So what about demand? Demand-side economics are largely based on Keynesian Economics, arguing that the best way to stimulate an economy is through the reduction of interest rates which will stimulate private investment via bank loans as well as through direct government investment in infrastructure. It is important to note that both of these functions are initiated by the government (in the former case, interest rates are controlled by the Federal Reserve). The latter is often seen as rather peculiar (and in some cases quite wasteful) but can actually be an important tool, in certain situations that I will discuss in a minute. For the former, consider the example of the interest rate being almost directly reflected in the mortgage interest rate. When rates are high, people are less likely to borrow money either in the form of purchasing a new house via a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage to “cash out” equity built up in the house (for example is the outstanding mortgage balance is $200k, and the house is worth $350k, there is said to be $150k of owner equity built up which can be converted to cash by extending the mortgage). High interest rates have their own purpose that are out of the scope of this discussion. When consumer spending begins to fall (which is bad for businesses), people can be induced to spend money by essentially offering a better deal via lower interest rates. To return to the mortgage example, as the interest rates fall, more people will be likely to convert their equity into cash based on the favorable rates.

For the second part, the infrastructure investment part, this is a bit of a peculiar tool, and is not something you would necessarily use all the time. Indeed, one of the first lessons I learned in economics was that paying people to dig a big hole, which creates jobs, and then when the hole is dug paying people to fill it back in, which creates more jobs, is not an economically productive activity. That’s not to say that infrastructure investments don’t create tangible assets (we all benefit from the existence of at least one bridge, not to mention freeways everyday), but still. One of the flaws of the interest rate as an incentive to stimulate investment is that banks are willing to lend at the new rate. In economic situations like the current one we face, even with low interests rates that give banks easy access to cheap money, banks may not be willing to lend the money, or may demand more stringent lending requirements (which can be a double whammy in a time when people are typically strapped for cash / facing a devaluation of assets making it harder to qualify for loans generally). This is known as a liquidity trap. In these cases some sort of direct investment into the economy is necessary, and it is important to keep this as fair as possible (although I personally endorse funding ReadyIT as a part of the bailout, most people might be jealous), so infrastructure is something that a) puts money into the construction market, which tends to get hit pretty hard during tight economic times anyway, and b) creates something that we all theoretically can benefit from (again, I’m pretty sure we can all agree that roads are pretty handy). I wouldn’t be surprised if we see additional means of direct investment spring up as a result of this recession. I vote for helicopter money in all cities that were predominantly Obama supporters.

At any rate this is all very interesting stuff, and once again the models of modern economics will be tested on the field of battle. I hope to continue digging into this material and continuing my “recessionary education”, but for the time being have sidetracked to “The Knack” in hopes that it will prove to be an entrepreneurial gem among what is otherwise a desolate wasteland of con-artists and misinformation almost as disgusting as Multi-Level Marketing… Selling people dreams and false hope seems to be one of America’s strongest cottage industries. But then again, we were a country founded by religious zealots (JOKE!)

P.S. One topic of particular interest that I may or may not write full post on (my passion is at times whimsical) is that one of the major factors of the current crash is that certain institutions were acting like banks by taking deposits and investing the money and then paying returns on the proceeds, but were not subjecting themselves to the regulations applied to banks (i.e. minimum cash reserve limits based on outstanding loans/ investments, etc) and thereby were not subject to the protections afforded banks (FDIC deposit insurance for example). This means that even if they hadn’t made shitty, irresponsible investments, they were still subject to bank-run style collapses a-la the 1930s. Greed is truly an amazing thing.

To give some background, the last two weeks to a month have been a major introspective period for me. Not like the dark, emo kind of introspective, but rather a general coming to terms with how I see the world based on information I have assimilated recently. Specifically, I have seen two start-ups begin to grow to maturity, and come to terms with the “hard realities” of what it means to create a new business venture (especially in the current economic situation), and I have also been giving myself a crash course in recessionary history with a general eye on macro economics as it pertains to society as a whole. A brief plug, I would recommend Panic: The Story of Modern Financial Insanity by Michael Lewis to anyone. I’ve been handing out copies of the audiobook like it was the Bible (and I was a Gideon).

