the death of the contract

"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."

The contract is dead and we've killed it.  Wimpy borrowed more than he could repay and nobody is willing to hold him to his word.  This is already having far reaching effects on the capital markets and it's just beginning.


When an investor decides where to invest their money, they have multiple places to invest.  Maybe it's into mortgage debt, maybe it's into bonds, or maybe stocks.  One thing that all these mechanisms have in common is that they are entered into beforehand with a contract that states what the risks and rewards are.  If one party tries to violate the contract then the courts are supposed to hold them to it.


Bonds are typically seen as the safest investment.  Bonds will guarrantee a particular rate of return.  The rate is set in an auction based on how many people want to buy in. The more people that want the bond, the lower the rate.  The bond issuer is basically going to market saying,"Everyone wants my bonds, why should I pay you a high return, when somebody else will buy my bond for a lower return."  Conversely, if nobody wants a bond then the bond issuer has to offer a higher rate of return.  "I'm good for it, I swear.  Sure I'll have to borrow more next month just to keep the doors open, but if I do then I'll pay you back plus a vig." Nobody wants that investment unless there is significant upside.


Because so many people want it, a bond usually has a lower return on investment (or yield).  It may be, say, 3%/year over 5 years.  After compounding interest, that might work out to roughly a 16% return on investment, which means $100 today could be worth $116 in 5 years.  That's not great, but if it's a sure thing then a lot of people will be interested.


The problem we have right now is that bond holders have been betrayed repeatedly over the last several years, which has left them in a position where they must now invest based on what is politically expedient rather than what offers them the best balance of risk/reward.  Or put another way, there is a new risk that must be accounted for in the risk/reward decision: political risk that governments may ignore legal contracts.

Let's start with General Motors.  Many bond holders of GM held secured debt, which means that in the event of a bankruptcy they get their money first, then the unsecured creditors.  This is a safety feature meant to make the bond more attractive.  Otherwise, why would anybody want to loan money to a struggling automaker?  Unfortunately, during the financial crisis in late 2008 and early 2009, GM was allowed to go through a Chapter 11 reorganization while sending their bond holders to the back of the line in violation of GM's contractual obligations.  Bond holders received less than 30 cents on the dollar for their investments in old GM, while the government and unions were granted enormous amounts of stock in the new GM.  The result was that anybody who had secured GM bonds, including many of our 401k's lost a TREMENDOUS amount of money in violation of standard bankruptcy practice and the bond contracts GM had made.

Fast forward to 2011.  Greece had borrowed more money than they could ever hope to repay.  Rather than defaulting and letting the legal repercussions of a default kick in (far higher costs of borrowing in the future), the bond holders were strong armed into accepting less than 50 cents on the dollar for their bonds.  Once again, bond holders had a legal contract with the government of Greece and they were cheated out of their recourse under an agreement that they legally entered into.

The result of these actions, and many other related violations of contract law, is that no person can feel safe in his or her investments.  Why buy a GM secured bond if you'll be treated like an unsecured creditor when the chips are down?  Why invest in Greek debt when they won't pay you back when the bill comes due.

But the bond is supposed to be the safest investment there is!  If the contract that backs a debt can not be enforced for political reasons, then the only investment that can be trusted is one that is would never be allowed, for political reasons, to default, which leads us to the headline of that day ...

French bonds were recently sold for a small NEGATIVE yield.  This is unheard of.  That means that so many investors were scared of losing their investments that they all piled onto a bond sale yielding them nothing just to be able to avoid losing what they have.  They are hoping that France, as an enormous economy, will have no political choice but to honor their contracts.

These low yields are not good news for each of us if we would like to do the frugal thing and save for retirement.  There is a rule in investing, called the rule of 72.  You take 72 and divide it by the annual return on an investment and that is how many years it will take to double your initial investment.  It's the only hope most of us have of retiring.  If you can earn 10% then you're doubling your principle every 7 years.  So you may double it 3-4 times during your career.  If you invest at 3% that means it's going to take 24 years to double $100 invested today.  A long time, but you'd still have significantly more than you started with when you retire.  But right now you can't even get a 3% yield.  In France they are accepting 0% yield, meaning you would NEVER increase your $100 even a single dollar (or Euro as the case is there).

