Of course, the first order of business is to decide perhaps a couple of days in advance what kind of meat you want to cook. But here is what I will often do since I am great at money management, but not great at deciding what I am cooking from day to day.
Naturally, even if you put meat in the refrigerator, it may not be totally thawed by the time you want to cook it up.
Pick out a meat. Run cold water over the package for at least 15-20 minutes. This gets the thawing process started. Then place the meat in the refrigerator. If you have a thawing drawer, use this, as the temperature is usually slightly warmer than the rest of the refrigerator. Let the meat thaw overnight. If the meat is still semi-frozen the next day, run it under cold water before preparing for another 10-15 minutes. This should leave you with a well thawed piece of meat to work with.
In the worst case scenario, you can also, after the final cold water thawing, toss it into the microwave for 7-10 minutes on 30% power, and this will get you to where you want to be.
When it comes to thawing in a hurry, I usually will put the meat package in the sink and cold water thaw for about 15-20 minutes. Then I will completely dry the package. This is critical. Place the package in the microwave for another 10 minutes or so on 30% power, and the meat should be thawed, and not cooked. Depending on the size of the meat package you may need more or less time.
I generally do not like to thaw meat entirely in the microwave, since even at 30% the edges usually begin to cook, and this can actually toughen the meat, or cause it to be cooked unevenly once you actually place it into the pan, onto the grill, or wherever else you might be cooking it.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Friday, May 24, 2013
How would you play Mattel Inc. today?
I like Mattel Inc. I think it is a solid company which has has good earnings, and I happen to believe that the 2013-2014 Christmas season could do well this year since there are a few economic factors which lead me to believe Christmas sales in particular should be up. Mattel Inc. happens to one of the companies that could see benefits from this. My expectation for Mattel in the 3rd quarter is somewhere between $47-$48 per share.
My plan for Tuesday, May 28, 2013 is to put in a limit order for 100 shares of MAT at $45.63 per share. After a $9.99 comission I will pay for this transaction, my cost basis will be $4572.99, or around $45.73 per share. I will also put in a limit order to sell an OCT 19 2013 $44 cash secured put for $1.80 per share, which would give me a premium paid to me of $168.26 after comissions and expenses. This reduces my cost basis to $4404.73, or $44.05 per share. Once I have the 100 shares filled, I will immediately sell an OCT 19 2013 $48 covered call for $1.25 per share, or $113.26 after comissions and expenses. My cost basis has now been reduced to $4291.47, or $42.91 per share.
The premiums are mine to keep no matter what happens.
If the stock reaches $48.01 when the covered call expires, my call will be assigned and I will sell my 100 shares for a total of $4800.00. I will pay expenses of approximately $20 on the assignment of the call, plus $9.99 for the sell. My total proceeds will be $4770.01, or a profit of $478.54, taking into account the premiums already received. The cash secured put expires worthless, but I still get to keep the premium I was paid by the buyer.
If the stock drops to $43.99 I am forced to buy 100 additional shares of MAT at $4400 plus $20 plus $9.99, or a total of 4429.99. In this scenario I am showing a paper loss of $138.52.
If I had simply bought the stock at $45.63 with comissions, and the stock dropped to $43.99, my loss would have been $164 with comissions factored in. BUT, during this time I also received a dividend of $36 on my 100 shares. This means that in the worst case scenario, by selling the cash secured puts and covered calls and buying the stock via the limit order, my loss is reduced to just $128.
Of course, if the stock gains not only did I get to keep my premiums, but I also made more money on the stock than had I simply bought it, held it, and sold it. In the scenario where the stock did better than $48, my covered call was assigned, and I made the $478.54 profit from the entire process, AND also still received my dividend increasing my total gain to $514.54.
I should point out that it is just a matter of my own personal strategy and preference that I NEVER buy puts or calls. I only sell them. This is how I would play MAT at this moment. The ONLY caveat that is if MAT does better than $48 you lose out on those additional gains. But that is the nature of the beast when employing this strategy.
I will write a follow up in October to see where this wound up, so do check back then to see how we fared.