Anyway, one of the books I’ve been reading (actually reading, not audiobooking, as is my current pre-disposition) as a part of this self-imposed course of study is America Works: Critical Thoughts on the Exception U.S. Labor Market… Given that my father supported my family via a) a blue collar vocation and b) as a member of a union, I have always had a unique perspective on the role of the two as it pertains to the overall well being of America. Having also studied various white collar disciplines (including  flirting with the idea of a business degree) I always felt at odds with the “labor” side of America in my education. The day I came home from an econ 101 class and told my Dad that Unions were bad for the economy was the day I learned I should probably not just take everything I’m told at face value (among other things relating to disagreeing with your father’s career choice wholesale).

On the one hand it was because of the economic benefit bestowed on union workers that I was able to have all of the opportunities to become educated and pursue a more advanced career path, but once embarking upon said journey the message that seemed to persist was that a) unions were bad (much as socialism is bad) and b) anyone who struggled in poverty was just lazy and if they really wanted to get ahead should be doing it like everyone else (the short sightedness of this latter concept is almost down right horrifying to me now). As a result the general consensus was that anyone who wanted to succeed should be just like me/us (educated and amazing). It took a while to get what it took to create the opportunity for me to be amazing (Thanks Mom and Dad!!!!).

So for the longest time I have struggled to reconcile the two worlds. In my gut I knew that supporting blue collar labor was good, but felt like anyone who wanted to could “get ahead”. I have since learned a few things. Of greatest significance is that while I do belie anyone is capable of anything in the grand sense of things and should always be given the benefit of the doubt, most people tend to have an in-built “just enough” mechanism. Even given infinite opportunity people will tend to become content and stop pushing to get ahead right about the same time that they feel they are able to live happily and comfortably. I think this is amazing and am envious of anyone who is already there. Some elegant law of natural conservation is at work. (It’s a world where you almost feel sort of sorry for the overly driven people. That’s right. Pity me. ). To summarize: we won’t all be captains of industry, PhDs, or whatever else is currently considered awesome (Navy SEALs?), and that doing the less glamorous tasks for a living is a-ok and should never be stigmatized.

To shift to the political realm (WARNING: This may start to sound slightly relevant), the eternal Rep vs. Dem fiscal policy knife fight seems to always come down to tax cuts for the super rich vs. social programs for the poor. To be honest I was always a little overwhelmed with the choice… Do you give money to people who are good at making it (or a member of the lucky sperm club and therefore happening to inherit it) or to people who can’t seem to keep a hold of it? This issue is particularly in focus during times of a recession (but who’s ever heard of one of those……..)

Cutting taxes for the rich, thereby supposed causing them to want to start more businesses or expand existing ones which creates jobs and prosperity for all (lovingly known as the trickle down theory of economics, less lovingly as the quite vivid “piss on em” version of economics). People (and society as a whole) benefit if socially responsible companies like Costco and others grow as a result, but anything that benefits the Wal-Mart crowd brings us one step closer to the apocalypse.  But that’s a discussion for another time…

Alternatively you have the option of enriching the least well off of our society. The arguement against this being that poor people will go squander money on liquor, rims, and gold chains. Even worse, single mothers on welfare will (*gasp*) stay home and focus on raising their children instead of being productive members of society (*cough*). The positive version goes something like: these are the people that will use the money to do stuff like pay their mortgage (which would allow more than one banker to sleep better in current times) and buy groceries. Again, nay sayers would argue that this does nothing to create new opportunities, but the affirmative side would argue that any economic activity is good activity (this is one of the core lessons I’ve learned from my recessions 101 study).

To be completely honest, while I was never fully comfortable with (or clear on the full implications of) either, I tended to favor the former. Why not give money to people who seem to know what to do with it? Well… (insert soapbox here) in my oppinion if you were to filter out the people who made their money a) exploiting people b) essentially gambling and winning (*cough* stock market types *cough*) or c) inheriting the of previous generations, I would argue that the number of rich people out there who are actually in a position to enrich the economy, and would do so in a way that would benefit society as a whole are quite few and far between.

