Money Blue Book

I would like to wish my readers and my lovely girl a Happy Valentine’s Day! For those of you who don’t have a clue where to take your Valentine’s date, I recommend The Melting Pot, a classy fondue restaurant. Fondue is basically a communal type of dinner meal shared around an earthenware pot cooked over a small burner at your table. The light fondue cheese mix inside the pot is usually cooked with traces of wine and kept warm while diners use specially pronged forks to dip bread and other bits of food into it. Although it’s deliciously fun, the dining experience can be rather expensive.

Love May Be Cheap, But Fondue Isn’t

The Melting Pot is definitely not a place for patrons who are financially squeamish about opening up their wallets wide for a rare romantic dinner. On special occasions like Valentine’s Day, expect reservations to be in demand and planned dinner courses for two to cost upwards of $130.00. On other days, the price doesn’t fare all that much better – at around $85 per couple. It’s amazing how high prices soar for love-related events and merchandise during special holiday occasions like Valentine’s Day (just look at the price of online Valentine’s day flowers in my last post).

I’m not really a high end restaurant connoisseur (usually preferring to save my money by going elsewhere), but I’ve been there a few times and enjoyed the food and ambiance. Don’t get me wrong – a dinner at the Melting Pot is incredibly expensive, but for that special someone or for that special annual occasion, I think the experience is worth the financial cost. It’s not a place I could afford to visit every weekend, but I’d much rather spend money on such experiences than on material trinkets that depreciate over time. Just be sure to snap some photos while you’re there to immortalize the memories!

Fondue Restaurants Are a Place For Diners Who Like To Play With Their Food In The Dark

As the restaurant’s website proclaims, fondue is a fun and interactive dining experience. If you’re clumsy at planning romantic outings (like me), a restaurant like the Melting Pot pretty much does it for you. They keep the place very cozy and the lighting very dim to promote and encourage warm fuzzy feelings. The interactive part is where it gets fun. They pour the fondue broth in front of you and provide you with color tabbed skewers that you use to cook the fresh mushroom, garlic chicken, white shrimp, fillet mignon, ravioli, citrus pork tenderloin, and lobster. Sounds tasty doesn’t it?

The reason why I’m reviewing this restaurant chain is because it is where I took my girlfriend to for our very first Valentine’s Day dinner. I had a good time and I think she did too. That’s the stuffed monkey I gave her.

Warning – alarm – I am about to drive off the personal finance road and head into the entertainment marshes.

Well it’s been months since I rambled off topic but I think after having watched this year’s 2008 Super XVLII, I feel compelled to comment on the deteriorating quality and excitement of the once highly anticipated half time musical performances. It used to be that I always looked forward to watching the Super Bowl half time shows since they used to feature pretty good superstar performances. But unfortunately, what was once an exciting party bash has in recent years turned into a safe and cautious yawn fest.

Tom Petty’s Performance Was Decent But Too Safe For A Super Bowl Half Time Show

This year’s half-time show featured Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, a band that probably caters more to the older generation than today’s kiddies, myself included. While I will admit he did pull of a pretty skillful performance and sang some great songs, I’ve never been much of a fan of his band’s music. I wasn’t really moved or pumped up by their performance as it wasn’t really much of a performance – mostly just a karaoke selection of his greatest hits.

I think future shows need serious tuneups. Ever since the whole Janet Jackson alleged wardrobe malfunction episode of Super Bowl XXXVIII in 2004, the quality of the halftime shows have been sliding downhill. We really need MTV to bring back the excitement that the event once had or I think we’re going to start seeing many viewers switch channels during halftime to watch some of the other competing shows airing at that time. Some cable network channels have actually started to seize on the waning interest in the half time shows by featuring unique commercial free programs during that very time slot.

I know it was controversial at the time, but I personally thought the whole wardrobe malfunction incident was a great thing for the Super Bowl – an unanticipated oops that generated buzz and front page excitement for an event that by definition should be glorified, edgy, and memorable. I’m not sure what other football fans and Super Bowl followers think, but in my opinion, the best half time show I’ve seen in the last few years was the one in 2001 – Super XXXV – that featured amazing stars like Britney Spears, N Sync, Nelly, and Mary J. Blige, as well as the ageless, but still sort of hard rocking Aerosmith. Laugh if you want – I would have loved to have been there!

The music performers in recent years featured boring artists like the Rolling Stones, and Paul McCartney – two utterly forgettable artists that most people probably didn’t even realize were still alive. Of course, it’s obvious why the Super Bowl planning committee continues to book such predictably bland artists to cater to the older folks and the family crowd – they are the ones who have the money to pay the exorbitant ticket prices to attend these type of events.

When I read about the crazy sums of money football fans have been plunking down for a chance to watch the New York Giants play the New England Patriots in Super Bowl XLII (42nd), I was shocked, but not surprised. Just for the record, no – I didn’t pay more than $4,000 for a pair of Super Bowl tickets to watch the two best football teams in the nation play this coming weekend. But I understand why feverish and passionate football fans would pay that kind of money to support their team (I’ve done it before, although not nearly to that level of degree).

If I were a Giants or Pats fan, I would have given some serious thought to shelling out the high scalper-driven prices to secure the coveted tickets and necessary hotel rooms for the chance to experience the event of a lifetime. Looking back at my earlier days, I wish I had jumped on the exciting opportunities when I had the chance. When my college alma mater made it to the men’s NCAA basketball championship game I was still in graduate school and didn’t have the financial means or the ability to take time off from classes to attend. Looking back I wish I had dug down deep and made the effort, because ultimately my school went on to win that national title game. I missed an opportunity that may not happen again for some time. Afterwards, I promised myself – never again would I give up such a once in a lifetime opportunity on the account of mere time or cost, in the absence of other considerations.

Money Spent On Memories Vs. Money Spent On Material Goods

While I personally am very wary about spending exorbitant amounts of money on material goods, I don’t seem to have the same aversion towards spending money on precious experiences that have the possibility of creating everlasting memories. Unlike the substance of memories, I view tangible goods as items with limited and fleeting lifespans that ultimately depreciate and wither away. Particularly with newly released electronic products like iPods and flat screen TV’s, they frequently become outdated within months by the time the new updated model rolls around. Technology prices drop fast and what was top of the line one day soon becomes yesterday’s news the next. At the end of the day, all material goods break down, wear out, and eventually become obsolete, but memories are forever. Memories and experiences are retained in the recesses of our minds, enriching our human experience and growing ever more valuable as time passes. As we age, those fond memories from years past become priceless treasures (it’s cheesy but true).

When I was little, I spent a great deal of money and time on buying and playing video games. But looking back, it wasn’t the computer technology, gaming systems, or game cartridges that brought me joy – it was the experience and cherished moments I had when playing games with friends and family. I think it’s important to practice a reasonably frugal lifestyle, but some expenditures are worth the financial price. There’s nothing wrong with living it up within your means on occasion – just make sure you are spending your hard earned money towards the things that have residual and appreciative intangible value.

The stores of wealthier diehard Super Bowl fans paying upwards of $20,000 for a pair of front row seats to the greatest show on earth is indeed stunning, but if they are sharing the experience with their friends, spouses, and children, I say – more power to them. I just hope they are living within their means and not doing anything financially crazy like putting the entire amount on a high interest credit card they can’t afford, just for a 3 hour thrill.

Opposed To Spending Money On a $5 Coffee Drink, But Okay With Spending $250 To Watch My Favorite Sports Team Play

I’ve noticed that I seem to have a selective form of frugality. I generally like to save on the little things in life by cutting back on smaller daily expenses like my old Starbucks coffee habit and by refraining from frequently updating my clothing wardrobe. However, I seem to have no problem spending larger sums of money on things like entertainment experiences that I truly care emotionally and passionately about. It’s an odd form of frugal living that I sometimes wonder if others share as well.

Back in the day, when you wanted to listen to music, you either had to listen to the song off the radio, or you had to visit your nearby record store to buy the artist’s compact disc. Each CD usually went for $12-18 depending on the album’s popularity and you had to store your music CD collection in a plastic shelf case. As your CD collection grew you usually had to buy more cumbersome storage. Because the CD surface was itself easy scratched, you always had to take great care when handling the discs to minimize damage.

Everything all changed during my last few years of high school when the internet arrived to the scene. At first it was only seen as a novelty and used by a handful of people, but gradually the mainstream began to adopt it, recognizing its information potential. The technology started out slow, bumbling along at 56k modem speed on the average home computer. Faster broadband technology was out of the question at the time due to the prohibitive cost. But when I entered college and became introduced to T-1 broadband technology, I knew the age of file sharing had arrived. By then music sharing had become full blown as every campus student had ready access to super fast download technology at their fingertips from on-campus computer labs to broadband enabled dorm room connections.

What Is Online Music File Sharing and How Did It Start?

Napster was the first and biggest free centralized peer-to-peer (p2p) file sharing program during my early college years. The downloadable program allowed users to connect to each other online using their computers and swap primarily MP3 music files, ripped from store bought CD’s. With the ability to download free songs from Napster, many people started burning their own compilation albums without paying any royalties to the music company or the artist. The popularity of Napster peaked in early 2001 until the company was finally brought down by the music industry through a series of critical lawsuits that successfully proved Napster knowingly committed copyright infringement.

However, since the demise of the free music days of Napster, numerous improved variations have since spawned, including Limewire, Kazaa, Morpheus, and BitTorrent. One of the programs that is still enjoying continued success today as a contributer to free music downloads is the Gnutella-technology based Limwire program. Many people still use Limewire to download free copyrighted songs and videos clips. Suffering continued financial losses from dwindling music sales, the music industry has been trying to go after those who share copyrighted music files. But Limewire has proven to be very difficult to stop due to the program’s network architecture. Unlike Napster which utilized a central server, Limewire is very decentralized, and since the program’s operated by individual sharers, this makes it extra difficult for any one company to shut the whole system down or limit the flow of its contents. The record publishers have tried to flood the system with dummy files and corrupted fakes to discourage downloads, but their tactic has been met with little success.

The Music Industry and The RIAA Are Making A Big Mistake By Going After College Students For Alleged Music File Sharing

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) represents many of the big music publishing companies and is the face of the music industry’s movement to crush those who share copyrighted music files. For the last few years they’ve focussed much of their efforts towards stopping young individuals from alleged sharing activity, filing lawsuits against college students as well as their schools, demanding that the institution turn over the offending sharer. The RIAA has enjoyed some limited pockets of success with tracking down the identities of some college students and forcing them to pay hefty settlement fees, but on the whole they’ve not been able to put much of a dent in overall downloading activity. Meanwhile the music industry continues to lose millionaires of dollars in legal fees trying to pursue the endless leads.

The difficulty comes from the nature of the underlying technology. The RIAA can track down individual IP addresses and usernames, as well as where the offending activity originated from, but they are unable to ascertain specific names. Despite the RIAA’s continued demands, many universities are refusing to turn over student identification information, claiming that the demands place undue burdens on them to locate the specific offender. Particularly due to the growth of campus wireless networks and the shared nature of dorm rooms, it’s hard to pinpoint exactly who performed the alleged sharing activity.

Personally, I think the RIAA and the music industry is making a huge mistake by continuously going after file sharers. I understand they are losing millions every year to this but this is a landmark opportunity that happens every so often that ought to spur companies to innovate. When the Beta and VHS video tapes and later DVD technologies first came out, the movie industry claimed that this would be the end of the film industry. It didn’t happen – people started buying the new improved products because they made their lives better. Rather than trying to hold back progress, the RIAA and the music industry need to come up with a more comprehensive and cost-effective way to embrace this new medium of music enjoyment. Like it or not, the music industry will continue to fight a losing battle as music sharing technology continues to improve and become even more elusive. Rather than kicking and screaming about their lost revenue streams, they need to improve and find a way to stop alienating their fans and make music more affordable.

As a side note, I think it’s prudent to point out to readers that the RIAA is watching and continues to scope out file sharing networks. However, most of their attention and efforts are aimed at those who share large quantities of files rather than those that download one or two songs here and there.