This Time, It's Personal

Just Because You Work Hard Doesn't Mean You'll Be Rewarded With Better Pay

2014-02-25T06:00:00.000-07:00

One of the basic tenets of our society is this:

If you work hard, you'll be able to earn a living.

People often equate working hard with wealth. If you aren't rich, you just haven't worked hard enough.

Those in the middle class who insist that tax breaks for the rich will benefit everyone often have high-flown ideas that, since they are awesome and they work hard, they "deserve" to be rich eventually, and they will finally be blessed with worldly wealth -- God's reward to the righteous and hard-working.

The unfortunate reality is that hard work doesn't mean that you'll end up with more money. Some of the hardest-working people I know are those with two jobs, who can barely make ends meet.

You can be productive as you want, but anyone starting out in a certain socio-economic situation is likely to stay there, even with a great deal of hard work. This largely has to do with the way wealth is distributed in the United States right now.

That's right: Worker productivity has been increasing. People are working harder. And their wages aren't keeping pace.

Study after study shows that since the 1980s there has been a growing wealth gap. The middle class -- the backbone of our economy -- has been shrinking for decades now, and wealth is increasingly concentrated in fewer hands. The growing wealth inequality has become even more pronounced since the year 2000.

So, even though worker productivity has been increasing, the people doing the actual work aren't seeing the benefits. Part of the reason for this is the way the wealthy make their money. Many of those at the top of the socio-economic scale make their money off of money. They aren't actually earning wages. And that's why a large portion of the wealth created in recent years goes to those already at the top, as reported by the New York Times:

Wages have fallen to a record low as a share of America’s gross domestic product. Until 1975, wages nearly always accounted for more than 50 percent of the nation’s G.D.P., but last year wages fell to a record low of 43.5 percent. Since 2001, when the wage share was 49 percent, there has been a steep slide. ...

Some economists say it is wrong to look at just wages because other aspects of employee compensation, notably health costs, have risen. But overall employee compensation — including health and retirement benefits — has also slipped badly, falling to its lowest share of national income in more than 50 years while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share over that time.

For those at the top, it doesn't matter if wages stagnate or drop, as long as the economy keeps chugging along, with corporate profits increasing and the stock market doing well.

Even before the Great Recession, this income equality was growing. Between 2002 and 2007, 65 percent of the nation's income growth when to the top 1 percent of households. That's huge, when you think about it.

Continued income inequality, and its causes, isn't just about the fact that your hard work probably isn't going to mean more wealth for you. Part of the issue is that opportunity often accompanies wealth. I'm well-aware that I had opportunities, growing up middle class, that someone growing up poor probably doesn't even know about. Access to education, ideas, and opportunities all accompany wealth. The wealthier you already are, the better your chances to maintain that wealth or improve it.

We like to think that hard work and gumption alone are enough to ensure wealth and upward social mobility. Horatio Alger stories are, after all, ingrained in the American psyche. It could happen to you. This might have been true in the 1950s and early 1960s -- a time shaped by high top tax rates, and a thriving middle class in which CEO pay wasn't more than 300 times worker pay, and a healthy fear (prompted by memories of the decade following the crash of 1929) of letting the financial sector have its way. Unfortunately, all of the things that made that economic watershed possible were systematically undermined in the following decades.

The situation is different now. Social mobility has all but disappeared, so no matter how hard you work, chances are that it isn't going to result in long-term wealth. And as long as you are content with "enough," that really isn't a problem. The depressing thing is that you can work very, very hard and still find yourself barely able to get by.

The last time the wealth gap reached such proportions the result was a little something called the Great Depression.

Naming Babies: How Weird is Your Name?

2014-02-18T08:20:00.000-07:00

I read a post on the blog wait but why not too long ago. It was about baby names, and how some of them are classic, and others are fad. (Interestingly, it appears that Utah is a leader in starting baby name fads.)

I thought I'd pop on over to the site mentioned in the post, The Baby Name Wizard, and see the stats surrounding my name. It was kind of fun:

As you can see, my name saw a huge peak during the 1990s. According to the Wizard, the popularity of the name peaked in 1995. This doesn't really surprise me because, well, Sex & The City. But it's sort of declined in popularity since then, not experienced a real drop off.

This is actually kind of annoying to me, because I really rather liked being the only "Miranda" around, and now there are all sorts of people running around with my name.

Other fun things I knew about my name before I looked it up on the site (but the info is there as well), there is a character in Shakespeare's The Tempest named Miranda, and there's a moon in the solar system bearing that name (I never like to say which because it just invites crude jokes), named for the Shakespearean character.

So there you are. If you want to have a little fun with your name, head on over to The Baby Wizard and check it out. You can also take potential baby names for test drives.

Thanks, Society, for Undermining My Efforts to Keep My Son From Getting Caught Up with Traditional Gender Roles

2014-02-11T16:53:00.000-07:00

Not too long ago, while visiting at my parents' house, a trip to Home Depot was suggested for the sake of obtaining necessary items for a small home improvement project.

Out of my son's mouth came the words, "Home Depot is a man's store."

This distressed me because we're talking about a boy who sees a man cooking, doing dishes, and laundry. I usually take out the trash. Much of the time, the things being done at home are being done by everyone together, regardless of gender.

And there is much talk of gender roles around the table. So it was a little disheartening to see that, finally, society and the fact that traditional gender roles are constantly hammered into his head no matter where he is, and especially at church, he has succumbed.

So much for the little boy who thought it stupid that I couldn't baptize him.

At any rate, it doesn't help that everything has to be gendered these days. How do we make sure that women who use tools and guns are using the right tools and guns? Why, they have to pink, of course! (Language warning on that last link, for those that care.)

While I do agree that there can be differences between the genders, and I guess I have to believe that because I'm Mormon, I'm more interested in individual differences, and the fact that my gender doesn't totally define me. Unfortunately, practically everything, from toys to whiskey, is gendered.

I don't even like most of the stuff aimed at the ladies.

I worry that all this talk about "man" things and "women" things will only serve to continue to limit options for members of both genders, due to social pigeonholing that is hard to escape.

I Will Never Understand Our Hatred of Taxes for the Wealthy

2014-02-04T06:00:00.000-07:00

This is something that I don't get. I don't think it's "punishment" for success when the wealthy pay higher taxes. I'm not sure how contributing more to the general advancement of society is a punishment.

Part of the issue is that the wealthy tend to live in bubbles. Bubbles from which they rarely emerge. Their lack of contact with those in lower economic classes, according to various studies, means that they have a hard time feeling empathy for those less fortunate. In fact, some of the wealthy tend to look down on those without the same worldly assets -- and insist that everything they have came to them because of hard work and virtue.

Even those who have access to the privileges and opportunities that someone growing up poor wouldn't even know about, much less have the ability to grasp, believe that they "deserve" what they have.

And that means that "lazy freeloaders" shouldn't receive much of it in the form of services provided by taxes.

No matter how much screaming is done about the "47 percent" not paying federal income taxes, the reality is that the wealthy still benefit the most from tax breaks, and even those not paying federal income taxes are subject to other taxes. Additionally, it's worth understanding that, once you consider effective tax rates, the wealthy aren't being hammered as much as they seem to think they're being hammered.

