Fair v. Fair revisited

It has been many months since I wrote my post on fairness and I have been thinking about it quite often. The more I listen to political personalities and pundits, the more I realize that almost every modern political discussion boils down to a simple disagreement about fairness. The two concepts of fairness that I put forth in my first post are still valid, but need some refinement. The most important change has to be the title and definitions of fairness. I am therefore writing a second post on the subject.

Natural Fairness

Natural fairness is probably the easiest to understand. It occurs naturally without any thought and across all types of life. Natural fairness is the idea that any output from a system has a direct correlation to the amount of input into that same system. Or in other words, the harder one works, the more rewards one receives. Every thing that one receives is a fair reward of the work one does. It is an idea that can exist inside a political vacuum and requires no effort to implement. Its effects can be seen in the natural world as well. Predatory animals that are better at hunting will eat more regularly and will therefore be healthier.

Individual responsibility is at the essence of natural fairness. If we live in a world controlled by natural fairness we will not be able to rely on anyone else to sustain us. Anything that we receive will be a result of an effort on our part. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Conceptual Fairness

Conceptual fairness is slightly harder to understand since it is primarily a human invention. This idea of fairness is an extension of the compassionate feelings that humans feel. It is basically the idea that as humans, we are essentially the same and therefore should all receive the same rewards regardless any other qualifying criteria. Conceptual fairness requires higher producers to give their rewards to lower producers until all have access to the exact same rewards.

Conceptual fairness does not exist naturally in any system and is in essence a cerebral exercise. It requires humans to move beyond our natural selfish inclinations and embrace a conceptually better paradigm. For the purposes of this post, I will use conceptual fairness as the goal of society since I personally believe it should be.

Fairness in the Real World

As we have discussed, natural fairness is basically the default setting when it comes to existing in the world. In many situations the only concept that makes logical sense is natural fairness. For example, people with more knowledge cannot give their excess to those with less knowledge. People with more knowledge can teach others but cannot simply hand the knowledge over. Conceptual fairness simply does not apply to this kind situation.

Although conceptual fairness has its limitations, it also has many applications. For example, food is a commodity that has limited personal use and can easily be shared with those who have little. Conceptually, as long as a society can produce enough food for everyone in the society, no one in that society should go hungry. Similar examples can be made for housing, healthcare, and other basic living needs. (Please see my first post for a more detailed look at the positive and negative differences between the two ideas of fairness, Compassionate=Conceptual and Achievement-Based=Natural)

Since conceptual fairness is an intellectual exercise, many people who study at institutions of higher learning seem more inclined to embrace its ideals. Natural fairness, on the other hand, is preferred by those who have experienced its effects in their day-to-day lives, i.e. the working class.

Implementing Conceptual Fairness

Since natural fairness will govern human interaction in the absence of other factors, we do not need to explore how we would bring about a naturally fair world. As conceptual fairness requires conscience activity to realize, we will discuss two different methods of how to employ this idea on a wide scale.

The first method of applying conceptual fairness is also the most common, the use of force. This is often seen through governmental action to redistribute goods from those with abundant resources to those who are lacking. A government can use laws and regulations to force the members of its society to distribute goods to the government. The government will then distribute those goods to others within the society based on perceived need.

The second method of applying conceptual fairness is also seen regularly in society. Charitable giving is done at the individual level and requires one to personally overcome selfish desires to create a more conceptually fair society. Goods are often given directly to the underprivileged or to an institution that will distribute the goods in a specific manner. The individual has complete control on the amount of goods given and to whom the goods are given.

Charitable giving often produces the same result as governmental programs but the method of distribution is fundamentally different. While governmental programs require force to distribute goods, charitable giving is voluntary. People who give willingly to charitable causes must first overcome selfish desires. People who pay taxes mostly do so under threat of imprisonment or other punishments.

Politics and Conceptual Fairness

There are too main schools of thought when it comes to political implementation of fairness, namely capitalism and socialism. Capitalism is more focused on natural fairness while socialism is more focused on conceptual fairness. Most current governments have some kind of balance of the two philosophies. Some governments tend to be more socialistic like Sweden while others tend to be more capitalistic like the United States.

The illustration to the right is my depiction of the political spectrum (forgive the quality). The illustration portrays capitalism and socialism as polar opposites. The drawing also shows where I think a utopian society exists on the scale. Utopia and socialism are near each other since they both achieve conceptual fairness. The means of that achievement is the key difference between to two societies. While socialism is achieved by force, utopia is achieved by society’s voluntary sacrifice for the greater good. Socialism is achieved through fear while utopia is achieved through compassion. (For more on my thoughts about Utopia, please read my earlier post on the subject)

The red arrow represents increasing freedom of choice. Under a socialistic system, people have very limited freedoms and as that system becomes more capitalistic, those freedoms grow. Once people have unlimited freedoms, the society is now able to choose to be more conceptually fair be voluntarily distributing resources evenly throughout the society. This choice is depicted by the green line. The society will continue to improve until a utopia is reached.

In this utopia, no individual will have to support government programs that he or she does not believe in. Christians will never have to pay for abortions while atheists will never have to pay for a town’s Christmas tree. People will have the freedom to distribute their resources as they deem necessary.

Conclusion

I believe that most people want a conceptually fair society where everyone is treated with the same respect and compassion. But the push for a better society has always been in the wrong direction. Every new government program to redistribute resources brings that society further from utopia since the program is created through force. It is human nature to resist being obligated to do something against ones will. Unless every member in a society has the exact same goals a compulsory government will never create a utopia. The more diverse a society is the more need for individual freedoms of choice.

People have a long way to go to achieve conceptual fairness voluntarily but every step towards government compulsion is a step backwards. If we want to create a better society, we must encourage voluntary giving above government redistribution.

Fair v. Fair

There has been a lot of talk lately about fairness in society or social justice. Although the talk of income equality seems to speak to an inherent idea of fairness, I have never felt comfortable with the concept in general. Then I came to the conclusion that there are in actuality, two very different definitions of fairness that we experience as humans. I will call one idea “compassionate fairness” and the other “achievement-based fairness.”

Compassionate Fairness

I grew up in a family of six children where sibling rivalry was practically an institution. Whenever we had the opportunity to eat ice cream for dessert, my mother weighed each portion to insure that no child had more ice cream then the next. If there were even a possibility of unequal amounts, the screams of unfairness would be heard down the block. We believed that since we were all basically on the same level, children, we all deserved the same amount of ice cream. Since my parents tried not to favor any one child over another, they thought the same thing.

I call this concept of fairness compassionate because it does not hold any person higher than another. Compassionate fairness does not care if you are old, young, rich, or poor. Every individual is treated the same. This is the idea of fairness that seems to dominate the national discussion.

Achievement-Based Fairness

I was a terrible student. I would rarely study and most assignments were completed with little interest in going the extra mile. As expected, my grades were less than stellar. Naturally I did not like getting poor grades, but I also knew that I deserved them. It would have been unfair to the students that put forth an effort for me to receive similar marks.

Achievement-based fairness makes a distinction between people based on the effort and accomplishments of the individual. The rewards in life are completely distributed in direct proportion to the amount of effort devoted to achieving those rewards. It compensates the industrious and punishes the indolent. This concept of fairness is often overlooked during discussions of social justice.

The Better Idea

Does one concept of fairness trump the other? I do not think so. I believe that both ideas have their place. It is incorrect to rely solely on one idea and ignore the other. No two people are placed into same circumstances when they are born, a problem that achievement-based fairness cannot resolve. Some people are lazy while others are productive, an issue that compassionate fairness cannot reconcile.

If a teacher averages all the grades in a classroom and gives every student that average grade, it would only benefit half the class at the expense of the other. This practice would discourage study and learning since they would not improve one’s grades. Compassionate fairness fails to compensate for personal achievement.

On the other hand, if some students could not even show up to class because of the socio-economic conditions they were born in to, they would never be able achieve any grades. Achievement-based fairness does not provide a common starting point from which people can begin to achieve. The most productive person in the slums will never have more money than the lazy heir to a fortune.

There are many more complexities in the discussion on fairness than I have mentioned. One being the idea of innate talent. Some people, by no effort of their own, are gifted by enormous talent. Is it fair that they were born with it? How would compassionate fairness distribute that talent? Would success be an achievement if there was no effort to obtain it? Is it fair that people are different?

Final Thoughts

Both concepts of fairness are at complete odds with each other. The reliance on one creates unfairness in the other. Any appeal to fairness by either side of the debate is an appeal to unfairness on the other. In essence, life is not fair and never will be. Instead of wasting resources and time trying to make life fair, we should be devoting our time to making the best of the cards dealt to us. Fairness is a dream.

The Logical Mind v. The Emotional Mind (Science and Reason v. Religion)

There is an inherent conflict between our logical perceptions and are emotional feelings. Emotions are often illogical while logic is devoid of all emotion. The reconciliation between the two is impossible. Our logical mind thrives on finding reason and understanding in our lives while our emotional mind attempts to find emotional fulfillment and meaning. There is the inherent conflict, emotional fulfillment is not logical and logical reasoning is emotionless. With this understanding, we can better understand the conflict between religion and science. Both appeal to different parts of the human experience but both often contradict each other.

To logically debate the existence of a God is futile. No amount of rational discourse can prove or disprove the existence of deity. All arguments along this strain must include illogical suppositions (e.g. Since there is suffering, there can be no God. This supposes that God cares about suffering). The only arguments that have been made have had emotional undercurrents and therefore breach the limits of logical discourse.

Religion is best defined as the desire for emotional fulfillment and meaning. People have said that primitive forms of religion sought to explain the mysteries of the world around them. Although that may be true is does not explain why we still worship. The mysteries of the universe are being discovered and explained at an exponential rate, yet religion still thrives. Ignorance of these discoveries may explain a portion of the religious world but definitely not the majority of it. It seems that human nature yearns for the emotional gratification that religion provides regardless of logical world around it.

Whether it is the understanding that God suffered for your personal mistakes or that there is a possibility to reach a state of mind free of suffering and pain, religion provides humans their emotional needs. Although science and reason provide the mind with nessesary truths, they cannot provide the needs of the emotional mind.

Both religion and science have things to offer the human mind and the mind can not be fully satisfied unless it has both.

The Hypocrisy of Hope: How Obama’s vision of hope will destroy the American Dream

Note: I posted this back in April 2009 but had to remove it. Although the President has not been able to see his vision realized, this post addresses what that vision is.

The American dream has inspired hope in the hearts of hundreds of millions since the United States was formed. Scores of immigrants have swarmed its shores hoping for a better life. Even today many people risk their lives just for the chance that they can improve their circumstances. President Obama has even written a book about how to bring the American dream back to its glory; however, his socialist vision for America will not bring back the American dream but destroy it.

The American dream is the epitome of hope. It is the hope that one can improve his or her station in life. It is the hope that one can make the lives of his or her children better than one’s own. It is the hope that hard work will bring rewards. The American dream inspires, motivates, and drives us. It is not the guarantee of prosperity but the undeniable hope for it.

My father grew up on a small chicken farm in the country and my mother grew up in a low income, single parent household. Both of them struggled to get an education and raise a family. My parents were not content with their situation in life and worked hard to improve their circumstances. Through their hard work, I was able to live a comfortable and safe life. I am a product of the American dream. This year I will graduate with a Masters in Accounting from one of the best accounting schools in the nation. This is all because my parents and their parents believed in the American dream. I also believe in the American dream but I have lived in Germany, which is a country void of all such hopes.

I lived in the eastern part of Germany or the part that was controlled by the Soviets until 1990. The people who live in this part of Germany have experienced both communism and socialism. During my time in Germany I talked to and interacted with the people from all walks of life. I talked to them about their lives, families, goals, and dreams. Each person I met was in a different situation, but all were similar in their want of hope.

One man I knew had been unemployed for ten years and was living comfortably on welfare. The welfare even provided him with funds to vacation in Tunisia. Another man I met had been unemployed for two years and would not accept employment because he made more money on welfare. I also knew an illegal immigrant from Cameroon who came to Germany to make enough money to bring his family out of Africa. The German Government gives him an apartment, TV, food, and clothing. It however does not allow him to work nor does it send him back to Africa.

All three of these people are unemployed and being completely supported by the government and none of them have any hope that their situation can be better. These stories are very typical of the people I met in Germany. Of course I did not only meet unemployed people but people who are employed have little hope of improving their situation because they are paying taxes for all of these government programs. They are stuck in mindless jobs and have lost all hope for improving their condition.

This kind of hopelessness is seen in the productivity of the work force. While I was volunteering at the German Red Cross, one of the employees suggested that we worked “as if we were dead.” She saw no advantages to working harder. I had grown up with the idea that the harder I worked the more rewards I would receive but these people only knew how to do the bare minimum. Since there is no hope for a better job there is no reason to work hard. The worst part is that this hopelessness is ingrained into them at an early age.

When young people in Germany turn twelve, they are tested and someone decides if the children are smart enough to go to college. If the kids make the cut, they will continue in school until grade 13 and then proceed to a University. If the children are not chosen for higher education, they will be separated into a different kind of high school that only goes until the 10^thgrade. From there these kids will join a job training program for one year where they learn skills for one particular job that they will be doing for the rest of their lives. These children will never be offered a college education presumably because the government cannot afford to offer everyone a free ride. These students learn at age twelve that hope dies young.

But everyone is healthy and few are extremely poor. The merits of socialism should not be minimized. People who need the most help are given it. What is important is that socialism is not the same as the American dream. The American dream has been about the hope for upward mobility with the risk of downfall. Socialism brings the exact opposite, no hope for a better life and no risk of a worse one.

Recently there were protests in France because young people did not want to be fired for being poor employees. Basically employers in France cannot fire someone unless they have done something extremely bad. Ineffectiveness, laziness, and ineptitude are never grounds for termination in France or in many unions in the States. This combination of ultimate job security and promotion based on seniority leads to mediocre performance and absolutely no hope that one can improve his or her situation through determination alone.

The government funds most of its programs through high progressive taxes. This means that the more money one makes the higher ones tax rate will be. This simply causes one to stay in his or her current economic situation even though he or she is making more money. This of course does not take into account inflation in which case you might even be making less. What kind of hope does a tax system like this instill in the hearts of the people? What is the motivation to make more money if it cannot improve one’s quality of life? Why work hard if the government is going to support you no matter what you do?

But everyone is still healthy and some are well educated. The merits are undeniable and beneficial but the costs are more than just high taxes and mediocre standards of living, it also costs people the hope that inspires them to overcome. So what would America be like under a socialistic system? Just like every other country. There will be nothing special about America, nothing inspirational, and nothing hopeful. We will all be just mediocre people working mediocre jobs living in mediocre apartments with mediocre ambitions. But we will all have health-care, few will be poor, and those smart enough to qualify will be well educated. The American dream will struggle to survive but will ultimately die in the myopic compassion of socialism.

Utopia?

Although the exact definition of a utopia varies from person to person, there are a few characteristics that seem to be common amongst most. Most people feel that in a perfect world there will be no classes. No one will be poor, no one will be rich, no one will be hungry, and no one would consume more than they need. Another common thread a utopia is that everyone will work towards the common good and not their own self-aggrandization. Although I personally do not think I would be able to stand everyone smiling and being nice all the time, the concept of this kind of utopia has almost universal appeal.

But if a utopia is the goal, how do we as greedy self-centered human-beings achieve it? One of the most notable attempts was the USSR. Due to the oppression of the czars, the people of Russia revolted and tried to establish a government that would create equality. But as George Orwell put it in his book Animal Farm, some people were more equal than others. This system led to oppression as a ruling class emerged from a supposed classless society ruled by the people. The grand experiment of Communism/Marxism failed.

Why did it fail? Because people, by nature, do not like being forced to do something even if it is in their best interest. Utopia cannot exist if it is forced upon the people it is trying to help. Utopia, by most definitions, is a place where people help one another out of the goodness of their hearts not by being forced into it by some authority figure. This is why all utopias have failed, because people are inherently greedy and inherently anti-authoritarian. People (collectively not individually) will not be charitable out of the goodness of their hearts nor will they do it because someone else is making them. So the question must be asked, can a utopia exist or is it merely just a fantasy?

Even if we do not know if a utopia is possible, we do know ways in which it will not work. Most notably, government forced compassion/income equality. Yet people continue to push government programs, under the guise of creating a utopia. If utopia by those means is impossible, why do people in power continually want to create their version of a “better” world? There can only be the following two reasons: One, they are ignorant of history, human nature, and the amount of real good a government can do; or two, they are very aware of another inherent human trait, the lust for power.

I believe that most people who want government intervention to make the world “better” are good people who simply want the less fortunate to have better lives. I would like to think that most of them do what they can by charitable giving, basically overcoming the greed that encompasses too many. I also think they do not know the best way to help so they turn to the government to do it. Although this is shortsighted, I think they are honest in their want to help.

Sadly, there are the a few (mostly within the government itself) that could care less about helping the needy. They only act in their own self interest, either to secure votes or make money (or both). The more control the government has on its people, the more power those inside the government will have. It is only the quest for power that drives their expansion of the government, not the welfare of the citizens.

In short, government intervention will never create a utopia. Those who think otherwise are either delusional or stand to benefit from it. A utopia will never exist until people overcome their greed and lust for power.

Town in Nebaska Looks Forward to First Fatal Stabbing

Herman Nebraska - In order to qualify for the current economic stimulus package residents of Herman Nebraska (pop. 301) will need to have had at least one violent murder in the years 2007, 2008, or 2009. As part of the Crime Prevention section of the new stimulus bill, congress will give cities $1 million for each murder during the past three years. While larger cities like L.A. will receive around $1.2 billion, small towns like Herman are left in the dust.

The last murder in Herman was committed by Ferris the beaver on March 15th, 2007. Ferris became aggressive after Marvin Jenkins, local football fan, attempted to swallow Ferris' tale during a drunken bet. Although the mauling had a profound effect on the small town, it does not qualify for the stimulus package since Ferris is not a sentient being.

Mayor Clyde Jenkins, uncle of Marvin and owner of Ferris, was disappointed by the sentience qualification and is quoted as saying, "We are going to make this right! We will have some of that stimulus if I have to kill someone myself!"

Sheriff Moss Jenkins, illegitimate son of Mayor Clyde Jenkins, has made assurances that the Mayor will not need to commit the murder. Sources have told him that there is a good chance that Thadeus Jenkins, brother of the late Marvin, will fatally stab someone any day now. Thadeus lives in a cliche run down shack on the outskirts of town and has been seen lurking in the shadows recently. Although Thadeus currently does not have a knife or similar such implement, the Sheriff has promised that Thadeus will be provided with one soon.

Why I love Subway

Many people have fallen in love with Subway and I am proud to say I am one of them. Now, I don't love Subway for its delicious, fresh, and abundant ingredients. I don't love Subway for its semi-healthy fast food alternative nature. I also don't love it because I found it to be a true taste of Americana in the land of the Schnitzel (Germany has Mc D's but how many Americans are proud of that?). No, I love Subway because of its Subway cash card.

Not only does it have the potential to possibly reduce your daily Subway expense by a few cents, but it can also open doors quite well. Last Friday, my wife and I locked ourselves out of our apartment and the property manager was out of town. Kristy had the idea to use a credit card on the door, but who wants to use a valuable credit/debit card on a door. Then we found our Subway card. Not only is the plastic sturdy enough to push the latch down, but the plastic is cheap enough to bend easily through the door jam. All I can say is, Thanks Jared for making Subway what it is today!!

Oh, the things you will see up Hobble Creek Canyon

A Snow Train

A Christmas Jeep

A Christmas Palm Tree (the flash kinda ruins it, but in the dark it looks like a palm tree)

Young Superman's Fortress of Solitude

Prop 8, Gay Marriage, and the search for happiness

Note: I wrote this during my Law class, so I don't present my thought well.


There has been a lot of backlash against the passing of Proposition 8 in California. Many different people are being called bigots for their support of the measure and it seems the entire gay community now feels like it has just been slapped in the face. So why all of this outrage and why is it so important for gays to be able to marry?

Gay Marriage
The people who supported Prop 8 may give many reasons for their support but it all boils down to one thing; they think homosexuality is wrong. They either see it as a religious issue (sin) or a natural issue (reproduction can only occur between man and woman).

People who opposed prop 8 see it as a rights issue. Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else.

I ask myself why gay marriage is so important to gays. Having the right to marry someone changes nothing (civil unions give gay couples all the benefits of marriage). It is not like Prop 8 is taking away a right to vote, or right to own property, or even the right to have relations with each other. It only takes away a the right to apply a label to a couple. So why is there so much emotion involved in this label that the modern world has rendered almost arbitrary? I believe it all has to do with the human desire for happiness.

The Search for Happiness
Most every human has a desire to be happy, but almost no one knows how to achieve it. One of the most popular paths to happiness is to indulge in every impulse that comes into our minds because to abstain from these impulses would be hard and therefore cause less happiness. This is the path taken by most(if not all) of young hollywood. Do these people look happy? Are these people content with their lives?

Many people who use drugs think that the drugs will fill some void in their lives and make them happy. The same is true of alcoholics. So if there is an abundance of evidence that shows that indulging in our impulses does not make us happy, why do people continue to do it? Because the true path to happiness is counter-intuitive, abstinence and moderation.

I do not doubt that many gay people are born with impulses of same-sex attraction. These people think that holding these impulses in and ignoring them will only lead to more pain and suffering. But like every other sin, holding back on these impulses actually makes us better and happier. If I were to act on my impulses every time I wanted to punch someone, I would be in jail and much less happy.

So, in my opinion, gay people are trying to be happy but failing because they are acting on soul depriving impulses. They know that simply acting on these impulses does not bring happiness, so they are trying to find out why they are not happy. So they have decided that they are not happy because their actions are not legitimized by society. They think that legitimizing homosexuality will make them happy so they try to get "rights" that heterosexuals have, like marriage. But marriage will not make them happy.

I am not saying that heterosexuals have a monopoly on happiness, but homosexuals will never find happiness in their homosexuality. They may find it in other aspects of their lives where they abstain from these impulses, but sin will never make one happy.

6/6/15 Edit:  Most of what I wrote above is utter bullshit. I wrote in a time in my life where I was never happy due to trying to live according to someone else's ideas of happiness.  I was never happy even though I had to pretend I was.  True happiness is loving yourself for who you are

Sub-prime/Credit nonsense

Since I helped contribute to the current crisis, I feel I have a unique insight into the problem. I worked at Countrywide Home Loans buying mortgages from smaller companies so Countrywide could combine all these loans into one giant loan bundle. Countrywide then sold this loan bundle to places like Fannie Mae and Freddic Mac. Supposedly the risk of a couple defaults would be offset by the huge amount of good loans in the bundle. These bundles were given AAA ratings (the same rating that basically only the US government has on its debt instruments) and investment companies would buy them up left and right.

Background
This is not where the problem begins though. In the late 90's and early 00's the world as a whole had a lot of money and not enough places to invest it. So people were forced to think of new ways to invest money. Some people came up with the idea of investing in a bundle of mortgages since mortgages had an interest rate and therefore a measurable return. Now this would not necessarily be a bad thing except there was still too much money to invest and people were too greedy.

Because places like Countrywide needed more mortgages and most people that could afford one already had one, they were forced to relax the rules and let almost anyone qualify for a loan. I remember looking at many loans that Countrywide called "Super-Streamlined" which means that people would qualify for a loan based solely on what they said they made and how much money they said they had in the bank/other investments. There would be no verification of salary or even employment just a judgment call on whether someone in that line of work could possibly make as much as was stated (of course there was also no verification that they actually worked in that line of work). All they had to do was ask for a couple W2's to verify employment and wages. The only real verification there was, was a credit score. So any unemployed slob off the street could buy a $500,000 house as long as he was comfortable with lying and had a good credit score.

Now people are not always that dumb. Most people who could not afford a mortgage knew that they could not afford a mortgage and didn't even bother trying. But since there were commissions to be made, people went to these poorer people and lied to them. They told them that housing prices would always go up and that they would only have to worry about paying interest. If they bought the house now with an interest only loan (or a variable interest loan), they could sell the house in a year and pocket all the profit and never have to worry about paying any principle ever. So people got these loans and the housing market crashed. the values of homes were dropping and these consumers had huge payments on the horizon once the interest only period was over. They would have no ability to pay the mortgage and default.

Note: these interest only mortgages were not the worst of them. There were also negative amortization loans that worked much like student loans. Where people would not even make the interest payments for like a year and that interest would be capitalized into the principal up to 120% of the original value of the loan. So while housing prices were dropping the principal of the mortgage was increasing.

What is sub-prime anyway?
Originally sub-prime referred to anyone with a credit score below 620. Traditionally companies would make very few of these loans but would charge people a higher interest rate to compensate for the poor credit history. But with the demand for mortgages banks were lending to more and more sub-prime people. These people naturally have a higher risk of default and when these loans went into the bundles, the people valuing the expected return would take this into account and lower the return of the investment. But this is NOT were the problem was, the problem was with people who were labeled Prime, but should have been labeled sub-prime. Like I said before, the only thing that determines "Prime" is a credit score above 620. While I was working at Countrywide I had a credit score of 760 (which is pretty good), so I would have received a prime loan even though I was not making nearly enough money to pay for a mortgage in Southern California. So the problem was that these bundles were full of "sub-prime" loans that were labeled "prime." So the people valuing these bundles never accounted for these high risk loans and therefore said they were worth a lot more than they actually were.

So many investment firms and banks were paying a lot of money for these AAA rated investments. They did not know (or ignored) the huge flaw in the system. So when people started defaulting like mad on their mortgages, the people that valued these bundles (we will now start calling them Collateralized Debt Obligations or CDO's) realized their mistake and devalued all the investments. So banks and investment firms that invested heavily in these CDO's saw there investments tank almost overnight.

Most banks will hold onto little cash and sell their investments when they needed more. Since no one would buy these toxic CDO's (no one knew how low their values would go), banks could not meet there deposit obligations and they would crash.

The bailout
Now the government wants to help these firms by buying up these toxic assets. The firms will get their cash back (or at least a fraction of it) and the economy will keep on ticking. But is this the right thing? Many people made a lot of money by taking risks and taking advantage of everyday people. Now that their sins are coming back to bite them in the butt, the government wants to step in and make it all better. Yes, the economy will suffer if the government does not step in, and yes it will be hard for people to get loans, but should we just let people get away with this fraud? If banks stop lending to people, someone else will see a chance for profit and step in. That is how the market works. This problem happened because the government let their own institutions (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) run amok. And the solution to poor government is more government?

Getting married!!!

Since I met the girl of my dreams, I decided to marry her. Luckily for me she came to the same conclusion. I asked her to marry me shortly after building that fence on May the 29th. We both knew it was coming so my challenge was to try to still make it a surprise.

She came out to California to see me and I had her convinced that I was going to propose at Disneyland. I would "accidentally" drop hints about proposing at Disneyland and such. I knew that Disneyland would be a hassle and maybe not that special considering there would be like thousands of people there. So I planned to propose on the beach at sunset a few days before we went to Disneyland.

My first task was to get her to make the suggestion to have a bonfire on the beach. Just so I don't give away my secrets of mind control, lets just say that it worked. She was so excited to hand out at the beach at night with a roaring fire to keep us comfortable.

I then had to enlist my sister to help me set everything up. Since I would be with Kristy the whole day, it would be hard to surprise her if she saw me putting out a candle-light dinner on the beach.

We then had a beautiful day at the beach where I told her all day how much I loved her. We then went looking for a grocery store to buy hot dogs and marshmallows (I had to keep her hungry with food coming at the fire). When we finally got to the location I stopped the car about 100 feet from where my sister set everything up. We walked along the beach until she saw the bonfire next to a candle light dinner and 100 roses. I proposed to her at sunset on the beach and she said yes.
This is a picture of me on my knee proposing.


This is a shot of the ring on my hand (I know I should have been a hand model)


So now it was time to plan the wedding. I had a job during the summer in San Diego while Kristy was working near Salt Lake City. So this cause a lot of headaches and plan tickets to SLC and back. Kristy did an excellent job of planning the wedding without much help from me and I will always be grateful to her.

Since we both worked all week and I could only visit on weekends, we were not able to get a marriage license all summer (the clerks office is closed on weekends). Since I was coming up a few days before the wedding (my job officially ended the day before the wedding), we decided to get the license the day before the wedding since she was still working the other days. So on that Friday we had a bunch of stuff to do to get ready and totally forgot about the license until 6pm one hour after the offices had closed for the weekend. I almost died. for the next 3 hours we were calling everyone we knew to try to find connections to any county clerk in the state of Utah. After what seemed like forever, Kristy's Uncle found someone who was willing to come into the office on Saturday and give us a license. It was a miracle.

So after we got our license we were married at about 4:30pm August 23rd, 2008 in the Salt Lake City Temple.

Building a Fence

So yesterday I started building a fence. I have never built one before but was fairly confident I could do it. My girlfriend had her doubts about my abilities in that particular field, but I was unwavering in my determination to build a fence.

So I started yesterday by taking out an old termite infested fence (sorry no pics). I basically kicked it down. I then had to dig three holes to sink some posts into them. This is where the fun started.

I had been digging for no more than 3 min. when, because of my amazing strength, my shovel broke. Now this shovel has a lifetime warranty on it so I returned it to Home Depot where I bought it. Turns out Home Depot no longer carries that brand of shovel so if I wanted a replacement I would have to send my broken shovel to the manufacturer. So I just bought a new shovel and also bought a pickax for good measure (might have been a mistake).

I got home and started digging again. I dug two holes on the two ends of the fence with little trouble (Well i may or may not have missed the ground with the pickax and hit the side paneling of my house on one swing instead). The center hole was a much different story. First I had to remove a little bush with some wicked demon roots. So i used the pickax to cut up the roots in a circle around the bush. After about 5 swings in a particular area i noticed a small piece of plastic i hit. Turns out this was a 3" PVC drainage pipe that I basically destroyed. But why that pipe was there or where it was draining to or from, I have no idea, so I just ignored it and moved on.

I eventually took the bush out of the ground. Next on my to do list was to continue digging the third hole. First i tried digging on the right of the aforementioned busted pipe. I hit concrete about 3" down. Next I tried digging on the left of the damaged pipe only to find a smaller PVC pipe for the sprinklers. So I went back to the concrete and decided to dig it out. turns out to be one of the easier parts of this job. It came right out with no problem. Being quite proud of myself I started to dig again. The very next swing of the pickax hit a 1" PVC pipe that basically exploded on impact. Water was flying everywhere (sorry no pics, I was kinda preoccupied) and filling up the very holes I just dug. I had to fight the urge to frolic around as a child would in the sprinklers (it was almost 100 degrees out there) and find a way to shut of the water. I shut off the water to the entire house first and then proceeded to find a particular valve that only controlled the water to the backyard. With that task completed I sat back and took a break so I could think of how I was going to fix this problem.

I ended up going back to Home Depot (third time in 24 hours, first was to get the wood to build the fence). I bought a small length of pipe, a connector piece and a compression pipe thingy. I cut off the broken piece of pipe and attached the purchased parts with some purple primer and blue glue stuff (plumbers probably know what that stuff is). I waited an hour and then turned on the water. Success!!! I could now continue to dig the third hole (it has only taken 6+ hours to dig three holes).

So I dug the hole, measured the wood, mixed the concrete and sank the posts (turns out I needed more concrete so back to Home depot for a 4th time). I then called it a night (mostly out of exhaustion but also it was getting dark).

So I woke up today and started working on it around 9am. The concrete was working well and the posts were still standing. I connected some cross beams and was ready to put up the final parts of the fence.
I think my dad is hiding from the camera unlike my brother-in-law's gut.

So I then nailed the panels onto the fence and the job was done, at least for now. I still need to paint the fence (maybe learn some karate in the process)
View from the front. I will fill in that gap with some dirt...later...maybe next week.
View from the back. The post you see closest to me is in the hole that caused all the problems.One more view from the back yard. I think it looks pretty good for my first ever fence.

My girl

Kristy getting ready for big band night (aka the night of magic)

My niece

So this is my niece and probably the cutest baby ever, well cutest until I get around to producing one cuter. I took this when she was 8 months old.

Facebook Friends

Anyone who has used facebook understand what a "Facebook Friend" is. Theses are the people that you have had very limited contact with (or no contact at all) that request you as a friend. Warning: You may be a facebook friend. If this is the case, please do not continue reading.

There was a guy in high school who I maybe said 5 words to in the course of my high school experience. Now this was not you average 5 word sentence. I mean I said 5 single words at 5 different times to this guy (yes I kept count). The other day he requested me as a friend on facebook. I taken aback. This guy was asking me for permission to see some of the most private details of my life. Things like which Friends character am I or with whom I am in a complicated relationship or what my favorite book is. These are the types of things I hold dear.

I really didn't want to add him as a friend, but I wanted to look cool to my other facebook friends and now the total number of facebook friends has increased. For the most part, facebook friends aren't all that bad. Most of them are only looking to increase the number of friends they show to there own facebook friends. But this guy from high school is by far the worst kind of facebook friend --- He is a facebook spammer friend.

Spammers are the "friends" that invite you to add at least 28 applications a day and notify you of every uninteresting thing they do on facebook. Maybe they are just craving attention and just wanna be loved. Well if they were a real friend I might feel more inclined to give them attention, but there aren't. They are and will always be just a facebook friend.

Evil Swivel Chairs

Now before everyone starts to get mad at me, I am not saying that all swivel chairs are evil, actually quite the contrary. I love swivel chairs more than I love ball-point pens, and that is saying something. What I hate though, are the swivel chairs that don’t lean back.

Today I got into work really looking forward to twirling and leaning in my very own swivel chair. You know that swivel chair that you have been using for years and you have it set just right. Well, today someone stole my chair and replaced it with a chair that swivels but is locked in an upright position

Now I have nothing against people who like to have good posture, but sitting in a swivel chair that is locked straight up makes me feel like I should be a productive employee. When I am able to lean back in my swivel chair, that guilt that people feel when they are playing solitaire at work just seems to fade away like an uncomfortable dream involving the French.

Luckily I still have a cube within 20 feet of a window that overlooks the parking lot. I could spend days looking out that window instead of doing work.

Stencils Are The Best!!!!

I don't think I have met a stencil I did not like. If there is a better way of making the same repetitive patterns and letters over and over again, I have not heard about it.

All my friends think I have amazing calligraphy skills, but my secret is simply stencils. Sure it may take more time than it is worth, but how else can you write things on normal paper and have the world believe it is typed? I once tried cutting letters out of magazines and arranging them into words and sentences for an essay I wrote in High School, but for some reason the teacher got all freaked out and called the police. After having to go through a costly court battle about my intentions, I decided I would only use stencils from that day forward.

And stencils are not just for writing letters about how peoples loved ones can be returned, but they can also be used for cool pictures. Like check out this cool stencil ->
I used that to make myself a tattoo for Christmas. It is funny because I see the Pope as more of an AK-47 guy. That gun totally doesn't suit his personality type. I think it is called ironic. But I digress. Stencils are and always will be off all of the following: da chain, da hook, da hinge, and da faschizzle.

Is Obama the savior of America?

Why do liberals like Obama so much? Would they like him if he was white?

Why is there such a double standard in America? Naturally we should not attack Obama because he is black or Hillary because she is a woman, but that does not mean we cannot attack them on relevant issues. People are so afraid of being seen as a racist if they attack the man on almost any issue. I see no reason why we cannot treat politicians as scum no matter what their race or gender.

Today I heard on NPR that Obama has a quest to unite Americans for change. That is such crap. Obama only wants to unite Americans so they vote for him. Obama, like almost every other politician out there could really care less about anyone besides themselves. It is a sad truth, but no one is out for your best interest, only your votes.

People of true principle are just not found in government anymore simply because they could never get elected. Even though I disagree with most of what he says, Ron Paul at least has a view that he sticks to no matter what. If was the most unelectable person this campaign season. If the founding fathers were running in this day, they would drop out after the Iowa caucuses. A sad state of things in this once great land.

Reparations for slavery

Driving into work the other day I heard some guy from Florida on NPR almost demanding that people give African-Americans money and other things if they can prove that they are descendants of slaves.

As a Caucasian-American, I am appalled by the way that my ancestors treated people of African origin. Even though my genealogy only points toward the north and California, I still feel the burden of guilt of what people of my race did.

That being said, I think reparations are not only a shallow idea but they will also perpetuate animosity on both sides. Monetary compensation of any kind will never "make things right." There is no way to make things right, only ways to make things better today. Dwelling on the mistakes of the past will never bring justice or peace. African-Americans who receive money as a reparation will still harbor ill-will towards white people.

Reparations will create very hostile feelings amongst white people who will see it as a race tax; a tax for being white. African-Americans will use the existence of this tax as proof that white people owe them something. This will never improve race relations in this country, it will only make it worse.

As was mentioned on the program, I think memorials and museums would be a fantastic idea. It will honor those who died and were treated horribly by white slave owners. But if every one's goal is to break down the race barrier, to bring everyone onto equal ground, and improve the quality of life of all Americans, the African-American community must follow the words of Nelson Mandela and forgive the white people of this country. I cannot speak for all Caucasian-Americans, but I ask the all African-Americans to forgive us. We did terrible and unspeakable things and we feel horrible about it. The only way to true racial peace is through forgiveness, not punishment.

But the African-American "leaders" in this nation try to perpetuate the problems with race and not let people heal (Al being the worst of them).

Over 230,000 white people died trying to end slavery (this is just the deaths of the northern army). And if African-Americans have to prove slave ancestors, the people that actually pay the reparations should only be the descendants of slave owners.

And if reparations are for the Jim crow era, shouldn't all oppressed groups get reparations for their sufferings? What about the Irish? The Chinese? The Mormons (there was actually a law making the murder of a Mormon legal. The law wasn't repealed until the 70's)? Don't they deserve some money for the hardships their ancestors put up with?