This Time, It's Personal

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.

Obama vs. Romney: For Me, It's About Priorities

2012-11-05T15:04:00.001-07:00

As someone at the liberal end of the spectrum in a conservative state, and participating in a religion that many associate with conservatism and capitalism, I get asked a lot about why I vote the way I do.

Particularly why I plan to vote for a socialist Muslim who hates America and is actively plotting its downfall.

The simplest answer, of course, is that Obama really isn't any of those things. (I do want to make it clear that I have no problem with voting for a Muslim; my husband, though ok with a Muslim, was horrified when I, without hesitation, said I'd have no problem voting for an Atheist.)

To me, it's about priorities. Instead of focusing on the hate-filled lies, I look at which candidate most closely matches my own priorities. While I think the economy is important, the truth is that you don't fix something that was decades in the making, and the result of several different factors, in only four years.

Plus, I don't think that any president can do much to fix the economy anyway, between the stuff that has to be put into law by Congress and the influence of the Fed on monetary policy.

Instead, my priorities are more about the following:

Better education for more people (although I think that we need to focus less on college prep and more on skills)
Affordable health care for everyone (the latest health care reform isn't my favorite thing ever, but it's something)
Improved infrastructure
Reversing the growing wealth gap in this country

I'm also rather passionate about women's reproductive rights, as well as other issues traditional seen as "women's." And I'm reasonably interested in energy/environmental concerns, particularly those that touch on the public health issue of pollution and on progressing beyond our blind faith in fossil fuels.

In short, many of the policies that Romney seems to embrace, even though he would need a compliant Congress and/or Supreme Court for them to become reality, erase decades of economic and social progress. As a progressive, that bugs me. So, even though I'm not into party affiliation (or the two-party system for that matter), Obama comes the closest of major candidates that aligns with my priorities.

I don't care if you're fabulous businessperson. Fabulous businesspeople and their cash hoarding have been one of the reasons for a delayed economic recovery (and, some of these fabulous businesspeople, helped contribute to the most recent crash). I don't think the country does well when run like a business, and I certainly don't want it run in a cutthroat way, like Romney's darling Bain Capital.

Perhaps, if we ran the country in a way that looked to domestic priorities, and concentrated on creating a society that valued education, healthy citizens, technological/energy advancement, with a tax policy similar to what we saw during the watershed economic era known as the 1950s, we could still defend ourselves, and begin working our way out of the current hole. And eventually be better able to help others around the world.

To tell the truth, that's the sort of Mormonism I still believe in, and those are the kind of political policies I can get behind. I'm not into this wealth = virtue thing that seems to permeate much of Utah Mormon culture, and even society at large. Romney seems to embody wealthy entitlement (I EARNED it; it's MINE) in a way that Obama doesn't.

It's a tall order, I know. Particularly with the current realities of a political system beholden to profit-obsessed companies, steeped in socialized capitalism, who are considered "people." And superPACs. Can't forget the damn superPACs.

But a girl can dream. Obama, of the major party candidates, is the closest to my priorities. That's why I plan to vote for him.

Do You Really Think a President Can "Fix" the Economy?

2012-10-08T20:02:00.000-06:00

One of the things that really irked me about the first presidential debate held between President Obama and Governor Romney (other than Obama doing little to call out Romney on his prevarications) was the focus on the economy.

It bothers me because I really don't think it matters who the President is, in terms of the economy. Mainly because a number of Obama's ideas to kickstart the economy were never implemented, or extremely watered down, because it's not the president that makes the laws that make these things happen.

Congress is in charge of making those laws. So a president can make economic policy suggestions, but the truth is that Congress has more of an influence over what happens to our economy.

Actually, a lot of the policies that a presidential candidate campaigns on require Congress to carry out, whether they relate to the economy or not. This is a large reason why the left really hasn't been getting what it wants in the last four years -- especially since Republicans took back the House.

There's a reason Progressives have been disappointed, and that reason is that there hasn't been much progress made at all. From so-called "Obamacare" to bullying over the debt ceiling, to other compromises offered to Republicans (and often rejected), it's fairly clear that what the president intended when he took office, and what can actually be accomplished in Washington, D.C. are two very different things.

