Credit Crisis for Dummies (By a Dummy)

In the midst of the current financial crisis, people are looking to experts they can trust. Why then have I, Greenspanke, the so-called “finance minister” of the world’s 1,942,080th most popular blog, remained so conspicuously silent on the matter?

In short, I am a fraud.

Contrary to the many epithets (e.g., “First Dude of Finance” and "The Montell Jordan of Money") so often heaped upon me, in truth my economic “expertise” only extends to personal money management—not national (let alone global) finance as a whole.

As such, asking me to weigh in on something as wholly beyond my grasp as the world financial crisis is much like, oh I don’t know, asking someone with no apparent insight into the intricacies of domestic and international politics to run for US vice president.

All of that said, I have done some research (aided greatly by my mentor, TG), and will take a stab at briefly summarizing the current crisis.

Sowing the seeds of catastrophe
Roots of the crisis largely stem from the Federal Reserve’s 2001 decision, under then-chairman Alan Greenspan, to lower the “federal funds rate” (FFR) and then keep it low for several years (e.g., under 2% until Sep 2004). The FFR had a strong ripple effect on other interest rates like those for mortgages and car loans (see below graph). Thus, having the FFR so low for so long basically flooded the world with cheap money.

House of cards
In conjunction with this influx of easy cash, the real estate market underwent a meteoric rise in home values and, in addition, the banking system implemented an astounding reduction in eligibility requirements for would-be borrowers. Thus, not only did buying a home become a more tempting investment, but obtaining a loan to do so became absurdly easy. As my mentor put it: "no money down, no income documentation—your mom's cats could have gotten loans". As a result, the system enabled everyday people like Joe and Mario the Plumber to do things like buy homes beyond their means; or take out "second mortgages" on the seemingly ever-rising equity in their homes to buy things they didn't need like flat screen TVs and second houses.

A related issue is that mortgage salespeople (now affectionately known as "predatory lenders") had every incentive to sell high-risk loans (e.g., "subprime" and "adjustable rate" mortgages) to high-risk borrowers. Namely, the lenders got a commission for their sale and, what's more, the institution they worked for often turned around and sold the new mortgage (and its risk) to other entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. By the banks financing these loans to begin with, and by Freddie and Fannie buying such "mortgage-backed securities" from the banks, all parties put themselves at the incredibly risky mercy of (a) home prices continuing to rise and (b) borrowers continuing to make their mortgage payments.

Death of a party
Alas, circa 2006 the US housing bubble burst and home prices started to fall. Making matters worse for borrowers, by this point the Fed had started raising interest rates. Adjustable interest rates spiked, mortgage payments went way up, borrowers began to default on payments, and home foreclosures sprang up in droves. Soon enough, mortgage-back securities became "toxic assets" and the financial institutions who'd bet the farm on them—such as Bear Stearns, Freddie and Fannie, and Lehman Brothers—saw their risk come home to roost.

Bailout blues
In the wake of all this, stock prices have plummeted and the banks have taken huge losses, which has greatly impaired the banks' capacity and willingness to make new loans to businesses, individuals and each other. With lending (i.e., the glue that holds the economy together) in such dire straits, the US government has decided to step in with its projected $700b Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP, aka bailout).

So, what is the bailout aimed to do? I think I'll quote my mentor (again) on that one:

The bailout package will help some because the government will buy from the banks $700 billion worth of the worst crap they have on their balance sheets. [The banks] will not get face value for this stuff - maybe somewhere north of the current very low market values which exist because there is essentially no market. In addition, the accounting changes that are part of the bill will allow the banks to sell the stuff, perhaps realize the losses over a period of time instead of immediately, and therefore have some capacity to lend, which may help lower rates for real people. As the economy is run by credit this is necessary but not sufficient for getting the economy going again. This will also help restore some confidence to arcane things like the interbank and commercial paper markets which are frozen or near frozen and in which rates are very high and impeding activity (emphasis mine).

In short, then, it seems the bailout aims to save the banks arses and, by doing so, help restore the banks' ability to lend and also restore overall confidence in the marketplace.

No time to blink
In conclusion, I trust that the elementary, bullet point regurgitation of other people's ideas presented above will put to rest rumors that I am anything but a novice when it comes to big time economics. That said, if the next president asks me to be treasury secretary, I will answer him yes because I have the confidence in my readiness, and know that you can't blink. You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we're on, reform of this country, and victory in the war. You can't blink. So, I wouldn't blink then, if asked to be treasury secretary.

