Think back to October 2007, when we hit the all time high of 14,164 - quite different than the economic climate of our country and world today. At 6547.05, we're at forty-six percent of only seventeen months ago. Back when we started this downward spiral, all the experts were in a state of denial, and to some extent, still are. They kept saying how things were only going to get better, even though all of the signs said otherwise.

So while I don't want to be a bringer of doom-and-gloom, I'm here to say that the worst is yet to come, and by that I'm talking sub 5000 numbers, possibly as low as 3000. Back when we hit around 12,000 I restructured my 401K and got out of anything with stocks and moved into the low risk bonds. The transaction fees cost me less than what the market swings in my account seemed to be doing daily and was therefore well worth it. I've had family, friends and co-workers look at me puzzled when I first brought this up, only to see them distraught over their retirement savings.

One person told me I was stupid and should wait it out because I'm so young and could then be there when the market hits the low point to buy again for my future. While this holds well traditionally, with the losses we've had and the losses I expect to continue it would basically be throwing my money down the toilet. A good rule of thumb is as follows - if the money you are losing in the stock market, percentage wise, is less than the amount your employer contributes, then you should re-invest that money, either by paying down debt, or moving it into an alternative market that has minimal gains and at the very least reduces the amount being lost.

I've seen my company's stock drop nearly $70 from its all time high along with that of my wife's. Other companies like Citigroup have gone from over $55 per share to under $1, with Citigroup hitting a low of $0.99. At $93 in the year 2000, GM has, on the verge of bankruptcy, nearly bottomed out as well to $1.68 today and a 75 year low in price when it hit $1.51.

There is no joy from seeing the retirement funds of others magically vanish, or that of companies failing and workers losing jobs. There is, however, a way to be proactive when seeing such trends and by taking our head out of the sand, we can prepare for the worst case scenarios, so that if they come, we are ready, and if they don't, we'll be that much better off. The government and top economists aren't doing anything to help us right now. President Obama isn't worring about the ups and downs about the stock market, but in fairness, that isn't his job. Rather, the economic advisors should be focusing on policy to work with those on Wall Street and the investor class. The rich aren't the only ones losing money here and many middle class Americans are relying on a robust 401k and possibly a pension to supplement any menial amount that Social Security may provide as safety net come retirement.

There's plenty of blame to go around - Politicians on both the left and the right in the legislative and executive branches, "greedy" fat cat Wall Street types, CEOs and mortgage companies to name a few, but also us, Americans who've lived beyond our means by purchasing too much house, refinancing one too many times and racking up excessive debt on plastic. The next decade is going to be a tough one. Lets start by doing as much as we can, person by person, family by family to get back on track as soon as we can.

After much thought and many delays, I've finally made the commitment to get an MBA. I've scheduled my GMAT exam for March 7th, which depending on who you ask, is either more than enough time, or not even close in terms of studying.

First, I'll go into some background details. The degree is (at least partly) being paid for through my company's tuition reimbursement program. With my work schedule, not to mention the only way I was able to have the degree approved was to take courses which were fully online and would not interfere with my various travels. This limits me to only a handful of ACCSB accredited schools, and even less of which have any name recognition. On the positive side, very few of the top online schools have a mean score of 600.

While I haven't determined which school is at the top of my list, I have narrowed it down a bit:

• University of Michigan
• University of Massachusetts
• Florida State University
• University of Wisconsin
• University of Florida

Surprised that University of Phoenix or other online schools aren't listed? I was somewhat happy with the number of prestigious schools offering online programs.Right now, I'd say Michigan is at the top of the list, with the only caveat being that they charge so much for online classes that it would take me a long time to finish the program, so I'd either need to pay for classes myself, or spread out the program longer than desired.

Now, with March 7th quickly approaching, I have a total of six weeks from when I first started preparing, until my GMAT exam. In preparing, I'm doing something that was rarely done in college - intense studying. While a 600 would probably be good enough, I'll be disappointed if I can't raise my scores much closer to 700 or higher.

