Flash Crash: It's a Heart Issue, Not Just a Finance Issue

I don't know much about the stock market. It is a mystery to me. I've tried to understand it; watching videos, reading articles, and playing the stock game. It turns out that even "Stock Investing for Dummies" is too smart for some people (i.e. Hannah Payne). But I do know about people, their perception of right and wrong, their reactions when they feel they've been unjustly wronged, and the constant moral battle that rages among humankind.

The New York Stock Exchange on a Monday morning is similar to a Vegas casino on a Friday night. The bustle and pure madness of the trades are as enthralling and addictive as In both settings, you take big risks and hope for big reward. Sure, there may be more of a science to trading stocks, but the mindset of NYSE and Vegas patrons is the same. Hungry for more money, more power, more adrenalin, more, more, more. And it's not healthy.

The fact that the basement genius, Navinder Singh, can send financial and emotional uproar ripping through the stock market with one fatal click of the mouse is infuriating. The fact that the entire world wept more for the loss of money than possibly a national disaster...equally infuriating. I know that money makes the world go round, and that is a necessary part of globalization and our society's evolution, but when is the line drawn? When is the line between comfortability and greed distinguished?

Accused of repeatedly trading in a very short amount of time in order to manipulate the system, some say this kid just changed his mind a lot. I found that somewhat funny. In realty, Singh entered a lot of huge, phony orders into the US stock market and then just as quickly withdrew them all within the comfort of his parent's basement. The entire market was upset and took the biggest and quickest dip in history. It took five years for officials to unscramble this seemingly simple mess. It makes no sense.

While this blog may be a commentary on the Flash Crash, it doesn't provide many answers. That is because as much as I've researched, I can't find the answers to my questions. Why did it take five years to pin this guy? How are there not more Is the trading system really that easy to hack into/manipulate? Is a possible for a nation to stay powerful yet escape the all-consuming fire of monetary greed? I don't know.

I suppose the only tangible solution is this: Traders must come up with more secure policies, a more secure algorithm, and ground rules. Until they do, the market is constantly at risk of another underwear clad, tech genius crashing the multi-trillion dollar market. As for the "heart issue," this world need a lot more Jesus and a lot less greed. 

Best Buddy Parenting

The socioeconomic climate of the US throughout the Twentieth Century was bound to produce the generally lax, revolutionist, and “best buddy” parenting style of the 1960’s. As the years, wars, and economic struggles progressed, families overcame struggles again and again and raised persevering, hard working children. With every struggle, American citizens pulled together and triumphed. Until the Vietnam War. Fed up with an unjust war, seeking peace, and relatively finically stable, many young adults of the 1960’s began to raise families with only happiness and comfort in mind. The quality of life seemed to triumph life itself. 

Parents were more concerned with the easy, happy, and carefree childhoods of their offspring instead of the formative and instructive ways of the past. Both generations of parents loved their children, but expressed it in different ways. This shift in child rearing rendered tangible results when the teen suicide rate grew by 250 percent during the “Hippy Era.” Maybe being the nice parent wasn't so nice in the long run. 

The aftershocks of this radical change in parenting styles will forever be felt by future  generations.  Millennials, those born between 1981 and 2001 (aka my peer group), are the first generation predicted to be less successful in every aspect than their parents. Is this generational failure completely the parent’s fault? Certainly not. But the tendencies of laziness and selfishness must not be cultivated during childhood in order to create a successful adulthood. Proverbs 13:24 says, “Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.” Now, this is not necessarily referring to corporal punishment within the household (that is a different argument for a different time), but this verse is wisely warning parents that discipline and boundaries are  the best thing for a child’s future. If you can be friends with your children and raise them up to be contributing members of society that make this world a better place, great. But often I feel that “best buddy parenting” translates to “lazy parenting.” It makes life easy to only care if your child is happy in the moment, instead of looking at his or her longterm outcome. Parenting should be individualized for the child. Maybe looking to the past will be the best thing for the future of the United States’ posterity. 

China's Military Problem

In the 1970's the world began to realize that China had a serious overpopulation problem. As an "easy fix" China began enforcing it's one child policy in the early '80's. Aside from the obvious fact that it's attempt to control the family unit in such a way was one of China's most socialist moves, the world seemed to be fine with putting limits on how many kids Chinese people could have...excpet everyone seemed to forget (or not care) about the intense gender bias that has been especially present in China since the rise of the Song Dynasty in 960 AD.