The Soft Sexism of Low Expectations

In the wake of Thursday night's VP debate between Sen Joe "Bosniak" Biden (D-DE) and Gov Sarah "Toxic mess on Main Street that's affecting Wall Street" Palin (R-AK), it seems like everyone's talking about how Palin "exceeded expectations".

But let's be frank: this didn't take much doing. As one reader of Andrew Sullivan's blog, put it:

She didn't poop her pants. So basically she did great!

To be fair, Palin accomplished far more than simply not defecating herself. Namely, she established herself as a very formidable 21st century, reality-TV-era, style-over-substance debater: she displayed a firm command of the talking points her campaign advisers had crammed into her; she effectively zinged her opponent several times over past inconsistencies between himself and Obama; she spoke in a confident, aggressive fashion (albeit quickly and a bit nervously at points); she avoided obvious gaffes and awkward silences; she did not look physically unattractive; she looked straight in the camera, smiled, talked and winked at the same time; she correctly pronounced "Ahmadinejad" five times (and four times in the same response!); and she implemented a folksy, "doggone it"-infused delivery style that made me want to drive a stake through my ears and gouge my own eyes out—but evidently connects with a vast swath of the US electorate.

So again, to be clear, she did "exceed expectations". But let's also talk about what she did not do. She rarely answered questions directly (if at all). She failed to explain how exactly she and John McCain would "change" Washington or end the war in Iraq. She utterly lacked substance. She failed to demonstrate—much like George W Bush—that she: (a) understands that the word "nuclear" has one "u", not two; or (b) possesses an ounce of intellectual curiosity or independent thought (e.g., the kind needed to stray even one inch from talking points and note cards). And, most crucially, according to this CNN poll, she convinced only 42% of viewers (compared to 87% for Biden) that she is qualified to assume the presidency.

Straight talk?
In my opinion, though, Palin's biggest shortcoming was highlighted during the first half of the debate after Biden pointed out to moderator Gwen Ifill that the Alaska Governor had not answered a question about deregulation. When Ifill then asked, "Would you like to have an opportunity to answer that before we move on?" Palin responded (see 2:45 mark in this 10-minute debate recap):

I'm still on the tax thing because I want to correct you on that again. And I want to let you know what I did as a mayor and as a governor. And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or [Biden] want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also (emphasis mine).

Not going to answer the questions that either the moderator or Biden want to hear? What does that mean? What types of questions was she referring to? For some insight, let's review clips from the three interviews (with Charlie Gibson, Sean Hannity, and Katie Couric) that Palin granted prior to the debate (please watch):

Based on these interviews, it seems the questions Palin "may not answer" are those that: (a) cannot be sufficiently answered using memorized talking points; (b) refer to topics that she does not adequately grasp; and (c) press for specific examples to supplement the vague, ridiculous, rambling bullcrap that she (like every politician) often spews out.

Fortunately for Palin, when it came to the VP debate, the McCain campaign successfully insisted that:

[Her and Biden would] have shorter question-and-answer segments than those for the presidential nominees [which allowed] much less opportunity for free-wheeling, direct exchanges between the running mates. McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive (emphasis mine).

Clearly, the plan worked. As evidenced by her above response to Ms Ifill, Palin used the debate's short 2:00 segments to her advantage. She did not have to be free-wheeling, but rather—thanks to a virtual lack of direct exchange and cross-examination—she successfully avoided specifics and glossed over questions she did not want to (or could not) answer with folksy, prepackaged, sound-bite-infested, stump speech drivel.

A sexist, disrespectful double standard
In my opinion, the "expectations" that Palin exceeded are—by the very nature of their lowness—demeaning and sexist. Had a male candidate for VP performed as Palin did Thursday night, I seriously doubt anyone would have lauded his performance as "better than expected"; or that that the conservative National Review editor Rich Lowry would have been smitten enough to write:

I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when [he] dropped [his] first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think [he] just winked at me." And [his] smile. By the end, when [he] clearly knew [he] was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, [he's] got it.

Rather, had Palin been a male, I suspect that the overwhelming majority of analysts would have bashed said candidate's performance, pronounced Biden the decisive winner, and lambasted John McCain's judgment for selecting said candidate to potentially be next in line to the presidency. To not apply the same standard to Palin is disrespectful to the fact that women are just as capable as men, and should be cheered and jeered based solely on their words and actions—not their identity.

Beyond gender
That said, this whole situation extends far beyond gender. For instance, it's inconceivable that female politicians like Sen Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Sen Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), Gov Kathleen Sebelius (D-KA) or Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice would receive this kind of treatment, either. Likewise, when former Rep Geraldine Ferraro (D-NY) ran for VP in 1984, the Mondale campaign certain didn't rewrite the debate format to avoid free-wheeling and direct exchanges, nor did they shield her from unscripted press conferences. In contrast to Ferraro, who faced reporters within days of her selection, Palin has yet to hold a press conference—36 days and counting since McCain picked her—which is both unprecedented and astounding.

So what is it about Gov Palin that warrants this special treatment? Is it her beauty pageant good looks, or because she's so clearly—borderline pitiably—unready for presidential prime time? I don't know. But if I have to listen to myself think about it any longer, I will drive a stake through my ears, so at this point I must digress.

Dig Out Your Soul: an Oasis Obsession Uncovered

As arguably the most devoted (and perhaps only) remaining Oasis fan living in America, 24 June 2008 marked quite a day for this bloke. The reason, of course (as if you didn’t know!), is because that’s when the band officially announced upcoming release details for their 24th UK single, "The Shock Of The Lightning" (out tomorrow), to be followed by the 6 Oct release of their 7th studio album: Dig Out Your Soul.

Given that coming to terms with Oasis' post-1997 fall from greatness—documented to great effect both in this book and this film—has been perhaps the defining struggle of my late adolescence/early adulthood, I was at first hesitant to blog about this new album, lest it dredge up any painful memories.

But after more thought, I decided I couldn’t resist. Informing said decision was MC Gallagher’s Law of Correlation, which states: “The more MC Gallagher likes an Oasis album’s cover art, the more he likes its songs”. That said, it seems auspicious that I quite like the new record's artwork (pictured above). But before I elaborate on that, allow me to start from the beginning of the band's discography.

For starters, one should interpret my thoughts on this matter with the foreknowledge that I regard Oasis' first two records, Definitely Maybe (1994) and (What's the Story) Morning Glory (1995), as the defining albums of my youth. Moreover, I consider the covers for said albums to be utterly iconic.

But then came Oasis' 3rd, 4th, and 5th records—Be Here Now (1997), SOTSOG (2000)^*, and Heathen Chemistry (2002)—which I once referred to (in a darker moment, mind you) as: "a cocaine-driven monumental f*ck up, 48 minutes of drivel, and the single lowest exemplar of artistic output in human history, respectively".

Given the Law of Correlation, I should have seen it coming: the self-indulgent cover of Be Here Now (above, left)—complete with a Rolls Royce in an effing swimming pool—was just as over-the-top as its songs’ bloated production; the New York City skyline depicted on SOTSOG (above, middle) evoked a certain Irish Americophile (Bono), which only heightened the disappointment of Oasis’ own electronica-influenced experimentation vis-à-vis other bands like, say, U2; whilst the blurred and rather unmemorable image atop Heathen Chemistry (above, right) foretold how little its tunes would impede the band’s continued fading from seemingly everyone’s mind but my own.

Thank God, then, that the simple yet appealing train shot gracing Oasis' sixth record, Don't Believe The Truth (2005), was correct in suggesting a band who'd finally gotten their act back on track.

All of this finally brings me back to the Dig Out Your Soul cover, which again, I fancy. First off, it's probably the giant cutout hands (and wishful thinking), but was Terry Gilliam involved at all? No, apparently it's the handiwork of London-based designer Julian House, who's previously done covers for Primal Scream and Stereolab among others. The vibrant colors and butterfly evoke this cover by The Kinks (a good thing) whereas that apple is surely an homage to The Beatles' self-founded record label or else a clue that Liam Gallagher's diet no longer consists solely of cigarettes and blow. And as far the piece's middle left portion is concerned, the row of crucifixes is a bit disconcerting, but I've chosen to focus instead on the turntable (classy) and lightbulb (not a CFL, but still).

In conclusion, to the one person still reading this (hi Mom!), I've decided to interpret what looks to be a butterfly emerging from a mushroom cloud as a good omen—especially when said image graces the newest album of a band you're desperately hoping can transcend a trifecta of mid-career bombs.

Then again, if the reader comments to this article are any indication, some might say my decidedly positive reaction to the Dig Out Your Soul artwork is a bit misguided. Here's one of my favorites (written 15 Jul 2008, 9:51am, under the pseudonym "mullet"):

Alternative album title:
"Dig out your sh*t and smear it on the cover"
No doubt when you play it, there'll be sh*t in your ears too.

But such talk does not phase me in the slightest. In fact, I am so confident that this new record will be tops that I've convinced brumpelstiltskin—despite Greenspanke's staunch objections—to invest in this $99 deluxe limited edition box set.

So what do you think? Did I make the right call? Or will this purchase go down in history as the most anyone's ever spent to effectively put sh*t into their own ears?

---

^* SOTSOG = Standing On The Shoulder Of Giants (their typo, not mine).

Soda Point Induced Neurosis

Given our previously documented interest in Big Soda's largest reward programs (My Coke Rewards and Pepsi Stuff), brumpelstiltskin were quite intrigued to learn of a new "diagnosis" apparently being considered by psychiatrists in charge of revising the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

Namely, in yet another Mic's Tape exclusive, we've learned that the DSM-V (expected release date: May 2012) may include so-called "Soda Point Induced Neurosis" (aka SPIN). According to an anonymous email (signed, "A disgruntled former assistant to then-APA President Dr. Steven Sharfstein"), SPIN is characterized first and foremost by the "compulsive hoarding of soft drink bottle caps".

The email, which we received yesterday, went on to read: "To be diagnosed with SPIN, the patient must meet at least four of the following criteria during the same 2-week period, which must include (1) and (2)":

(1) Moderate to severe interest in at least one of the following:

• Free music, movies, and electronics
• Free sweepstakes entries
• Becoming a walking billboard for Coca-Cola and/or its corporate partners

(2) The patience to redeem 10 to 12-digit nonsense codes via manual online entry

(3) Continued hoarding despite embarrassing social/interpersonal consequences (e.g., being spotted by a co-worker while removing a Diet Pepsi Max bottle from a trash can)

(4) Recurrent hoarding despite future dental ramifications for self or loved ones (e.g., unintentionally enabling girlfriend's formerly under-control pop addiction)

(5) Brazen disregard for potential legal repurcussions (e.g., unlawful removal of empty cardboard 12-pack containers from local recycling facility)

(6) Diminished ability to make rational decisions (e.g., buying Pepsi instead of Cherry Coke—even though the latter's on sale and you like its taste better—because you're "one point away from that hot new David Archuleta download").

So, is SPIN really destined for the DSM-V? Or is our source for this story suffering from some kind of caffeine-induced psychosis? Only time will tell.

The Skinny on Why TMZ is Thick

While walking through my office waiting area the other day, a certain magazine cover (pictured right) caused me to do a double take.

At first glance, it looked like it could have been an Onion article: a picture of a beautiful, healthy-looking celebrity—oddly paired with a “Stop Calling Me Fat!” byline—accompanied, no doubt, by a satirical article cleverly ridiculing our culture’s increasingly twisted ideals of “normal” weight and physical attractiveness.

But in actuality it was the 17 Dec 2007 issue of People magazine, in which the cover story detailed the reaction of actress/singer Jennifer Love Hewitt's (aka J. LoH) after gossip website TMZ.com published the above photo alongside the headline: "We know what you ate this summer, Love -- everything!"

Hewitt responded directly via her own website; here is an excerpt:

I've sat by in silence for a long time now about the way women's bodies are constantly scrutinized. To set the record straight, I'm not upset for me, but for all of the girls out there that are struggling with their body image.

A size 2 is not fat! Nor will it ever be. And being a size 0 doesn't make you beautiful.

Hewitt's concern for those "struggling with their body image" is very well-founded, especially since numerous scientific studies such as this one suggest a "direct effect of media exposure [to a thin ideal body image for women] on eating disorder symptoms".

Interestingly, Hewitt has been back in the headlines recently, only this time it's for having lost weight. The decision to seemingly flaunt her successful diet on the cover of Us Weekly has led some to question the consistency of her stance.