So what made me change my mind? Two main concepts come to mind:

1. The biggest factor in a recession is a contraction in spending. In recssionary periods we don’t need new businesses or revolutionary new products (sorry, the hydrogen car can wait). The over simplified version is that we really just need people to keep spending money on the things they always spent it on. Go buy that new car, remodel your house, or get that nose job you’ve always been wanting. (As an aside, it’s funny to me that the recession comes at a time when Camille and I are trying to practice frugality. What’s good for our family and what’s good for the economy are at odds at the moment =P).
2. People are generally retarded when it comes to investments and money. Most investment activities could easily be classified as speculation (also called secondary market activity), which is essentially a combination of overly pure supply & demand economics, emotional sales tactics, and gambling. Seriously. I am convinced that more secondary market activity that is associated with an investment (especially as it pertains to anything stock related) the more it is likely to become a giant Ponzi scheme. Again, a topic worthy of it’s own discourse that I’ll save for another day.
   

So how do I justify my pick? Let me break it down classroom style.

Lesson One

Note: I am writing this from the perspective of teaching a lesson in front of a class, so for those of you following along at home feel free to brainstorm on your own.

Consider the current recession and bail-out from the following perspective:  We can either a) cut taxes to the rich(thus giving them more money to invest) or b) give money to the poor (giving them more money to spend on basic needs). Something to keep in mind as we move throught this is that which ever group we give money to will lower the cost of whatever activities they typically participate in.

As a whiteboard activity, I would start by asking people to name basic human needs a-la Maslow’s heirarchy of needs. For example:

I would then explain that poverty is generally considered to be the inability or severe difficultly, meet these basic needs, say spending 70%+ of income. This will be our working definition of poor people.

As a working definition of rich people, let’s classify anyone who spends less than 10% of their income meeting their basic needs as rich. The next step is to ask people to name things rich people do (or buy). For example:

Now, consider the earlier premise that whatever we spend money on will lower the cost of that activity. It’s important that we expand on that a bit. In the short term, demand will increase thus driving up prices based on a relatively unchanged supply. An increase in price will bring more suppliers into the market, creating competition which will cause the various suppliers to seek the greatest efficiency in production. In the meantime the increase in supply will bring the price back down, and only the most efficient producers will remain long term (or so sayeth the holy economics canon). Of course, this still relies on the belief that easing a contraction in spending will ease a recession.

At this point you could make it an ethical issue… What’s better for humanity: Affordable housing and food or private jets and luxury cars? Even if  you argue for philanthropy the end result is the same as if you gave the money to the poor directly, except that you are then relying on voluntary compliance from the rich. But this isn’t ethics, it’s economics! So let’s rephrase: Long term what’s better for the economy, cheaper goods that enable people to do productive things like work and have babies, or private jets that allow smart, important people to get places faster… You see where I’m going with this…

Ironically it all comes back to the simple (and almost creepy) observation that we create our own reality. Do we want to to live in a work with affordable housing for all or one of uber perks for the selected few? Even if you are among the chosen, imagine a world where the elite are segregated from the unwashed a-la Oryx and Crake (*cough* check out Camille’s book club *cough*) and it’s still not pretty. We truly either stand together or fall apart. I’d rather be mildly rich in a world of enriched humanity than retardedly rich in a world of abject poverty. But anyway…

I’m pretty sure I’ve written college essays that were shorter so I’ll wrap things up for now and save the rest for another day.

Never seen a bluer sky
Yeah I can feel it reaching out
and moving closer
There’s something ’bout blue
Asked myself what it’s all for
You know the funny thing about it
I couldn’t answer
No, I couldn’t answer
Things have turned a deeper shade of blue
and images that might be real
may be illusion
Keep flashing off and on
Free…
Wanna be free, Gonna be free
and move among the stars
You know they really aren’t so far
Feels so free…
Gotta know free… Please…
Don’t wake me from the dream
It’s really everything it seemed
I’m so free…
No black and white in the blue
Everything is clearer now
Life is just a dream, you know
that’s never ending
I’m ascending

So, inevitably Cams and I will stumble into random conversations about the various facets of life and the universe. The other night we got on the topic of hippies, which I tend to refer more to the idea of neo-hippies, being that the “hippie culture” of today is more of a fashion / social trend attached to a canned, cowed philosophy. In a lot of ways I can appreciate the idealism of counter-culture, and the notions of challenging authority, but too often the struggle to fight authority creates it own system of authority (hence conforming non-conformists), which I am generally not a fan of. It is because of this force that I would generally not tell people I’m Buddhist simply because of the number of young people that would call themselves Buddhist  more as a means of being hip instead of as a personal, spiritual pursuit. So it goes.

