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.

Either way, I'm glad to be done with the Princeton book and on to the Official Guide. A special thanks to JB for letting me borrow his prep books.

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?

Helen Thomas is at it again in an interview with CBC:

"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:

21 was a movie about how MIT students were able to "beat the system" in Vegas and count cards at Blackjack. It was somewhat interesting after hearing the book which it was based on, Bringing Down the House, mentioned multiple times from Jim Rome. A bit more Hollywood-ized, but still enjoyable, especially with Kevin Spacey playing a great role as usual. Just a rental unless you are a gambling fiend and/or big fan of Spacey.

 

 

 

 

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.

Despite the title and average rating on IMDB, this was the quintessential action movie. A remake of the 1975 film, Death Race 2000, which starred Sylvester Stallone and David Carradine, the new film isn't without it's fair share of star power.

Fittingly, as we are without any real top-notch action star since the glory days of Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Segal and Van Damme, Jason Statham delivers once again and in a remake of one of Stallone's first films.

More fanfare is given to Tyrese Gibson and Joan Allen, but I enjoyed seeing Deadwood's Al Swearengen himself, Ian McShane, and Brotherhood's Jason Clarke.

The plot of the movie is straightforward - After the US economy collapses in 2012, prisons are all privatized and the prisoners in the movie are involved in a Pay Per View event that is extremely popular, even more so by a disfigured driver, only known as Frankenstein (played by Statham.)

Understandably, with a name like Death Race, the movie is extremely violent and bloody. Watching the unrated version doesn't help much with that either...

That being said, the action was intense and very enjoyable. I understand that the theatrical version leaves out many plot elements key to the movie, as well as going as far to cut out dialog. As with most movies, the "unrated" or "director's cut" version in recommended to see the movie as intended.

Looking for an enjoyable time and not squeamish? Then check out Death Race when it hits DVD and Blu-Ray on December 21. Probably not worthy of a purchase unless you're a big fan of Statham or one of the other actors, or simply have money to burn, but is good for a quick rental.

 

Santa Claus was taken in to custody earlier today after law enforcement officials raided his North Pole home.

The icon and hero to many children across the world was taken by surprise, but released a statement claiming to be innocent of all wrongdoing and chided the incident as a cheap political stunt by the US Government.

Senators Chuck Schumer (D - NY) and Harry Reid (D - NV) issued a joint statement at the capitol today:

"It seems some people feel that they are more important than the community as a whole. Mr. Claus appeared to be a stand-up citizen from the outside, but inside was secretly destroying our planet year after year."

Each year, Santa Claus, also known as Kris Kringle, carries out a goodwill mission for children across the world, delivering presents and joy to all with his team of reindeer. However, in recent years, speculation arose with the increasing number of children in the world, and how Mr. Claus would be able to meet the time constraints with only nine reindeer.

Environmental activists speculated that Santa was using a highly efficient form of fuel to be able to reach every home on Christmas Eve. After some investigation, officials discovered that bad children were no longer receiving coal in their stocking with quite the frequency as in years past. Children weren't getting nicer, but the coal was still being used. That's when the breakthrough came - Santa was using the coal for naughty children to help power his Sleigh.

Former Vice President and Nobel Prize winner Al Gore also had some words to say for Father Christmas:

"In this day, one would think that instead of using an archaic form of energy such as coal, Santa Claus could be a leading example for all by using an electric powered sleigh!"

Santa's claims that the electric sleigh wasn't slated for production for a couple years, and even then, would only get him a short 40 mile distance before recharging, fell on deaf ears. The carbon footprint that Santa leaves from his travels is astronomical and ineffecient. Critics point out that he could streamline his business in the 21st century and use the internet and dedicated shipping companies already on the road, even if it takes away from the Christmas spirit.

In other news, Santa has requested assistance from the government as it appears he will be unable to complete his mission from jail this year. He claims that he is too big to fail and will use the billions of dollars to retool and become competitive in an industry where there is no competition.