During the last Presidential campaign, Mitt Romney said his effective tax rate was 15 percent. My effective tax rate is higher than that.

Part of the reason for that is due to the fact that the wealthy "earn" most of their income from investments and passive sources. So, even though their marginal rates might be higher, the effective tax rate is usually lower, thanks to tax breaks and the lower taxes paid on investment income with a favorable rate.

Romney and many other wealthy folks often come from families of some means. (There's nothing wrong with this, unless it comes with a propensity to look down on others and an obsession with keeping their money, everyone else be damned.) They have money to invest. The working poor, and many of those in the lower- to middle- middle class, don't have that luxury. The work just to survive, and feel lucky if they can set aside a little for savings. And many are scared of investing. One of the biggest rules of investing is don't invest what you can't afford to lose.

When you're living on the edge, it's hard to get excited about risking your money like that. As a result, it's hard to build wealth from the meager savings.

Plus, they have to pay taxes on earned income, and that income comes with Social Security taxes, which represent one of the most regressive taxation processes.

We should not even consider cutting Social Security benefits because, my GOD it's regressive, and many people are, in fact paying into the system. This tax weirdness is also a big reason that my effective tax rate is higher than Romney's. Since I'm a solopreneur, I'm paying the employer side as well as the employee side. Sure, I get a tax break for a portion of what I pay, but it still bumps up my effective tax rate. (And, honestly, I'm ok with that. I can afford my taxes better than many others can.)

And don't even get me started on the effective corporate tax rate. Big corporations are hardly suffering, no matter what the "official" tax rate is.

So, no, I don't understand why we can't raise taxes on the top 2 percent, or even the top 10 percent. The point in time that everyone remembers fondly as the greatest economic point in our country, with a growing and thriving middle class, was marked by a much smaller pay gap between CEOs and workers, much higher tax rates on the wealthy, and a belief that the social safety net was important.

And the best news? Higher tax rates on the wealthy probably won't even hurt the economy.

So, if you already have plenty, and then even more to spare, I'm not sure what the big deal is with a tax increase. I know it's because I'm a thick-headed, crazy stupid, bleeding heart liberal/progressive, but it just doesn't make sense to me. I guess I'm the one who lacks empathy, since I don't understand the plight of the top 10 percent.

Interesting Stats on Women and Finances

2014-01-28T06:00:00.000-07:00

After writing my last post, I found the following on women and finances, and thought I'd put them up. It comes StatisticBrain:

What I found most interesting is that only 16 percent of households are those where women don't work at all.

The Gender Pay Gap is Closing, But Will Women's Financial Situations Improve?

2014-01-24T06:00:00.000-07:00

One of the results of the march of time is that the gender pay gap is closing. Millennial women are catching up in terms of receiving equal pay for equal work.

However, the issue with the gender pay gap is that it's not just a matter of getting equal pay for equal work. Over time, the issue with women's finances is that, in many cases, it's more about the long-term effects related to:

Being dependent on a partner or someone else for finances, due to a traditional arrangement. Even if a woman has a part-time job, it is still fairly common for her to rely on a partner for most of her living.
Traditionally filling the role of caregiver. Women often take time off for years to stay home with children, and when there are elderly that need to be taken care of, women are often the ones to do this.

These things are not bad things. They are admirable. They are things that many women want to do and feel fulfilled doing. I need my work, and mothering doesn't appeal to me very much. There's a reason that I only have one child, even though I work from home.

Image source: Black Enterprise

ANYWAY, the point is that the realities of our society and women's traditional gender roles contribute situations in which women, regardless of whether or not they earn as much as men for the same work, have a lower earning power over their lifetimes than men.

Women might be leaving as much as $500,000 on the table over their lifetimes, because they don't negotiate higher salaries, and because they miss out on earning years. Other studies point out that women are at greater risk of financial difficulty in their later years because they have longer average lifespans than men, but lower overall earnings, so they might not have what they need as they age.

If their partners have done well, and saved well, a woman might be provided for as she ages, but that means that she has to rely almost entirely on someone else for her financial well being. If the partner hasn't done well, and a woman doesn't have her own assets, then she could be in trouble.

And what about women whose partners pass on, leaving them to care for children or other dependents? That can be even worse, if the woman doesn't have the education or skills to replace the lost income, and if there isn't enough life insurance to cover. What happens as the result of divorce?

While it's great that the pay gap is shrinking, and it should be shrinking, that doesn't mean that women are financially stable, and it doesn't solve all their problems. Especially since, as a woman, working toward your own financial solvency could actually jeopardize your marriage if you end up making more than your spouse.

Utah is Awesome When it Comes to Combating Homelessness

2014-01-14T06:00:00.000-07:00

Utah may be reeling from the latest plot by the gays to ruin Western Civilization, but there is an area in which Utah excels.

And, I'm proud to say, that this area is in reducing chronic homelessness.

Yes, I'm one of those bleeding hearts that passes out money to the homeless when I see them. Whenever we go to Salt Lake City, I bring money just for that purpose. The idea that I am doing some good for someone outweighs small fears that the money will be spent on booze.

Besides, I figure it's not my place to judge, and I can afford the "loss."

Anyway, Utah is home to a number of people who believe that wealth = virtue, and that there is a whole list of things you have to do before you "deserve" economic help. I love that one of the reddest states in the country is succeeding at eradicating chronic homelessness by giving away housing.

It's a pretty awesome program that started under Jon Huntsman (oh, how I wish he still held the office of governor) that has been seeing solid success.

Other states are now looking to the model, which is expected to almost completely eradicated chronic homelessness by 2015, and looking for ways to bank on the same success. Why? Because it actually costs less to give away housing that it does to deal with the societal and economic costs of chronic homelessness, according to WyoFile:

There’s no question that providing housing for the homeless is the right thing to do, for humanitarian reasons. But it also makes economic sense, so cities can spend less money and still help more people. In 2005, Utah did a study that found the average annual cost for emergency services and jail time for each chronically homeless person was $16,670. The cost to house them and provide case management services was only $11,000 per person.

For the most part, the program's success comes because providing the stability of a place to live means that the chronically homeless can focus on things like cleaning up, working with case workers to get whatever help they need (mental health, job services, etc.), and getting their feet back under them.

Too many of us take it for granted that we can boostrap our way to success. But I know that much of my success is a direct outgrowth of the fact that I have never had to truly fight for survival. While you can work your way out of such circumstances, the reality is that it's much easier to pull yourself up by your own boostraps when you have boots to begin with.

Acceptance of Individual Welfare ≠ Lazy and Undeserving

2014-01-07T08:00:00.000-07:00

I will never understand why, when talk turns to the budget and national priorities, so many people I know are quick to decide that all those lazy people on welfare should "just get jobs" (because it's so easy) and if they would "work hard" they'd have the income they "deserve."

Lots of people I know are all about cutting welfare, and cheer about the idea of "personal responsibility." While, to a certain degree, I agree with the idea, I also acknowledge the reality. Sometimes we need help getting on our feet.

The truth is that many of the people that we judge on welfare -- freaking out about cell phones and clothes and candy bars -- do, in fact work hard (or wish they could work more).