And there are few areas of policy where that is as true as with the economy. It really doesn't matter a whole lot whether Obama or Romney wins in terms of what will happen with the economy. There are the Fed's monetary policy decisions to deal with, and whoever wins will have to get his ideas through Congress. And that's likely to be quite difficult -- especially if the status quo is maintained.

Image source: Doug's World

News Flash: A Chick-fil-A Boycott Doesn't Threaten Freedom of Speech

2012-08-02T19:05:00.002-06:00

When did a consumer boycott turn into an attack on the First Amendment?

I've heard from several people recently that calling for a boycott of Chick-fil-A is an attack on free speech. In the realm of people I don't actually know personally, Sarah Palin has indicated that she feels that a boycott on Chick-fil-a has a "chilling effect" on First Amendment rights.

Gimme a break.

No one's sending Dan Cathy to jail. No one who has a shred of sense is even suggesting that he should go to jail. No one's forcing his company to stop donating money to whatever cause it wants to support. And, more importantly, the government isn't trying to shut him, or his company, down for his views and what is done with his money. That last point is important because here is what the First Amendment actually says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No one is trying to stop Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A from expression. Consumers aren't the same thing as the government, and customers have the right to call for a boycott, and express their dismay with a brand. And it's up to Chick-fil-A to respond to that.

But, apparently, Chick-fil-A doesn't need to worry about the boycott too much, because for all the customers that disagree, and won't eat at a restaurant that doesn't share their "values," there are apparently plenty of customers that agree with Chick-fil-A and will stick around.

So let's not pretend that the people who are boycotting Chick-fil-A are causing a Constitutional crisis.

Freedom of Expression Comes with a Cost

While we are free to express ourselves (leaving out slander and libel), we aren't always in control of the consequences that expression brings. The First Amendment guarantees that Congress won't make a law abridging your right to freedom of speech, and, by extension, implies that you won't be jailed or fined for speaking out against politicians. The First Amendment doesn't guarantee that your customers, with whom you are in a business relationship, won't attempt to economically penalize you for what you say when they don't agree.

Just ask Target and the Dixie Chicks what happens when a bunch of consumers don't like what you have to say. (Of course, none of the people calling current boycotters bullies and militants thought it worth defending Target and the Dixie Chicks. Apparently, it's only a crisis if you don't agree with the boycotters' sentiments.) Boycotts are the way that customers and fans let companies and artists know what they are thinking. Even advertisers can use their dollars, responding to consumer pressure in many cases, to show displeasure -- just ask Glenn Beck.

But, even though there might be an economic hit, none of that stops the opinions. Target's still in business, and still supports causes it believes in. The Dixie Chicks released a couple more albums and did just fine. Glenn Beck continues to influence those who agree with him and keep the money train rolling.

Buy According to Your Values

We live in a world where conscious consumers like to know that what they believe, and what the companies they do business with, align. (Of course, there are plenty of customers who just don't care; they want what they want, and don't care what the company says or does with the money they fork over.) Chick-fil-A gives money -- funded by chicken sandwich purchases -- to organizations that actively campaign against homosexuals. Some of these organizations, including the Family Research Council, have expressed the belief that homosexual activities should be criminalized.

Some consumers don't agree that the money they spend buying chicken sandwiches should be spent on activities aimed at criminalizing an entire group of people for their consenting adult relationships. Some consumers want to support David Cathy and Chick-fil-A because they agree with a certain view of "strong family values." Both sides have the right to express their views with their dollars, and with their voices.

And the targets of boycotts have the right to change their tune to retain customers, or they have the right to stay the course and risk the loss of revenue. But the right to freedom of speech is not in jeopardy in this case -- or in the case of most other boycotts.

The Internet has given rise to greater transparency. We know where our consumer products come from, and we know the conditions in the factories that produce them. We know what big companies do with their money, whether it's funding embryonic stem cell research or giving money in support of anti-gay causes. And we want to be able to let those companies know when we support them -- and when we don't.

This is the power of the consumer. If enough consumers say the same thing, and take action to a degree that it catches the attention of the company decision-makers, change can be enacted. At the very least, a boycott can spur a debate. But the issue here isn't freedom of speech. Because no one's freedom of speech is being infringed upon.

And what about me? Will I be eating Chick-fil-A? Well, I've only had Chick-fil-A once, when it first opened here in town. I found it mediocre and uninspiring. My husband makes better chicken on the grill, so I've never been back. Chick-fil-A can't miss a customer that it's never truly had.