Err, got a bit tangential there. Anyway, I want pickles…. Mmm. JK! So, hippies… Essentially what bothers me about the current “hippie culture” is that, as mentioned about, its mostly just a social trend with little in the way of an actual agenda for change but rather a propensity to complain about how wrong everything is while doing very little to be a part of the solution (protesting DOES NOT COUNT). Essentially they expect someone else to solve all the problems while they refuse to participate in the system.

Parallel to that is the commoditization of conscience. In the same way that “earthiness” and whatnot is a part of the social trend, the things that exemplify it are commoditized thereby creating a system by which you can *buy* peace of mind simple by following the systems rules (i.e. only organic, fair trade, etc etc) By doing this we are exempted from actually having to *do* anything to make the world a better place, and instead buy indulgences (the old fashioned catholic kind) to free our consciences from the sense responsibility for fixing things.

So that feels like alot of complaining on my part. Basically my counterpoint to all of this is that WE are responsible for doing something about the things we see wrong in the world. Grassroots movements can indeed be a powerful thing when we channel that collective energy into accomplishing an actual goal, rather than into an ineffectual activity (it makes me sick to see elaborately planned protests that, in the end, basically accomplish a bunch of people getting to go “hi mom!!!!!!” on tv). FURTHERMORE I also believe in changing the system from within. Not that we should cling to old ideas, but neither should we throw them out whole sale. Remember than even those systems were new once, and I believe that people generally try to improve things for the better, so the existing systems reflect a lot of positive lessons learned. While it may be tempting to start from scratch (which tends to be a lot easier) it is ultimately a greater net positive to fix an existing system because older systems tend to be more stable. Well.. it’s time for me to go home… more later on this, maybe.

Tomorrow is my last (supposedly) live class I will be teaching for Cisco. One of my biggest points of disappointment currently is that I’ve been put in a position to leave this job just when I’ve hit my teaching stride. But all the same I’m very glad I’ve hit a “teaching stride”. Given my current business endeavors I think it will be quite invaluable.

Of particular top of mind has been networks and data centers. One of the major projects on the horizon for HAL is a major data center project. For the uninitiated let me digress for a minute on the significance of data centers (DCs as I get too lazy to type) in the overall scope of the IT world. At it’s core, one of the biggest values IT has brought to business is that it provides a low cost means to connect people to information (and other people). Think, for example the amount of effort it would take to call someone to ask for their home address and phone number, including the effort to dictate, record, and confirm the accuracy of such information manually. Now think of how much effort is saved by asking them to send you the info in an email. Then multiple this by ten (or a hundred) people and you begin to get the point.

To build on that point, the next concern is how to make the most of the least. Another example would be buying a computer for everywhere you compute (work, home, on the road) vs. having a laptop that can travel with you (I have personally sworn off desktop computers for the time being). Now, given that the internet pretty much connects everybody to everybody, it’s not unreasonable to begin to expect to be able to access anything anywhere at the same time (there are constraints to this, but thats out of scope in the case). Think, for example, for Amazon.com. I can order books (and a host of other products) from any PC connected to the internet. Whats happening in that case is that your computer is talking to another computer somewhere out there in the ether. In a small scale example it seems like a relatively simple solution. Where the problem / challenge comes in is when you begin to scale this. This is a hefty concern when you consider the magnitude: Google performs roughly 112 million searches per day (I blame you).

Given that every computer has limits to how much work it can do in a span of time (any PC gamer is acutely aware of this), the question becomes how does one make the most efficient use of resources (in a manner that provides the highest amount of availability, since an unreachable website or an unusable computer is of zero value) that allows one to scale a service (or services) to meet the demand.

The answer is simple (to type): Connect multiple computing resources performing similar tasks in a close proximity (as data is cheaper to move over short distances) in a manner that allows you to provide scalable service that can meet demand. (Think of how many potential academic disciplines could you tap to explore the ramifications of that answer.) That is, in essence, a data center. It is a fascinating blend of cutting edge technology and incredible (but interesting) minutiae. While most tech heads might think in terms of bits per second, or gigahertz, or megabyes, data center folks get to ask the REALLY detailed questions like, how much power is required per gigahertz etc. Every device inside a data center is rated not only for its performance, but for its physical requirements, namely power and heat. (In fact, you will run out of power or the ability to cool a large quantity of devices long before you will run out of space to physically house the equipment). It is a question of how can we push technology to it’s physical limits (one of they key metrics of a data centers success or usefulness is percent of utilization of resources).