Here are two different illustrations related to welfare. They come from different sources, and, I think, rely on different time periods, so the numbers are different. I tend to think the one highlighted with green (from StatisticBrain) is probably a little more accurate:

The takeaway is that a little less than 20 percent of AFDC recipients actually remain on welfare long-term. A larger percentage, 53.5 percent, are off welfare within two years. This doesn't really match with the image many like to self-righteously associate with the myth of "welfare queen" living on the hog. However, the image of the "welfare queen," based largely on a one-woman rampage back in the 1970s, persists as the definitive view of someone receiving government assistance. Add in the idea that "most" of the people on welfare are getting free cell phones and abusing food stamps, and you have many people who look down on a group of people who are -- by and large -- just trying to get by in difficult circumstances.

Forget that many of those on welfare are the elderly, are veterans (don't even get me started on "patriotic" Americans who have no problem cutting programs that benefit veterans), and are children. Children.

Plus, believing that most welfare recipients are lazy and underserving, with a select few on the rolls who truly "deserve" the help (in spite of evidence indicating that the reality is the opposite case), makes it so much easier for middle class Americans to feel good about judging others' choices.

So many of us are so caught up on whether or not a welfare recipients should have a bigger TVs than their more "deserving," less poor counterparts that they aren't even paying attention to welfare recipients that claim more of their tax dollars.

Corporate Welfare

While I'm far too liberal, progressive, and populist to agree with most of what someone from the Cato Institute says, there are glimmerings of agreement. And this, from Doug Bandow, is something I can get behind:

Among the most outrageous expenditures is corporate welfare. Desperate businesses now overrun Washington, begging for alms. Believing that profits should be theirs while losses should be everyone else's, corporations have convinced policymakers to underwrite virtually every industry: agriculture, education, energy, housing, manufacturing, medicine, transportation, and much more.

He goes on to acknowledge that cutting the corporate subsidies that contribute to our current culture of socialized capitalism won't balance the budget, and he's right. But he does point out that, "cutting business subsidies would be a good start..."

One of the reasons that corporate subsidies would make a good start? How about the consideration that more of our tax dollars are spent on corporate welfare than on poor people. Please explain why you're so bent out of shape when someone on welfare buys new shoes, but it doesn't bother you that Exxon Mobil is receiving tax breaks and outright subsidies in spite of huge profits? Are you so concerned that your welfare-recipient neighbor might be cheating the system that you scrutinize every $50 purchase s/he makes, but you aren't worried about what huge (and profitable) factory farmers like ADM, Monsanto, and ConAgra are doing with your tax dollars?

It's a mindset that baffles me.

More taxpayer money goes toward subsidizing profitable corporations than goes toward welfare.

I know that people cheat the system. I know that people spend money on things they *shouldn't* buy. (Although, really, who hasn't?) However, I'd still rather see money going to actual people who probably need it than to profitable corporations that definitely don't.

Not everyone on welfare is morally bankrupt, lazy, and undeserving of help. And last I checked, it wasn't up to us to decide who was "deserving," anyway. Welfare recipients are bankrupting this country. These programs are, in reality, a relatively small portion of our national budget. And, even though corporate welfare also represents a relatively small portion, it's still a bigger portion than individuals. My priorities are more about helping people who need help, and I'm not going to freak out at the idea that a small portion of them might be abusing the system.

Just to help you feel better, here's an indication that you are still probably spending more in most categories that someone who's receiving government help. See? You probably do live better than someone on welfare. Aren't you glad you deserve your relative wealth?

I Hate That My Local Movie Theater Doesn't Allow Print at Home Tickets

2014-01-02T08:02:00.000-07:00

We bought movie tickets to see the new Hobbit movie, and we went yesterday. We bought our tickets online. I received an email from Megaplex asking for feedback. So I let them have it. Here's what I wrote:

I would really like to see the ability to print out tickets at home. I really hate that when I buy tickets online, I then have to go stand in line at the kiosk to pick them up. This is not convenient, so it becomes even more annoying when I pay a "convenience" fee on top of it. The former owners allowed tickets printed at home, and had a little scanner just at the entrance to the theater area to facilitate this. I'm not sure why this smaller chain could do it, but the high-tech Larry H. Miller Megaplex Theatres can't. Just about everyone allows print at home tickets when you buy online. I can get them for Jazz games and for the local play. It's possible for me to check into a hotel remotely. I used to be able to print out movie tickets at home, but I haven't been able to since Megaplex took over. This is a huge pet peeve of mine. Huge. That's the #1 thing that can be improved about Megaplex Theatres. I'd like to see print at home tickets.

You can tell this is Very Important to me. The only reason (in my mind) to buy tickets online ahead of time is to avoid standing in line to by tickets. I know that Megaplex can counter that buying tickets online allows you a better chance at good seats, but I think that's still B.S.

It wouldn't be that hard to institute print at home tickets. It happens everywhere. No, the world isn't going to end if this doesn't happen. I know it's very First World Problem. But, come on. I pay enough for a movie experience that I don't think this is too much to ask.

Happy New Year! Here's a Little Motivation in the Form of Shameless Self-Promotion!

2014-01-01T06:00:00.000-07:00

It's a nice, pretty New Year.

I feel pretty good about this one, too. Which is great. Because for the last couple of years I've been more blegh at the outset of a new year than anything else.

But I feel pretty good about this coming year. I've got an awesome goal to work less in the coming year, and I really think that I've learned a lot about goal-setting, making things work, and being happy with who you are.

Image source: Wallpapers Arena

It's funny how this sort of thing runs in cycles. Especially since "who you are" is so often a work in progress. So I guess I'm actually learning how to enjoy the process of becoming someone who is (hopefully) better than she used to be.

As you might imagine, the last couple of weeks have included several posts on setting and reach goals more effectively. So, if you're interested in moving forward in the coming year, here are a few tips from some of the blogs I write for, including gems from the past:

That should get you started with a brand new year. While most of the posts focus on money (of course), the principles can be applied to other things as well.

All the best to you and yours. I hope you have a very happy and prosperous 2014!

Utah, Gay Marriage, and the "Right" of States and the "Voice of the People" to Unreasonably Limit Others

2013-12-30T19:50:00.000-07:00

More than a week ago, a federal judge struck down Utah's ban on gay marriage. The ban was voted on in 2004, and became an amendment to the state constitution with a majority of 66 percent. Other states have enacted bans on gay marriage, and those are likely in "peril" as well.

As soon as the news broke, my Facebook feed exploded. Since the Phil Robertson thing erupted just before, it was like I couldn't escape the alarming prospect that gays are destroying Western Civilization As We Know It. (Yes, I know people who connected Phil Robertson with the Utah decision and connected both with a nefarious gay plot to ruin the lives of God-fearing people everywhere. Also, that whole "free speech" issue is one that I wish I had time to tackle, but there are plenty of others who have it covered, including the fact that many of the same people screaming about how a business shouldn't be able to fire someone for expressing himself are the very same people who I've heard express, rather forcefully, that businesses should be able to fire people for expressing themselves by being gay. Apparently only businesses with the "proper" "morality" should be able to fire at will. But I digress.)