While there's little doubt that Hewitt's words and actions convey a mixed message, the stand she took against the media should be commended all the same. Our culture's distorted, unrealistic and unhealthy "thin ideal" needs to be challenged, and media outlets that shamelessly reinforce it—like TMZ—should be reviled.

Nobody Expected a Womanish Politician!

History's great events warrant commemoration.

On Thursday night—45 years to the day since Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech—Sen Barack Obama (D) paid tribute to MLK prior to becoming the first African American candidate to accept the Presidential nomination of any major US political party.

And Friday morning—some 38 years since a trio of Cardinals led by Michael Palin unexpected crashed a Monty Python sketch (see below video)—Alaska Governor Sarah Palin unexpectedly crashed the 2008 US Presidential race when Sen John McCain (R) announced her as his running mate.

Given Palin's striking lack of national political name recognition, the US news media has spent much of the past 48 hours trying to decipher the rationale behind McCain's surprise decision. Well, here in brumpelstiltskin, rather than decipher, we decided to pick up the phone and call McCain's campaign chief, Steve Schmidt [pictured, below left]. In a Mic's Tape exclusive, here's what Schmidt had to say regarding the logic behind the Palin choice:

Our chief weapon is fear...fear and—wait, you asked about our campaign's strategy in general, right? Oh, about the strategy behind the Palin choice, specifically?

Well, on that front, our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and a pair of X chromosomes—our TWO weapons are a lack of a Y chromosome and surprise...and energy proficiency—our THREE weapons are an XX sex chromosome, surprise, proficiency on the issue of energy...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope's position on abortion—our FOUR...no—amongst our weapons...amongst our weaponry are such elements as—let me start again...

Amongst Palin's weaponry are such diverse elements as: womanishness, surprise, energy efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope's position on abortion, and some nice executive experience—Oh damn! [at which point he hung up]

Regarding Schmidt's final point, Palin will indeed bring the GOP ticket a dose of executive experience; granted, she's only been Alaska's Governor for two years, but that's nonetheless two more years than Senators McCain, Obama, and Joe Biden (Obama's VP) combined. In addition, she's clearly a formidable voice on energy/oil (a huge political issue in Alaska), which signals that McCain will continue to "drill" into voters minds the assertion that whereas the Republicans would lower gas prices by tapping offshore (and perhaps ANWR) oil supplies, Barack Obama would merely hand out tire gauges.

On the topic of Palin as a person, I've discovered that she: (a) seems quite likable; (b) has a son who will soon head to Iraq; and (c) has faced significant adversity in her personal life (e.g., her four-month-old son, Trig, has Down Syndrome). That said, all of these points can also be attributed to Joe Biden, so it's difficult to imagine that the RML (Running Mate Likablitity) factor will swing votes disproportionately in either direction.

Otherwise, while Palin is obviously knowledgeable on Alaska's state economy, I've seen no evidence to suggest that she's especially qualified on the national economy (like, say, Mitt Romney), which will do nothing to reassure those concerned by McCain's own Dec 2007 remark that: "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should".

Furthermore, Palin appears to have zero record on foreign policy. One of the few comments of hers to have surfaced in reference to a foreign policy issue stems from a Dec 2006 interview for Alaska Business Monthly. In response to the question, "How do you feel about sending more troops into battle, as President Bush is suggesting", she said:

I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq. I heard on the news about the new deployments, and while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place; I want assurances that we are doing all we can to keep our troops safe. Every life lost is such a tragedy. I am very, very proud of the troops we have in Alaska, those fighting overseas for our freedoms, and the families here who are making so many sacrifices. [emphasis mine]

Many voters will find this apparent lack of foreign policy experience concerning in someone who would be second-in-line to the Presidency—especially since McCain has a history of health problems and, if elected, would be the oldest President in US history. Moreover, Palin's lack of experience in general should completely undercut McCain's argument (on which he'd gained significant traction) that his campaign boasts a thicker resumé than Obama/Biden.

The more I think about it, the more McCain's choice reeks of an assumption that would-be Hillary Clinton supporters will be either angry or gullible enough to conclude that McCain—simply because he's chosen a female running mate—is somehow more in tune with their interests than Sen Obama. That Gov Palin explicitly praised Clinton during her speech on Friday only heightens one's sense that this was largely a political ploy aimed at Hillary Democrats.

