(e:jason) and I have chosen to highlight what we believe is without question the best local brewery, Southern Tier, and two of their amazing Imperial brews - the "Heavy Weizen" and the "Unearthly Pale Ale."

Review coming soon!

I wanted to write a brief note to Nick, and respond to a few people from some past responses to my journal. Thanks for reading!

Nick - Your identity isn't particularly important to me or to anyone else on (e:strip). (e:lilho) was wrong for posting a picture of you with a fat dick in your mouth, although from a completely neutral perspective you have to admit that it was funny. Maybe (e:lilho) was wrong for airing some very, very dirty laundry in public, but I think the important thing for both you and for her, and now for (e:paul), is to simply move on and forget about it. Its in everybodys best interest. I'm not judging your behavior and neither are most people here - why? Because none of us really know you well enough, to my knowledge most people here aren't members of your close circle and to be completely honest in the squabble between you and your ex there isn't a ton of interest here.

Move on, and do whatever it is that you do. You're wasting your time with the presumption of a lawsuit - if you'd like me to advise you on why I'd be more than happy to... there is no reason to embarrass yourself or anyone else any further.

On to the responses -

(e:jenks) - It turns out that after 10 days SFPD has yet to make any arrests, despite knowing exactly who was involved and how they were involved. SFPD is in serious, serious crisis mode. I suppose the beauty of this is that this is essentially a rich kid/rich kid squabble, and as a result because Yale and its students are involved this won't go away anytime soon until these kids who attacked the singers are punished. SF is highly embarassed right now - the justice system in the Bay Area is an international laughing stock at this point and the only way they can fix it is by actually having the police make arrests and punish criminals - aka "their job." I've mentioned visiting SF before, but in light of the chaotic law presence, the general intolerance of diversity of thought that the Bay Area is famous for, as well as the lack of political and economic diversity I'm reconsidering.

(e:metalpeter) - You are a thinking man and nobody gives you credit! Except for me, right now. Well done.

Inflation is tricky - there are a variety of thoughts on the subject but generally, to put it simply, $5.15 doesn't buy now what it did in 1997 - thats for sure!

I too have heard the argument that raising the minimum wage would result in jobs relocating to other states or other countries - in some instances I have seen this first hand so its definitely a factor. The thing to remember, though, is that there simply aren't enough Americans earning the minimum wage to affect the macroeconomic situation in the USA in events like this. It isn't as if raising the minimum wage is going to instigate some kind of economic collapse. Its an argument designed to scare people.

Usually wage increases turn into price increases because its the easiest and sometimes the only solution to keeping profit margin the same. Do I believe that a federal minimum wage increase will mean that when we do our daily shopping that everything will be more expensive in any kind of meaningful way? No.

(e:chico) - Thanks! The thing about CBAs and correlating wage increases with minimum wage increases is true and common within union contracts, but I've also read other CBAs that handle wage increases differently. I actually think its a fair thing to do and I'm not exactly against this, but I'm particularly offended when minimum wage increases are driven by (at least in part) the need to pacify labor unions and retain their donations to political campaigns.

I am a states rights kind of guy for the most part. The minimum wage issue is one of those things where I feel that the states are doing the right thing in spite of the federal government, and its shameful that the states are able to do this for people while our representatives in Washington continually vote in favor of pay increases for themselves - and Congressmen make great money for what is essentially a part-time job!

The Baker's Dozen, a singing group similar to UB's all-male Buffalo Chips, was attacked on New Year's Eve in San Fransisco by uninvited guests to a private party after singing the Star Spangled Banner -

And how was the attack instigated? Punks from one of San Fran's most wealthy and prominent neighborhoods, Pacific Heights. I can see it now - "YO MAING! I'M SLUMMING IT HERE IN THE RICHMOND AND WE GOTS SOME BEEF! GET THE FELLAS ROLL UP IN YOUR BMWS AND BENZOS SO WE CAN DROP A BOMB ON THESE FOOLS!"

My mockery of these extremely privileged youths who think they are gangsters isn't too far from the truth. If you read the article the one that presumably started the attack which involved a van full of kids that are graduates of one of SF's oldest and most elite private schools, reportedly said while dialing his cell phone, "I'm 20 deep. My boys are coming." This is after throwing punches and calling the singers a variety of things like "faggot" and "homo." Presumably these singers were charming the socks (or panties) off of girls these privileged idiots thought should have been off limits. The kid that called in the reinforcements not only is a coward, but he's also the son of a prominent Pacific Heights family.

Who lives in Pacific Heights? Larry Ellison (insanely rich guy that founded Oracle), Nancy Pelosi, Ann Getty, Sen. Diane Feinstein, Danielle Steel, Michael Tilson Thomas - we are talking about a neighborhood flush with American aristocracy.

One of the Yale kids got a broken jaw for his trouble.

Now, granted that Yale is an environment that caters to the affluent and the privileged, this should have never happened and Yale University has retained a law firm who sole purpose will be to apply pressure to SFPD to ensure that these kids who were involved in the attack will be punished. I applaud this, and I fully expect that these rich kids with an attitude will be punished, since its pretty clear that these kids aren't afraid of what their parents might do if they got caught in a group of 20 kids who attacked a group of a-cappela singers. What worries me is what constitutes "punishment" in the eyes of San Fransisco's law enforcement and courts.