So I've been thinking about the whole thing. I'm lucky because my family tries to avoid political discussions when we're all together for holidays. This makes things nicer for everyone because I'm a crazy liberal, there are a few centrists floating around, and there are a few clear conservatives, with a smattering of other political shadings mixed in. Everyone's happier if we avoid hot-button issues.

But I received several messages from various folks who weren't so lucky. They were stuck listening to tirades about how the evil federal judge is forcing his warped views on the righteous people of the State of Utah and requiring them to give those immoral gays "special" treatment. I was told, several times, that a blog post about this would be great. I'd probably write one anyway, since we all know how I feel about gay marriage, but it gives me warm fuzzies to know that there are at least six people who like my rants, and are disappointed when I don't throw something up here immediately when there's a chance I've got something crazy progressive to say.

Limits to the "Rights" of States and the "Voice of the People"

What I hear a lot is that this federal judge is ignoring the "voice of the people," who expressed their desires to deny an entire group of people the same protections they enjoy. (I know, I know: The Fourteenth Amendment probably doesn't count as a "real" part of the U.S. Constitution. After all, it wasn't part of the original founding document. /facepalm)

Others prate about the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and how states have the right to regulate such things as marriage and the people have the right to vote on these things.

However, it's important to understand that no right is absolute, even those granted to us under the federal Constitution. In fact, we accept restrictions on our stated rights all the time. Limits to freedom speech have been accepted by many of us, and the right to assemble peacefully are limited by the issuance of permits. Who hasn't heard of a "free speech zone?" Due process? Right to a jury trial in civil cases? These have limits. We accept limits on the Fourth Amendment, and on just about all the other amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. It's not unreasonable to assume that restrictions are necessary on what many consider the free-for-all ability to claim rights under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Most of us know instinctively that there are reasonable restrictions on our individual rights -- especially when we start crossing the line and infringing on others' rights. People like to say that states shouldn't be interfered with, either. It's a nice thought, but we have plenty of evidence from the past that letting states decide this sort of thing is usually just code for "we think we have the right to deny others equal protection and rights because a majority of people in this state don't approve of something."

In the case of gay marriage in Utah (and other states with similar bans in place) there is no compelling reason to deny gay couples the same rights and protections that we associate with the legal status of marriage. The best reason most people upset about this whole thing can come up with, in terms of restricting this right (and freaking out and trying to stop the gay marriages being performed all over the place in Utah), is "the Bible says homosexuality is wrong." Oh, and there is also the perennial favorite, "my church teaches that it's a sin."

You can debate whether or not it's a choice, whether you should go Old Testament on the subject or consider the fact that in the New Testament Jesus doesn't say anything about it, or address any number of questions regarding the morality of homosexuality (especially since there are large numbers of gay people who are religious).

But the real question is this: Does the fact that you think it's a sin, and the fact that the people around you agree that God says it's a sin, give you the "right" to deny someone else the ability to claim the same legal and tax status that you take for granted?

At this point in time, I'm a religious person, and for now I belong to a religion that views acting on "same-sex attraction" as sin. While my own feelings about the doctrine are mixed and require sorting out, I am able to quite clearly see that the teachings of my church shouldn't be legislated in a way that infringes on reasonable rights and protections that others deserve to have. Just because my church teaches something doesn't mean that I should be part of a cadre that wants to force others to live by that creed.

We don't live in a theocracy. The United States government was designed, in part, to avoid theocracy. Basing secular law on religious interpretations that not everyone believes/agrees with isn't really kosher. When people and states start trying to codify morality, things get ugly (well, uglier than they already are in politics). What I love is that, since nothing in the original laws of the land expressly forbid gay marriage, the assumption is that gays inherently have the legal right to marry. That's why states like Utah felt a ban was necessary and why DOMA was passed back in the day. These types of laws are designed to fix "moral" "oversights." Otherwise, those gays will apply for marriage licenses! And without a law telling them they can't get married, they'll likely go ahead and do so! And good, moral society as we know it will disintegrate! Goodbye to Western Civilization!

There's no non-religious reason to deny gays the ability to marry. Allowing a vote on this type of ban unreasonably restricts the "pursuit of happiness" (not in the Constitution, or codified by law, true, but still an essential part of political and legal values in the United States). It doesn't diminish your marriage (or ability to marry some day) as a heterosexual if homosexuals decide to tie the knot.

They aren't even getting "special" treatment. They are actually -- finally -- getting treatment and protections that most other non-gay people already take for granted.

Merry Christmas to All!

2013-12-24T15:59:00.000-07:00

I love Christmas. I love that it's (usually) cold outside but warm and perfect for hot chocolate inside. It's fun to put up decorations and have a tree. The novelty of Christmas movies is also fun. There's just so much that goes with the season. Even if you don't do the Santa Claus thing with the kids, there's a lot of fun during the holiday season.

Of course, my favorite thing about Christmas is that I get to sit on the couch all day and read. I also eat candy until I feel sick. For some reason, that's part of the charm of Christmas.

Our Christmas tradition revolves around chilling out all day. No rushing around. No trying to make it to various events. We head up to my parents' after Christmas. This is fun, and I like spending that time with my family, but on Christmas Day itself it's really about us.

Yes, that's right. We're kind of selfish on Christmas. We do the things we want to do. I read. My husband goes back to bed. My son enjoys his presents and watches movies. It's the one day a year that we have no obligations at all.

And we like it.

Everyone has their own Christmas traditions. Hopefully, you get to spend Christmas the way you want to. Best wishes for a Merry Christmas.

Keeping it Real: Why Our Son Has Never Believed in Santa Claus

2013-12-20T23:17:00.001-07:00

This week, I saw passed around on Facebook, a post on the "sweetest" way to let your child know the truth about Santa Claus. The post shares a story of a mom who answered her daughter's request for more information about the nature of Santa Claus with a note about the idea of sharing and love and helping.

I guess that's nice.

Image source: King Prince via Wikimedia Commons

My husband and I have always been firmly in the "Let's be real about this whole thing" camp. Part of it might have to do with the fact that we felt kind of silly going through this elaborate hoax for our son. And part of it had to do with the idea that we really didn't want our son to have a series of experiences in which "people" he couldn't see turned out be fictional. (We never did the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy or Leprechauns, either.)

Think about it: Who's next in line for the, "I'm sorry but he doesn't really exist" speech after all of these other characters turn out to be fake? I guess that's kind of a silly rationale, since I managed to make it into adulthood as a believer in Jesus Christ, even after being lied to about how my presents appeared under the tree.

The bottom line is that we never felt comfortable with the idea of promoting Santa Claus as a major part of the Christmas experience (although, to tell the truth, we don't actually do much with Christ, either, but that's another post). So our son's presents have always come from us. And when he asked us about Santa Claus, curious to know why it wasn't part of our tradition, we were straight with him.

We told him that there are stories about a nice man who gave presents, and that the idea isn't a bad one. Shouldn't we all be generous? But we were firm that there is no Santa Claus now. But we did sit down and tell him that some parents and kids think it's fun, and that he should, under no circumstance, tell the other kids that Santa Claus isn't real. It's not like we're trying to ruin others' holiday experiences.