So unless you're planning on inventing a pet rock or similar million dollar idea, you better hope the markets get on track or you'll be working until you die.  The only way the markets are going to get on track is for governments and citizens to start honoring their obligations to each other, because otherwise you're better off burying your retirement in a tin can in the back yard.  Sorry for the doom and gloom.  Have a nice day.  :-)

why does my dog get better health care than me?

By sheer coincidence my dog developed a medical issue the same week that the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) was ruled legal by the Supreme Court.  The veterinary experience was a stark contrast to the health care people get.

Here is how it went down.  Our dog, Max, started having accidents indoors about a week ago.  This has never been an issue for Max.  He is house broken and had never had an accident indoors until just recently.  (Unless you get him too excited, but that's a whole different thing.)  After a couple of days of this we knew either he was having old age issues or it was a treatable medical condition.

We called up the vet and got an appointment the same day.  We offered to bring a urine sample and they said they would prefer to take it while he was there so that it would be a newer sample.  We pulled up to the vet and told them we had a dog that was going to pee as soon as we let him out of the car. They immediately sent out a nurse to take the sample and as expected, it didn't take long.  

They brought the sample inside and the vet was immediately ready to see us.  They told us exactly what the urinalysis would cost, we assented to it, and they started the analysis.  (Right then, not "we'll call you tomorrow.")  Right off, the urinalysis revealed that his urine was clean, but far too dilute.  The vet explained that this meant it was not a urinary tract infection, but that it could be a kidney issue.  He also explained that there are some types of brain tumors that can cause the kidneys to shut down.  The vet then left the room to continue his testing.  He came back in with some good news.  He discovered that there were indications that the body was fighting an infection, likely in the kidneys.

At this point we had a discussion that you will never have with a people doctor.  The vet said here is what I recommend.  He explained a course of treatment.  He gave us the pros and cons of each part.  He tapped each treatment into a touch screen pc and the exact invoiced price was there before we even started treatment.  Can you imagine that?  Have you ever had a doctor say here is what we think it is and here is what the treatment will cost.  I haven't.  They can't even tell you what the meds will cost.  

He must have dedicated at least 20 minutes to consulting with us.  When I had my knee surgery, I couldn't get the surgeon to spend more than 5 minutes talking to me about the procedure beforehand (and that costed 10 times as much), but this vet talked to us for as long as it took.

We discussed what our options were, alternative medicines, the benefit of a blood test, etc.  In the end, we decided it was worth the extra expense to have the blood test done and confirm the kidney infection.

Our dog is not good around needles, so to do the blood draw we knew we would have to sedate him.  I asked when we would schedule the appointment to sedate him.  They said, "Let's do it right now."  Can you imagine a people doctor saying that?  Me neither.  They won't even contemplate it, they want an anesthesiologist.  They left to prepare the sedation meds then came back in and sedated him while we were there.

Once he was asleep they said, "ok, we'll call you when it's done."  While Max was under, they drew blood, gave him a rabies booster, and gave him a pedicure.  (Hey, as long as he's there...)  They called us up with the preliminary results:  kidneys definitely infected, long term kidney function is not damaged. (Yes!!)  

The result is being sent to a lab for additional testing.  Keep in mind we already paid for this service and know EXACTLY what it costed.  We don't expect any surprises, but if there are issues with canine diabetes or the like, they should be able to tell us.

When we came back to pick him up a few hours later, I swiped my discover card to pay our pre-agreed upon price, they gave us his meds, we grabbed Max, and we were on our way.  No fuss no muss.

Let's recap:

• There was no wait to see the vet.
• They told us up front what the whole course of treatment would cost, including sedation, meds, and tests.  They even knew what a 3rd party lab would cost.
• They did the sedation on premises, during the visit.
• We paid up front with no middle-man and zero insurance overhead.
• They gave us preliminary test results immediately.
• They didn't rush out of the room.  They took the time to talk to us.
• They gave us the meds instead of sending us to a pharmacy.

So, having said all that, my rhetorical question is:  why the hell is that treatment so much better than what I get from a people doctor?  And secondly, does the ACA do anything to simplify my health care so that it is more like the streamlined treatment a dog can get?

I don't even have any serious issues with my doctor, but seeing how simple the process is for a dog, I can't help but think we humans are getting the short end of the stick.  From what I can tell the ACA doesn't make things any better.  It gives us a way to fund the machine, but does nothing to simplify the process.

no one lives forever.