Nice Cover, Businessweek /sarcasm

2012-07-15T21:34:00.001-06:00

Yes, you have the right to make a rude, mocking cover, and people have the right to call it "ballsy" or "funny" or "snide" or whatever they want.

But, really, it's just rude. And it sort of takes away from some of the interesting points that the article makes. It also begs the question: Would Businessweek have felt it "safe" and "appropriate" to mock another religion's sacred moments?

Ah, well, we all know that Mormons are among the last acceptable targets for religious intolerance.

I think the Businessweek article makes interesting points, and reveals interesting information and estimates about church assets. I would like to see more detail, from the church, on how the church uses its money, and what the holdings are. The cover, however, detracts and distracts from some of the valid points in the article.

Instead, the cover pretty much forces the reader to assume that Businessweek doesn't like the LDS Church, and is more interested in a takedown than anything else. The church is trying to tell its side of things, of course, but I think that more people read Businessweek than they do the Deseret News.

And, even though I found the Businessweek article interesting, and I do agree that it would be nice to have more information, I would also have like to have seen a little more from the Businessweek article. For instance, the Businessweek article made a lot of estimates about the income of the church (LDS Church spokespeople say that the estimates are too high), but didn't make any estimates about the expenses of the church, beyond exact dollar figures of money given to Humanitarian Aid efforts.

If they were going to estimate income for the church, it would have been nice if they had estimated expenses, too. Like: How much does it cost to assemble and ship hygiene kits and other needs-based items all over the world? How much does it cost to maintain Welfare Square? How much does it cost to send help victims of natural disaster? How much money is needed to maintain (utilities, upkeep, etc.) more than 100 temples, and thousands of meetinghouses, as well as run church history sites and visitors' centers all over the world? How much money is paid out to workers who build the buildings and how much is paid out to seminary teachers and others who have jobs because of the church? How much is used to fund Bishop's Storehouses where the less fortunate can go to get food? How much does it take to run the family history centers that anyone can visit to get help with genealogy work?

Yes, I'd love it if the church would be more forthcoming with this information. I'd love regular reports on income, and how the money is used. It would be nice to hear something beyond the assurances that tithing money isn't used to fund BYU athletics. (The Businessweek article was vague on the difference between what they think tithing money is used for, and what they think other monies, from other sources are used for.)

But if Businessweek is going to throw estimates of income assets out there, the least they could do is estimate the expenses that the church incurs as well. And it would be nice if the assumption wasn't that the Humanitarian Aid program is the be all and end all of the church's charitable efforts.

And there is no call to be so blatantly rude with the cover.

Happy Independence Day!

2012-07-04T11:34:00.003-06:00

It's a great time to remember our freedoms, and celebrate our country!

Remember: Even though we may disagree with each other, we all want our country to be great. Just because we go about things in a different way doesn't mean we don't love our country.

The founders disagreed about a lot of things. However, they were united in wanting to make this country great. Before you start accusing others of "hating America," let's take a step back and remember that we all want a great country.

Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they're unpatriotic. We'd all do well to remember that this country was founded by people who didn't always agree with each other, and we'd also do well to try and bring a measure of respect back into public discourse.

The Fourth of July shouldn't be about hate-mongering and trying to "prove" who's the "most patriotic." It should be a celebration of our country, as well as a time to remember to acknowledge and thank all who have contributed to the freedoms we enjoy.

Don't Worry: The SCOTUS Ruling on Health Care Won't Be the End of Freedom as We Know It

2012-06-28T22:57:00.000-06:00

I know several people who believe that the ruling handed down on the health care reform bill passed in 2010 is the end to freedom as we know it.

Honestly, though, there isn't a lot to be worried about. The first thing you have to realize about so-called "Obamacare" is that it isn't government-controlled health care. Don't worry; the government isn't going to run your health care.

You don't have to worry about the government telling you where to go, or denying you coverage. No, that power still rests firmly with the insurance companies. Corporate America is still responsible for rationing your health care, telling you which doctors to see, denying your coverage, and jacking up your premiums. (Don't kid yourself. Health care reform or no, the cost of health care will always go up. Premiums were rising at a rapid rate for years before health care reform, and costs will continue to rise even after. It's the way a for-profit health care system like ours works.)

