in advance either. Helium balloons are a bit like this too unless you like to deliver yours floating near the floor.
Economics purists would say that jewelry and holiday cards don't fall into the same category because you can buy them all year long and well in advance of the holiday. The practical reality, however, is that most people wait and pay more than they have to because retailers anticipate the demand spike. We're at our own mercy, essentially.
There's the pressure too. My guess is that suggesting to your significant other that you celebrate on February 21 this year won't go over well. And here's a sampling of advertising around the web that instills urgency:
"It's officially last minute. Don't wait a second longer," from ProFlowers.com.
"Don't fumble this Valentine's Day!" from Teleflora.com.
"Make your loved one the envy of the office," from OrganicBouquet.com. (Or, make her colleagues feel sorry that her husband is spending so much of their hard-earned money on flowers that will be dead by next week.)
Why are we beholden to February 14 to show our affection for others? How about just doing that every day of the year? Or at least half the days? That would seem to work out better for everyone except maybe retailers and florists.
Nonetheless Valentine's Day is celebrated in many places around the world.
Many Europeans celebrate in much the same fashion as Americans, willingly submitting to economic servitude for a day. The poor Romanians have traditionally had their holiday on February 24 but now find themselves celebrating on February 14 as well. Understandably this has resulted in significant backlash alongside accusations that the day is superficial and too commercialized.
Asians, being a commercially-centered culture, spend the most money of anyone on Valentine's Day thanks to heavy marketing efforts. Interestingly there's a bit more gender equality happening in Japan - women are obligated to give chocolate candy to men on February 14 and men are obligated to give non-chocolate candy to women one month later. Hence retailers get two bites at the proverbial economic apple.
South Americans celebrate on varying days depending on which country you live in. I like how Guatemala does it - friends appreciate friends, taking power away from retailers. There's so much variation in how friends exchange appreciation that it's impossible to leverage pricing on a specific set of gift items.
Brazil had to move Valentine's Day to June because people are too exhausted, not to mention broke, to celebrate after the debauchery of Carnival. But it still exists.
In Venezuela people suffer through a week-long holiday, creating two instances in which one needs three months of salary at his disposal - for the purchase of an engagement ring, and during the Venezuelan "week of love."
In Saudi Arabia Valentine's Day was banned in 2008. Reasons include that it's a non-Islamic festival and that it encourages the mingling of single men and women. This is an interesting case. My view is that where there's a will there's a way. Men and women will mingle if they are attracted to each other. And banning the holiday won't stop it - in fact, a black market has developed for traditional Valentine's Day items making the day even more expensive than it was before.
After all this consideration, though, you can't really hate Valentine's Day. It's good to celebrate our loved ones. And the economics are our own fault. Prices aren't high because production costs are high. Prices are high because we - yes, we consumers - want so many roses on one specific day every year. We've colluded against ourselves and picked a perishable good to symbolize our feelings, no less.
Maybe in March we can start brainstorming a new way to do it.
I forgot to put up the answer to the question posed in my January 2, 2009 post. Pretty obvious, I think, but it's Trading Places.
This post is off-the-beaten-path but a news story grabbed my attention. Imagine this:
After a nasty civil war, the US splits into 6 pieces. California forms the core of the "California Republic" and becomes part of China, Texas becomes the heart of the "Texas Republic" and becomes part of Mexico, the eastern seaboard morphs into "Atlantic America" and merges with the EU, Canada usurps most of the northern states which become the "Central North America Republic," and Hawaii joins Japan or China while Alaska joins Russia.
This outlandish scenario was devised by a popular Russian professor about a decade ago and it has received renewed interest of late as the US deals with its economic crisis, including receiving a decent amount of press last week. To me it practically sounds like Pangaea all over again.
Why does the professor think he's right? He points to a French political scientist who correctly predicted the demise of the Soviet Union 15 years ahead of time, but I think that's just a red herring. The Russian professor doesn't really care whether he's right or wrong. He's finally getting his 15 minutes in the spotlight. (And he probably wants revenge against the French guy who was right.)
What does the sudden popularity of this story tell me? Here are a few haphazard thoughts:
We are near a market bottom, as I've said before. Dire visions like this one often receive significant attention near the peak of market turmoil. The economic pain will continue for awhile but things will start to get better. The stock market will lead, like it always does.
Anti-American sentiment remains high, even in places we don't think about as often these days. People here believe that Obama will help change all that but just when you let your guard down another opponent emerges.
People want to be led, even if is by someone with crazy ideas. This professor is no stranger to the Russians - he is a prolific writer and political analyst. And he has lately amassed a significantly larger following because of his theory. Whether it's because of patriotism or power hungriness or general lack of direction, people want someone to show them the way.
As a corollary to the above, most people aren't very smart. It's nothing against the Russians - it's just the way it is. This professor is very smart - he's going gangbusters marketing this stuff right now and would be crazy not to. Somehow he's bridged the gap to appeal to the Russian masses. But consider the following: this professor says his brainstorm has a 45-55% chance of occurring. In other words, total disintegration of the United States in 2010 is based on a coin flip.
Everyone wants a scapegoat. In business - Arthur Andersen and its 85,000 employees took the brunt of the blame for the 2002 Enron debacle. In sports - Steve Bartman "ruined" the Chicago Cubs' chance at a World Series in 2003 by disrupting a play. In politics - the Nazis blamed the Jews for Germany's post-World War I economic and political woes. The Russians have repeatedly blamed the US in recent years for the problems in the Middle East and the financial crisis. An impending collapse here is music to Russian ears.
People want to feel important. This one's obvious but worth a mention. Right now this Russian professor feels incredibly important. He's getting international press and claims to be on the verge of being right about the largest civil war and political reorganization in the history of the world. The Russians love it because they'd get Alaska - that means oil! Maybe they could even link up with the Mexicans and Chinese and create a new global alliance. Who knows.
Last, sensationalism sells and that's what the mainstream media is all about. The guy who broke this story wrote it now for a reason. In 1998, when this professor formulated this scheme, such an article would have received scant attention. But he knew that today people would read it and perhaps that someone like me might blog about it.
What kind of impact did 2008 have on your psyche? If you need a pep talk heading into 2009, here's one. (If you can guess the movie before reading to the end, you're already ahead of the curve.)
Think big.
Think positive.
Never show any sign of weakness.
Always go for the throat.
Buy low, sell high.
Fear? That’s the other guy’s problem.
Nothing you have ever experienced can prepare you for the unbridled carnage you are about to witness.
Superbowl, World Series? They don’t know what pressure is.
In this building it’s either kill or be killed.
Make no friends in the pits and take no prisoners.
One minute you’re up half a million in soybeans and the next minute your kids don’t go to college.
Let's kick some ass.
[Hint: The movie has my last name in it twice.]
I'm not posting tonight, except to say enjoy yourself during the holidays and Merry Christmas.
I'm not going to sit here and tell you to be thankful or suggest you give something to someone who needs it more than you do. That's up to you. If you're the kind of person who is giving and thankful for what he has, you're already doing those things. If you're not, you're not. I, for one, am thankful for many things, including you, my readers. My blog is young and I appreciate your early support. Happy Thanksgiving.
Copyright © 2008-2009 OrangeHornet.com. All rights reserved.