You worry too much
You make yourself sad
You can't change fate
But don't feel so bad
Enjoy it while you can
It's just like the weather
So quit complaining brother
No one lives forever

I referenced this on Facebook today as a fun throwback to a song I liked from the 80's, but after I posted it I started to think about how it ties in nicely to a post I've been wanted to do.  It's a verse of an old Oingo Boingo song from the 80's and the message of that verse is what this post is about: worrying too much.  This is not an eat, drink, and be merry post.  This is a don't-let-fear-of-adverse-outcomes-cripple-you post.

I talked in inaugural post of this blog about seat belt laws.  They're well intentioned laws that take away our freedom in an effort to protect us from our own decision making.  (It's not to protect us from car accidents, because without seatbelt laws we could still use seatbelts just fine.)

Clearly, from that last statement, I believe seatbelt laws take away our liberty, but this is not intended to be a political post.  Let's leave the politics aside and just discuss the merits of avoiding risk voluntarily separately from the politics of mandating it.

Do seat belts have merit?  Absolutely.  Nobody doubts that they save lives.  What about air bags?  Yup, those save lives too vs not having them.  What about only taking public transit instead of driving?  It's safer still and it doesn't even have air bags and seat belts.  Am I a question talker?  Sometimes, but lets get back to the subject at hand.

What if we just never leave our houses?  We could earn our income over the Internet and have everything we need delivered to us.  In this day and age you could just about make that work and probably save money doing it.  I've even done it for a day or two at a time by shear coincidence when I consulted.  You don't have to travel at all, thereby eliminating all risk associated with travel.

Of course, there are risks at home too, as anybody who's ever been through a tornado or earthquake will tell you.   (Or that microburst that hit Provo a few years back.  Yikes!!!)

So now it's time to say I what I said from the outset this article was going to say: We can't let fear of adverse outcomes cripple us.  We have to balance risk with the reward.  Obviously, if something is actually dangerous then we should avoid it.  But what if it's something that is only infinitesimally dangerous?  Then avoiding it simply deprives us of life's experiences.

There are plenty of activities like horse back riding, rappelling, bungie jumping, hiking, biking, motorcycling, hunting, cliff diving, skiing, swimming, boating, flying, etc that involve an element of risk, but if done carefully these are very rewarding experiences.  That isn't to say nothing bad will happen, because there is always risk.  What I'm saying is experiences in life are worth some risk and if you haven't taken any risks then you haven't lived.


Don't let the nightly news paralyze you.  We are living in the safest conditions the world has ever known.  A child born in the US in 1850 could expect to live to 38, a child born in the US today is expected to live to 76.  (And that's regardless of whether eggs are good or bad this week.)  If you live the word of wisdom and exercise, you might even beat the average.

You want something to worry about ... don't worry about death, worry about how your going to pay for all those years of retirement.  Now that's scary!  :-)

health care, episode iv, a new hip

At lunch today a friend of mine was talking about his healthcare and it reminded me I should do another post.

One of the biggest issues of our day is the ever climbing cost of healthcare.  I could talk for days about this, but for this article I'd like to focus on my first issue:  traditional insurance hides the cost of health care which causes health care prices to rise faster than inflation.

I have an exercise for you.  Next time you go to the doctor ask them what it will cost.   (Not the co-pay, the whole cost.)  You can even wait until you're done.   I'll bet 9 out of 10 doctors won't give you an answer.  Why?  Because the your doctor has contracts with your insurance company that basically say how much they can charge for every procedure.  They have these with several different insurers, as well as medicaid/medicare.  Your doctor doesn't actually know what they can collect.  Instead, the doctor bills your insurance as much as they can possibly get away with and then the insurance adjusts the prices to be in line with the contract.

That means a couple of things: 1) You can't shop for a better rate, because nobody will tell you what it costs ahead of time, 2) You can't negotiate the rate because the doctor is going to work it out with your insurance.

When we were checking out of the hospital after our last child was born they told us they would give us a 20% discount if we paid upfront.  We said, "Great! What do we owe you?"  That was when they told me something that totally floored me.  They said,"We don't know."  They then showed us the projected numbers that they thought they would be able to get approved by our insurance.  They admitted that they had a special consultant they use that knows all the right procedure codes to ring every last penny out of your insurance company.  So at the time you left this hospital they hadn't finished preparing your invoice because they're going to tweak it for maximum billing effectiveness.

Another hospital gave us an itemized bill that showed $7 per pill for tylenol.  We even had a hospital once tell us that my wife couldn't take her own medicine that she had brought with her because they wanted her to get it from their pharmacy.  No wonder, if they charge 100x the street value of tylenol.