My plan for Tuesday, May 28, 2013 is to put in a limit order for 100 shares of MAT at $45.63 per share. After a $9.99 comission I will pay for this transaction, my cost basis will be $4572.99, or around $45.73 per share. I will also put in a limit order to sell an OCT 19 2013 $44 cash secured put for $1.80 per share, which would give me a premium paid to me of $168.26 after comissions and expenses. This reduces my cost basis to $4404.73, or $44.05 per share. Once I have the 100 shares filled, I will immediately sell an OCT 19 2013 $48 covered call for $1.25 per share, or $113.26 after comissions and expenses. My cost basis has now been reduced to $4291.47, or $42.91 per share.
The premiums are mine to keep no matter what happens.
If the stock reaches $48.01 when the covered call expires, my call will be assigned and I will sell my 100 shares for a total of $4800.00. I will pay expenses of approximately $20 on the assignment of the call, plus $9.99 for the sell. My total proceeds will be $4770.01, or a profit of $478.54, taking into account the premiums already received. The cash secured put expires worthless, but I still get to keep the premium I was paid by the buyer.
If the stock drops to $43.99 I am forced to buy 100 additional shares of MAT at $4400 plus $20 plus $9.99, or a total of 4429.99. In this scenario I am showing a paper loss of $138.52.
If I had simply bought the stock at $45.63 with comissions, and the stock dropped to $43.99, my loss would have been $164 with comissions factored in. BUT, during this time I also received a dividend of $36 on my 100 shares. This means that in the worst case scenario, by selling the cash secured puts and covered calls and buying the stock via the limit order, my loss is reduced to just $128.
Of course, if the stock gains not only did I get to keep my premiums, but I also made more money on the stock than had I simply bought it, held it, and sold it. In the scenario where the stock did better than $48, my covered call was assigned, and I made the $478.54 profit from the entire process, AND also still received my dividend increasing my total gain to $514.54.
I should point out that it is just a matter of my own personal strategy and preference that I NEVER buy puts or calls. I only sell them. This is how I would play MAT at this moment. The ONLY caveat that is if MAT does better than $48 you lose out on those additional gains. But that is the nature of the beast when employing this strategy.
I will write a follow up in October to see where this wound up, so do check back then to see how we fared.
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Are the educated really all that educated?
I suppose it would have to be more defined in order to really come to an ultimate conclusion on this question. Is a doctor highly educated? Sure. I'll go with that. A psychologist? Now we may be stretching things a bit since the whole world of psychology is really kind of a strange place these days when you start to listen to how these people analyze, or try to analyze human behavior.
At the end of the day what I do think is that a formal education does not usurp the power, nor the benefit that a personal education can provide. If one has the aptitude and the interest to learn something, there are volumes of books and other resources available all around us to get at what it is we want to learn and better understand. Of course, one must also have the power to interpret and sift through the garbage information.
Being successful should require no formal education—with a few exceptions, of course. Here we can cite back to whether or not you want to become a brain surgeon. This is one of the obvious ones. Still, what will make you a great brain surgeon? A fancy medical degree? Or will it be aptitude, interest in the subject matter, a passion for brain surgery, and one of the most important aspects of all. Talent. Anyone can learn where to make the cuts. But someone with extraordinary talent will know how to make the cuts more delicately, and may even go on to develop new technologies in the field.
College degrees do not make people 'educated.' That is only something that one can acheive all on their own. College graduates are what I like to call seekers of credentials and accolades. People who are personally knowledgeable, whether or not they also have a degree are what I like to call seekers of knowledge. These are the educated people. And how they get where they are, and how they have become knowledgeable and personally educated, is acheived in a way no single classroom in a college can ever hope to provide.
At the end of the day what I do think is that a formal education does not usurp the power, nor the benefit that a personal education can provide. If one has the aptitude and the interest to learn something, there are volumes of books and other resources available all around us to get at what it is we want to learn and better understand. Of course, one must also have the power to interpret and sift through the garbage information.
Being successful should require no formal education—with a few exceptions, of course. Here we can cite back to whether or not you want to become a brain surgeon. This is one of the obvious ones. Still, what will make you a great brain surgeon? A fancy medical degree? Or will it be aptitude, interest in the subject matter, a passion for brain surgery, and one of the most important aspects of all. Talent. Anyone can learn where to make the cuts. But someone with extraordinary talent will know how to make the cuts more delicately, and may even go on to develop new technologies in the field.