Really, a public option would be nice. But we're not going to get it. For some reason, in our society, we seem to think that restrictions on our options by corporations are just fine. Laudable, even. However, once someone tries to give us additional options, like a health insurance plan that we can choose as an alternative to the lack of choices in the current system, we freak out -- because the government would be offering the insurance and requiring a sliding scale (based on need) premium. But I digress.

The point is that the new health care reform law doesn't really change the system in a very meaningful way. Some positive changes include no more denial for pre-existing conditions, and things like state insurance exchanges which could give self-employed people like me opportunity to find better deals, as well as a few other small improvements. However, it's not quite the sweeping overturn of freedom and order that many seem to think it is.

For most of us with health insurance already, it's really not going to change things. For those without health insurance, there is a requirement to purchase it; those with lower incomes will receive help. (If you are interested in learning what it means for you, the Washington post has a nifty tool. Hat tip: My buddy Steve at My Wife Quit Her Job.)

In fact, the idea of an individual mandate isn't all that new. A mandate on certain employers to purchase insurance for certain workers was passed in the very first Congress. Which, of course, included founding fathers. The first individual mandate for health care was passed 1798, and other individual mandates on other items have been passed. Honestly, requirements for the purchase of health care are as old as our nation and have even been considered by various leaders since -- including Republicans.

Bottom Line: Health care "reform" doesn't really change the system. Your health care remains safely in the hands of the virtuous corporations, and the totally incompetent and morally void government won't be interfering much with your actual coverage.

And you can take comfort in the fact that even the founding fathers passed laws requiring health care coverage.

Image source: Media Decoder

Republican for a Day

2012-06-26T22:58:00.000-06:00

Most people know that I am unaffiliated in terms of political party. However, whenever a primary rolls around, I change my registration to Republican so that I can vote in the primary. The GOP primary is closed here in Utah, so you can only vote if you're Republican.

In many states, that's not a big deal. You just vote in a primary that's open, and will let anyone vote. In Utah, the options for open primaries are the Democrat and Constitution parties. And, in Utah, that means that maybe you have a couple of races to vote on (there was one race for the Dems, and two races for Constitution). Come November, a number of the people on the ballot in Utah, especially locally outside of certain areas, are uncontested Republicans.

Really, if you want to make a choice in Utah, especially in local races, your option is the Republican primary. And to vote in the Republican primary here, you need to be a Republican. Luckily, they'll let you sign up at the polls. On the day of the primary. So that's what I do. And then I go ahead and change back to being unaffiliated the next day.

Learning the Truth about the Current Political System

While a two-party system isn't specified in the Constitution, it's pretty ingrained in our society. A kid, probably 18 and voting for the first time, was there ahead of me. The poll workers were trying to explain to him how primaries work, and how not anyone can just walk in and vote for who they want to during the primary.

There was another guy there, recently moved from Wyoming, who was adamant about voting in the Democratic primary, and the poor kid, idealistic and unaffiliated, ready to just vote his conscience, didn't know what to do. He didn't want to be labeled as part of a political party, but he also wanted to vote in a primary where he could make a choice. So I briefly explained what I do. "It's a bit of a hassle," I said, "but if you want a choice, and want to be remain unaffiliated, it's worth it."

What do you think? Would you go through the trouble?

Disappointment and Perseverance

2012-06-24T23:06:00.001-06:00

As Americans, we love stories of scrappy underdogs, and surprising comebacks.

This is not one of those stories.

My son is playing baseball this year. He played in a coach pitch league last year that wasn't very helpful in terms of teaching fundamentals. This year, though, he played in different league that was a little more advanced, and where kids pitched. Instead of giving five strikes, and letting everyone get a turn at bat (no outs), this year, kids were striking out and being thrown out.

Of course, we're talking about kids that are 9 and 10. So, really, the only way most of them are going to advance is by stealing on wild pitches. However, the ability to throw and catch was also very important in terms of playing the game.

The five teams were put together by a method that I'm not entirely sure about. It was fairly clear that my son's team was made up of all inexperienced players. Only one of them had played in this league before. This fact became painfully obvious when they played their first game. As they played the other teams, it was clear that the Rockies were going to lose. Every. Single. Game.

All of the other teams had a mix of players, and it was evident that they had practice at some of the fundamentals -- and that many had played in this league before. Anyway, their team is the only one left out of the playoffs, and they will finish the "season" without a win. (Well, I suppose they could win tomorrow, but I highly doubt it.)