And, really, the whole Santa Claus thing falls in line with the way we are kind of straight shooters with our son. If he asks a question about something, we're going to answer truthfully, and do our best to explain in an age-appropriate manner.

If that makes us Grinch-y, I guess we're guilty as charged.

Has It Occurred to You that Women ARE "Taking It Up With God"?

2013-12-10T08:00:00.000-07:00

Our new home teacher has no idea what he's gotten himself into. As a relatively new person in the ward, and due to the fact that we are kind of anti-social in the neighborhood so only a few people really know the extent of the crazy up in this house, the new home teacher made a bit of a blunder on his last sit-down visit, and assumed the following things about us:

We're conservative
We don't question anything heard at General Conference
We're totally ok with traditional gender roles
We think the whole ORDAIN movement is funny

Anyway, I don't know if he's been apprised of the fact that we're crazy liberals, but...whatever.

Last time he was here, he made some flippant comment about the women who wanted entrance to the last Priesthood meeting at General Conference. He said something to this effect: "Why don't they take it up with God?" Snort. Chuckle. I've Shut Down Every Argument. Silly Ladies.

My husband and I exchanged looks. We moved on.

But afterward the comment continued to bother me. And still, two months later, it continues to bug me. Josh wishes he had said something like, "I don't see anything wrong with women being ordained to offices in the priesthood."

Just to see the guy's face. He also thinks that it's important to combat some of the attitudes that prevail about gender roles in the Church -- especially where we live. He regrets not following his first instinct to say something.

I didn't say anything because, for some reason, in these sort of pseudo-social settings I act like I'm "supposed" to. Then I always hate myself for doing so.

My first thought was: "Has it occurred to you that these women are taking it up with God?"

I mean, if you believe that the prophet is the representative of God on earth, and if you believe that the leaders of the church -- men all, the ones that can really do anything in terms of practice and doctrine -- then bringing this petition to them is, in fact, taking it up with God.

What was Emma Smith to do back in the day? Just ignore how much she hated tobacco? Or did she bring it to God, by bringing it up with God's representative on earth? (Hey, and we got the Word of Wisdom!)

So spare me "the Lord says" and the "take it up with God."

Practices in the Church have changed before this, and they'll change in the future. It's the nature of progress and what happens in a religion that claims continuing revelation.

Watch out. The next big revelation could be something that results from women "taking it up with God" by taking it up with His representatives on earth.

Because I've Been Asked...My Talk on "Supporting Your Husband In His Priesthood Calling"

2013-12-03T23:25:00.001-07:00

Last summer, I gave a talk in church. I was assigned to speak on supporting my husband in his priesthood calling. Ignoring the fact that I'd love to see something about how husbands should support their wives in their endeavors, and brushing aside my annoyance that this was an effort to bring me not-so-gently away from feminist ways, I prepared a talk that features my favorite scriptural hero, Deborah.

(Incidentally, Deborah makes a great justification for ordination for women. Well, her and early LDS history.)

At any rate, I had a number of women comment that they:

Never heard of Deborah -- which I find sad. A few years ago, one of the last times I was in a Relief Society meeting, the teacher had each of us name a favorite prophet. While everyone else picked old men or dead men, I named Deborah. No one had heard of her in that meeting, either. I think it's too bad that we're all taught about male role models, and we don't have a range of female role models. And those we have are watered down these days, softened to fit roles assigned by gender (Eliza R. Snow, anyone?).
Wanted a copy of the talk.

I thought it was somewhat subversive when I first wrote it (at least many of those who think that Josh needs to get his wife under control would think it so, if they hadn't been sleeping through Sacrament meeting), but I can already think of ways to make it even more subversive. And I really think that I'd change some things because some of the terminology I used and some of the sentiments I expressed don't really reflect my true feelings. But we all have to remember the audience at some point.

Image source: http://en.nhipcautamgiao.net/assets/images/People/deborah-prophet.jpg

Anyway, because it was asked for, and this is easier than printing out copies and taking them around, here is the talk:

Since my primary days, my favorite Scriptural role model has been Deborah. When I was assigned to speak on supporting my husband in his Priesthood callings, turned to the story of Deborah for inspiration.

Deborah’s story can be found in the fourth and fifth chapters of the book of Judges in the Old Testament. She was a prophetess who served as a judge in Israel. At the time, the Israelites were oppressed by a Canaanite king. The Lord had called a man named Barak to lead an army against the Canaanites. He was a little slow to heed the call.

Deborah called Barak to see her, and reminded him of his duty to the Lord and the people of Israel. Barak agreed to lead the army against the Canaanites, but only if Deborah came with him. Deborah agreed, and the Canaanites were vanquished.

Even though the Bible indicates that Deborah’s husband was another man, we can still learn about how to support our husbands in their priesthood callings from the interactions the prophetess had with Barak.

Deborah’s support of Barak’s calling from the Lord had two parts. She reminded him of his duty, and she went with him as a partner. As wives, can support our husbands in their Priesthood callings by behaving in a similar manner.

We can remind our husbands of their duties.

There is a publication that the Church puts out titled, The Latter-day Saint Woman: Basic Manual for Women. The manual suggests that we encourage our husbands to fulfill their callings in the church.

Smith’s Bible Dictionary points out that Deborah had the power of prophetic command. She could essentially tell Barak what the Lord wanted him to do, and remind him, bluntly, of his calling. Of course, Deborah wasn’t Barak’s wife.

As wives, our reminders to our husbands should probably take on a different cast. We can offer gentle reminders of meetings, and ask our husbands if they are planning to participate in an upcoming quorum activity. We can offer encouragement when our husbands attend church meetings and activities, go home teaching, or prepare lessons. Rather than complain when our husbands are out serving the Lord through their church callings, it can help to be cheerful.

When we lived in Syracuse, New York, my husband often accompanied the missionaries on splits. I enjoyed seeing his enthusiasm for the work. While I sometimes missed him in the evenings, I tried not to complain about his absence because I knew he was doing important work.

Besides, we want to be supported in our own endeavors to fulfill our callings. It only makes sense to support our husbands as they work to fulfill their duties.

The manual also suggests that we ask for blessings when we need them, providing our husbands with the opportunity to call on the power of the priesthood on our behalf.

My mother set a great example of supporting my father in his priesthood duties. The night before I married, my mom took me aside and suggested that I ask my dad for a blessing as I embarked on this new phase of my life. Her influence prompted my request, and the resulting blessing reminded me that my Heavenly Father is mindful of me.

I have also had the opportunity to request blessings from my own husband, and have been glad that he has always been willing to fulfill his duties in that manner. Asking for blessings, and encouraging our children to ask for blessings when faced with new challenges and new experiences, can be one way to express confidence in our husbands.

Another way we can remind our husbands of their duties is through example. We don’t always have to tell them to fulfill their callings. In fact, few of us like to be nagged. You can’t force your husband to do what you think – or even know – he should be doing. We all have agency, and belaboring the point in an effort to compel your husband to do his duty can only result in hard feelings.

In Doctrine and Covenants Section 121, verse 41, we read that, “No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned.”

While this passage was aimed at those ordained to offices in the priesthood, it also applies to those of us who plan to support our husbands in their callings.