Since the installation of China's one child policy, the population has become extremely imbalanced.  In naturally occurring conceptions and births, there are usually 103 males for every 100 females. Although the gender ratio is not perfectly balanced, it doesn't even come close to the 130 males for every 100 females that exists in China because of the cultural importance on masculinity, continuing the family name, and the countless perceived benefits of having boys instead of girls. Today in China, there are currently 32 million more boys under the age of twenty than girls. 32 million. That is almost the entire population of California, the most populous state in the US.


So how does this translate to a weaker Chinese military? The policy that was installed almost 30 years ago, it just now bearing fruit. Many young men in China (and other gender biased cultured like India) are experiencing the "little prince" syndrome. A majority of kids have been used to being coddled for so long, that they don't know what to do when they arrive at basic training. They do not take orders well, cannot complete missions, and often complain about the physical challenges. Of course this problem of "whiney recruits" is nothing new to China or any other country for that matter, but not nearly in such a significant way as China has recently been experiencing. The People's Liberation have reported that about half of men in training brake down crying on a daily basis. Weaker men translates to a weaker army, and in light of the world's current state, I do not think it is smart for a powerhouse like China to be unprepared in it's defense and offense.

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/01/24/one-child-policy-one-big-problem-china-245118.html

#It'sOnUs

This year, like the Superbowl commercials, the Grammy performances mostly revolved around social issues and provided a commentary on current events. As a viewer, although the award show wasn’t quite as light hearted and fun as previous years, I appreciated that a group of celebrities with a large social influence used their power to draw attention to important issues. Some thought the climax of the evening was when Sam Smith won his fourth Grammy, but I think it was when a screen dropped from the ceiling to reveal President Obama live casted before the entire audience. In his speech to the over 28.4 million viewers tuned in, he announced the launch of the #It’sOnUs campaign, which combats domestic violence. He called all viewers and attendees, including the highly influential artists, to take a stand to end domestic violence. In closing, he said, “Artists have a unique power to change minds and attitudes— and to get us thinking about what matters.” Then a woman came on stage and shared her story of escaping domestic violence and Katy Perry continued the segment by performing a very personal song about her struggle with domestic violence. Everyone applauded in support. 

This is great. I think a culture that becomes more aware of a problem like domestic violence is more equipped to combat and end it. But there is a major flaw in this seemingly “cure-all” campaign that the Grammy’s are partnering with. It’s celebrates known transgressors such Chris Brown and R. Kelly, who were both nominated for awards that very night and have also both faced multiple allegations of sexual misconduct. Just before the 2009 Grammy Awards, Chris Brown famously beat his then girlfriend Rihanna leaving her with gruesome bruises and him with a criminal trial. When he narrowly escaped jail time, the Grammy’s welcomed him back to the music seen and his Grammy nominations with applause. The songs, artists, and general attitude of the music industry and the Grammys does not support this campaign. Don’t get me wrong, I am just as as guilty of singing along to these mindlessly offensive, yet award winning songs as the next person. In order for it’s company to stay consistent, honest, and valid, the Grammy Foundation must give awards to the most well received and musically impressive artists, whether or not they promote violence, objectification, and generally detrimental content. The problem is not the Grammy Foundation or the #It’sOnUs Campaign, it is the cultivated culture of harmful behaviors that the musical industry hugely feeds in to. This is an important first step not only to raising awareness, but to using celebrities’ influence and power to cause a social shift. Hey, R. Kelly, Chris Brown, Snoop Dog, and all the other celebrities who promote domestic violence: Maybe if you stop beating your significant others, your fans might stop too. 

I Think Jesus Would've Wanted Gays to Have Legal Rights.

During the week of January 20th, the Idaho House approved a hearing to to add "gender identity" and "sexual orientation" into the legislation after a 9 year battle. This will allow people to share stories with legislators about the vital need to include these protections in the Idaho Civil Rights Codes. The man mostly responsible for it taking so long to get to this point is Representative Brent Crane. He has voted "no" against Adding the Words for the past nine years, and has stated that he will still vote against legal rights for gays in the upcoming months. His reasoning? "Partly because he told his voters he wouldn't support it and for him integrity means not changing his mind. Partly because he supports "traditional marriage" and partly because, as a business owner, he doesn't want to be sued for not wanting to employ someone who doesn't line up with his values."

Gay marriage is such a hot topic in our society right now. "Is it okay? Is it not okay?" seems to be the discussion revolving around every American dinner table. I think that the expectations of the church and of fellow believers has entrapped Christians in the chains of dependent thought. A large section of American Christianity has put people like Rep. Crane in the untenable situation of being unable to vote for justice and equality for all Idahoans just because of their sexual orientation. 