However, given the stark contrast between (a) the GOP/McCain's platform and (b) the political priorities of those he's trying to court—not to mention Sen Clinton's enthusiastic embrace of Sen Obama at last week's Democratic Convention—I cannot imagine this apparent ploy working to McCain's advantage. To the contrary, I predict that the number of Hillary Democrats who will now vote McCain because his VP is a woman will be roughly offset by the number of paternalistic Republicans who will now not vote McCain because his VP is a woman.

In conclusion, Palin is an accomplished and impressive politician who may very well prove to be a quick learner when it comes to campaigning and debating on national economic and foreign policy issues. But if she isn't quick on her feet, McCain will surely come to regret his choice.

Gullible's Travels

Recent events have been quite momentous, at least to the extent that never before had all six members of Brumpelstiltskin (BS) vied so aggressively for the rights to document the same topic. Greenspanke, for instance, jumped at the financial implications; whilst Michail dubbed it an ideal tie-in to his planned piece on Presidential historian Allan Lichtman; and MC Gallagher, with not a hint of sarcasm, decreed it the stuff of rock operas.

In the end, though, the events were judged so ridiculous and coincidental, so cruel yet comical—so, well, Dickensian—that we decided that I (as the closest thing Mic's Tape has to a literateur) should have the honor of attempting to do them justice. So here, without further ado, is the recent tale of a certain (unnamed) BS member's first 48 hours in his new apartment.

Chapter I
On 31 Jul 2008, after weeks of tempestuous sorting and tumultuous cleaning amid the howling winds of procrastination; after hours of bitter packing amongst the frigid limitations of a 14-foot U-Haul; after nearly backing said U-Haul into the porch of his soon-to-be former residence, thus commencing a turbulent transport over the roiling potholes of cobblestone streets; and, finally, after nearly securing sweet shelter (for both himself and his belongings) from the chaotic storm of moving, our young hero naively closed the auto-deadbolting door to his new abode—thereby locking 10% of his belongings, four friends, and himself without; and 90% of his belongings; one friend’s purse, and his house KEY within!

Chapter II
In response, rather than pay Landlord a scorchingly steep after-hours unlocking fee of $50 (before his lease had technically even begun, no less), our protagonist opted to sojourn at a friend's, where he lay awake, tossing and burning in vexation until the seething heat of self-reproach at last yielded to sleep. He awoke the morning of 1 Aug 2008 and, with the searing smoke of his recent blunder still thick in his mind, drove to Landlord for the spare key, and thence back to his new parking lot where, with his final load of belongings in tow, he prepared to re-enter his new abode, and thus extinguish any last embers of exasperation.

But alas, after shifting into Park he realized that he could not remove his car KEY from its ignition. Believing it to be physically stuck (and not bound by electrical glitch), he ingenuously responded by removing a set of pliers from his IKEA toolbox (situated irresistibly beside him in the passenger seat), which of course resulted not in success but in quite literally breaking his key in two—half in said pliers and half still in the ignition—hence reigniting the fiery flames of frustration!

Chapter III
Soon after phoning Mechanic to order an expensive ignition removal device, our hero somehow managed to remove the car key using the considerably less expensive apparatuses known as thumb and forefinger, and thus canceled the aforementioned order only to then, upon checking his mail, make the wrenching discovery that his postal box lacked a latch for locking, which he knew could come back to screw him should his hammered college-aged neighbors decide to open his box and theft coveted Netflix envelopes (or other valuable parcels). At once, he bolted back to the phone to request prompt maintenance from Landlord and, on the following afternoon of 2 Aug 2008, he returned home to find new hardware on his postal box.

But lo and behold, into said hardware his mail KEY no longer fit! Now on the verge of going completely nuts (and convinced that surely a new key had been left on the premises), he proceeded to implement a lengthy, scouring search of his new dwelling. And just when we thought every last inch had been sifted through, and just as he prepared to clamp his head within the liberating vice of a stiff drink, he looked up and saw—there, in the most obvious and rational of places—his new mail key taped to the inside of his new front door. "Oh, what a massive tool I am", he thought to himself as he grabbed the key. And from there he could only smile.