But, throughout the season, my son has learned two valuable life lessons:

Sometimes life is disappointing: He already knew that we don't always get what we want. However, he had never really been part of a failed enterprise before. After feeling the great hopes of winning a game, they progressed to just hoping to get a few hits, and maybe play a few innings where they didn't have to rely on the 8-run mercy rule. All of the kids became acutely aware halfway through that they were no match for any of the other teams. The disparity in skill level was so large that no matter how hard the kids worked, they would never stand a chance.
Perseverance is important: Even though the season was clearly a lost cause, many of the kids still worked hard. My son practiced almost every day, working to improve. Many of the kids on his team showed marked improvement. It wasn't enough to win, but they did manage to get through some of the innings without requiring the mercy rule. They got a few hits, and they played to the end of the season. It would have been easier to just quit, but my son has learned the importance of finishing what you have started, and fulfilling your commitments -- even when it seems you won't receive the reward you would like.

In the end, my son did finally score a run (and they gave him the game ball for being the only person on the team to score that game). After a pitch hit him in the face, and after hitting the ball and being thrown out at first, and failing to steal a base at one point, he finally managed to make it home.

Sometimes, we have to battle through failure and disappointment. It's not easy. However, in a world where too few kids grow up learning how to deal with failure, and how to weather disappointment, learning these lessons early is important. In fact, few kids these days are exposed to the lessons learned from failure and disappointment, and few have the will to persevere and try hard in the face of difficulty. It's just too easy to give up -- and too often others excuse the behavior.

While this baseball experience has been painful for me to sit through, as well difficult for my son, it's been valuable. And, later, my son will know how to handle life's downs, as well as enjoy its ups.

Memorial Day...Don't Forget to Remember

2012-05-28T17:00:00.000-06:00

There's a reason we have Memorial Day. It's so that we remember. So, even though you might be enjoying some family time and barbecue this Memorial Day, take a few minutes to think about the sacrifices others have made on your behalf.

In a world that becomes increasingly materialistic, it helps to reflect on some of the things that are worth more than mere money.

We Can't Afford $363 Million to Help the Poor; But We CAN Afford Losing $47 BILLION in Possible Revenue from Millionaires

2012-04-18T14:46:00.008-06:00

My favorite thing about the debate over the Buffett Rule? The same guys insisting that $47 billion isn't worth taxing millionaires over are the same guys counting pennies when it comes to mammograms and birth control.

Thank you, Jon Stewart: "$47 billion in millionaires' money is less than $300 million in mammograms and birth control."

One I thing I noticed, though, is that the $47 billion is over 10 years, and the $363 million is each year. Over 10 years, that's $3.63 billion -- still a lot less than losing some of the revenue from the Buffett Rule.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

While there is definitely waste that needs to be cut from the budget, I don't think penalizing the poorest among us is the answer. Besides, we're beyond the point that cuts alone are going to fix the budget. We need to raise revenues as well. And, let's be honest, the wealthiest can afford it.

h/t: The Atlantic Wire

Here's to Hoping Liberals Avoid Attacks on Mitt's Mormonism

2012-03-31T17:14:00.002-06:00

With LDS General Conference solidly underway, I've been thinking a little bit about Mitt Romney, and the presidential contest. Mostly, I'm wondering what the Obama campaign is going to do if Romney gets the Republican nomination (and it looks like he should). There are plenty of things to attack him with as they relate to policy, but I worry that the real focus of the campaign is going to devolve into how horrifyingly weird and backward Mormons are.

So far, the Left hasn't done much in terms of attacking Romney for his Mormonism. Obama and other liberal politicians haven't had to. Fellow Republicans have been doing a fine job of attacking Romney's religion throughout the primaries. And, while polls show that, in general, liberals dislike and distrust Mormons more than conservatives do, so far that hasn't translated into very many presidential-race type attacks on Romney for his faith.

I'm really hoping that Obama and his advisers remember that there are liberal Mormons running around. Mormons aren't just a monolithic bloc. We think of Mormons as living in conservative Utah, and it's easy to assume that Mormons are a throw-away population that politicians, particularly those of liberal bent, don't need to worry about.