I understand why Rep. Crane and most Christians feel this way, especially if they haven't taken the time to really think about it and just go with the norm. I've read the Bible, I fully believe that it states homosexuality is wrong. But it also states divorce, adultery, gluttony, murder, etc. is sinful. How did homosexuality become THE sin? And why are we as Christians acting like this is the only sinful behavior that we need to take a stand against?

For example, Chick Fil A has refused to support equal rights for gays because of the company's Christian values. In 2012, Chick Fil A's CEO  openly shared his anti-gay views and received widespread backlash. If Chik Fil A is not going support gays, then in order to be Biblically sound, they must hold themselves to not supporting any customer or potential customer that they believe is engaging in a lifestyle of sin. I obviously don't know for sure, but I would bet that Chick Fil A has gladly served and taken money from an adulterer (Exodus 20:14)  thief (Exodus 20:15), or a glutton (hello, it's a fast food restaurant) (Philippians 3:19). Wouldn't a Christian business owner also refuse to serve people who have murdered, lied, cheated, stolen, given false testimony, withheld aid from the poor? The same applies to the bakery that refused to make a cake for a gay couple. In addition to refusing service to gay people, I hope that bakery has also refused to serve couples who have engaged in adultery (Exodus 20:14), premarital sex (Hebrews 13:4), or divorce (Matt 19:1-12)- all sins in the Bible. Unfortunately this is probably not the case. I believe homosexuality is the one sin that the Christian culture has decided to hone in on. 

I love this excerpt from Marci Auld Glass: "Jesus never excluded anyone from social interaction because they were gay or trans. Nor did he tell his followers to do so. He ate with tax collectors (Mark 2, Matthew 9). He touched the unclean (Matt 8, Mark 1, Luke 8). He welcomed sinners. He spoke to women, he even requested water from a woman who had had 5 husbands (John 4). If people want to continue to believe that gender identity and sexual orientation are sinful, then it seems perfectly reasonable (if damaging to their LGBTQ loved ones) to continue to not take part in those behaviors they feel are sinful.But there is no biblical mandate to deny LGBTQ Idahoans equality under the law. Adding the Words will not require religious organizations to change their theology or practice. It will prevent people from denying housing, employment, or services to people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Jesus also never "ranked" sins. He also never tolerated the religious leaders who tried to do so. The biblical witness is clear that God wants us to feed the poor, take care of widows and orphans love one another, and welcome people in his name. It is time to Add the Words and to stop using the Bible as the excuse for why we can't."

Jesus loved the unlovable, the people that everyone thought of as low class citizens. And Jesus strongly chastised the pious religious leaders. Before we judge others, whether it's on homosexually or any sin for that matter, we must remember to not become those pious religious leaders. Because that judgment is sin. We are Christ's hands and feet. Our purpose is to show others the love of Jesus and lead others to Him. The judgement of others is God's job, thank goodness. We must search the Bible, pray, discover what is right and wrong in the eyes of God, and strive to live accordingly. Instead of spending our time judging other's sins, lets focus on our own. Let's focus on becoming more Christ-like. 

Pushing the Limits: Human Nature

With the legalization of recreational marijuana now present in Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska, chefs are adding a new flavor to fine dining experiences. Pot infused dishes are now much more advanced and sophisticated than simple pot brownies that coincided with the stereotype of "stoner food". Now, weed is appealing to whole new audience: the foodies. Which in turn translates to a whole new "upper shelf" of people with higher societal, social, and economical status then pot's former target audience. This information does not reflect my views on the value of individuals based on if they do/do not smoke, but facts are facts.

Skilled chefs love to try new things and use new ingredients, it's part of what makes restaurants popular. I understand that. But most of the time, cooking with heat removes the more potent aspects of an ingredient. For example, when cooking with wine, vodka, or other spirits, the alcohol is removed by the heat leaving just the flavor. With these pot specialties, the potency is not reduced. In fact, chefs boil it down to a cannabis oil to make the drug stronger in the dish. The ironic thing is that marijuana does not taste good. Called "the Martha Stewart of weed baking," Karin Lazarus herself admitted that her dishes taste better before adding the marijuana. The only sensible reason for why weed is being used in high end cuisine is simple: it's wow factor. This is the hot and new fad. It pushes the envelope and redefines fine dining. People are always looking to just barely push past what is "right" and go toward the more appealing "wrong" choice.

We are inherently always looking to push the borders. As humans, that is our nature.