College degrees do not make people 'educated.' That is only something that one can acheive all on their own. College graduates are what I like to call seekers of credentials and accolades. People who are personally knowledgeable, whether or not they also have a degree are what I like to call seekers of knowledge. These are the educated people. And how they get where they are, and how they have become knowledgeable and personally educated, is acheived in a way no single classroom in a college can ever hope to provide.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Do you think taxing the super rich is fair?
No. I do not think that taxing the super rich is fair. Part of the main reason for my thinking is that what we're really taxing is the hard work and risk taking of a select percentage of people in this country. And let's face it. Their hard work and risk taking has a benefit to us all at the end of the day.
Where exactly do any of us think our jobs come from?
Not only that, but being that we live in a capitalist economy, all of us have an opportunity to own the stocks of the companies these super rich ultimately create as well. That is, this opportunity is afforded to those who also wish to learn and understand the ins and outs of business, the stock market, capitalism, the economy, and are willing to take on a little bit of risk ourselves.
Yes. We're the little guy. We're the low man on the totem pole. What we risk carries more danger because we have less to risk, and perhaps arguably more to lose if something goes wrong. But, ask any successful businessman about the number of failed businesses he tried before he landed on one that worked. Ask any successful businessman about what he ate for dinner, if he ate at all, and how he lived in his car for weeks, if not months until his business was able to begin to produce a profit and generate a return.
Not all rich people got their money from daddy. In fact, statistically, most of the richest people in this country are self-made. They started with nothing.
Is it fair that they are rich and we are not? It depends on how you view the world. Of course, my stance is that it is fair to be rich if you've done what is necessary to become rich. It is equally fair to be poor if you've done nothing to at least take a stab at becoming rich. Having your hand out, having wishful thinking, and having dreams of what could be (or even what we desire) is not the means to getting to where we want to go. We all need to be very aware of this.
The fact is that some people simply want riches, but they don't want the hard work and risk that goes along with that. And then there's that lot who believe that riches come from luck. From circumstance. This good fortune and circumstance is unfair, and must be made right by having them give up some of the fruits of their good fortune to those who are less fortunate to have such luck.
There is also that crowd of people who are simply convinced that the entire system of money is rigged. As a result of this thinking, they resent everything to do with money. And especially those who have it. Rather than take the time to figure out how they too can be a part of this very opportunity filled system we call capitalism, they focus on what they earn, or what they don't earn, and don't do much at all to change the direction of their finances. Most certainly they do not take advantage of any of the opportunities that abound to get themselves ahead financially.
I do invest in the stock market. But why am I not in business? Look, I make a pretty mean spaghetti sauce, and there have been untold numbers of times I have considered starting my own spaghetti sauce factory. There is a very good reason this has not happened for me as of yet, and that is because I have not taken the time to go down to my local health department and figure out how to get my kitchen certified. I've never looked into getting a business license, and never really delved too deeply into canning processes for sauces. I've never looked into how I might market this product, or how I might separate my own spaghetti sauce from the hundred or so other brands of sauces that are on the shelves—or how I might get my product on a shelf at all.
The reason my sauce is not on the market right now, and not being produced in my own spaghetti sauce factory is because I haven't taken the time, spent the money, nor taken on any risk to do that. Should I carry resentment for Ragu? Prego? Emeril?
The simple answer is that I should only resent myself. I haven't done anything to start my spaghetti sauce factory and that is why I do not have one.
And as far as the super rich go? If I'm not super rich it is not because I cannot be. It is because I haven't done what they have done to become as rich as they are. Until then, I suppose I can continue to dream, play the markets, save my money, and enjoy the fact that I will have to work for them until the day arrives—if it arrives—that I decide to something to change my own circumstance.
Where exactly do any of us think our jobs come from?
Not only that, but being that we live in a capitalist economy, all of us have an opportunity to own the stocks of the companies these super rich ultimately create as well. That is, this opportunity is afforded to those who also wish to learn and understand the ins and outs of business, the stock market, capitalism, the economy, and are willing to take on a little bit of risk ourselves.