However, only 12% of all Mormons live in Utah. It's true that there are more Mormons living outside the United States now than living in it. However, it's also important to realize that there are plenty of Mormons living in the U.S. that identify themselves as liberals. Just ask Harry Reid and Larry Echo Hawk (who just resigned from a position as an Obama appointee to be a member of the Seventy). And there are Mormons living in all 50 states -- even here in Utah -- that self-identify as liberals.

I identify myself as liberal, and I'm a practicing Mormon. With a calling and everything.

Liberals generally pride themselves on tolerance and openness to people who are different. It would be extremely disappointing to me to see Obama's campaign relying on attacks on someone's religion, rather than focusing more on policy issues. What the campaign really needs to focus on is combatting the misinformation out there, and really getting the message out on the administration's accomplishments.

I know the LDS Church makes an easy target. Few Americans know much about us. Anti-Mormonism is an acceptable sentiment. Mormons have beliefs that many think are weird. We engage in strange practices. The history of the LDS Church, like the rest of human history and religious history, is marked by people doing stupid (and sometimes horrifying) things in the name of God.

But being an easy target doesn't mean that we should be. Romney could be an easy target for some many other reasons: Tax policy, health policy, economic policy. Things that make an actual difference to all of us. Reducing the campaign to showcasing how "weird" and "dangerous" Romney is because he's Mormon would introduce yet another low point in American political discourse.

Image source: Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia Commons

Are Wealthy People Really Unethical?

2012-03-25T19:21:00.001-06:00

A recent study suggests that the wealthy are unethical. But I'm not sure that wealth has to mean that you're unethical. But it is true that unethical acts can lead to wealth. The world is full of examples of how you can get ahead financially if you exhibit a certain flexibility in your ethics.

What do you think?

Created by: AccountingDegreeOnline.net

I'm a Whore

2012-03-02T21:43:00.001-07:00

Of course, I wonder if there are shadings to my whorishness. I have two issues that I think might affect my standing:

Do I have double whore-points for using birth control strictly for "family planning" purposes? After all, 58% of women on birth control use it, at least in part, for reasons that aren't just related to the prevention of having babies. Clearly, these women are whores. But, since I'm not someone using birth control for a medical reason as well, does that make me extra whore-y?
Does the fact that my husband condones the use of birth control actually make me less of a whore? I mean, we decided, together, as a married unit, to use birth control. So, since a man has approved my use of birth control, perhaps I'm not really a whore after all.

Deep and interesting questions that are especially important to the fate of our country right now. Certainly the way women address their reproduction and their reproductive health is, without a doubt, terribly important. And certainly not a true health issue. It's really a political and religious issue of vital importance in this election.

Clearly, access to birth control through health insurance is the reason the country has struggled since 2001. This needs to stop. We can't have whores like me using birth control and ruining things for everyone else.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

The Punanny State

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

Yep. It's a New Year.

2012-01-04T20:40:00.001-07:00

Hooray for a New Year.

It's a shiny new beginning.

And, hopefully, it truly will be a new beginning for me. Things were a little rough in 2011, mostly due to my inability to say no, a few transitions, and some stupid, horrifying mistakes. Not to mention a shocking level of self-absorption that I hope not to repeat in 2012.

It's a good thing 2011 is over, and 2012 is underway.

Hopefully, your 2012 turns out better than your 2011. If your 2011 was great, may your 2012 be even better. And if your 2011 was crappy, perhaps things turn around for you.

Have You Had a Good Thanksgiving?

2011-11-24T21:39:00.000-07:00

Hopefully, you've had a great Thanksgiving. I have thoroughly enjoyed my Thanksgiving, eating tasty food, and chilling. I did have to do a little work, but not much.

And, of course, I had time to reflect on my many blessings. I am grateful for many things, including:

My family
My faith
My health
My home business

I have plenty, and I have been blessed.

I hope you've had a good Thanksgiving, too.

SOPA/Protect IP: Are You Ready to Be Like China and Iran?

2011-11-21T04:22:00.060-07:00

Right now, Congress is considering legislation that would all the government to block Americans from visiting web sites.

Please read the above again. Let it sink in.