Of course the restaurant industry is embracing this form of human rebellion. Since introducing weed to the menu, restaurants have already seen a significant lucrative profit. And it is estimated that by 2020, the marijuana industry will be worth over 10 billion dollars- 40% of which is due to the popularity of edible cannabis. Ken Albala, the director of the food studies program at the University of the Pacific (a Christian college) said, "It really won't be long until it becomes part of haute cuisine and part of respectable culinary culture, instead of just an illegal doobie in the backyard." Whether that encompasses his personal belief or not is not my judgment, but regardless I believe he very accurately described what our culture's view on this drug is becoming. If this is what is going on right now, what's next? What will be the next "hot and new" fad that really just does more harm for our society than good? 

Je Suis Charlie

While the US was still sleeping, Paris' satire magazine, Charlie Hebdo, experienced a devastating terrorist attack that left 12 magazine executives dead during the early hours of Thursday, January 8th. The attack was aimed at the magazine most notable for its mockery of Mohammed, the Muslim prophet. Two native French brothers executed a perfectly planned attack and calmly broke in and shot up the magazine's head quarters. After the attack I had the unique experience of watching the French news report live after the attack. I had just arrived home from India and my jet lag kept me up watching the news all night that night. The shock, the heartbreak, and the sheer outrage that France's citizens expressed was sad, yet inspiring and uplifting. A nation that historically has coward to assaults and knelt to oppression finally is taking a stand. Within hours of the attack, rallies gathered in support of the magazine and free speech. The saying "Je Suis Charlie" or "I Am Charlie" echoed from Paris, throughout France, and across the globe. Celebrities helped popularize the motto that symbolizes freedom of speech and press. 

I love that in the midst of tragedy, the French are rising above and not cowering in fear to these Islamic extremists. I must observe that the US has not done the same. Although President Obama immediately offered full support to France after this terrorist attack, the US media was not so openly supportive. In summary, it (as a whole) recognized the travesty, yet stayed neutral in voicing an opinion that might displease Islamic extremists. The New York Times even blurred out Charlie Hebdo's magazine cover released following the attack. 

I believe that if any other religious group had committed this crime, America's news sources would be openly enraged, turning anyone who they could away from the religion through persuasive writing. Yet, because of the 9/11 tragedy and it's association with Islam, we as a nation are living in fear. I fully believe in respecting others and their religions, but when it comes to the murder of innocent lives, we must take a stand. 

Opinion Not Fact

Written by an obviously pro life, staunch Republican, the Townhall article “Who Had the Worst Year? Jonathan Gruber” explores two separate events in the political career of Jonathan Gruber, the man who is largely responsible for penning Obama’s Affordable Care Act. Earlier this year, I wrote a post on Gruber’s misfortunate statements surrounding the ACA’s semi-secretive policies, specifically his quote stating that his team used deliberat confusion in the ACA’s wording in order to get it passed. He bluntly and boldly expressed that the general public was too dumb to pass it without this deliberate confusion.

Obviously Gruber is out of touch with the general public and puts his fellow wealthy Americans on a higher pedestal than the average citizen. But what he stated with the ACA isn't some new tricky policy maker’s tactic. Overly wordy and confusing text is a classic way that politicians pass laws. Gruber was frankly just tactless enough to say it. 

Mona Charen smartly uses the current situation with the Affordable Care Act to serve her own agenda, the battle against abortion.  

Charen re-dissects a 10 year old best seller that raised plenty of controversy in 2005. Not so shockingly, she reveals that Jonathan Gruber was a main contributor to the chapter that investigated the correlation to abortion and crime. Gruber (and others) decided that the legalization of abortions had an overall positive influence on the nation, economically, morally, socially, etc. He used concrete (and impressive) numbers to describe just how well off our nation is because most aborted children came from backgrounds more susceptible to crime, poverty, and health problems. He argued that because less of these “lower class Americans” were brought into the world, our nation is better off. 

Not only are these statements highly offensive to low income Americans, but they are inconclusive. When dealing with variables like human life, one cannot predict a 14 billion dollar welfare savings when the life in question never made it to become an American citizen. You cant say you saved money on something that never came into being. Just like you cant predict these substantial savings and lower crime rates and higher test scores, you cant predict that every child would have been a nuisance to society as Gruber implies. How can anyone know whether they had just aborted the next Walt Disney or Albert Einstein or Mahatma Gandhi? 

Whats even more disappointing? Charen uses the same tactics she chastises Jonathan Gruber for. By writing this piece in such a one sided way, she evades fact with opinion and hides her readers from the pure truth of the matter. I wish that I could have decided to agree with Mona Charen on my own, rather than being force fed highly conservative, one sided, and filtered information. Regardless of what I do or do not agree with when it comes to Jonathan Gruber and his skewed comparison of abortion and economics, this text is not a piece of journalism, rather a highly close minded piece of opinion.