While I find this topic both fascinating and mind expanding, chances are most people don’t (I’m beginning to think thats why they have to pay people in my field so much to keep doing what they do.) But either way, I think we can all get excited about a good conspiracy theory.

Having recently lived through a year-long debacle with terrible mismanagement and lack of strategic alignment, I can readily say that for as long as I provide my labor (and more importantly, brain power) for the benefit of someone/thing else I will always seek companies that align with my own understanding and beliefs of how a business should run.

Let me elucidate a bit. (Digress even…) What I respect about HAL, and look forward to re-immersing in, is that they put the right people in the right places, and the top-to-bottom management / leadership chain is all in alignment. It’s hard to summarize how awesome (and rare) that is, but for those who are interested, I would recommend checking out Good to Great.

So there’s that. In addition,  the immediate manager pretty much embodies how, in my opinion, management should be done. In essence it breaks down like this:

1) He has clear expectations of what he wants.

2) He typically puts forth some amount of insight as to how he would do it, but is open to suggestion / argument as to why it should be done differently.

3) He puts his people first, and will always fight for them first and ask questions later. In addition to this he is always trying to help his people get ahead, even if their interests might run contrary to his own. (This one should be highlighted and underlined. If you want a workforce that will go to the extremes for you, it is this particular show of altruism that will cement that relationship. Once you set this as a guiding value, you will know that everyone who works for you is there by choice, which is super powerful.)

4) He is direct and accepts open, honest feedback. While that might not sound like a lot, as a manager it is fairly key to give your employees the space to be unfiltered with you and not have to worry about the consequences. This is not to say that you have to put up with assholes talking shit to you, but rather that you can communicate important issues without worrying about being shot at as the messenger. (One example that stands out in my mind is that, when I was looking into taking the Cisco position, I informed my HAL manager as soon as I had reached the fairly serious phase of the interview process. This is rather unheard of in the world of IT consulting / contracting as you risk being fired on the spot. Case in point, Cisco had done exactly this with one of my former teammates.)

5) Most importantly is trust. The thing that drives me out of my current job is a lack of trust. Even though I would easily commit to measurable outcomes that are time-based, I was constantly harassed because my boss “didn’t know what I was doing.” An environment like that is paralyzing. Without trust, inefficiency rises exponentially. With trust, a manager has the ability to set expectations, enable their people (a sub-point here is to create milestones to provide overall status), and then get out of the way. This is a very powerful tool (and first requires hiring the right people), and is one of the keys of a successful organization.

At this point I feel like I’m gushing, but suffice it to say, time and experience have taught me the value of what I’ve outlined above, and I’m quite excited to become engaged in it again. Cheers!

1) Wrap up taxes w/ Camille

2) Update business information, get ready to take on Holland America as a customer

3) Follow up on possibile business opportunity doing content creation work with ANI

4) Engage resources for developing ReadyIT content. Currently I’m thinking that using a distributed approach to developing the content by offering franchise type opportunity to the participating developers for the ensuing training business may be right about on the money.

On a seperate note, Xbox needs to stop making so many good games. They’ve continued through what is normally the “shut the door, turn off the lights and take off the month of December” holiday release rush, and Q1 of 2008 has seen a number a high profile titles, Dark Messiah being my current focus with Army of Two and Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 on the horizon. Oh, and let us not forget the amazing electronic reincarnation of Magic: The Gathering, Culdcept Saga. Have a good weekend!

The New:

- I am mid-way into Alan Greenspan’s voluminous biography. Given the sheer size of the book and the fact that economists tend to be dull people I was quite skeptical as to how well it would hold my interest. As it turns out, I have been unable to put it down. The first half of the book traces his life and development as an economist, and has some really good political history mixed in. The second half of the book is basically an exposition of his understanding of economics and how the world works (I just got to this part, so far so good).

What I find interesting about his view of politics and the economy is that his first priority in politics was to understand how the government could create the most ideal conditions for the economic prosperity of the people. I agree with him that this should be one of the first and most overriding values we strive for in politics (national defense also being up there, however that is much more of a vague value to pursue). One of the most interesting facets of the last 30 years is that from Carter until Clinton, fiscal conservatism in government was a prevailing value, and was partly responsible for one of the longest economic booms in history.