The health care provider's strategy is literally to bill your insurance as much as possible.  If they had to tell you to your face then you could shop around and/or negotiate a fair price, instead they just submit it to your insurance.

The insurance acts as a buffer to your outrage over the product price.  You go to the doctor, he pops in to talk to you for 5 minutes and then you get a statement that says, the doctor wanted $115, we knocked them down to $100, your 20% will be $20.  All the consumer sees is $20 and says, I guess I can live with that.  Nobody is asking, why a 5 minute office visit costed $100.  But the truth is that your employer's group plan has an allowance for your routine care (which the fund with your premiums).  If you go over the allowance then your premium will have to be adjusted next year to cover that $80 they paid out.  Otherwise, they'd go out of business.  We don't realize that when we get the bill.  We think the $20 is the limit of what we'll pay.  If we went to the doctor and got stuck with the whole bill you better believe we'd be asking for answers.

Here's another example.  I'm told that the law of the land is now that well baby visits are free.  Of course, they're not really free.  The doctors and nurses have to be paid.  The electric bill needs to be paid.  The building lease needs to be paid.  The shots need to be paid for.  So what happens?  What happens is that your doctor still submits a bill to your insurance, but your insurance doesn't send you a bill for the doctor visit.   They pay 100% of that invoice.  Next year, just like in the previous example, your  health insurance premiums go up by enough to offset your "free" well baby visits.  This is done at the group level, so it might be your baby visits or your coworker's that push the price up.  There's no free lunches, friends.  Once again by insurance merely becomes a vehicle for blurring our understanding of the costs of health care.


I like insurance, but only as a true "insurance", by which I mean something that we pay into over a period of time with no expectation of using it and if an unlikely event occurs, then it pays back out.  Life insurance is for the unlikely event that a young person dies.  Car insurance is for the unlikely event that you get into a car wreck.  Home owner's insurance is for the unlikely event that your home is lost due to fire or similar circumstances.  In all cases, the insurance is a statistical way to shield us from the risk of an unlikely event so that we don't have to be financially destroyed by it if we're the unlucky Joe it strikes.  It works because it's unlikely.  Lots of people pay in a little, very few large payments go out.   It is similar to the way they raise such staggering amounts in the lottery.  That's why I can pay $30 a month and have them pay Kamarie $100,000 if I die. Statistically it makes sense.  When I'm 70, they won't be offering that same life insurance deal anymore, not because they're greedy bastards, but because it doesn't make sense.

You know what else doesn't make sense.  Insuring something with your health care that is absolutely going to happen. Physicals, flu shots, well baby visits, office visits, x-rays, these are routine.  These are the opposite of unlikely. They are--wait for it-- likely.  When you insure things that are likely to happen you're just creating a financing mechanism.  It's an escrow account.  I'll pay you $x dollars per month and then you spread that out over the course of the year to pay my expenses.  If my expenses are higher than $x*12 then next year you can raise my rates.

That's how comprehensive health insurance works.  Well almost.  With an escrow, I'm only responsible for my expenses, but with an insurance policies, even individual ones, you are escrowed as a group.  So you and your fellow group members pay the same share of the escrow for everyone in your group.  Those who use less health care pay an unfair share, those who use more benefit from an unfair share of other peoples money.

What I support insurance for is catastrophic care.  Cancer, trama, organ transplants, severe burns, etc.  These are all unlikely situations that we could safely insure against without driving costs through the roof.   There is an approximation of these types of insurance that are becoming more common.  They're called high-deductible insurance policies.  By using a high deductible the consumer basically says, don't worry about the small stuff, I'll pay for all of it myself, but if I get cancer I want you to step in once I hit my deductible.

High deductible insurance is what my family is using right now.  It was real nice for a while.  We were able to pay our premiums and our office visits and still save money compared to a traditional plan.  After Obamacare passed our premium went up 44% in one year.  That's what happens when you force insurers to cover things that are likely to happen.

I hope that eventually we can get past thinking of insurance as the answer.  It is, after all, just a financing mechanism, as our own Solicitor General argued at the Supreme Court recently.  Let's talk about ways to drive down the cost of health care, not drive up the enrollment in a health escrow account.  There are lots of great ideas out there that make us less dependent on expensive treatments.  If we could all get behind those ideas, even if just to make them feasible for those that wanted to opt in to them, then we would actually be able to attack the health care cost problem, instead of the health insurance symptom.

