Melly's Medley

2011-11-17T12:15:00.001-05:00

When it comes to economic theory I'm somewhat of a conservative. And when it comes to macro conditions there's nothing wrong with that. Most times the theory is bang on, although perhaps slower to materialize and therefore not very clear.

Back in 2007, even a little earlier, in 2006, I started moving everything to cash.If you recall, that's when housing starts and prices began a cautious decline. Long before the actual burst.

Yes, I was premature with my cash heavy portfolio, but at the time I thought the writing was on the wall.From an investment standpoint I've lost some of the crazy ride to Dow 14,000. But then I had also largely missed the crash.On top of it all, I had cash available to start investing when I thought the market was starting to recover from the bottom. And I rode the next bull wave.

Now, housing starts are beginning to show signs of a recovery of sorts. And now I'm starting to think again it's time to act on macro indicators and slowly be overweight stocks (more than usual I mean).

I'm not that optimistic about the economy in general, what with Europe and all. Then again, it was hard to be pessimistic when everyone called for Dow 20,000 (yes, slight exaggeration). There are always extra conditions that people cite to prove this cycle is different. But is it really? Probably not.

Abbott Spinoff: Which of the two new company to invest in? $ABT

2011-10-19T09:57:00.000-04:00

Diversified health care company no more. Abbott (NYSE: ABT) announced it will split into two companies: a yet unnamed research-based pharmaceutical company that will focus on ... pharmaceuticals; and a diversified medical products company that will sell generics, medical devices, such as implants, diagnostics and nutritional products, such as baby formula.

The idea is that the split will allow "shareholders distinct opportunities given unique investment identities, business profiles and attributes."

Or so the common belief is.

Obviously, Abbott isn't the first to split this year, and many predict others will follow suit. The value locked in Pfizer's (NYSE: PFE) units, some have long argued, will soon be unlocked with similar spinoffs.

Diversification vs focus -- hasn't that been a long contentious issue? During the Great Recession, it was believed that diversification could offer a cushion, softening the blow of some segments losing sales. That didn't work quite as well as hoped, as pretty much most of the diversified segments hit the recession wall.

When it comes to Big Pharma, there was a double whammy of companies also teetering on the brink of the patent cliff.

So now focus is all the rage. Sure, smaller and meaner should work. But it's also more vulnerable to economic and industry forces, and therefore potentially more volatile.

So far, shareholders seem to approve of the Abbott move ... at least for now ... with shares up like 4%-7%.

The question is, if you are a shareholder, do you keep shares in both companies, or just in one, and which do you keep?

Remember the Mead Johnson Nutrition (NYSE: MJN) spinoff from Bristol-Myers Squibb (NYSE: BMY)? MJN is up 173% since the spin-off in early '09, while BMY is up 49% since. If that's the case, maybe the better choice is the new Abbott rather than the new pharma company ...

Fake Fat, Artificial Sweetener Pile on Non-Fake, Non-Artificial Pounds

2011-06-29T10:14:00.004-04:00

Two studies with two results that show the fake or artificial additives may be doing the exact opposite of their supposed function.

The first study, Fat Substitutes Promote Weight Gain in Rats Consuming High-Fat Diets, published in Behavioral Neuroscience, divided rats into two groups that were given either high-fat or low-fat food. The researchers then examined the effect of adding regular Pringles potato chips vs. regular chips + low-cal Pringles Light chips containing the fat substitute, olestra, to each of the groups. The result, as authors Susan Swithers, Sean Ogden and Terry Davidson wrote:

Food intake, body weight gain and adiposity were greater for rats that consumed both the high-calorie chips and the low-calorie chips with olestra compared to rats that consumed consuming only the high-calorie chips, but only if animals were also consuming a chow diet that was high in fat and calories.

Another real interesting result was that after the researchers stopped giving the rats chips and switched them to just a high-fat diet, the ones that consumed olestra before, gained more weight, "suggesting that experience with the chips containing olestra affected the ability to predict high calories based on the sensory properties of fat. "

Basically, the brain, which learned that olestra containing-chips are not giving the calories expected, went into "storing" mode, even when the fat was switched back to the regular one and gave those expected calories.