By the time Bush II came along, we were facing a budget surplus for the first time. However things quickly unraveled after that. The surplus predictions by themselves were off quite a bit. That combined with the massive tax cuts that were put in place to deal with this (now non-existent) surplus ended the long march to fiscal parity quite abruptly. What is interesting about all of this is that Republicans were traditionally the ones who were fiscally conservative and more likely to work toward a balanced budget (the exception being that Clinton also followed that trend). With the New Regime, fiscal conservatism in Republicans has come to an end. Congress has spent money like it was going out of style and Bush has reached a new historical low for vetoing bills featuring exorbitant spending. If I have one curiosity about the impending election, it’s to see which, if either candidate picks up with fiscal conservatism and runs with it. For the first time in a while Democrats have the opportunity to capture this particular demographic. This would be huge for me, because while I value some amount of social programs, I still prioritize economic enablement and fiscal conservatism in government first. The reason for this being that we are more likely to improve the well being of ALL people by having a strong economy (which is provided for by the two values, from a political standpoint). And secondly because social programs require a strong economic underpinning to begin with (how are we going to pay for stuff like that if we don’t have any money).

So there, it’s now in writing, you have my political philosophy. Now lets never speak of this again.

The old (and not in the “stale old” way, in the “it’s been a long running topic old” way):

My interaction and interest in business continues to morph and grow. ReadyIT is in no way dead, but rather we’re at a point where all the planning & design has been done on architecting the business, and are now at the execution phase. Essentially, we have months of content creation ahead of us to build a viable class and certification program that is at the core of the business. That coupled with everyone involved being slammed with whatever randomness life has conjured up have brought things to a bit of a slow-down. At the same time, as I look to transition into other money generating / family supporting positions, it causes me to pause and take stock of my options. Ideally I’d really like to have my primary source of income come from a self-driven business activity, but we’re not quite there yet.

One of the biggest parts of my business education has been to unlearn the notion of “getting rich quick.” There seems to be this mythology among people with little business exposure that “all it takes is that one idea and you never have to work again” etc. Indeed, there is an entire industry built around selling this false dream to people. The reality is that business and entrepreneurship requires not only hard work and planning, but a high tolerance for risk as it can be just as easy to lose fat stacks of cash as it can be to make them. What should really drive a person into entrepreneurship is the desire to have all the inner workings of the business machinery exposed to them so that they can control the totality of the business. I think that most people would find this daunting and not worth their time. Indeed, as Camille will readily confirm, having you own business is at the end of the day a giant pain in the ass. But through that harder-than-normal work comes the prospect of greater opportunity (which tends to translate into even harder work). So at the end of the day, the moral of the story is that if it feels like easy money, it’s probably a scam, and if it feels like hard work, you might be on to something.

Currently I am in an intense struggle with my current job. To summarize, I have what I would almost call my dream job (drinking mai-thais on the beach with my wife and son near by being just ahead of it) but also happen to have the worst boss known to man. The outcome is an intense desire to strive to make my job livable while trying to contain the absolute assholedom that I experience ever day. No one wants to quit their dream job (even if their boss makes them hate life).

So what do you do? Any job I take will require me to work harder (which I’m not a huge fan of but I do occasionally enjoy hard work) and spend less time with my family. In short, I lose ground on my two biggest priorities. Currently I am positioned to where I could make significantly more money elsewhere, but at the expense of the previously mentioned priorities. What is unique to the situation is that money is no longer a primary concern (although it is definately not forgotten). Also in term of uniqueness, this is the first time that more money has (so far) been unable to sway me away from the misery and into a new, higher paying position.

So the true take away from this is that  in the last year of my life I have done two significant things: 1) Married Camille and 2) Been blessed to have Thomas (I still take pride in the fact that he is named after my father). Those two alone have caused me to completely re-tool my value system to the point where my own happiness is so rooted in theirs that even significantly  negative factors in my life are unable to sway my judgment. Think about that… take the worst thing in your life, magnify it, and then imagine a situation where you find it completely tolerable. It is one of the most amazing things I have ever experienced.  I love you Camille.

It started as a young love afair. As a young 18-something I came up with Aaron and Ben for a gamer convention. That we could bluff our way to alcohol was a (not even slightly underlooked or underappreciated) perk. We were here for the games, if alcohol came our way, so be it. If I were to capture the spirit of that time, it would be rebellious and free, in many ways. For one, we grew up as the “gamer” generation. Prior to us, playing video games was not considered a lifestyle and was generally too geeky to be considered any kind of mainstream/ populous movement. In addition to that, Canada has always represented a more liberal lifestyle than the US, be it alcohol or marijuana or whatever. So to us, at the time, to express our ultimate teen-aged selves, was to booze and game simultaneously without regard. It was bliss. It was *FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOOOM* (a la Braveheart).

In our college years Vancouver (Canada) represented two things: A lax restriction on alcohol / partying laws (19 was the age to drink and therefor get in to any club) & an excuse to get away from our own “culture”. In those times I remember most encounters as being about breaking and creating new social rules. Everyone was a potential new buddy, every spot a new opportunity. It was in those times that I was probably most in tune with “the scene”. It was still optimism. It was definitely power (we can do what we want!) It was membership (screw everyone else, I just want to have fun!)

So now, two (almost three) years after having crossed the gap (the 21+ gap in America) , having joined/ built a family, and now having to revisit Vancouver as a job requirement (I now teach classes here) what do I think…?

Good question. Tonight I sit in a hotel with Jeff in the same room. Jeff has shared party experience with me since I was popular in high school as the guy who got “drunk, naked and crazy”, and so in that regard he has *truly* seen it all. Not to mention that he has also seen me through some of the hardest and darkest times of my life. So tonight we sought nothing more than to enjoy ourselves. A simple endeavor that is inevitably fraught with complications.

The first bar we stopped at was an Irish pub I had encountered my last time around here. However, the last time I was here was like a Tuesday or Wednesday which are not officially recognized as canonical party days. And so on this particular Thursday that we attended it was a full out “meat-market” kind of feel. Which we both immediately noticed and were disturbed by. After rapid beer consumption we left. We then headed south into what would typically be considered the seedier part of Granville Island (i.e. Vancouver party central proper). The Two Parrots was our next stop of choice, being that it is the southern most anchor of Granville Street. Shots of cheap tequila and a few beers later we concluded that indeed, as grown, no longer single men, we had no relevance to the overall bar scene. And indeed the glories of old were no longer relevant (for example we had stopped off to play a game of pool earlier, which used to be a major source of pride, and we were now both shamefully out of practice). Life had somehow dramatically altered it’s composition. The rules had changed.

Indeed, as I had remarked to Jeff, while walking down the streets of Granville (immediately post pool playing) that while we may not be what we were, what we had become seemed alot better. And this was confirmed by the fact that some of those who are chronoligically older than us attempted to dress younger than us. To this, Jeff remarked “We dress to the level we are trying to attain. Some people never graduated to the next level when it was time, and so play to those below them. We’ve just evolved.”

So what then were we seeking? The short answer is: nothing. We were perfectly happy. We have wonderful women waiting for us at home, indeed counting down the seconds. And rather than distill the message, I will concentrate it as this: With family in mind, nothing else mattered. Shallow pop culture held nothing for us. The only refuge I saw in Vancouver (aside from the alcohol) was a jazz/lounge singer in our hotel.

Jazz has a very special significance to Camille and I. During our fabled time in Boston, one of the most punctuating moments of the experience was when we saw a live jazz band at some hotel in Boston. I remember this as one of my most vivid memories during the trip, it was more intense than drugs. This type of music to me has become romantic. Even during our honeymoon in Victoria we sought out a jazz club. And so to find this in Vancouver was significant. It was a punctuation to the small microcosm of our night that represented the macrocosm. We had, for nostalgia sake, started with the old notions and habits of our past, and made our way to the present, the real. And in that we found humanity. We were no longer two single guys *searching*. We had found. And we were secure in our findings. We wanted nothing more than to be, and to be reminded of it.

This trip was not about glory, or fame, or pride, or righteousness. It was about humanity, it was about two men discovering that their happiness came not from the pursuit of happiness, or glory or fame or “rock star” status, but rather from the simple things in life. The girlfriends & wives that while at times provided challenges and hardships, also provided the greatest happiness we’ve ever known. That without them we’d never have become real mean. That life, in all of its *true* glory, was just as human as we were.