Yes. We're the little guy. We're the low man on the totem pole. What we risk carries more danger because we have less to risk, and perhaps arguably more to lose if something goes wrong. But, ask any successful businessman about the number of failed businesses he tried before he landed on one that worked. Ask any successful businessman about what he ate for dinner, if he ate at all, and how he lived in his car for weeks, if not months until his business was able to begin to produce a profit and generate a return.
Not all rich people got their money from daddy. In fact, statistically, most of the richest people in this country are self-made. They started with nothing.
Is it fair that they are rich and we are not? It depends on how you view the world. Of course, my stance is that it is fair to be rich if you've done what is necessary to become rich. It is equally fair to be poor if you've done nothing to at least take a stab at becoming rich. Having your hand out, having wishful thinking, and having dreams of what could be (or even what we desire) is not the means to getting to where we want to go. We all need to be very aware of this.
The fact is that some people simply want riches, but they don't want the hard work and risk that goes along with that. And then there's that lot who believe that riches come from luck. From circumstance. This good fortune and circumstance is unfair, and must be made right by having them give up some of the fruits of their good fortune to those who are less fortunate to have such luck.
There is also that crowd of people who are simply convinced that the entire system of money is rigged. As a result of this thinking, they resent everything to do with money. And especially those who have it. Rather than take the time to figure out how they too can be a part of this very opportunity filled system we call capitalism, they focus on what they earn, or what they don't earn, and don't do much at all to change the direction of their finances. Most certainly they do not take advantage of any of the opportunities that abound to get themselves ahead financially.
I do invest in the stock market. But why am I not in business? Look, I make a pretty mean spaghetti sauce, and there have been untold numbers of times I have considered starting my own spaghetti sauce factory. There is a very good reason this has not happened for me as of yet, and that is because I have not taken the time to go down to my local health department and figure out how to get my kitchen certified. I've never looked into getting a business license, and never really delved too deeply into canning processes for sauces. I've never looked into how I might market this product, or how I might separate my own spaghetti sauce from the hundred or so other brands of sauces that are on the shelves—or how I might get my product on a shelf at all.
The reason my sauce is not on the market right now, and not being produced in my own spaghetti sauce factory is because I haven't taken the time, spent the money, nor taken on any risk to do that. Should I carry resentment for Ragu? Prego? Emeril?
The simple answer is that I should only resent myself. I haven't done anything to start my spaghetti sauce factory and that is why I do not have one.
And as far as the super rich go? If I'm not super rich it is not because I cannot be. It is because I haven't done what they have done to become as rich as they are. Until then, I suppose I can continue to dream, play the markets, save my money, and enjoy the fact that I will have to work for them until the day arrives—if it arrives—that I decide to something to change my own circumstance.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Could Barack Obama ever seek a 3rd term?
President Barack Obama pulled off an incredible feat. Of that, there is no doubt. Let's face it, he had an abysmal record during his presidency, and was in fact actually worse than Jimmy Carter in many ways—yet the American people surprisingly accepted him for a second term. But the question is whether or not President Obama would ever seek a 3rd term, and more importantly whether or not the American people would ever allow this to happen?
I think the answer is two fold. I do have some concern that President Barack Obama may have it in his interest to try for a 3rd term. Speaking on gay marriage he commented that, "Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them." He has made other statements throughout his presidency that have made the suggestion that the Constitution of the United States gets in the way of his ability to govern. These are troubling words in my opinion, and telling of a mindset that he may just have some interest in completely changing the rules. Including seeking a 3rd term.
In answering the second part of the question, "Would the American people allow President Barack Obama to seek a 3rd term?" I think the answer is no. Despite the changing tide of American political sentiment, despite the scores of unemployed, and those who rely on the dole for their daily bread, and despite the rampant infiltration of liberal ideology into the American psyche, Americans are still Americans at the core. I still firmly believe that Americans overall still respect and enjoy the protections that we have against any one branch of our government having too much power. If the president sought a 3rd term, all Americans would be up in arms, and I am certain that this would include the president's fellow democrats in Congress. There is only so far one can go in this country to uproot her very core foundation—and this would be a line for sure.
There is good reason our laws have created the two-term rule. 3rd term presidents haven't ruined us in the past. But Americans need reassurance that leaders do not become dictators. That's why we have the law in place, and I think Americans appreciate the letter of it.