Rather than nag, it’s possible to set an example by the way you magnify your calling in the church, and the way you fulfill your responsibilities. Whether it’s regular temple attendance, completing your visiting teaching, or attending your own meetings, you can set an example that is of use to your husband – without the need to tell him what he should be doing.

Set an example, and follow the counsel of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He said women should concentrate their faith and prayers for their husbands. He said that wives should “sustain and arm” their husbands with their prayers. It seems like a relatively small thing, but showing confidence in our husbands, and praying for them, can be one way to support them in their priesthood callings and duties.

We can go with them.

Just as Deborah agreed to go with Barak to provide her support and partnership in his endeavor, we can support our husbands by acting as partners with them, and working with them, as they fulfill their priesthood duties.

In The Family, A Proclamation to the World, we read that, “Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives – mothers and fathers – will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.”

While the Proclamation acknowledges the need for individual adaptation to circumstances, it is clear that in a two-parent home, where there is a husband and wife, a partnership exists in all things. As women, we need to be like Deborah and hold up our end of the partnership.

One of the things I found most interesting about what the Latter-day Saint Woman teaches about how women can support the priesthood is that women need to look to developing their own characters. The manual says, “We must work continually to perfect our own characters and fulfill our responsibilities.”

Some of the ways the manual suggests that women develop themselves so that they are better able to support others in their endeavors include learning of Jesus Christ, praying, and being anxiously engaged in a good cause.

An oft-heard piece of advice is that you need to take care of yourself before you can take care of others. In the Church, this reality works a little differently than in the world. A wise Institute teacher once explained that the way we take care of ourselves first is to turn to the Lord and to boost our own faith. When we turn the Lord, He can then fill us with His love for others, and we are better able to support the people in our lives that need it.

This includes our husbands, and our ability to support them in their priesthood duties and callings. As you take care of your own spiritual needs, working to build up your faith, you will be better able to support and uphold your husband in his priesthood callings.

Deborah supported and upheld Barak in his efforts to fulfill the calling of the Lord. As a result, the people of Israel were freed from oppression. I have a testimony that, as wives, we can support our husbands in their priesthood callings and that our support can make a spiritual difference in our families.

I've Been Thinking A Lot About Mother Teresa

2013-11-20T18:44:00.000-07:00

My senior year in high school, we were required to write a research paper on a modern hero. I can't remember the exact parameters used to determine "modern," but Mother Teresa qualified, since she had only died a few weeks before the assignment was announced.

In order to prevent what was sure to be a rush of Mormon kids choosing Gordon B. Hinckley, the rule was made that only one person in the class could write about a particular hero. The teacher started at one side of the classroom and just pointed to students in order, making a note of what students had said. There were a lot of religious kids in the class, and, other than sports stars and Princess Diana, religious figures were prominently chosen (it's a good thing there are plenty of LDS apostles, in addition to the prophet).

I was no exception. Except instead of choosing a modern Mormon leader, I chose Mother Teresa. I managed to annoy one of the two Catholics in the class ("Are you serious? That's who I was going to pick since Pope John Paul II was already taken! What's wrong with you? You're not even Catholic!")

But I admired Mother Teresa. I thought she was amazing, living among the poor and making so many efforts for good in the world. Today, I don't agree with all of the sentiments she expressed on various issues, but I still think she was an amazing woman.

At the time I wrote the research paper, I didn't know about the existence of the so-called "dark letters" which were published in 2007 in the book Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light: The Private Writings of the Saint of Calcutta. Those letters weren't public at the time.

Now, though, they are public (and have been for the better part of a decade) -- and they reveal something interesting about Mother Teresa. She doubted the existence of God. While she remembers feeling as though God had called her to work, and while she had experiences of closeness to God, she also had a decades-long feeling of abandonment and even wrestled with the idea that God doesn't exist.

I've been thinking a lot about Mother Teresa and her struggle. Some might think that it's hypocrisy to keep working in the name of Jesus, and proclaim Him while having private doubts, but I really don't have a problem with that. If anything, it makes me admire her a little more. She kept calling to the divine, even through her doubts. And it illustrates the altruism of her work with the poorest of the poor, since there were times when she didn't even have the hope of heaven as a reward.

My thoughts have turned to Mother Teresa because sometimes I struggle with my own belief. I know that our brains are wired for God, and for experiences that support conversion and feelings of closeness with divinity. And there are days that I ask myself what I believe. Especially when I consider whether or not what I think, feel, believe, hope for, want, or whatever matches up with some of the stuff that's being taught.

Do you just carry on even with the emptiness? Many of the trappings are still observed, from scriptures to prayers to tithing. But sometimes I feel bad when I'm teaching primary. Do I really agree with what I'm saying? So far, I've managed to get through it with mildly subversive, but still doctrinally sound, items. Also, I have faith enough that I'm not ready to work toward tearing down someone else's faith. I have issues with certain aspects of the culture of Mormonism. But I'm not sure that's enough for the whole leaving it behind thing. Is because I feel a kernel of truth? Or is it so much a part of my identity?

Or am I just going through a bit of a rough patch? We all have doubts; that's the nature of faith. The real question is whether or not we overcome them. Or is the question whether we should overcome them? Mother Teresa carried on with everything weighing on her, and found a measure of comfort in her work. Maybe that's enough for now.

#FinCon13: Investing Doesn't Have to be Complicated

2013-10-22T10:58:00.001-06:00

Well, I've Been Put In My Place. Wherever That Is.

2013-10-06T20:16:00.001-06:00

I should be writing a primary program. The thing should have been written weeks ago, but I've been distracted by things like preparing for my book launch and playing a bigger role with the annual Plutus Awards (something for us financial bloggers). This weekend, with things winding down a little bit, and a lull in Stuff That Needs To Be Done, I should be writing a primary program.

But instead I'm reflecting on General Conference.

Like many Mormons, I use Conference Weekend as a time to listen and to ponder. Conferences like this encourage deep personal questions.

There are times when conference inspires me: I should do better! I can do better! I'm ready to be more Christlike! I want to be mindful of my fellow humans!

This conference, instead, felt like one big effort to put me in my place.

And that has me wondering where, exactly, my place happens to be.

President Uchtdorf gave a rather nice talk on how there's a place for all of those who have left the church. He addressed items that aren't often addressed when speaking of those who "fall away." This inclusive and happy, warm-fuzzy-inducing talk was surrounded on all sides by talks that make me wonder if there is a place for me.

Is there a place for a feminist who isn't particularly nurturing and who, honestly, doesn't derive much satisfaction from mothering? Is there a place for someone who listens to the Endowment ceremony, hears "preparatory to officiating in the ordinances of..." and thinks that maybe it's more of a practice/organizational thing that women aren't doing more in terms of leadership in the church?

I'm the primary breadwinner (although I do it from home), and there is a good chance I always will be. Sometimes I say bad words. I wear pants to baptisms. My husband is a far more patient nurturer than I am. Even though he has little patience with children in general, he still shows a greater aptitude than I for helping my son learn things. In fact, when you look at my marriage, pretty much everything is switched in terms of traditional gender roles. This household is so far removed from gender roles that my son thought it silly that I couldn't baptize him, and he had no idea that, in many homes, cooking and laundry are things that only the ladies do.