I really haven't been paying much attention to Howard Stern's success at Sirius, but at the moment it is all over the news that Stern got an $83m bonus through stock compensation -

Firstly, I didn't know that his contract was for 5 years for a total amount of compensation of $500m. 500 MILLION! To my knowledge this amount is separate from the $83m bonus payment.

Apparently, according to the article, the number of Sirius subscribers totalled 600,000 when Stern signed. They also agreed to a bonus if the number of subscribers at the end of 2006 eclipsed analyst expectations by 2 million - in the end, Sirius subscribers have increased ten fold over the course of the past two years. This is an unbelievably phenomenal growth rate over ten years or longer let alone two.

This is what I call results-based compensation. Its fairly obvious that Stern has affected Sirius in a major way - not so obvious for Goldman Sachs' CEO, who just got a $52m bonus.

Still though - Howard Stern is becoming one of the richest entertainers in the world in a relatively quiet manner - people make a lot less of a fuss over his compensation than corporate officers.

Day off - lovely! I've been drinking way more tea lately... I am enjoying it!

(e:paul) - your thing about the braces - I have always believed that doctors are guilty of trying to drum up business for each other. The first question I would have asked is, "If this isn't medically necessary, explain to me why I should be interested in this let alone pay $4200 out of my own pocket for it?"

I was checking out a message board today and there was a discussion about the upcoming minimum wage increase and how it is going to affect American manufacturers. You all (well, most of you) have an idea of what I do and as a result its hard for me, or really pointless in the end, to break out with the "full disclosure" and let people know that because of what our company does I have a direct and privileged access to information about this particular subject. Its one thing to be a message board warrior and try to provide web page links to make a point - its completely another thing to see it on a daily basis in person and have your knowledge come from that kind of direct experience.

My viewpoint on the minimum wage increase is that generally I don't see why we shouldn't. In truth, many states (including New York) have been raising the minimum wage despite what is going on at the federal level.

Advocates of the minimum wage increase claim that a meaningful segment of society will benefit positively as a result of the increase but are being dishonest about exactly WHO will be the biggest beneficiaries. Anybody that has read a collective bargaining agreement know what I'm getting at.

The people who poopoo the idea claim that there will be job losses and price increases. Who is right?

They are both right to an extent, but the truth about all of this is that we are talking about a relatively insignificant number of the American workforce. According to a study done by the Bureau of Labor Statistics - - 1.9 million Americans, or roughly 2.5% of the American workforce, makes at or below the Federal minimum. This includes servers and bartenders, who legally earn a sub-federal wage yet generally earn far more on average.

Creating law to satisfy a very small minority is generally bad law, but on the other hand, what will the argument be in another 10 years if the feds didn't raise the wage - that after another 10 years its still an insignificant number and therefore we still shouldn't bother raising the minimum?

Numerous states defer to the federal minimum, but just as many if not more legislate on their own a minimum wage that is $1.50 or higher than the federal minimum. Most of these states that defer to the federal amount are concentrated in rural areas, and most of the states that have a significantly higher minimum wage are concentrated in the populous states. The most interesting thing to me about the study is that two of the states with the highest minimum wages (California and Washington) by proportion actually have the lowest amount of minimum wage workers. So what does this mean - are we talking about a cosmetic or an effective law?

2.5% of American workers earn at or below the federal, but a whopping 12-14% will be affected by "spillover effects." They are talking about union workers, friends. I know this because I've read countless collective bargaining agreements and correlating wage increases when a minimum wage is increased is PART OF THE CONTRACT! We are talking about people who are earning double, triple, sometimes quadruple or more of the minimum wage, that have a contractual obligation agreed upon by their employer that will allow them to get an extra $2.10 an hour by 2008 if the feds raise the minimum.

So, who are the real beneficiaries of the minimum wage increase? Decide for yourself but knowing what I know and having seen what I seen, and especially after reading federal studies on this subject, I am convinced that the biggest beneficiaries to such an increase will be those who truly do not 'need' the money. Politicians are selling this as an initiative that will help "the little guy" but when only less than 500,000 American workers earn the minimum and the other 1.4 million in the study are service workers that in truth earn significantly more than minimum because of tips.

Opponents of the increase suggest that layoffs will occur and prices will increase, this affecting the entire middle class... and as a result the standard of living will decrease. In my view they aren't entirely incorrect, but are we talking about a massive decrease in our standard of living? Hell no. Layoffs will occur, but not like you would think. Lets take a company that is unionized and has 50,000 hourly employees as an example. With a $2.10 increase per hour, that is $105,000 per hour that the company will pay after a contractually mandated increase. Not including any overtime, this is $4.2m per week and $218.4m per year in wages! I'll give you one guess who is going to end up paying for that extra 9-figure wage bill.

Generally, a minimum wage increase will end up affecting relatively few people and isn't going to cause the benefit or the downfall that people on both sides of the argument have suggested.

Here is my take on it - we should do this because the states are already ahead of the federal government in this regard... the fact that the feds are behind the states is a bit ridiculous. We should do this not because of how many people may or may not be affected, but because its simply the right thing to do. So what if only 2.5% will be affected - for that matter, who cares if 14% will be affected? Just remember that this debate is largely driven by special interests so do not let it cloud your judgment. The federal minimum should be increased, as far as I'm concerned, because there are some in our country, even if it is only a relative few, that can benefit from it. The unions be damned - their part in this can be summarized in how wages and benefits are affecting companies like Ford... they are actually costing their members jobs - my concern is for the 50-year old lady working at BK because no other jobs exist in her area. Aren't people like her the people we should be focusing on?