The real question is whether or not the democrats will maintain their seat in the White House at the end of Barack Obama's ending term in office, and whether or not any new democratic president may wish to advance even further the liberal ideology that Barack Obama has fostered and administered so far. In some ways this could be the closest thing to a dictatorship in America without having an actual face to put on it—the dictator could well be the continuation of liberal policies. And that should probably be feared just as much.
I think the answer is two fold. I do have some concern that President Barack Obama may have it in his interest to try for a 3rd term. Speaking on gay marriage he commented that, "Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them." He has made other statements throughout his presidency that have made the suggestion that the Constitution of the United States gets in the way of his ability to govern. These are troubling words in my opinion, and telling of a mindset that he may just have some interest in completely changing the rules. Including seeking a 3rd term.
In answering the second part of the question, "Would the American people allow President Barack Obama to seek a 3rd term?" I think the answer is no. Despite the changing tide of American political sentiment, despite the scores of unemployed, and those who rely on the dole for their daily bread, and despite the rampant infiltration of liberal ideology into the American psyche, Americans are still Americans at the core. I still firmly believe that Americans overall still respect and enjoy the protections that we have against any one branch of our government having too much power. If the president sought a 3rd term, all Americans would be up in arms, and I am certain that this would include the president's fellow democrats in Congress. There is only so far one can go in this country to uproot her very core foundation—and this would be a line for sure.
There is good reason our laws have created the two-term rule. 3rd term presidents haven't ruined us in the past. But Americans need reassurance that leaders do not become dictators. That's why we have the law in place, and I think Americans appreciate the letter of it.
The real question is whether or not the democrats will maintain their seat in the White House at the end of Barack Obama's ending term in office, and whether or not any new democratic president may wish to advance even further the liberal ideology that Barack Obama has fostered and administered so far. In some ways this could be the closest thing to a dictatorship in America without having an actual face to put on it—the dictator could well be the continuation of liberal policies. And that should probably be feared just as much.
Monday, November 26, 2012
The Petraeus Deal
I get the idea behind General Petraeus, amid his sideline liaisons, resigning his post as CIA director. Important information could be compromised considering his position, and who knows whether or not Jill Kelly or Paula Broadwell are subordinates that were hired by some precarious source to gather intelligence—something that is entirely speculation, at least for now. Still, I am reminded of how many of our past presidents have also had extra marital affairs. The list would probably include nearly every president we've had in our history, aside from perhaps a small few. Abraham Lincoln for example. Jimmy Carter would probably be among the faithful. And so far as we know, Barack Obama has had no extra marital relations either.
The odd question I have is why is it so important for General Petraeus to step down, and to have so much of the spotlight on General Allen to step down without such information? Granted, General Allen's situation has more to do with Article 134 of the UCMJ (conduct unbecoming). But it would be my guess that any sitting president would have the most compromisable intelligence possible. He is, of course, the highest ranking official in the land. Yet while this is true, in the cases where a sitting president has had known extra marital affairs, I can't think of a single one that stepped down—despite them being asked to, such as was the case with Bill Clinton.
Okay, he was impeached. So what. He was still the president. He still held his office. And the impeachment was tied to the lie, not the affair.
The other thing that bothers me about the whole thing is the fact that all of the attention seems now to be placed on these two men and what they apparently were doing in their spare time. I don't want to go out on a limb here and suggest that this is perhaps a convenient way to turn attention away from Benghazi, and the clear screwups that occurred under President Obama's watch. But it does seem, well...convenient. Shouldn't we be more concerned with what happened to the Ambassador who was killed? Shouldn't we be more concerned with the other three Americans that were killed? Shouldn't we be more concerned that we were attacked by terrorists on what is essentially American soil? And shouldn't we be more concerned about what the president was doing when this attack occurred that cost the lives of Americans rather than what these two men have been doing which, for all intents and purposes, affects only five known people, and has no tangible affect on National Security or foreign relations?
I'm not in any way condoning the actions of General Petraeus nor General Allen. But I think that in the grander picture, the real issue is not Jill Kelly and Paula Broadwell. The real issue is President Obama, the Obama Administration's decisions on that day on September 11th, and Benghazi as a whole. This is where our first attention should be. We can deal with the tantalizing sexual liaisons of these two men after we figure out the more important details of Benghazi which have suddenly become a bit buried, and perhaps even forgotten about already.
The odd question I have is why is it so important for General Petraeus to step down, and to have so much of the spotlight on General Allen to step down without such information? Granted, General Allen's situation has more to do with Article 134 of the UCMJ (conduct unbecoming). But it would be my guess that any sitting president would have the most compromisable intelligence possible. He is, of course, the highest ranking official in the land. Yet while this is true, in the cases where a sitting president has had known extra marital affairs, I can't think of a single one that stepped down—despite them being asked to, such as was the case with Bill Clinton.
Okay, he was impeached. So what. He was still the president. He still held his office. And the impeachment was tied to the lie, not the affair.
The other thing that bothers me about the whole thing is the fact that all of the attention seems now to be placed on these two men and what they apparently were doing in their spare time. I don't want to go out on a limb here and suggest that this is perhaps a convenient way to turn attention away from Benghazi, and the clear screwups that occurred under President Obama's watch. But it does seem, well...convenient. Shouldn't we be more concerned with what happened to the Ambassador who was killed? Shouldn't we be more concerned with the other three Americans that were killed? Shouldn't we be more concerned that we were attacked by terrorists on what is essentially American soil? And shouldn't we be more concerned about what the president was doing when this attack occurred that cost the lives of Americans rather than what these two men have been doing which, for all intents and purposes, affects only five known people, and has no tangible affect on National Security or foreign relations?
I'm not in any way condoning the actions of General Petraeus nor General Allen. But I think that in the grander picture, the real issue is not Jill Kelly and Paula Broadwell. The real issue is President Obama, the Obama Administration's decisions on that day on September 11th, and Benghazi as a whole. This is where our first attention should be. We can deal with the tantalizing sexual liaisons of these two men after we figure out the more important details of Benghazi which have suddenly become a bit buried, and perhaps even forgotten about already.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Can you be too picky in choosing a mate?
Absolutely, and quite frankly this is where I think most people go terribly wrong and wind up in failed relationships, and ultimately, failed marriages. People tend to have some form of a checklist that they've formulated in their mind about what defines the 'perfect mate.' A gal may be looking for a guy who's a certain height and build. A guy may be looking for a busty blonde. A gal may be wanting a man who earns a specified dollar amount in salary every year, or that wears a particular title. A guy may be looking for a woman who weighs x-amount of pounds.
At the end of the day I think the person you ultimately wind up falling in love with typically turns out to be quite a bit different than what you may have thought you were looking for. Love is a funny thing. In most cases it just sort of happens. When it does, that person simply suits you in every way. It's really all about chemistry, and personality, and nothing about physical attributes. The thing about love is that when you do love someone, that person can be nothing short of beautiful to you no matter what they may look like in other people's eyes.
There's that old saying that you can never judge a book by its cover. That's as true in the case of love, and choosing a mate, as it is in finding a good read. As far as I can see it, if you can truly define your perfect mate, I think frankly you are trying too hard, not being realistic, and are unlikely to ever find what you are looking for, let alone true love.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If beauty and earnings power and perfect attributes were the sums that made love strongest, the marriages in Hollywood would be everlasting. Hollywood marriages are far from that by leaps and bounds. Maybe the next time you say to yourself, "That person is not my type," you should stop and think about it. The person you think is your type probably isn't either.
At the end of the day I think the person you ultimately wind up falling in love with typically turns out to be quite a bit different than what you may have thought you were looking for. Love is a funny thing. In most cases it just sort of happens. When it does, that person simply suits you in every way. It's really all about chemistry, and personality, and nothing about physical attributes. The thing about love is that when you do love someone, that person can be nothing short of beautiful to you no matter what they may look like in other people's eyes.
There's that old saying that you can never judge a book by its cover. That's as true in the case of love, and choosing a mate, as it is in finding a good read. As far as I can see it, if you can truly define your perfect mate, I think frankly you are trying too hard, not being realistic, and are unlikely to ever find what you are looking for, let alone true love.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If beauty and earnings power and perfect attributes were the sums that made love strongest, the marriages in Hollywood would be everlasting. Hollywood marriages are far from that by leaps and bounds. Maybe the next time you say to yourself, "That person is not my type," you should stop and think about it. The person you think is your type probably isn't either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)