Jon on marriage

A wise friend of mine once told me that anything in this life worth having requires work.  I think that is true.  It is perhaps fitting then, that marriage is the most difficult relationship of our lifetime.  In every other relationship we can avoid each other after a fight.  (Not that it's the best policy, but it is an option.)  In a marriage, there is no avoiding it.  And yet marriage can also be the most rewarding relationship in our life.

Kamarie and I will celebrate 16 years together this fall.  We've known each other for closer to 20 years.  She is my best friend and the only person in this world that knows everything about me.  We both came from happy homes, which is an increasingly rare thing.  Kamarie's father had passed away before I met Kamarie, but he was there for the bulk of her childhood.  So Kamarie and I had good examples of two parent households to learn from.  Even so, we stumbled occasionally when we were first married.

I've never heard a couple say that their marriage was flawless.  Ours is not either.  We've had some serious arguments to the point that we were mad at each other for days afterward.  But we've learned some useful principles.  They're pretty intuitive.  You probably do the same in your relationship.  Nonetheless, if my children were getting married today, I'd have this advice for them:

1) No outside factor is allowed to create discord in the relationship between husband and wife.  Not work, not school, not friends, not church callings, not peer pressure, and not children.  What?  Not church callings?  Not children?  That's right: nothing.  If a job is bad for the marriage, quit.  If the church calling keeps you away to the point that it is a problem, then you need to be released.

Sometimes when we kneel down for prayer at night the children like to try to slide in between Kamarie and I.  If there is room we will often let them.  If there isn't room, then rather than slide over, I'll tell them, "Nothing comes between me and your mom."  The children all giggle at that.  They like knowing that their parents love each other.  We love our children a great deal, but our first priority is to the marriage.

This also means alone time together.  We've found that after a particularly stressful day, it's nice to just take a drive or go to the store together for some groceries.  Before I hurt my knee we used to do a 30 minute run together 3 times a week.  Any time spent together with just the two people can really help you wind down.

2) Communicate, communicate, communicate.  Men and women see and express things differently.   If you just say the minimum you probably will misunderstand each other.  Years ago this was explained in a popular book "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus."  I've never read it, but some of our friends have, the basic concept is clear from the title.  It is critical that we try to explain ourselves.  That means that if Kamarie thinks I'm mad, I need to explain that I'm not mad, that I'm just thinking.  If I'm really mad, it means I can't pretend I'm not mad.

I think one of the most difficult things I've had to do is talk when I'm mad.  When I'm mad I want to just  withdraw into a shell and stew over it.  One thing I've learned is that the "madder" I am, the more I need to explain my feelings to Kamarie.  Eight times out of ten as soon as I've said it out loud it just sounds petty.  Sometimes the honest answer is that "I don't know" why I'm mad, which is usually a pretty good signal to me that I need to apologize.  One time out of ten I might have a legitimate gripe, and the only way it's going to be resolved is if we talk about it.

3) Practice random acts of kindness.  Sometimes I step in the door after a long day of work and I hear the kids screaming and the temptation enters my mind to just turn around and walk right back out.  But then I realize that Kamarie has been trapped in that madhouse all day.  If I can do something simple like gather the kids up and calm them down while she relaxes it helps her to de-stress and feel appreciated at the same time.

But the awesome thing is, if I come home upset and I just need to go into my man cave, then Kamarie is sensitive to that and allows me that freedom.  So there is a give and a take where we each try to do nice things for each other.

I've also found that I can go to Smith's and get flowers for cheap and it's a nice surprise for Kamarie.  Sometimes I'll buy them a couple times a month, just to see her light up.  When Valentines day roles around Kamarie doesn't even care if she gets flowers, she probably had them a week or two before anyway.

Kamarie likes to make a big deal out of my birthday.  She'll come in to work and decorate my office.  That night she'll cook my favorite meal.  Thoughtful acts like that do a lot for a marriage.

Even a nice long hug when you know they're down can be just what the doctor ordered.

4) Don't do hurtful things to each other.  Just don't.  I don't have much more to say on this.  In a marriage we know each other better than anyone else.  We know what will push one another's buttons. When we get into a fight we want to lash out.  It's childish.  It does lasting damage.  Do not do it.  Kamarie can still recall idiotic things I said years ago.  Now that I've matured, I can't fathom I would ever say anything so stupid, but I did and she still remembers.

5) Take a vacation with just the two of you occasionally.  This is a hard one to arrange because you've usually got to arrange family to watch the kids for a day or two.  If you can arrange it, I highly recommend it.  We've stayed in Las Vegas a couple of times.   Last year for our big 15th anniversary we did a long weekend in New York.

6) Forgive each other.  Nobody is perfect.  We make mistakes and sometimes those mistakes hurt the person we love most.  If we carry around baggage from past fights and can't forgive then the remaining issue is more our fault than the person who has since apologized and repented.

7) Marital relations are a natural by product of adhering to the tips above.  They also help build more love in the relationship if they are entered into as an expression of love and not simply because of a physical desire.

There are also physical/emotional needs that are satisfied through marital relations that need to be attended to periodically.  I'm not suggesting a particular frequency, but just be aware that your partner needs intimacy.  I'm going to keep this posting PG, so I won't say more on this point.

That's it.  See... Nothing Earth shattering.  These are the principles that Kamarie and I live by.  Take it or leave it.  It works for us.  We didn't practice them all from the start (well, except maybe #7), but we've learned it over time.  This past year we've really adhered to this formula closer than ever before and it has been the best year of our marriage.  I can't imagine being any happier.

Kamarie approved this message.  ;-)

Jon on Joy

I want to get off on the right foot with this blog.  The most important thing in my life is God, from whom all other blessings spring.  My greatest blessing is my wife, Kamarie.  I've often said that she and the children are all I need to be happy, which brings me to a couple thoughts I would like to share on  joy.

I've always liked this scripture from the Book of Mormon since I first learned it in seminary many years ago:

"Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy." - 2 Nephi 2:25.

We are here on Earth with a mission, but the great thing about our mission is that it is in our own self interest to complete it.  Our mission is to have joy.  Isn't that amazing that our experience here is all about our Father in Heaven's plan for us to have joy.  Who doesn't want joy?   We all do.  How do we find joy?  Well it turns out there are natural laws, that lead to joy.  We have to learn them.  In a future article, I'll talk about natural law in the governmental sense, but back to the Gospel sense:

"There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." - D&C 130:20-21

Friends, I bare testimony to the truthfulness of this principle.  There are specific blessings that naturally follow from obedience to specific principles.  Sometimes we have to really grow and stretch to be obedient to those principles.  Sometimes we don't have faith that those principles are true so we ignore them and we miss out on the blessings.  I've been obedient enough to learn for myself what a few of those principles are.  Each is worthy of it's own post, so for today I'll just leave it at that.  You collect enough of those blessings, and you've got yourself joy.

So that's the first thought.  As I mentioned in the introductory post, they won't all be Gospel related, but I figured I'd start with the most important thing first.

Jon on my first post!

In the past when I had thoughts to share, I've posted them to Facebook.  What has happened a number of times is that I have unintentionally alienated people with my opinions.  I think the 2-3 sentence summaries that one tends to use on FB have a lot to do with it.  I also think that Facebook leads us to naturally make assumptions that certain subjects are responses to previous threads.  I hope that by moving my thoughts here I can firewall this off from the statements of any other person.

For this reason, I have created the Jon On blog..  Hard to say, I know.  You try finding a blogspot domain sometime and you'll realize why I chose this awful name.  I'll try later to find something better.

The purpose of this blog will be to share my thoughts on various subjects in a friendly way.  This blog will contain thoughts from Jon (me) on liberty, Jon on family, Jon on God, and whatever else occurs to me to post.  I have some strongly held beliefs on all of these subjects.  They've brought me much happiness in my life and I want that happiness for you.

I can tell you right now that some of you won't agree with what I have to say.  For example, I believe in liberty, which means I can do what I want as long as it doesn't harm others or their property.  Most people like that, but what they don't like is the flipside, which is that I also can't tell others what to do in their life.  Take seatbelts, for example.  Seatbelts are good.  Telling people they must wear them, is not.  In Utah, you're required by law to wear them.  I ask why?  If I choose not to wear a seat belt, the worst possible consequence is my own death, which is nobody's business but my own.

There are of course rational limits to liberty, even.  So this will also be the place that I detail my own thoughts on what those limits might be.  For example, I don't think it's ok to run around naked in public.  Especially, if you look like me.

So that is what to post about expect here.  You're welcome to read and comment, you're welcome to disagree, but lets keep on topic.