The other study, actually two -- one in mice the other in humans -- showed how diet soft drinks could actually contribute to elevated blood-sugar levels and even the onset of diabetes.

Not only that, but the human study, which followed nearly 500 individuals over nearly a decade, showed that "Diet soft drink users, as a group, experienced 70 percent greater increases in waist circumference compared with non-users." Even worse, frequent users "experienced waist circumference increases that were 500 percent greater than those of non-users."

So there you have it -- fake and artificial manage to deceive our senses or con our brains if you will, deceiving it to thinking the body is getting something it isn't. The brain reacts a certain way, but when it realizes it's been duped, it adjusts the behavior, and the result -- storing fat or elevating the blood sugar level -- can be worse.

Granted, some of these experiments were done in rats, not humans, but the authors of the first study I mentioned question the introduction of "low-calorie or no-calorie substitutes which mimic the sensory properties of sweet or fat." They write:

The variety, availability, and consumption of such sensory substitutes, such as the fat substitute olestra and the sugar substitutes saccharin, aspartame, sucralose, and most recently extracts from the Stevia rebaudiana plant (stevia) have increased dramatically over the past 30 years, keeping pace with the increased prevalence of overweight and obesity. While the typical interpretation of such a correlation is that people begin to consume such products after they have begun to gain weight, the alternative is that consumption of such products contributes to increases in body weight. Data from the present and previous experiments along with prospective correlational studies in humans are instead consistent with the idea that consumption of sweet and fat substitutes may in fact contribute to overweight and obesity.

Bernanke Acknowledges Economy is Weak: No S#*t, Sherlock

2011-06-23T09:36:00.001-04:00

Just as I said yesterday morning when I discussed The Century of Hunger, the Fed acknowledged the economy is weak and it's not going to do nothing about it.

So there you have it. Bernanke came out and said stuff like:

... the economic recovery is continuing at a moderate pace, though somewhat more slowly than the Committee had expected.
Also, recent labor market indicators have been weaker than anticipated.
... and the housing sector continues to be depressed.
Inflation has picked up in recent months ...

Like, really??? No s#*t, Sherlock. Ten-year old kids could have told you that.

If you look at the Fed's economic projections, the change from April is quite drastic. For one, GDP growth projection for this year declined from an 3.1%-3.3% to 2.7%-2.9%. Similarly, projections for unemployment and inflation rose.

The Fed came up with the idea that much of the headwinds the economy is facing are temporary.

The slower pace of the recovery reflects in part factors that are likely to be temporary, including the damping effect of higher food and energy prices on consumer purchasing power and spending as well as supply chain disruptions associated with the tragic events in Japan.

I'll give the Fed Japan, but not higher food and energy prices. These aren't temporary. They've been steadily increasing for some time now (about two years) -- at least energy and base materials (food have been rising the past few months).

And what's the Fed's going to do about inflation and unemployment (jobless claims rose again last week) and the housing market and the overall weak economy? Nothing. Since there's nothing much the Fed can do right now.

The Fed can leave rates near zero and it's going to let QE2 end. True enough, the Fed's current stance is already quite accommodative. Also, the Fed's comments had an effect on oil prices, which have been declining since -- see, temporary. I just hope this admission about the economy keep oil prices down for some time.

But then there's Greece. How can the Fed prepare for such an event that will invariably affect the US? Temporary or not?

While ECB prez Trichet says the "risk signals for financial stability in the euro area are flashing “red” as the debt crisis threatens to infect banks" Bernanke told reporters yesterday that yeah, he's worried about Greece, but that US banks don't have much of an exposure to "peripheral" countries, also in credit default swaps.

Of course, US banks have a much greater exposure to non-peripheral countries ... which in turn have exposure to Greece ... and where Trichet thinks the link between debt problems and banks “is the most serious threat to financial stability in the European Union.” Europe -- that's like across the ocean, right?

Yeah, I'm not worried at all. Are you?

Transocean About Oil Spill: It's Not Us, It's BP

2011-06-22T13:48:00.003-04:00

A few years back I was involved in a car accident. I (blue car) was in a left-turn lane, waiting for the light to turn green, but cars going straight had a green light and were going by. One of these cars (pink car) bumped into a merging car (green car) and from the force of the clash, it also bumped into me, damaging the whole right side of my car. I saw it all unfolding in my rear view mirror, but could not move anywhere. (You can see my beautiful drawing.)

What does this have to do with BP (BP), Transocean (RIG) and the Gulf of Mexico oil spill?

Well, my insurance didn't want to pay me back until the other two cars sorted out who was to blame and whatnot. Needless to say, I was livid. I was completely blameless in all this and I was out a good sum of money.

I wrote a letter and added my beautiful drawing and faxed it to the manager of that insurance company's car division. Believe it or not, but he actually called me and assured me I will be paid shortly and that they will sort it out with the other two cars' insurers. Within a few days I had a cheque in my hand for the full sum!

Yes, yes. I'm getting to the oil spill. So far, BP and Transocean, as well as Halliburton (HAL), have been blaming each other for the spill. Just today, Transocean said, it's not us, it's BP.

Eleven crew members died in the explosion. It took months to cap the well, all the while oil was gushing out at an incredible rate -- 4.9 million barrels of crude flooded the ocean. The ocean was contaminated, as were shore lines, marshes, lands in a great area. Animals were hurt. People cleaning up the mess were hurt. Economies were shattered as tourism, fishery and others were no longer valid sources of income. The economic, physical and mental health of a whole region was devastated.

Who's going to pay for all that? Some things you can't really put a price tag on. But according to Reuters, "Costs for capping the Macondo well, cleaning up the damage and paying claims for people hurt by the catastrophe are likely to top $41 billion, including an estimated $4 billion to $5 billion in fines."

BP so far seems to have taken responsibility and even set aside money for cleanup costs and settlements. It is also trying to reach deals with its partners to share the liability. Some agree to share it and some don't. Seems like Trasocean, which owned the Deepwater Horizon rig, is one of the latter ones, as apparently is Halliburton -- the contractor. Anadarko Petroleum (APC) and Mitsui Oil Exploration, however, are of the former sort.

The Century of Hunger?

2011-06-22T10:56:00.002-04:00

Another round of good news (not!) this morning. After yesterday markets decided to ignore a housing report that indicated that home sales hit a 6-month low and that none of what's going on in the world -- read Greece -- can really touch them, today they're sobering up a bit.

We got the Fed statement today at 14:15, and investors seem to be bracing for that. What's the Fed going to do/say? The Fed'll likely say they expect the economy to recover soon, although they'd have no choice but to acknowledge it is still weak. And the Fed'll probably do nothing. They can't cut rates any lower and after pumping trillions of dollars into the economy, there's not much left to do as QE2 draws to an end.

The Fed didn't help the weak housing market and sure didn't help the job market. And now there's Greece to worry about too.

Pimco's El Erian thinks Greece and other European countries could default and recently the fund dumped US bonds.

But the worst of it this morning came from the G-20 farm ministers: "World leaders risk making this 'the century of hunger' unless they can agree to new rules on food supply, French Agriculture Minister Bruno Le Maire said," as quoted by Bloomberg.

Wheat as much as doubled in the past year as Russia and Ukraine curbed exports after drought decimated crops, adding to record global food prices the World Bank says drove 44 million more people into poverty since June. Nations will spend $1.29 trillion on food imports this year, the most ever and 21 percent more than in 2010, the United Nations estimates.

The choice is “international solidarity” or “egotism” if nations want to avert this becoming the “the century of hunger,” he said.

But how do you do that? How do you make countries comply with worldwide regulations and not take measures -- just as Russia, India, and so many others did -- to protect their own populations? And how do you ensure that the wealthier countries share their food? G-20 countries account for 65% of all farmland and 77% of global grain output.

France, which holds the G-20 presidency, wants a central database on crops, limits on export bans, international market regulation, emergency stockpiles and a plan to raise global output.

Well, while countries might agree to a database, they'll likely won't easily agree to trade restrictions or to the regulation of financial markets for agricultural commodities. It's definitely difficult to see the US agreeing to something like that. But without it, what's the meaning of this database and how do you protect the market from price volatility?

As it is, the proposal is not enough Oxfam international says. For one, it ignores the use of crop for biofuels.

The western world isn't really accustomed to hunger, despite growing poverty in their own countries. Social safety nets are supposed to take care of such things. But if there is less food worldwide, food riots will grow, and inevitably it will end up affecting the developed economies too.

Where are Bob Geldof (Band Aid) and Michael Jackson (We Are the World) when you need them ...

Black Lungs and Babies in Distress: New FDA Smoking Warnings

2011-06-21T17:19:00.000-04:00

This is awesome! Anyone who's been to the Bodies exhibition and seen those smoker lungs compared to regular lungs probably wondered why these images aren't used to show smokers what they're doing to themselves.

Well, the FDA has.

In a new campaign, the warning images on cigarette packs will be more graphic, explicit and plain inescapable.

I remember trying to show a smoker some pictures of gum disease and cancer caused by smoke -- she refused to watch. I tried to show her those black lunch in the Bodies exhibit. She refused to. Now, she'll have no choice.

That's a great campaign.

Here are some more pics as they will look on pack:

None of This Should Be Greek to Us

2011-06-21T13:17:00.000-04:00

By now we know the probable consequences of a Greek default. German, French, US banks can all be affected. Yes, the contagion magnitude is often compared to that of Lehman's. But contagion apart, is default the best thing for Greece?

The Economist has a great chart about how different countries fared after they defaulted. Some fared really really well in the years after, with growth suddenly exploding. But not all countries fared that well.

As of now, markets are betting on a favorable confidence of the current government in the Greek parliament, and are rallying. But nothing is certain, even if the outcome is what's expected. And rating agencies are warning about the consequences.

But none of this seems to be phasing markets today. Not even the continuation of a the housing crisis ...

Sea Level Rising at Fastest Rate in 2,000 Years

2011-06-21T09:14:00.000-04:00

Rising seas lap at house
Andrew Kemp, Yale University

The rate of sea level rise is greater now than at any time in the past 2,000 years, a study by NSF says. And the rise is linked to changes in global surface temperature.

The researchers used salt marsh sediments to reconstruct sea levels and compare them to global past temperatures. They found that sea level was relatively stable from 200 BC to 1,000 AD. Then sea level started rising by about half a millimeter each year for 400 years, linked with a warm climate period known as the Medieval Climate Anomaly. It stabilized again during a cooler period called the Little Ice Age until the late 19th century.

Since the late 19th century, sea level has risen by more than 2 millimeters per year on average, the steepest rate for more than 2,100 years.

Of all the impacts climate change could have on our planet and us, rising sea level is a "potentially disastrous outcome."

The authors don't make predictions this time and only say this study can help understand future sea level rises, but two of the authors have predicted about two years ago a sea-level rise ranging from 75 to 190 cm -- or 2.5 to 6.2 feet -- for the period 1990–2100!

What Should RIM Do Next

2011-06-17T09:16:00.001-04:00

One of my favorite Canadian companies, Research in Motion (RIM) reported disappointing quarterly results last night. It wasn't unexpected. Anyone's who's been following the smartphone market knew RIM was declining, losing market share -- mainly to Apple's (AAPL) iPhone and Google's (GOOG) Android-based phones -- and playing catchup for a few years already.

When the iPhone first came out, many kept saying that RIM's BlackBerry is marketed more to the business user, while the iPhone to regular consumers and therefore it won't be affected much. But as the success of the iPhone with non-business consumers soared and then it started eating into the business segment, RIM abandoned its strengths and target market and tried to duplicate Apple's success, losing focus in the process.

Playing catchup is never a good or easy thing to do. The only way to win in that game is to ... change it. You can't only catch up, but you have to surpass and offer the next thing. RIM never did that. Forget about coming up with the next innovation, it didn't even offer the next generation.

So what should RIM do now? Focus. Go back to its roots. Play up to the business consumer. Think about what that consumer wants and needs.

From a marketing point of view, many businessmen and women would indeed prefer a "serious" device that differentiates them from their kids and the average consumer (how many times have you heard the phrase 'built like a tank', or workhorse, or goliath, when it comes for the ThinkPad for example, and indeed it's the preferred business laptop). From a technological point of view -- software and hardware -- there are so many areas RIM can concentrate on: from looks to security to various business applications -- it's not even funny.

As a start, change that stupid PlayBook name. Oh, geez, I don't know, call it RaspBerry, BlueBerry, GooseBerry, MulBerry, HuckleBerry, CranBerry -- you see where I'm going with this? Now market those business strengths the PlayBook already has, such as security and great PowerPoint tool.

Next, stop to think. If your BlackBerrys and PlayBooks are to be marketed to the business crowd, what would they want in them, what would they use it for. Focus. Marketing 101 -- know your target market and differentiate your products. Make them sturdy, powerful, security strongholds, able to run office suites easily, as well as dictation, GPS, personal assistance services, and so on. But mainly, think ahead. You did it before. You can do it again.

Don't play catchup, just be yourselves: Balsillie, Lazaridis, you built a company on certain strengths, keep it that way.

Vancouver Riots Not Surprising

2011-06-16T13:24:00.002-04:00

Pic tweeted by @chriswalts

I lived in Vancouver 17 years ago when riots erupted after the Canucks' loss to Messier and his Rangers. That Messier smirk, when he lifted the Cup in celebration, is haunting me still ...

Yesterday, I've stopped watching the game after the first goal. Yeah, Lou could have been better, but that doesn't matter when you can't score now does it. Oh, well, that's besides the point. The riots.

I just don't get why is everybody so surprised. There were riots 17 years ago -- didn't anybody expect that 100,000 people downtown Van would lead to yet another riot? Lose or win???

No doubt, it's very sad. It was depressing 17 years ago. And looking at the Vancouver skyline as it was last night -- like Baghdad after a bombing -- is even more depressing.

But not at all surprising.

Add: Apparently it wasn't just the pent-up emotions and tension that caused the crowd to riot. Some hooligans came prepared. They were going to instigate a riot no matter what. And they did.

But I don't care how many will insist that it was only a handful of no-good criminals who did this. Fact is, hundreds, even thousands, joined them. I'm sure most of them were brought up knowing better. And even if it isn't violence, looting is theft, and too many stole from stores. No one can claim they didn't know what they were doing. Temporary mass insanity?

Health Affairs: Stop Blaming FDA for Lack of New Cancer Meds

2011-06-16T10:36:00.001-04:00

When it comes to approval times of cancer meds, the criticism aimed at the FDA is unmerited, Health Affairs journal is saying. Researchers conducted quite a straight forward study: They compared thirty-five new oncology drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency between 2003 and 2010.

The results were simple: The FDA approved 32 of the 35 drugs, with a median time of six months. The EMA approved six less drugs -- 26 -- and the median time was nearly a year -- 350 days -- almost double! (Here's the table with the comparisons.)

The researchers write:

The FDA is often accused of being slow to approve oncology drugs. However, critics have not provided specifics, and our study plainly shows that such assertions are unwarranted. The rapid approval of oncology drugs is not accidental, nor is it surprising. The FDA has long sought to conduct more rapid reviews of drugs with greater therapeutic potential, particularly anticancer drugs.

Of course, this opens the door to critics blaming the FDA that it is "sacrificing safety for speed and quality for quantity," but the researchers say "the vast majority of anticancer drugs have good track records for safety."

What the study also shows, they say, is that the lack of new oncology drugs is not because of the FDA and slow review processes, but because of difficulties carrying out clinical trials.

And how to improve on that? The authors have a couple of ideas, including adaptive clinical trials, meaning, the trials could be modified while it's ongoing. Not sure how that would work out when trying to compare the different trial arms, but I'm sure others can figure it out.

Facebook Traffic Drop?

2011-06-13T17:06:00.000-04:00

I never really "got" Facebook, making me probably not a likely tech expert to comment on this. Still, with a Facebook IPO looming in the next year or so, the Inside Facebook report that the social media giant is seeing a drop in traffic caught my attention.

So I looked at the story closer and got confused. The headline says: Facebook Sees Big Traffic Drops in US and Canada as It Nears 700 Million Users Worldwide. But the story keeps on talking about slower growth rate in new users compared to last year. Well, these are two different things.

Seriously, with Facebook pretty much blanketing the planet (or at least the N.American corner of it and making good tracks elsewhere), it certainly makes sense that Facebook would start gaining users at a slower pace after reaching such a high penetration level.