It's supposed to be about preventing piracy, and stopping "rogue" sites. But it's a slippery slope. We've already got a horrifying potential privacy mess in the PATRIOT Act. Do we really need to continue chipping away at our rights with SOPA and/or Protect IP? CNET points out that, in order to effectively block a web site, consumer information and browsing habits might be part of the equation:

Deep packet inspection is the only way to block data from specific Web pages, or URLs. It also may raise new privacy concerns about SOPA because it relies on intercepting customers' Web browsing, analyzing the protocols to see what's going on, and reviewing the packets' contents. That looks a lot like wiretapping, and a bipartisan group of House members soundly condemned it when a company named NebuAd tried it in 2008.

Do you really think, though, that the government would stop at just blocking piracy and rogue sites? The problem, too, is that the requirements could actually lead to self-censorship on the web. Mashable recently published an infographic that provides the basic points of SOPA, and what some of the consequences would be:

If you are at all interested in maintaining some degree of privacy and freedom on the Internet, you need to contact your representatives. Seriously. This is something you need to take action on. Yes, there are budget issues that need to be solved, and health care is still an appalling mess. But it's going to be awhile before any sort of compromise can be made on these issues. SOPA/Protect IP legislation provides a chance for concerned citizens of all political persuasions to make their will known. Take a few minutes to contact your Congressional representatives. You can go to the Senate and House web sites and get the information you need to let your representatives know what you think. Fight for the Future offers the following video. Watch it. You should know what's on the line.

#BAD11: What's the #Food Security Situation in Your Local Area?

2011-10-16T19:31:00.000-06:00

Today is Blog Action Day. I've participated since the first Blog Action Day, and I'm squeaking in for this year. This year's theme is food. One of the items of interest lately in the news has been food inflation. The rising cost of food, along with the fact that many people are still struggling due to the economy, means that food security is increasingly becoming an issue.

While I do think it's important to pay attention to what is happening on the other side of the world in terms of hunger, and I do think that we should be aware of the fact that the food disparity around the world is more a result of distribution than it is a result of scarcity, I also believe that we should look in our own backyards to see what is happening in terms of food security.

You might be surprised at what you find in your own hometown. Consider the food security situation in your city. Could you donate more to the local food bank? Can you volunteer at the local soup kitchen? Sometimes, it seems as though the world's problems are too big for you to tackle. When you start thinking that way, look around in your own hometown. Chances are that you can make difference in the lives of families facing food insecurity, right in your own backyard.

There is always something you can do.

#FINCON11, Hard Choices and What's Next

2011-10-09T21:01:00.000-06:00

I've had a week to absorb what I learned at the Financial Blogger Conference, and reflect on what I want to do next. (If you are interested in the slides, you can find them on the FINCON web site.)

J.D. Roth asked us all to think about why we write.

Pat Flynn told us to be EPIC.

Adam Baker gave an energizing presentation on product launches. (Seriously. Woke me up after I had stayed up until 4 a.m. and ended up with three hours of sleep.)

Several people offered to partner with me on my own personal finance blog. (I really think I was the only attendee without a financial blog.)

So I began considering my future. Josh is teaching, so I don't need all the work I have. In fact, I came home to a whole bunch of stuff to do, and some of it seemed...seriously annoying. FINCON provided me with a great deal of food for thought. I need to decide what I want to do, where I want to write, and decide if I'm ready to get serious about my own personal finance blog. I never really wanted one before, but now I'm thinking about it.

I love writing about personal finance. I like to think that what I write helps people. But I'd also like to explore other opportunities -- and some are opening up for me.

And that means it's time to make hard choices. I love working with my clients, but I may have to let some of them go. I'm still trying to figure things out, but FINCON really helped galvanize my thought process, and I'm giving everything some serious thought, and re-evaluating what I want to do, and how I want to do it.

Occupy Wall Street: What Makes a Legitimate Protest?

2011-10-07T15:30:00.011-06:00

Do I agree with some of the Tea Party stuff? No. But do I think they're anti-American, just because they disagree with me? Do I think that their protests from a couple years ago were wrong? Nope. If you have a grievance with the government, and with the way things are run, you should air it. Do I agree with everything in the "manifesto" put out by some of the Occupy Wall Street protestors? Sure don't. But I do agree that it is worth protesting the huge amount of influence that money and corporations have over politicians and policy. And, just because you don't agree with them doesn't make their concerns any less valid, nor does it make their protest any less legitimate, than something you do agree with.

I wanted more time to go into this, but my available ranting time is rather limited these days. So, since he's paid to do it, and he does a really great job, I defer to Jon Stewart: