great expectations

my friend and roommate from another life posted this photo on her blog:

i think it's kind of nutty to look at some of the evolutions of different logos - some have changed drastically but others have only morphed into a more modern version of their previous self. see bmw. 

anyways... 

so one of my classes in law school is called legal professions, and in this class we participate in the study of law as a profession. (gee can you imagine?) it's sometimes tedious, and usually frustrating, but on occasion, i do find it worthwhile if only for the slight escape the class provides from the humdrum routine of reading and taking notes.

one of the projects my group worked on recently had to deal with a hypothetical situation of a corporate client who made a mistake. in our scenario, the corporate client was an automaker and they created defective CD players. one of our solutions was to extend the warranty on the CD player from 1 year to 2 years - thus, furthering our advocacy of corporate responsibility and extending coverage from 2% of products to 34% of products.

warranties are suppose to guarantee the general public a certain sense of reliability on a corporation in the usage of their product. we buy something, and depending on what the warranty says, we are usually offered a period of time where we are guaranteed a certain level of performance. if the product fails to perform as such, then we have some recourse for either getting a replacement or something else. sometimes i wonder if in building relationships with people in our lives, if we don't offer (and are offered) warranties on how each individual will "perform". and if such warranties exist; are they really any good? 

it's probably impossibly to go into any kind of a relationship (be it a friendship or one in the more romantic sense) without an exchange of "warranties"; or maybe "promises" - to put it in less scientific terms. as the relationship develops pass the initial stages of curiosity and superficiality, the terms of the warranties seem to implicitly change. our expectations of the other person evolves, and likely their expectation of us evolves as well. we learn that we can depend on each other, lean on each other, and expect a certain level of performance from the other person. 

however, like i've often moseyed over before ... as much as we often like to make promises, and have every intention of keeping them, we humans are complicated - complex creatures. if behavioral economics has taught me anything, it's that humans are utterly unpredictable. we, unfortunately, cannot be put into a box.

this often translates into making promises, that we have no way of keeping, muddling and frustrating the presumptions we have of each other in our relationships. many times we expect the other person to act a certain way because we have grown to have that expectation, but unfortunately we cannot always depend on them to come through and perform in the manner which we would like. and what's worse - we don't really have any means of recourse. humans relationships are not products that can be purchased and sold, and we can't ask for a replacement or a refund. easy solutions are really no where to be found.

so - what do we do? my mother always said to me that people cannot be depended upon. "the only one you can depend on is yourself." is this the solution? maybe - but i don't want to think so.

just because one end of the expectation spectrum isn't sustainable doesn't necessarily mean we have to immediately conclude that people are just not dependable either. just because people aren't perfect doesn't mean you can't depend on them either. if that were the case, i wouldn't have the kind of relationships i do. the lasting friendships/relationships we witness are proof that a third way of dependability must exists.  

to be honest, i'm not quite sure what that third way of dependability is. and to be trite, it just might be something you have to discover for yourself. it's understanding your expectations, understanding what others expect of you - and filtering all of that through the realism of what our individual limitations and imperfections are.

----

this was after a long absence and actually i'm not sure if i have any readers left ... but, if there are any remaining readers, or casual observers i think the next one will be better.  

How.

Let me quote some genius for a moment.

I have a friend who regularly reminds me that if you jump off the top of an 80-story building, for 79 stories you can actually think you’re flying. It’s the sudden stop at the end that always gets you.

When I think of the financial-services boom, bubble and bust that America has just gone through, I often think about that image. We thought we were flying. Well, we just met the sudden stop at the end. The laws of gravity, it turns out, still apply. You cannot tell tens of thousands of people that they can have the American dream — a home, for no money down and nothing to pay for two years — without that eventually catching up to you. The Puritan ethic of hard work and saving still matters. I just hate the idea that such an ethic is more alive today in China than in America.

Our financial bubble, like all bubbles, has many complex strands feeding into it — called derivatives and credit-default swaps — but at heart, it is really very simple. We got away from the basics — from the fundamentals of prudent lending and borrowing, where the lender and borrower maintain some kind of personal responsibility for, and personal interest in, whether the person receiving the money can actually pay it back. Instead, we fell into what some people call Y.B.G. and I.B.G. lending: “you’ll be gone and I’ll be gone” before the bill comes due.

Yes, this bubble is about us — not all of us, many Americans were way too poor to play. But it is about enough of us to say it is about America. And we will not get out of this without going back to some basics, which is why I find myself re-reading a valuable book that I wrote about once before, called, “How: Why How We Do Anything Means Everything in Business (and in Life).” Its author, Dov Seidman, is the C.E.O. of LRN, which helps companies build ethical corporate cultures.

Seidman basically argues that in our hyperconnected and transparent world, how you do things matters more than ever, because so many more people can now see how you do things, be affected by how you do things and tell others how you do things on the Internet anytime, for no cost and without restraint.

“In a connected world,” Seidman said to me, “countries, governments and companies also have character, and their character — how they do what they do, how they keep promises, how they make decisions, how things really happen inside, how they connect and collaborate, how they engender trust, how they relate to their customers, to the environment and to the communities in which they operate — is now their fate.”

We got away from these hows.

Thomas Friedman never fails to disappoint.

I wrote a blog entry a few months ago, almost a year ago to be exact, when the first signs of potential recession were creeping up on us. And I said, and still think, that perhaps a recession isn't so bad, because "if there is a point in this rambled mess.. it's time to face the music. It might be an uncomfortable change that jars us from the lulling tones of 'the more mentality', but it should be a welcome one." And here Friedman pushes this idea, more eloquently, that we have to re-evaluate the how. We have to re-evaluate what is it about our character, and probably our lack of character that brought us to where we are now. How did we get here? It's really quite simple, and perhaps some individual introspection will take us to the right answer, to a settled outcome.

Law school is making me look a lot at the hows of my life. How my relationships are being built, how I am tackling all the stresses of school, and how I really plan on getting to where I want to go (as if I know where the destination will be). It's in these times, that corners are easily cut, and questionable judgment calls are habitually made, but it's also in these times that character gets it's opportunity to be developed. The how questions are always the most difficult to answer, but probably some of the most self awarding ones as well.

the justice in settling

why does the idea of settling bother me so?

for the past few days in my criminal procedure class we've been watching this sensational made for tv movie appropriately entitled: 'criminal justice'. surprisingly it's actually an appropriate take on the criminal justice system in the united states and the role plea bargains play in cases never making it to trial.

if you are legitimately interested at this point in watching the movie.. don't read on, for i will spoil the ending for you, but otherwise...

the movie does a relatively good job of keeping the viewer in suspense regarding whether or not this case is goign to go to trial. on one hand, the defendant so fervently believes he is innocent and refuses to be put behind bars for any amount of time at all. on the other hand, there's the doubt of his story, and the fact that his alibi appears more than a tad bit hole-filled; and his defense attorney is wisely suggesting him to take a plea bargain. say you're guilty, and you'll get less time.

in the end, it is somewhat of a surprise, though hardly shocking, that the 'offender' takes the plea bargain. and rather than making me wonder if he was really guilty or not (the movie does not reveal, and our class was split in it's decision making), it left me with a curious sense of justice left undone.

on one side is the prosecutor, she offers the plea bargain, because frankly she isn't sure she has enough evidence to convict the poor bastard. on the other side sits the defense attorney who just wants to make sure his client gets the best option available - which he believes to be the least amount of jail time available. thus, they meet somewhere in between, settle on the issue of guilt or innocence, and agree on a plea bargain. it does seem obvious that the maxim and minimum of both injust scenarios are avoided. on one hand, he could have been really guilty, yet at trial found innocent and released. and likewise, he could really be innocent, and found guilty at trial, sentenced for the maximum time of 20 years.

yet where is the justice of compromise?

both sides, instead of chosing to roll the dice, settle for something inbetween. they settle for avoiding the extremes of injustice, all the meanwhile providing little comfort for justice received.

or maybe settling is just.

more thoughts later.

what i can't wait for

fall. fall weather, and color changing leaves.
sweaters, mittens. boots.
glorious leather boots.
the scent of autumn. orange, and red, and brown.
of pumpkins.
pumpkin pie, pumpkin muffins.
pumpkin spice.
strolling between home and school; school and home.
the earth chills softly; crisp morning air.
snow falls.
gather together and celebrate.

cheese its and life

i took inventory on what my diet consists of today.
seeing as i spend appx 70% of my life studying, or attempting to study, i've carefully examined what kinds of food i've been putting into my body.
kashi cheese its
amys organic frozen burritos
skittles - wild berry flavor
diet mountain dew
other variets of organic snacks like... rice chips -- seaweed flavor.

yes i know. strange.

coincidentally it's 11:11 and i'm bloggin instead of doing the much hyped over FIRST MEMO.
i'm thinking this blogging thing could be a form of grinding out my mental road blocks. yes. talking about kashi cheese its and diet mountain dew will do that. (i'm hoping).

anyways. i have a thought. i wonder if ayn rand is rolling around in her grave right now. presuming she is dead of course.

"As the twentieth century recedes in the rear view mirror, it increasingly seems that for better or worse, the defining manifesto of the recent era has been Milton Friedman’s Capitalism And Freedom. But that book’s power derived partly from its fierce independence from the orthodoxies of its time. Friedman’s voice was a skeptical breath of fresh air when the reigning viewpoint was a kind of smug pseudo-socialism that did not recognize the astounding power of markets to accomplish desirable aims. But now, the reigning Republican orthodoxy is a kind of smug pseudo-Friedmanism which believes that markets left to themselves can do no wrong; perhaps it is time for another breath of fresh air.

The book for the new epoch has not been written yet, but I have a proposed title: Capitalism and Skepticism. Skepticism might not be as bracing as freedom, but it’s something we could have used a bit more of in the past few years."

skepticism in hindsight probably would have been good if it means that skepticism would have saved us from the current connundrum of what feels like hell must be freezing over (at least on wall street). but who can really say in retrospect? all i know is this dangerous tightening of regulation which is only to be expected from a fall out that is infinitely greater than enron was nearly a decade ago, will produce probably even worse regulatory legislation.

why are we so predictable?

---------------------

the field of finance will be revolutionized, and out of the rubble will rise a group of entrepreneurial, money driven, self-ishly ambitious, geniuses, who will strike when the chord is right. people like robert merton will lay low for a while, just until the current liquidity woes pass, and then when the business cycle renews itself, merton-ites will join together again, enticed by the big green bill.. and perhaps even more enticed by the glories of fame and possibilities of power.

has congress heard of behavioral economics?

it isn't a surprise that there was this huge of a fall out. i mean lets be real. when the opportunities grew to be THAT big... when the risk grew to be unreasonable, but the reward to be entirely too high to pass up, that's when people won't pass it up, and they will ride their luck. it's human nature to ignore the signs of caution, when the gold looms ahead.

now will congress be smart enough to ignore the totally predictable human nature of retreating into overly restrictive legislation?

i doubt it. but i hope for it.

the guy quoted above asks for skepticism, not utter rejection of the fundamental theories of economics that works.
so let's not go about throwing away the innovation that got us here, but merely take a step back and realize that not only can we arise from the rubble quicker if we don't have heeps of useless legislation... but when we do arise, and when the geniuses set to work looking for the Gold.. that when they FIND it... there will be reminders of the necessary skepticism to avoid 2k8 remix.

btw... this post is for you fork. <3

coming back

dear God. how long has it been?

i haven't posted in forever.. not sure if it's entirely due to my busy schedule, or perhaps sometimes life is easier lived, and better left alone, without the retrospective reflection undoubtedly sought by blogging.

moving on from that thought.

i had a rather enjoyable, albeit unproductive sunday, beginning as all sundays should.. a trip to dunkin donuts. i have found myself to have acquired quite an insatiable donut addiction. well it's not even a donut addiction, as a donut holes + hazelnut coffee addiction. i must find a way to get over this addiction. i was driven crazy one night a few weeks ago when i went to dunkin donuts on a saturday nighta t 11:30 pm in my robe. yes i received several highly questioanble looks that make me realize i must never step outside in my robe again.

this reminds me of the day in nyc when me and amanda, in efforts to keep our freshly pedicured toes looking nice, walked 3 blocks in new york on paper flip flops instead of stuffing our feet back into our city boots.



...

i guess bloomington isn't like new york, but then again. i got a few crazy looks too.

anyways. if the only way to start out a perfect day is at dunkin donuts, then the only perfect way of ending one is with this song that gavin has re-inspired me to listen to:

"I think it's time, we give it up
And figure out what's stopping us
From breathing easy, and talking straight
The way is clear if you're ready now
The volunteer is slowing down
And taking time to save himself

The little cracks they escalated
And before you know it is too late
For making circles and telling lies

You're moving too fast for me
And I can't keep up with you
Maybe if you slowed down for me
I could see you're only telling
Lies, lies, lies
Breaking us down with your
Lies, lies, lies
When will you learn"

just wait till our cover hits the streets... it will be.

reflections of a monday morning

the headlines on this monday's new york times read (and i imagine in a somewhat purposeful order of imporantance):

"fuel subsidies take a toll on US"

"worried banks sharply reduce business loans"

"suicide bombers kill 28 in baghdad..."

my has not the face of our country changed drastically in the past few months. ever since last august, perhaps timed well not only with the budding implosion of the housing bubble, but also with the presidential race, the united states has gone from smug global leader, to a country of disillusioned, trade-frightened, protectionist minded, just plainly unhappy people.

did we ever think we would get here?

this weekend i went to visit new york city, my second home, and probably the number one place in my heart. new york holds a very special spot for me because it's the place where i found myself challenged, and was able to really see myself grow. i went back to new york, in the coat tails of one of the 3 most stressful weeks i've been through, expecting everything to be like how it was, and was a bit disappointed. "expectations are a bitch." -- amanda would say; yes they are.

it's not that new york this time around (for my ridiculously short visit) was a disappointment. the city and the friends almost never are, it's just that it will also never show you the same card twice. 

and i think that's the problem i have... that we all have. we have these expectations for familiarity. but how can this even seem rational when to quote someone famous "the only sure thing in life is that life will change."

i think we always imagine that change will be bad, when in reality, change is almost never bad. it becomes bad because we don't know how to deal with it. it becomes back because we force what can't be, and in some cases, what most assuredly will not be.

i think the US and her leaders will come around... we always do, but how painful, and how slow it might take depends on how quickly our leaders will take the initiative to move with the change, and how able they are to show us normal people how to do the same. mr. obama are you ready?