What ails you? What makes you unhappy? There are two potential sources: those that make you happy (and yet frustrate you) and those that don’t. If the source is the former, my advice is to learn something. In all challenges God is trying to teach you something. Which still applies to the latter, but if you are frustrated by something that doesn’t seem to offer you any potential happiness STOP RIGHT NOW! (I would go further, but the subject is a post unto itself.)

So instead I will leave you with a summary: Life is lived in phases. Who you were yesterday is not who you are today. Remember who you were and learn from it, but don’t cling to it. I officially give you permission to let yourself off the hook for anything you have done in your past. Now that you are free from it, create who you want to be in your future and LIVE IT! In the Buddhist sense of existing you are nothing more or less than who you are RIGHT NOW! This, right here, right now, is your chance to rewrite your own history, as well as history at large. If you are reluctant, write down your new persona on a piece of paper and pretend like you’re an actor trying to play a part, after a few days the part will become you (and you your part), and you will become anything. I’m serious… It’s like the Buddha said: the best kept secrets are not the ones that are kept hidden from people, it’s the ones that are so simple that most people overlook them.

Much love,
Sam

To date I am still coming to terms with life as it stands. The thread of consciousness may be unbroken, but it is definitely tangled. Where am I now? If asked any similar question I might struggle to answer, if only out of the number of options provided to me. I am a husband, father, son, businessman, friend, and apparently still a technician and a teacher (although the latter two feel the most tentative of all).

So what then do I labor toward? In a happy twist of fate family and passion have become intertwined. Business is the buzzword of the Biggins’ household. My own growth in such is peaking, but even beyond that is the joy and pride of seeing Camille truly discover her own inner prowess. It is a suspicion I have long held, that she was not only capable, but that she had the potential to thrive in the wide realm of that which is defined as “business”.

For those of you who don’t have time for an exhaustive booklist in order to get current on what that means, I will expound on the subject. Business, at its core, is about the flow of energy. There are two primary energetic forces at work : Time and money. At this point it might sound a bit cliche, but that means that I am probably pretty clsoe to the truth. By time I mostly mean human labor, although other forms of work (and by that I mean the physicists definition of work) such as machine labor count as well. on further consideration electricity would also fall into this category (think servers processing data). These forces are the more tangible of the two. The second force is money, which conceptually represents the allocation of resources. In this context, to say that money is the root of all things would not be off the mark (yes I realize this is a bastardized play on “money is the root of all evil,” but that debate is something for another discussion.)

Now, close your eyes and imagine a vast amount of land. Let’s say a continent. Imagine that on this continent there is a fixed population that is evenly disbursed. This represents time without money. Another metaphor for this is water in a container: it will seek an even level and remain still assuming no outside influence. Now lets assume you’re looking at this continent on a map, and you put a few thumb tacks in to the map, which represent industry (yet another complex topic for another day). In brief industry is the sum of all things needed to sustain humans. To the Native Amerians this could have been herds of buffalo, to us it would mean something like a manufacturing or technological center (think Redmond). Now imagine that for every place you put a pin in to the map that human population begins to gravitate there. In my mind it’s in gray scale so at first everything is medium gray and white masses begin to collect around the pins, leaving the rest of the continent black.

That’s the macro. In terms of the micro this translates in to harnessing that energy. Businesses are often referred to as machines which is not too far off the mark. They are far more valuable for the way they channel energy than what they physically represent. Metaphors for this would be an engine being more than a piece of steel filled with gasoline or a computer being more than silicon and electricity. It is the end result, or rather the 1+1=3 relationship of the parts that make the whole important. A true business person takes raw materials and forges systems from them.

In this way I see a business person not as a person motivated to heightened levels of financial success, but rather the ultimate creator or transformer. As it pertains to world change, these are the people who teach how to fish rather than provide the same, only on a remarkable and almost incomprehensible scale. It is the machinations of business that eliminate and help to safeguard against poverty. It is the efficiencies of business that give us the surplus to drive things like research, which allows us to achieve even greater heights.

Think about how this applies to your world. Any time human effort is applied there is a system in place. When this effort is motivated financially (be it acquiring or spending) the system is a business. In all systems of business there is human intervention, and in the rest of the systems the intervention is divine. In this way we as humans cooperate with God, building on the systems given to us by Him, and thereby shaping the universe not only in his image, but in ours.