My weakness going into my preparation is easily verbal. With two engineering degrees, the quantitative section shouldn't give me too much trouble. I've mapped out my strategy over the next few weeks as follows, working one book from cover to cover each week, while doing practice exams:

• Week 1 - Princeton Review GMAT
• Week 2 - Official Guide
• Week 3 - Official Guide Quantitative
• Week 4 - Official Guide Verbal
• Week 5 - Kaplan Premier
• Week 6 - Kaplan 800

I took the first GMAT practice exam to give myself a baseline and it confirmed my suspicions:

My quantitative score was above average, and needed a quick amount of refreshing, but my verbal was terrible. After looking up the percentile, it was at 51%. Were I able to raise it to a 38, I'd get a 670 and a 41 would net a 700, assuming I could maintain my 44Q.

Based on this data, I'm even more certain that it will be easier to raise my score if I focus more on the verbal to understand some of the intricacies involved with the GMAT. While the bad news is that I was very low verbally, the good news is that nearly every question I got wrong was a sentence correction type problem, which will help narrow down what I need to focus on.

My first week is now over as well, and I'm done with the Princeton Review book, which was mostly a disappointment. Either I've set the bar too high, or they've set the bar too low. For instance - they have a diagnostic exam to take which then tells you what level of questions you should be working on to improve your score. Sound fair, right? Well, in both the quantitative and verbal sections, I was in the top levels, where I was recommended to practice in the harder pool of questions, known as "bins 3 and 4." The problem that I saw was that my preliminary GMAT score was expected between 450-550. Even if I had gotten every question right, I would have been given the designation of 550+, which I looked at in one of two ways:

1. Like other stories I've heard, perhaps Princeton lowers the initial expectations so that when you do well on the real GMAT, it will be better than the preparation scores, thereby validating the cost spent in their books and courses.
2. They aren't trying to achieve a high end score with this book, only to cover the basics and get you a mediocre score.

The first few days of the new Administration have been quite eventful. There's been some highs, some lows, and some holes that we can't see the bottom of yet.

Let's start off with some of the good things done since Obama took office last week. First, Obama has taken great strides in improving technology, pushing the executive branch into the 21st century. In addition, the Obama Team made an announcment to denounce lobbyists and any role they would play in the Administration.

With that said, a dark cloud covers these early days. After all the technology advancements, Obama made a puzzling move by pushing to delay the transition to DTV on February 17th to sometime in June.  Then, after announcing the move against lobbyists, the new treasury secretary - Timothy Geithner - hired one to be his top aide. That's not all though - Geithner, who happens to be in charge of the IRS in his new position, failed to pay $34,000 in taxes to the aforementioned IRS due to not understanding TurboTax. This is the person who is supposed to rescue us from the financial abyss? Furthermore, while Geithner gets a pass, does anyone recall the furor over Joe the Plumber for owing $1,182 in taxes because he asked a question.

Finally we arrive at the $819 billion "stimulus" package. The outcry over this bill existed - and still does - but was not nearly that of the first package at $700 billion. I contend that this is due to a few reasons:

• Being desensitized to numbers so large and not understanding how much $819 billion actually is
• Exhaustion from the financial crisis
• An unwillingness from the media to criticize Obama's plan so soon into his first term

The package isn't going to stimulate anything except the pockets of those at the top of the ponzi scheme pyramid. Think for a second how much $819 billion dollars actually is - If you had a stack of $1000 bills, four inches thick, you'd be a millionaire. A stack of $1000 bills totaling $819 billion would be 51.7 miles long. So imagine those in close proximity to this. How many of them think "Nobody will miss an inch here or an inch there...after all, it is 51.7 miles long. A couple inches isn't anything."

Corruption aside, the details of the stimulus package are less than desirable. Please, someone explain how this pork will stimulate our economy:

• $335 million for STD prevention
• $140 million for climate data modeling

Lets consider that you believe either of these programs, or sums of money is justified. Fine, but that's for another discussion. The purpose of the stimulus package is to stimulate the economy. Furthermore, wouldn't stimulating the economy require immediate action and a quick infusion of funds into the market? If so, why is only 20% of entire package being used in 2009? No, this isn't a stimulus package - this is a vast expansion of government to push through pet projects of those in power. The vote was mostly a straight party line, although 11 Democrats had the courage to vote against something that will hurt our country. So a nice pat on the back for the following Democrats:

Allen Boyd - FL; Bobby Bright, AL; Jim Cooper, TN; Brad Ellsworth, IN; Parker Griffith, AL; Paul Kanjorski, PA; Frank Kratovil, MD; Walter Minnick, ID; Collin Peterson, MN ; Heath Shuler, NC; Gene Taylor, MS

If any other persuasion is needed on this stimulus package, look at the numbers given by those in charge of it. They predict that it would "save or create 3 million new jobs over the next few years." Lets give the benefit of the doubt and assume that it won't simply save jobs, but will only create new jobs. At $819 billion, the math works out to $273,000 per job - the average salary of Americans, right?