There haven't been many times in my life, from the number of kids I'm willing to have (thanks, Elder Oaks, for coming down on that) to the entertainment I enjoy, that I've conformed to traditional gender stereotypes -- particularly those that often define Mormon women. Maybe I'm being overly sensitive (and perhaps some would call it knowledge of my guilt). But it seems like nearly everything in this conference, from the over-simplification of what feminism means and what gender equality efforts are meant to accomplish in society, to the seeming-chastisement over the fact that it's completely my own choice that I have only one child, was an effort to make me feel bad about my choices.

And to make me feel as though the world is about to end. Because, you know, gays. (The issue of whether or not we should be forcing our view of morality -- whether or not we think it's God's law -- on others via legislation is the subject of another post.)

Maybe in a Few Years We'll See Changes

In spite of all the benevolent sexism preached from the pulpit, I do have reason to think that things are changing. (And that perhaps I do have a place.) My grandmother's brother, decades ago, believed that women would be ordained to offices in the Priesthood, alongside men, sometime within her lifetime -- and he believed it would be a good idea. My grandmother may not live to see it, but I might.

See, despite the talks this session, I've noticed something. This conversation is happening. Much like the decision to start ordaining blacks to Priesthood again happened only after a few years of discussion amongst leadership, and those conversations happened in fits and starts, this conversation is taking place as well.

Is there some stonewalling? Sure. But I notice that those involved with Ordain Women aren't being denied temple recommends and they aren't facing excommunication. Twenty years ago, this conversation wouldn't have been tolerated, and the women would have been disciplined beyond a denied entry to the Priesthood Session and a statement about how the women are "sisters" and Church leaders "want them among us."

Am I actively campaigning for ordination? I honestly don't know. What I do know is that it doesn't make me feel very welcome when it's repeatedly insinuated that I somehow don't have the right values, or that I'm not doing what I should because I don't feel and act like I'm supposed to, within narrowly defined gender roles. And I wouldn't be upset if women ended up serving in a number of positions only held by men currently (and, on another note, I'm not sure why a man who enjoys teaching children couldn't be a good Primary president).

There are precedents for women in prominent leadership roles. The language of the Endowment ceremony implies that women are prepared to officiate, even in the Melchizedek Priesthood, though right now we aren't ordained to offices in the church. So it wouldn't surprise me if we are headed, albeit slowly, in this direction.

Wearing the Pants? Moving Baptisms Along

2013-06-03T23:28:00.003-06:00

On Saturday, I crossed a line.

I sat at a stake baptism (wearing pants, as is my wont, although I'm not quite brave enough to wear my pants to sacrament meeting) on Saturday, and the thought occurred to me:

"I could do this."

Image via Book of Mormon Online

With two excited little girls waiting to for their ordinance, the bishop was nowhere in sight. Did he have a good reason for making us wait 15 minutes or so? I'm sure he did. But everything was already set. The properly ordained fathers were there to perform the baptisms. The properly ordained witnesses were on hand to...witness the proper performance of the baptisms. Really, all that was needed was someone to direct and preside and make sure everything was done properly.

And I had the knowledge, even if I didn't have the authority. So I sat there, thinking about the situation, and how we were holding up the entire stake baptism (there were a lot of children waiting), and if I were allowed to preside, as the primary presidency member overseeing baptisms, we would have been done -- and we wouldn't have been holding up the entire baptism.

So I was rather excited to listen to The Cultural Hall Podcast just up today. It was recorded just before the last General Conference (remember: they "let" a woman pray), but poor Ritchie T was worried about the results, so it took him a while to decide to publish it.

But I'm glad he put it up. Because after this weekend, I really needed something. Validation. Whatever.

It's an interesting discussion, and one worth listening to. A good reminder of the history of women and authority in Mormonism, and workable suggestions for restoring what has been lost -- with interest.

When Women Earn More: Can This Destroy Your Marriage?

2013-05-21T11:03:00.001-06:00

When Women Earn More: Can This Destroy Your Marriage?

Something I wrote over at PlantingMoneySeeds today. As a woman, could your earning power put your marriage at risk?

My marriage seems fine. But then, my husband is "man enough" to be happy with my earning power...

SCOTUS, DOMA, and My Decision to Change My Facebook Profile Picture

2013-03-27T10:42:00.000-06:00

This morning I finally made the decision to change my Facebook profile picture to this:

I am aware that I am rather late to the party. But, and I'm going to be honest here, I was a little concerned about what others would think. I don't often worry about that. But this is a Big Deal here in Utah, and changing my Facebook profile picture declared something.

And it declared something more unequivocal than the sad little word-vomits that a very few people have been privy to when it comes to my feelings on the Church and gender issues.

So I am a little nervous. There are already implications that poor Josh needs to get his wife under control, and, well, here's more proof.

My Problems with DOMA (and Prop 8)

I've long believed that the connection between the religious aspects of marriage and the legal/tax aspects of marriage is a problem. On the one hand, you have the religious idea of marriage. But not everyone has the same religious beliefs -- or any religious beliefs. And, on the other hand, our society confers a number of legal, tax, and employment benefits on those who fit the definition of "marriage."

I think those aspects of marriage should be permanently divorced from each other. If you want the legal, tax, and employment benefits we associated with marriage, I think you should go down to the Justice of the Peace, or register at the courthouse, or do whatever legal paper-signing is required to get that protection in a non-religious setting, without religious officiation. Then, if a religious ceremony is important to you, go ahead and do that, too. It neatly solves the problems we see when we continue to allow one specific set of religious beliefs to dominate the definition of what constitutes a legal partnership.

There are financial and legal benefits attached to marriage, and we either need to relegate marriage to the strictly religious realm and require everyone to get civil unions to have their partnerships recognized by the government, or we need to expand our society's definition of marriage.

DOMA legalizes discrimination against those who are part of same-sex partnerships.

Even if states pass laws about civil unions or marriage or whatever, same-sex couples just don't get the same tax treatment at the federal level because of DOMA. That's discrimination, pure and simple.

And, to be honest, I think the Church needs to address this difference. The Church affirms support for employment and legal rights for same-sex couples:

Further, while the Church is strongly on the record as opposing same-sex marriage, it has openly supported other rights for gays and lesbians such as protections in housing or employment.

As you can see, it doesn't address the issue of DOMA, or the fact that many same-sex couples are not receiving those protections because of legislation like Prop 8 and DOMA.

Marriage-as-religion needs to be separated from marriage-as-legal-partnership. When that is done, religions can choose whom to perform marriages for (just as they do now; not everyone can have a temple sealing, even if they are members of the Church), and same-sex couples can receive the legal, tax, and employment benefits they should be entitled to without all of this trouble.

Tithing, Taxes and Sacrifice

2013-03-26T14:00:00.000-06:00

Now that it's tax time, we hear a lot about what the government is doing with our money, as well as who "should" be paying what.

One of the popular ideas floating around is the flat tax, which is the idea that everyone should pay a flat percentage of their income. There are variations on the flat tax, and some even include limited deductions for charity, as well as some allowance for those who might be especially poor.

However, the version that many of the local Mormons prefer is a straight percentage, tithing-style.