But why the traffic drop? Facebook still hasn't exhausted the ways in which it can monetize the site. And if traffic -- of existing users -- drops, that spells bad news. What's also alarming is the attrition rate. Apparently, Facebook is even losing users in America.

The story isn't very clear. There's data backing the fewer new users, but there's no data presented to back the traffic drop, even though the author says in the comment that's exactly what he means -- traffic drop.

Personally, I've often considered closing and deleting my FB account, but I keep it for now -- inactive -- just so I can look at photos that family members post. I know a few people who have already deleted the account and I know quite a few -- college age even -- who never opened one. Yes, yes, I know, not a real scientific statistic, but my little biased sample.

Anyways, I prefer Twitter. For that matter, so does Apple ...

Will Rising Corporate Profits Really "Feed US Job Growth?" You Wish!

2011-06-13T12:18:00.001-04:00

So Bloomberg has this headline and article on its main page today:

Surging Corporate Profits Should Feed U.S. Job Growth:

Profits at American companies are poised to be one of the few bright spots in the U.S., helping to steady the faltering recovery.

But the whole premise is based on surging profits, not revenues. Those profits have been achieved by significant cost cutting at companies, including massive layoffs.

Meanwhile, everybody and their mother is talking about inflation. Consumers feel it when they go to buy groceries and gas to start. Ah, right, I forgot, economists often look at inflation number that don't count food and gas cause they're "too volatile." So what if they end up affecting consumer goods???

According to Reuters, Trichet thinks "[T]he European Central Bank needs to ensure recent oil and commodity price rises do not trigger inflationary problems." But commodity and gas prices have been rising for a while now and there's no more pretending or escaping. Maybe Trichet and Bernanke don't go shopping at the local supermarket, but they can ask us. We'll tell them our food bills are higher, not to mention the gas bills. So we shop less and we drive less where we can.

Either way, this means interest rate hikes at some point. It has to. Some countries already started raising rates.

And lest we forget what Pimco's Bill Gross told CNBC today in an eye-popping headline: US Is in Even Worse Shape Financially Than Greece. Yes, that Greece that had to be bailed out by the IMF.

And while Krugman and Others argue over more stimulus vs. taking care of the debt problem, Roubini chimes in that "[A] “perfect storm” of fiscal woe in the U.S., a slowdown in China, European debt restructuring and stagnation in Japan may converge on the global economy."

So yes, the market is up today after digesting some of this last week, and the Bloomberg headline about company profit is encouraging ... well, if you put your head in the sand. I don't see how with inflationary pressures, high unemployment and perhaps the beginning of fiscal and monetary tightening the US consumer -- which accounts for 70% of GDP -- can recover significantly.

The same tightening and the same inflationary pressure will affect companies, which won't be so eager to loosen their belts and risk affecting profits without seeing any significant revenue growth. And that doesn't appear to start happening soon.

Swine flu vaccine: Who's jumping the queue?

2009-11-08T09:53:00.001-05:00

This has probably been one of the more disgusting developments with regards to the H1N1 vaccine.

In Canada, it seems there's a new aristocracy -- pro sports players.
The Calgary Flames, the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Toronto Raptors all managed to jump the queue and get the vaccines for themselves, and even in some cases for their families, though right now, the vaccine is only available to at-risk population.

No amount of PR speak as to why they got the vaccine ahead of priority groups, or why their families did (in a very cozy atmosphere of a private clinic no less) while thousands wait in line at public clinics, could explain the blatant disregard to human life and rights and the two-tiered system we suddenly found in our public health care system . Seems doctors and officials can be blinded, perhaps even corrupted, into such action. We'll have to wait and see the results -- if any -- of the investigation (so far one government worker in Alberta has been fired -- sure, one more poor slob gets punished while the rich get away with it ... ).

Then there are hospital board members in Quebec and Ontario who jumped the queue. They should know better -- for shame!

Let's not forget GlaxoSmithKline's employees and families too.

I'd say, arguably, police and firefighters should be ahead in the queue.

And talk about a two-tiered public health system -- how did private clinics in Ontario and B.C. even got the vaccine in the first place? Is that what people's lives are worth? A membership fee to a private clinic? Should some rich Bridle Path or Marine Drive native get the vaccine over preggie lady at a Toronto downtown project or Vancouver's Eastside? Can money literally buy everything?