"I'm a liberal. I was born a liberal. I'll be one until I die. What else should a reporter be, when you see so much and when you have such great privilege and access to the truth."

Just a thought, but I'd shoot for neutral, unbiased and fair. Which of course makes me a crazy right winger, as shown by the reporter's followup question.

"But you know, it's interesting because I'm sure if somebody from the right was sitting here, they would say, if you asked the question what else should a reporter be, they would say 'Oh I don't know, how about objective."

Ms. Thomas responded the way the elite liberal media often does:

"You're not asking people not to think, not to care are you? But you are asking them to give a fair reporting, both sides and so forth, and I did it, for 57 years I was never, never accused of bias in my copy, but I had a right to be angry and unhappy. It's a trend that I saw in my country that I was close enough to see."

Does this not strike at the heart of liberal bias in the media? Take a close look at the highlighted portions of the quotes. First, Helen Thomas claims to be a liberal, and then makes the conclusion that a reporter should be nothing else. Next, you've got the interviewer coming back with a completely logical assumption, but then insinuating that only someone on the right would say that - not with the tone that suggests only the right believes in objectivity, but that only the right would be silly enough believe it wasn't objective. Finally, in response Ms. Thomas touches on one of the staples of liberal philosophy. Rather than responding to the question honestly, she turns it around on the interviewer and has a delusional notion that reporters cannot be objective if they only think. The problem is that thinking is only allowed if the thoughts presented agree with the viewpoints of the left. Think all you want, as long as it agrees with us.

Feel free to watch the video unless you have a weak stomach. The main portion starts around 3 minutes 45 seconds.

So it turns out that Joe Biden was given the choice to be either Secretary of State, or Vice President. Of course, like the typical hollywood gossip, we get the part where he initially tries to stop his wife from spilling the beans, and the natural spokesperson denying that was the story to the media.

Truth be told, I'd have done the same given the opportunity (one can only dream!) but as much as the handlers will deny the truth behind it, you can believe that the Hillary team is secretly seething.

As turmoil between Obama's team is already in place with the battling between cabinet members and czars, another fight between the number two and the Secretary of State is the last thing the new administration needs.

Tomorrow is a new day for America - For or against Obama/Biden in the 2008 election, we are moving in a new direction, and should work together, rather than against the other side.

As the drama winds down with the appointment of Roland Burris by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to President Elect Obama's Senate seat, the Democrats have been put in a no win situation by the embattled Governor.

The appointment of Burris by an allegedly corrupt Governor has caused a furor from both Republicans and Democrats alike. Anyone who is as blatant to not only be caught on tape trying to sell a Senate seat, but to also dare law enforcement to monitor him is clearly delusional, and in Rod Blagojevich's case - The poster child for political corruption.

In a common sense move, Democrats refused to seat Burris to the Senate due to the corruption scandal surrounding Blagojevich. This isn't necessarily an implication on Burris, but on Blagojevich.

I'm of the belief that Blagojevich knew exactly what he was doing by appointing Burris. First, it takes the heat off of him somewhat and spreads it out to Burris as well. Second, if Burris is seated, it gives Blagojevich a sort of legitimacy, because if he is truly guilty, the appearance is that he wouldn't be allowed to appoint someone. Now, remember that President Elect Obama was the only black Senator in the country. By selecting another African-American to replace Barack Obama, it turns the appointment into a race issue - even though it is not one.

The Democrats who originally blocked Burris did so without considering race, but rather, the corruption of the Governor. However, a feeling of being considered racist, in my opinion, is what has caused many Democrats to switch positions. The African-American voting bloc votes roughly ninety percent of the time for Democrats, and is a major reason why the Democrats have been able to win elections in not only 2008, but in years past. To even give the appearance that they are going against someone who would continue to be the only black Senator is a political fear they aren't willing to risk.

This is where the no win situation presents itself. If Democrats take a stand against Burris, they have the possibility of alienating a group of voters who have staunchly supported them. By supporting Burris however, they then associate themselves with the corruption brought on by Governor Blagojevich. Unfortunately in this 24/7 news cycle, keeping a voting bloc happy is more important than taking a stance and sticking with it, because the public will forget the details if you change the subject for long enough.

As I'm in a hotel on vacation, awaiting the five inches of snow we'll be getting tonight, I saw the best article on the sham that is global warming / climate change / whatever buzzword the environmentalists are using. Here are a few snippets that stand out:

"...temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models"

"...global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century."

"All those hysterical predictions...have infuriatingly failed to materialise.

"...hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions."

"...panicking politicians are waking up to the fact that the world can no longer afford all those quixotic schemes for "combating climate change" with which they were so happy to indulge themselves in more comfortable times."

Every day we see that "going green" isn't for the environment, but for green in the wallets of those purporting the global warming hoax. Use some logic people. It doesn't take Einstein to figure out that the predictions made were wrong when temperatures have stayed the same for 10 years and then dramatically decreased, erasing nearly 100 years of "warming."

The best argument I've heard is that it isn't warming, but "extreme" weather conditions and cooling is a byproduct of warming. Huh? Just admit the argument is lost, don't change the way it was defined and avoid the question. The ocean levels are not rising and the polar caps are not melting, at least not in the doom and gloom scenario that is thrown out there. Lets exaggerate and say the temperature has magically risen by ten degrees. Think basic science for a moment - the ice is frozen. Unless that ice was at the borderline of melting - which the polar caps are not - then they'll still be frozen. Even taking into consideration the ice close to the melting point which would turn to water, it wouldn't be close to enough to cause any changes. The Earth is ~ 70% water, with the amount of ice required to melt to cause any discernible changes to be vastly more than any of us could imagine. The numbers don't add up - not in the volume of ice, not in the measured temperature and not in the amount of variables which aren't taken into consideration, such as variances in temperature gathering, natural occurrences, historical trends over thousands of years, not the thirty or so we've been recording them with any semblance of accuracy, etc...

Global warming is about greed and control. The average citizen sees through the scam, but the elitists are blind to that and keep feeding lies, knowing that if you say something enough, people will assume it to be true.

"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans. Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all...The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else." - President Theodore Roosevelt

In the current time we live in, as multi-culturalism and diversity have taken over our culture, we have lost what it means to be Americans in this melting pot of a country.  Rather than following the motto "Out of many, one" we have been driving towards the mistranslated version "Out of one, many."

The quote "United we stand, divided we fall" works perfectly in this context. By trying to force our "diversity" on others and creating dozens and dozens of subgroups, we are no longer united, but divided, and it shows in our political, social and economic struggles being faced today. Do not take this to suggest that we should abandon all pride in our heritage. Rather, understand that most Americans have much more in common with their neighbor of a different background than they would if returning to the place of cultural heritage, be it Germany, Africa or wherever.

With Christmas upon us and new TV episodes dwindling down, my wife and I have been catching up on more movies in our queue. Here are a few of them we recently saw, and my thoughts:

The Astronaut farmer sounded interesting at first - a NASA astronaut is forced to retire to save his family's farm, and then still itching to return to space, creates a rocket in his barn. The movie is a bit far fetched, but isn't about NASA or space or rockets, but about people. Billy Bob Thornton is an underrated actor, perhaps due to the name Billy Bob, or his previous relationship with Angelina Jolie. He does well in this picture (which also features a nice cameo from Bruce Willis.) Very family friendly, unlike my previous review of Death Race :) and recommended for rental.

After all the hype surrounding this movie with the great ensemble and the Golden Globe nomination, along with the direction from the Coen brothers, I was very disappointed. There were a few funny moments throughout the film, but overall the purpose of the movie was non-existent. While most critics will look toward acting subtleties and how well something was directed, I look toward how much enjoyment I had from the movie. Perhaps there was too much emphasis on the cast - Clooney, Malkovich and Pitt did a great job - but there was too high of an expectation that it fell short. A rental, at most.

Vantage Point was one of the better movies I have seen in some time. A "thinking movie," it takes the perspective of eight different people to piece together the attempted assassination of the President while overseas. I'm a big fan of William Hurt, Matthew Fox and Dennis Quaid and they played great roles in this. The movie requires great attention to detail, as we found ourselves rewinding just a bit to replay a scene or see more detail. Each of the perspectives offers only a small amount of detail into the greater picture, which is finally revealed at the end with some nice plot twists. Highly recommended for rental, and perhaps purchase.