Via Path To God

Tithing and Sacrifice

Recently, someone asked me if I thought what I was paying in taxes was "fair" considering we moved up a tax bracket for 2012.

"Wouldn't you rather go to a flat tax? Wouldn't it be fairer if you didn't pay any more of your income than someone in a lower tax bracket?"

While I think "fair" is an extremely subjective term, and it's not really something that you can quantify, I ignored my issues with the terminology and said, "I don't think that would be fairer at all. Someone who makes less than I do would have a harder time paying that same percentage."

And then, because we're both Mormon, he pulled out what he figured was his trump:

"But what about tithing? Isn't that fair?"

"No, not really," I replied.

Widened eyes. Stunned silence.

"Look at my income," I said motioning to the computer screen. "And then consider someone who makes $30,000 a year."

After I pay my 10% -- and even after I pay my fast offerings, and into the ward missionary fund -- I still have plenty of money left over to pay the bills and do the things I want. However, someone who makes $30,000 misses that $3,000 paid in tithing more than I miss the money I pay. That tithing comes out of discretionary spending. Even where I live, with a low cost of living, someone making $20,000 or $30,000 would be hard-pressed to enjoy a good quality of life, able to meet obligations. Paying tithing at that income level is a true sacrifice in a way that paying 10% (or more for other offerings) isn't for me.

"So you really think that they sacrifice more than you to pay tithing?"

"Yes," I said. Unequivocally.

Take a moment and consider the parable of the widow's mites.

Besides, even tithing isn't the "perfect" law. From the Mormon perspective, tithing is a preparatory thing. Something else is coming, and it's going to be all about giving more if you have more.

Yes, Paul Ryan. Let's Try THIS Again.

2013-03-22T07:30:00.000-06:00

One thing I get tired of hearing about is how Obama somehow managed to ring up the more than $16 trillion budget deficit all on his lonesome in only four years.

"We can't afford four more years!"

No, what we couldn't afford were the eight years previous to the Obama Administration.

While I agree that something should be done about the alarming growth of the deficit, the Paul Ryan budget doesn't exactly fit my priorities. Because making up for years of disastrous deficits, brought to us largely by wars and tax breaks for those at the top, by penalizing those who most need our help, is not my idea of the way to do things.

Yes, hard decisions need to be made. But gutting the entire social safety net is not the way to go about it. I find our national priorities disturbing. And I'm still annoyed that we somehow think that those at the top of the income scale are somehow too holy to touch.

Via The Blue State Journal

Besides, it's not like this budget, no matter how "impressive" some may find it, will actually balance the budget as claimed.

Hooray for fuzzy math.

So Much for Art Appreciation

2013-03-20T22:42:00.001-06:00

"I don't enjoy children this age."

My son's teacher looked at me in disbelief. She had just asked if I would be willing to accompany the class on a field trip. I told her that I was available, and able, but preferred it if she could take other parents first. I indicated she could call me as a last resort. Then I made my statement.

Such a statement must have seemed incredible from from a Mormon woman living in Utah. I don't know how common the sentiment is, but I do know that expressing it is rare.

The truth is that I have small patience with children between the ages of 9 and 19. I enjoy babies and young children, with their curiosity and eagerness to learn -- although actually raising another one holds no appeal for me. I like playing with babies, and working with little children, but I also don't mind giving them back to their parents.

My difficulties with children in my son's current age group re-asserted themselves yesterday when I taught art appreciation to his class. The task was enjoyable when he was in first, second, and third grades. Now it's just a task. I'm not sure I can do it next year.

Do I love my son? Of course. He's my son.

We have a lot of fun together. We play board games. We watch Star Trek. We bake brownies from scratch. We take road trips. He says funny things, and offers sometimes-surprising insights. But he's an only child, and he's different at home, with me, than he is when he's around other children. He can be rambunctious, and even obnoxious. I'm fairly certain that, as a 10-year-old, I was equally high-strung and obnoxious when surrounded by my friends.

It's not something we talk about a lot -- the fact that sometimes children annoy us. I don't regret having my son, and raising him is a great source of joy for me. But dealing with children is something I am not particularly patient about.

So, I'm not sure that I can handle another year working in the classroom. I've been told that I should be active in my son's school life; after all, I work from home and I "should" be volunteering at the school more than once a month as it is. But I think this will be my last year helping out in my son's classroom.

Spending time at the school isn't going to boost my relationship with my son. I can supplement his education at home, and we can spend quality time together. There's no real reason for me to go into the school -- unless they need more parent volunteers to help out.

I'm always ok to help out, but I just don't think that I can make the commitment. I don't find it fulfilling; I find it stressful, and not in a good way that promotes my growth as well as theirs. Everyone's probably better off with me not coming in.

Nerdiest Christmas Ever, a Shiny New Year, and The Culmination of Almost 20 Years of Wheel of Time

2013-01-13T22:35:00.000-07:00

One of the things I love about blogging is that I can just put stuff out there. Hardly anyone reads it, but it's kind of fun to write it anyway. Especially when I really should be doing something else. Like writing for money.

I've also been geeking out more than usual. Part of the blame for that rests with the awesome Christmas presents I received. During what was, without a doubt, the nerdiest Christmas I've ever experienced, I received a lovely glass and (real!) gold dragon, Star Trek Catan, a variety of items reflecting my love of Batman, and a pleather Darth Vader.

I was sick on Christmas Day (hooray for the flu), so all the nerdiness provided a pick-me-up. Nothing boosts my mood like a little serious nerdiness -- just ask anyone unfortunate enough to ask me about The Hobbit.

But, even with the improved mood, the New Year hasn't done much to excite me. Instead of thinking of a number of resolutions, I'm wondering what the hell I'm going to do with myself this year. Will we move? I don't know. What will I do about my "career"? I don't know. I know I'm unmotivated and I'm having a hard time getting moving. That could be just the time of year; there's a letdown of sorts after the holiday fun fades away and winter closes in.

All I know is that this is a shiny New Year, and it already feels dull to me. Perhaps I need an attitude adjustment. Whatever.

A Memory of Light: Saying Goodbye to Fictional Friends

The New Year has brought about an ending, though. I've had to say goodbye to some fictional friends that have been my companions for almost 20 years. In 1990, Robert Jordan kicked off his Wheel of Time series, and I started reading in high school. I was there through the author's death (having Brandon Sanderson work on the final books of the series let me in on his awesome work).

The series finally ended, and that has me thinking more about life, and the things we make important, than any work of fiction should. "It's like saying goodbye to good friends," someone told me after church today, when we discussed the books. I agree with him. Especially since (spoiler alert if you read the books and know me at all) my favorite character dies. She goes down in a spectacular blaze of glory, but she dies nonetheless.

I've quoted pithy sayings from the books, thought about the events, and even, Light help me, felt that the fictional characters were more real than some of the actual people I know. This sort of thing happens when you invest so much into something. And I've invested a lot of time and energy into the 14 Wheel of Time books.

At any rate, the big takeaway from the books is choice. We have to be able to choose what comes next in order to make life meaningful. Our choices end up defining us. Even though we sometimes choose wrong, we can still be redeemed. So I guess that means I do need to adjust my attitude.

And decide who I want to be in 2013.