While I all but expected this behaviour in the US -- and it didn't disappoint as Wall Street got swine flu vaccine ahead of regular Joes -- I didn't expect this in Canada with our public health care system where the vaccine has been bought and distributed by the government.

I guess, when there's money, there's corruption.

Allegheny National Forest -- beautiful, yet sad

2009-09-02T19:10:00.000-04:00

So we went on a small vacay last week. When we don't want to fly or drive too much there isn't much choice -- Ontario or U.S. Since we also wanted nice weather (we didn't have a summer in Toronto really), south it was. Specifically, Allegheny National Forest.

Already several things happened before we arrived at our B&B in Ridgway, Pennsylvania to annoy me, not the least of which were the lack of WiFi at Borders and the expensive prices for netbooks at Best Buy. But where I expected to find quaint little villages and towns with specialty stores restaurants and coffee shops to complement the natural beauty of the surrounding, I found urban decay of small industrial towns that have seen far better days a very long time ago.

While the scenery was amazing, it was also sad and often annoying. Why were there no recycling bins? Why were there huge stinking factories to pollute area everywhere? In each god-forsaken town we passed, why the first thing we've seen was a Family Dollar or a Dollar General or any other similar store? Why did people talk about god all the time? How come they confuse god and country? And why couldn't they occasionally just shut up? To mention a few.

Obviously, the economic hardship in the area has not been the result of the recent recession, but decades in forming. Once a big, rich area, as evident by some of the mansions in the area (like the B&B we stayed at), was exploited for its natural resources to make several people very rich no doubt. Even Canadian paper company Domtar was there. Then, for some reason the money left, leaving many to fend off for themselves.

But some did better than others. For example, Ridgway has spent the last decade or so developing and beautifying its town. And it shows. It's much more pleasant there than in the other towns. With it tourism increased with some even falling in love with the place and buying homes, summer homes and what not. Hopefully, other towns can learn from it. The area sure is worth it. While I really wish I never heard such speak, I'll repeat it here because many will likely relate to it better than I can describe it: It's all god's country here.

I saw elks, mama black bear and her three cubs, two snakes, one in the mouth of what might have been a wild cat, a frog and a Hawk on this trip. (Many mosquitoes too!)

Is music going the way of the dinosaur?

2009-08-21T17:47:00.001-04:00

For the longest time I've been waiting for the first perfect post. I've finally realized there's never going to be one and that most likely very few people, if at all, will ever read it.

So here goes: Music industry

I'm not an expert. Far from it. But I still grew up in the age on CDs (even cassette tapes and vinyl, but who's counting...).

So the other day I woke up with Kate Bush's Army Dreamer in my head. I was determined to go buy the CD. Yes, I know I can download it to my iPod or watch it on YouTube or whatever, but I wanted to hear it on my actual stereo system (am I the last person to have one?)

I didn't feel like going downtown, didn't feel like going to any Best Buy (BBY) or Future Shop (pretty much the same thing here in Canada). So I looked for a CD shop in my neighborhood. By all accounts, a flourishing one with several miles of street shop.

I found one vinyl shop that had a small CD section. Then I found a new store, actually called The Music Store. There was very little merchandise among the band-labeled T-shirts. I soon realized I wasn't going to find the CD here either, but asked the young man behind the counter, who was wearing a Rage Against the Machine T-shirt btw, if he had any Kate Bush. After asking me to repeat myself, he said it doesn't sound familiar.

Doesn't sound familiar! He probably wouldn't know a Rage song if he heard it either. He was probably just modeling the shirt like they do in clothing stores.

Anyways, I'm worried. I'm worried about the fate of music. The sound quality of recorded music has been fading, the quality of music itself has been eroding. And if there's no money in it -- is there today? -- then why would musicians bother share it with us? I know there's a whole generation out there who actually buys music from iTunes and what not, but it does seem like a shrinking industry.

Quite frankly, it all started with the Tool concert I saw a few weeks ago. But that's for another time.

In the meanwhile, you can enjoy Kate Bush's Army Dreamer here: