...on being an expendable idiot

So it's been nearly three weeks since I was laid-off from my high-tech, software industry job in downtown Seattle. I was on a hand-picked team working for a senior VP. Didn't matter, he was laid-off too.

When I came to Seattle and started looking for jobs, I rang-up three offers in as many weeks. Not so in today's job market. In three weeks of searching, I've had one real interview and nothing close to an offer. The economic downturn/recession has everybody from Microsoft on down hedging their bets and freezing their hiring. I'm working with recruiters and open to contract work, but even then the pickins are slim to none.

Since coming to Seattle, I'm $20k upside down in a house that I won't be able to get out of for years (thus ending our family at two kids due to lack of space) and I've lost a my job at the front end of what promises to be the worst recession since the 1930s. As a bonus, my retirement accounts are nigh unto worthless and I'll probably end up in a cheap nursing home on the outskirts of a town I've never heard of. But at least I've got my health. Good thing, cuz I no longer have health insurance.

I've honestly thought a about going back to Idaho and seeing if I could get a line job at the local potato processing plant in Blackfoot. I won't, but I've thought about it. Potato chips and computer chips have given Idaho the fastest growing economy in the U.S. Maybe I could get in on that action.

If I did, I'd probably be working along side some of my less studious classmates from high school. Like them, I'd make about $25-30K a year. But in Blackfoot, Idaho you can buy more with that than I can buy with my near-six-figure product manager salary in Seattle.

Those mullet-wearing underachievers may actually be the smart ones. It's entirely possible that I'm an idiot who's wasted thousands of dollars and many years of my life getting a college education and scaling the precarious corporate ladder. In fact, it's looking more probable by the day.

Had I dropped out of high school and taken a line job at the potato factory, I would by now have a house on a piece of land. It wouldn't be a big house, but it would almost certainly (even if it were a double-wide trailer) be larger than my current townhouse on no land. And I'd have a job to support my family. Not bad. Instead, I'm unemployed, living in a shoe box and drowning in negative equity with no insurance or retirement money. The guys at the potato factory would have a good laugh.

...on being French

A great big sloppy thank you to all those responsible for bringing us the 2008 financial crisis and saddling tax payers like me with an additional trillion dollars in debt. And I'm not just talking about the Wall St. masters of the financial universe--I'm talking about all those many Americans out there who were stupid and/or worldly and/or greedy enough to mortgage themselves to the absolute hilt in an adjustable rate loan that they couldn't afford for a house that they had no business being in.

I'm a small government guy. I like capitalism and generally don't care for regulation. But the steep and deep regulation we're about to receive at the government's hands is wholly and richly deserved. As a nation, we just discovered the formula for socialism: Greed + ignorance - prudence.

I used to work with a person who spoke frequently of their serious credit card debt. At one point they were considering filing for bankruptcy. Instead, they bought a new house! Yes indeed, the bank told them they could afford it and they somehow figured that this was the right move. So, throwing third grade math lessons out the window, they jumped right into that exotic ARM and 'moved to Beverly.'


But rather than rant on, I found this gem of an article that I'll conclude with:


How We Became the United States of France
By Bill Saporito Sunday, Sep. 21, 2008

This is the state of our great republic: We've nationalized the financial system, taking control from Wall Street bankers we no longer trust. We're about to quasi-nationalize the Detroit auto companies via massive loans because they're a source of American pride, and too many jobs — and votes — are at stake. Our Social Security system is going broke as we head for a future where too many retirees will be supported by too few workers. How long before we have national healthcare? Put it all together, and the America that emerges is a cartoonish version of the country most despised by red-meat, red-state patriots: France. Only with worse food.

Admit it, mes amis, the rugged individualism and cutthroat capitalism that made America the land of unlimited opportunity has been shrink-wrapped by a half dozen short sellers in Greenwich, Conn. and FedExed to Washington D.C. to be spoon-fed back to life by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. We're now no different from any of those Western European semi-socialist welfare states that we love to deride. Italy? Sure, it's had four governments since last Thursday, but none of them would have allowed this to go on; the Italians know how to rig an economy.

You just know the Frogs have only increased their disdain for us, if that is indeed possible. And why shouldn't they? The average American is working two and half jobs, gets two weeks off, and has all the employment security of a one-armed trapeze artist. The Bush Administration has preached the "ownership society" to America: own your house, own your retirement account; you don't need the government in your way. So Americans mortgaged themselves to the hilt to buy overpriced houses they can no longer afford and signed up for 401k programs that put money where, exactly? In the stock market! Where rich Republicans fleeced them.

Now our laissez-faire (hey, a French word) regulation-averse Administration has made France's only Socialist president, Francois Mitterand, look like Adam Smith by comparison. All Mitterrand did was nationalize France's big banks and insurance companies in 1982; he didn't have to deal with bankers who didn't want to lend money, as Paulson does. When the state runs the banks, they are merely cows to be milked in the service of la patrie. France doesn't have the mortgage crisis that we do, either. In bailing out mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, our government has basically turned America into the largest subsidized housing project in the world. Sure, France has its banlieues, where it likes to warehouse people who aren't French enough (meaning, immigrants or Algerians) in huge apartment blocks. But the bulk of French homeowners are curiously free of sub-prime mortgages foisted on them by fellow citizens, and they aren't over their heads in personal debt.

We've always dismissed the French as exquisitely fed wards of their welfare state. They work, what, 27 hours in a good week, have 19 holidays a month, go on strike for two days and enjoy a glass of wine every day with lunch — except for the 25% of the population that works for the government, who have an even sweeter deal. They retire before their kids finish high school, and they don't have to save for a $45,000-a-year college tuition because college is free. For this, they pay a tax rate of about 103%, and their labor laws are so restrictive that they haven't had a net gain in jobs since Napoleon. There is no way that the French government can pay for this lifestyle forever, except that it somehow does.

Mitterrand tried to create both job-growth and wage-growth by nationalizing huge swaths of the economy, including some big industries, including automaker Renault, for instance. You haven't driven a Renault lately because Renault couldn't sell them here. Imagine that. An auto company that couldn't compete with a Dodge Colt. But the Renault takeover ultimately proved successful and Renault became a private company again in 1996, although the government retains about 15% of the shares.

Now the U.S. is faced with the same prospect in the auto industry. GM and Ford need money to develop greener cars that can compete with Toyota and Honda. And they're looking to Uncle Sam for investment — an investment that could have been avoided had Washington imposed more stringent mileage standards years earlier. But we don't want to interfere with market forces like the French do — until we do.

Mitterand's nationalization program and other economic reforms failed, as the development of the European Market made a centrally planned economy obsolete. The Rothschilds got their bank back, a little worse for wear. These days, France sashays around the issue of protectionism in a supposedly unfettered EU by proclaiming some industries to be national champions worthy of extra consideration — you know, special needs kids. And we're not talking about pastry chefs, but the likes of GDF Suez, a major utility. I never thought of the stocks and junk securities sold by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley as unique, but clearly Washington does. Morgan's John Mack calls SEC boss Chris Cox to whine about short sellers and bingo, the government obliges. The elite serve the elite. How French is that?

Even in the strongest sectors in the U.S., there's no getting away from the French influence. Nothing is more sacred to France than its farmers. They get whatever they demand, and they demand a lot. And if there are any issues about price supports, or feed costs being too high, or actual competition from other countries, French farmers simply shut down the country by marching their livestock up the Champs Elysee and piling up wheat on the highways. U.S. farmers would never resort to such behavior. They don't have to: they're the most coddled special interest group in U.S. history, lavished with $180 billion in subsidies by both parties, even when their products are fetching record prices. One consequence: U.S. consumers pay twice what the French pay for sugar, because of price guarantees. We're more French than France.

So yes, while we're still willing to work ourselves to death for the privilege of paying off our usurious credit cards, we can no longer look contemptuously at the land of 246 cheeses. Kraft Foods has replaced American International Group in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the insurance company having been added to Paulson's nationalized portfolio. Macaroni and cheese has supplanted credit default swaps at the fulcrum of capitalism. And one more thing: the food snob French love McDonalds, which does a fantastic business there. They know a good freedom fry when they taste one.

...on being non-partisan

This rant is dedicated to all the Kool-Aid drinking partisans out there, on both sides of the aisle, who put the 'less' in mindless every time they start talking politics. Political discourse in this country would be limited to a precious few voices without these talking points regurgitators.

There are few things as tedious as watching a hot and bothered partisan conjuring up and chewing somebody else's political cud. Domo oregato for the talking points bulletin, Mr. Roboto, but what I was looking for was an original thought. Or at least a borrowed thought that you've bothered to think through and look into enough to intelligently discuss it in your own words.

Not sure if you're a partisan or not? Consider this example of reflexive partisanship: Candidate A has some tax irregularities, has allegedly been spotted holding hands with one of his interns, and has a college age son who was just charged with selling drugs. If it turns our that Candidate A is a member of your party, you will vigorously defend Candidate A to the death, denying or justifying all perceived misdeeds and railing on the other party's "attack machine." Conversely, if the same candidate turns out to be a member of the other party, you'll uncompromisingly condemn his actions, contend that there's no possible justification for them and cry for his ouster. In neither case will you wait for the facts of the various matters to come in--you'll stand on conjecture, treat it as fact and defend it like Davey Crockett in the Alamo.

The bottom line: For partisans, the candidate is irrelevant. What he or she does is irrelevant. Right, wrong, good, bad, moral, immoral, truth, lie...all irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is party affiliation. Everything turns on this single criterion--and turns quite effortlessly.

To avoid being labeled as in the tank for one or the other party, many people have begun styling (and registering) themselves as "independent." Independent has such a nice, think-for-myself connotation, while allowing all so labeled to avoid the appearance of partisan politics.

Unfortunately, it's usually a bunch of hooey. Personalities like Sean Hannity, Keith Olbermann, Ann Coulter or Michael Moore are unabashed partisans and proud of it. Others hide behind the independent label more successfully, but every time they open their mouths I hear the distant voice of Jim Jones saying, "drink up everybody."

I recently had what we'll call a conversation with a semi-rabid Democrat partisan at work. Sensing that my political views lean to the conservative side, this person vehemently denounced George W. Bush as the "worst president in the history of the United Sates." Since I've heard this same claim applied to Bill Clinton by many a Republican partisan, I thought I'd test my coworker's assertion:

Me: The worst? You really think so?
Coworker: I don't think it, I know it!
Me: Hmmm...well how many presidents are we talking about here?
Coworker: What?
Me: You said Bush is the worst American president ever and I'd like to know how many presidents are in the comparison pool?
Coworker: I don't know, like 50. It doesn't matter. He'd still be the worst if it were a million.
Me: OK, well who are some of the other presidents he's up against for worst president?
Coworker: All of them.
Me: All of who? Can you name 10 of the 43 U.S. presidents?
Coworker: I'm sure I could, but what's the point?
Me: The point is, you're comparing Bush to a group of people, most of whose names, policies and histories you don't even know. And you're telling me definitively that Bush compares unfavorably to every single one of them.
Coworker: Well he does!
Me: Don't you mean, "Well he does, now shut up and drink your Kool-Aid!"?

Mind you, I'm not opposed to a good argument--old or new--and quite like the lively discourse of ideas. I have political opinions just like the next guy and enjoy a friendly debate. But please don't tell me that Barak Obama is secretly a Muslim or that Sarah Palin believes that dinosaurs lived 4000 years ago. Do a little homework, then come back and we'll have a conversation about what's happening in the real world.

The internet, and especially the blogosphere, has become a virtual feeding trough for those all to eager to devour the slop of the day which appears to validate and vindicate their eyes-wide-shut point of view. Anyone can post anything, no matter how far fetched and free of evidential backing, and partisan readers will lap it up, regurgitate it and pass it on.

Today's modern propagandists and smear merchants are reminiscent of Bagdhad Bob, who stood in the streets of Baghdad, looked straight into the camera and assured his viewers that the Americans were, "not even [within] 100 miles [of Baghdad]. They are not in any place. They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion...they are trying to sell to the others an illusion." Comical in their overt absurdity, Bob's comments were nonetheless heard and believed by many Iraqis.

The real problem, then, is not in the supply of information but in the demand. If Americans quite using narcotics, cross-border drug trafficking would dry up and go away. Likewise, if enough Americans stop consuming copious amounts of political tripe, the suppliers will stop producing it. Unfortunately, there are enough partisan zealots lined up on both sides of the political spectrum to keep the slop flowing into the trough.

Too many Americans have developed a taste for the embellished and/or fabricated side of the story that justifies their political view. This, of course, puts them in a position of dependency on those who supply that side of the story. Like an addict, they jones for the next hit and don't question the dealer when he provides it.

Orson Scott Card once said that, "if pigs could vote, the man with the slop bucket would be elected swineherd every time, no matter how much slaughtering he did on the side." Similarly, when partisans vote the man with the preferred flavor of Kool-Aid informs their choice every time, regardless of how much fabricating he does on the side.

More to come...

George Obama '08

The search is over, my friends! I've found the recipient of my vote for the next president of the United States. The man I'm referring to, of course, is George Hussein Onyango Obama.

Yes, he's Barak Obama's half-brother, but ONLY HALF!!! Don't let family ties fool you into thinking he's anything like Barak. For one thing, George lives like a recluse and nobody knows he exists. Very discrete! He pulls this off by living in a 70 sq ft shack in the slums outside Nairobi, Kenya, a place where people--George included--live off of a dollar a month (George was considering moving up to a 103 sq ft hut, but triple digits seemed overtly ostentatious). Now that's thrifty! How'd you like to turn this lean-n-mean tiger loose on our budget deficit? Or a pork chop, for that matter?

George is also strong on defense. He explains that, "I have scars from defending myself with my fists. I am good with my fists." Now that's what I'm talkin' about--good with his fists. I'll bet he could take Ahmadinejad in a street brawl. Conversely, do you think Barak could even throw a decent punch? Exactly!

And George has what it takes to survive a tough political campaign. Citing his qualifications here, he says, "Huruma is a tough place, last January during the elections there was rioting and six people were hacked to death. I have had to learn to live and take what I need."

Well, come on over and take what you need from 1600 Pensylvania Ave, President George. You had me at, "good with my fists." You're my man in 2008!

Click here, or on the chart below, to learn more about George Obama.

...on being on the hook

Alma 14:10-11
And when Amulek saw the pains of the women and children ...he said unto Alma: How can we witness this awful scene?
But Alma said unto him...[God] doth suffer that... the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day.


Last week we studied Alma 14 in Sunday school. This is among a very few chapters in all scripture (that I know of) that gives a rational for one of religion's most difficult questions: Why does God allow the needless suffering of innocents? This is the most troublesome question I faced on my mission, and one that I’ve pondered many, many times since.

Our Sunday school teacher explained that he took great solace from verses 10 and 11, which explain that the suffering of innocent men, women and children in this world is not meaningless—that God has a reason for staying His hand. While I share this sense of relief that there is a method to what would otherwise be pure madness, I can’t say that I take solace in these verses. To the contrary, they haunt me.

To me, a sense of solace here acknowledges that God has a purpose, but stops short of considering that purpose. So, what is His purpose? As stated in verse 11, God intends to use the suffering and death of His innocent children as evidence against those who caused that suffering and death; as justification for His judgments upon them, which we may well imagine to be harsh.

So the first bit of bad news for us is that the suffering and death of the innocent and helpless is not on God, it’s on us. We’re on the hook. This sobering reality is followed-up with the news that God intends to hold us accountable and exercise judgment against us. This is how I read and interpret these verses, and this is why they haunt me.

To be fair, we're not like the wicked of Ammonihah, who cast women and children into the fire. Instead, we're more like bystanders, watching it all happen from a safe distance as countless millions are thrown into the fires of hunger, disease, disaster and war. If commission is the charge, we're innocent; if omission is the charge, we're guilty.

But can we really be held accountable for people who die in famines in Africa or in obscure local wars on the far side of the world? To the extent that we know about it and can do something to help but don’t, I believe the answer must be 'yes'. In a court of law, this is called criminal negligence or failure to render aid and usually carries a 2-5 year prison sentence.

So do we know enough to be held accountable? Most of us live our lives without thinking too much about our less fortunate brothers and sisters in remote parts of the world. But while this self-imposed ignorance may allow us the bliss of our big houses, expensive cars and calorie-rich diets, it doesn't release us from responsibility. In this age of information, only selective information consumption can shield us from myriad harsh realities in the world at large. The truth is literally at our fingertips if we would know it, and only burying our heads in the sand can shield us from reality.

The next question is whether or not we, having a basic knowledge of the pain, suffering and death in the world around us, can legitimately do something to help. In Mosiah 4, King Benjamin teaches, "I would that ye say in your hearts that: I give not because I have not, but if I had I would give. And now, if ye say this in your hearts ye remain guiltless, otherwise ye are condemned."

So do we have, or do we have not? That is the difference between remaining guiltless and being condemned. It's also a relatively easy question to answer.

The average American makes about $45,000 a year, or around $123 a day. This in a world where 1.1 billion people have consumption levels below $1 a day and 2.7 billion lived on less than $2 a day. So, half the world--nearly 3 billion people--live on less than $2 a day.

Each year in the US, we spend more on trash bags than 90 other countries spend on everything. In other words, the receptacles of our waste cost more than all of the goods consumed by nearly half the worlds nations.

Since taking office, George W. Bush has tripled American aid to Africa and recently vowed to double that increased amount by 2010, to nearly $9 billion. How much is $9 billion? It’s $5.7 billion less than Americans spend on dog and cat food each year.

Every day in the developing world, 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes. That’s 1 child every 5 seconds. In the US, we spend over $38 billion annually on diet foods, diet aids, and weight loss programs because 60% of our population is overweight and 25% are clinically obese.

So we spend $38 billion each year to loose weight, $40 billion on our pets, $110 billion on fast food, $20 billion on pornography, $587 billion on gambling, $31 billion on cigarettes and $58 billion on alcohol. All while 820 million people are undernourished, consuming less than the minimum amount of calories necessary for health and growth. And to top it all off we have the gall to ask, "How could God allow this to happen?".

But dark ironies aside, the answer to whether or not we have something to give, is a resounding yes. The real question is whether or not we're willing to take some of what we have--not only wealth but time, talents and energy--and give it away.


More to come...

...on being alive

So the Phoenix Mars Lander may have discovered ice just under the surface of Mars. This has the scientists and media outlets buzzing, as it may indicate the possibility of life on the Red Planet. Life on Mars! Wow!

OK, by life, I mean microbes--single cell organisms so tiny that they're only visible under a microscope. But hey, it may not have big green eyes and fly a space ship, but if it can be scientifically proven to be alive, that's good enough for me. Life is life, right?

Well, perhaps life is life on Mars, but here on earth--and in particular in the modern Western world--life is only life if the law says it's life. Life, in short, is legislated. And that's where I have a big problem.

Look, I realize this is a sensitive issue, but it needn't be overly complex. If they find a microbe on Mars, the corks will start popping all over the scientific world. They will have discovered a living creature, they'll be able to prove it, and there won't be a dissenting view to be found. Contrast that with a human fetus, which just a few weeks after conception has a heart beat, brain waves and over 3 billion lines of genetic code. The microbe on Mars is alive, but the human fetus...well, that's a bit complicate...see, if you divide by 3 and carry the 1...then...well...um...

It seems grossly unfair to judge microbial life by scientific standards and human life by legal standards, but that really is what it's come to.

The pro-choice people I know will disagree. They'll argue that it's a matter of 'viability' rather than alive/not-alive. A fetus, they argue, cannot survive independently outside of it's mother's womb prior to a certain point. And until that point is reached, it's non-viable and can be terminated.

But this argument--though compelling for those who need it to feel compelled--is both problematic and unscientific. When exactly is the point of viability? I know what the law says, but can we pinpoint it scientifically? Is it the same for every fetus? And isn't it true that the point of viability is changing with advancements in technology, and thus where you live?

And what about the independent survivability argument? Isn't it true that microbes can't survive independent of a water source, thus making them non-viable? And that humans can't survive independently outside of an oxygenated environment, thus making all of us non-viable? There are millions of people in the world who can't survive without drugs, or transfusions, feeding tubes, or pace makers, or dialysis, or help getting out of bed and over to the bathroom every day.

Would the AARP object if we changed the name from 'assisted living facility' to 'non-viable repository'? That would be a good first step to legalizing euthanasia, saving tax payer dollars and ensuring that all those who cannot survive independently can be terminated...by a more viable family member. After all, shouldn't the more viable among us have the right to choose our fate?

The bottom line is that every living creature in this world is circumstantially viable. It's simply a matter of finding the right circumstance to fit your definition.

Oh, and then getting that circumstance legislated.

...on being poisoned

Anybody with a rant blog is bound to have some pet peeves, so let me start with one of my biggest: Smoking. Call me prejudiced, but when I see somebody sucking away on a cigarette, I subconsciously deduct 20 IQ points. Then I consciously think about it and dock them another 10. And when I see somebody smoking with small children in tow...well you can’t have a negative IQ number so I just consider them criminally insane and fight back the urge to beat them more senseless than they already are.

Smoking is not only stupid because it’s scientifically proven suicide, but because it’s a drawn out, disfiguring, debilitating, and ultimately horrifically painful method of suicide. Who would consciously choose this path? I ask myself this question and the only two answers I come up with are masochists and mental munchkins.

But hey, everybody’s got a dream, and far be it from me to stand in the way of anybody whose life ambition is an unmercifully premature death. I just wish they’d find a more efficient, less offensive and far less expensive way to off themselves.

Yes, Prince Pong-a-Lot, I said offensive. If you think this post is offensive, try taking a whiff of the unpleasantness pouring off you. You stink! Oh, I realize you can’t smell it--you can’t smell much of anything anymore. But take my word for it friend, you reek. And after sitting next to you for 20 minutes on the bus, I reek too.

Oh, I hear ya Philip Morris. It’s your life and you’ve got every right to live it as you please, even if that means you, your clothes, your car, your house and your cubicle at work smelling like the deep end of an ashtray. Well and good, but let’s talk about my rights. Besides the right to not be assaulted by your putridity, I’ve got the right to live my life without being poisoned by your secondhand smoke. I’ve got life-plans that don’t include chemo and an oxygen tank, and I want to be around to see them to fruition.

In fact--and you'll be fascinated to hear this, I'm sure--my life plans didn't initially include paying significantly more for my family's health insurance to cover chronic sickies like yourself. Of course, I've had to adjust those plans, because smoking related disease cost American households an additional $630 a year in taxes. As a nation, we spend $96.7 billion dollars a year on smoking related diseases, and another $97 billion in lost productivity. Bottom line: I'm paying big for your perverse habit and I don't like it.


More to come...

...on being a square watermelon

Time was when a man wore calluses on his hands and lived on a piece of land that measured in acres rather than feet. Ports were for ships, not cars, and kids played in yards because they had yards to play in. People knew and talked to their neighbors, who lived down the road or across the street, not on the other side of the wall. And while I accept the fact that times are changing and that high-density living is the status quo for millions of city-based professionals like myself, I don't accept the idea that living this way is right or in any way natural.

Now there are many who will say that it's not a matter of right or wrong--it's just different. But I don't buy that. In Japan, they grow square watermelons, which besides being a curiosity, are easier to stack and store. The square shape is achieved by placing young watermelons in square, plastic cases which constrain and shape the watermelons as they grow. Different? Sure, but not natural.

Where I grew up in rural Snake River, Idaho, we had an elderly neighbor lady who still had and used an outhouse. To modern urbanites, this will seem both barbaric and a hugely inconvenient. But this neighbor lady had something that my current neighbors and I don't--something that most of us can't afford to buy despite the near-six-figure incomes from our high-tech, big city jobs. She owned her house, her outhouse and all the land in between. By contrast, my civilized, suburbanite neighbors and I live in dwellings whose dimensions more closely approximate my neighbor's outhouse than her real house. We live like caged hamsters and are content because our tiny cages have flush toilets.

I imagine there are others like myself who feel uncomfortable living in such unrelenting density. For those of us with children, the discomfiture ratchets up several notches. I admit to being ashamed that I can’t provide a private back yard for my daughter to play in. Instead, we drive to a local park where parents watch their children vigilantly to protect them from predatory strangers. It’s fun and games with a constant undercurrent of tension, worry and concern. The thought that my children may never know any other reality saddens me; that I know and understand what they’re missing saddens me even more.

Few people talk here. Perhaps, like me, they subconsciously shut other people out in an effort to replace a claustrophobic reality with something more idealistic. If I don’t talk to my neighbors, they seem less real and more remote. In my mind, that beats the uneasy reality that they’re a few feet away on the other side of my living room wall.

People naturally want some level of privacy. But with so many people co-existing in such a small space, privacy is at a premium. So minding your own business becomes an unwritten social contract. You look straight ahead, speak only when spoken to and leave other people alone inside their virtual bubble. And that passes for good manners.

But living like this, with no space to breath, no space to grow, robs your soul of something--stunts its growth and saps its energy. To think that this type of lifestyle does not exact a social fee is curiously naïve. Seems like every week a new story comes out in the news about somebody getting robbed, beaten or run over while those around them looked on and didn’t raise a finger to help. Or stories of elderly women found dead in their apartments after weeks or months or years—some neighbors wondered why they hadn’t seen her around, others assumed that she’d moved.

This is not to say that there are no good people in places like this. To the contrary, there are many wonderful people here. But put those good people together on public transportation and, with rare exception, nobody says a word to each other. It’s not right, it’s not natural, but that’s the way it is.

A friend of mine, who's lived in cities her entire life, doubts that she would be happy in a rural setting. She says that that she enjoys having lots of people around her, that it keeps her from feeling lonely. I may not fully understand that, but I can certainly appreciate it. If you want to be near people, that should be your choice. But if you'd really rather not be quite so close to quite so many people living in quite so small a space, what choice do you have but to leave?

Leaving is forever lurking in the back of my mind. But far from the ultimate solution, it poses a number of problems too. For example, what would an experienced software industry product manager like myself do for work in a rural setting like Snake River, Idaho? And what about my wife—she wouldn’t like the rural lifestyle, or the cold weather in Idaho and many other places.

But ultimately, the reason that I’ll be staying here in Suburban Seattle is family. No other factor is more important to me. My children may not have their own back yard, but they’ve got cousins, aunts, uncles and grandparents here. I disdain living stacked and stored like a square watermelon, but not as much as I value family relationships. So for now I'll stay stacked tight because, in the end, I believe that having families spread out all over the country and world is worse than living like a caged hamster.

...on being 17

Well hurray, hurrah! Media outlets large and small have jubilantly announced that 17 year old Jamie Lynn Spears—sister of infamous train wreck Britany Spears—has just given birth. What’s more, she was given a 17 gun salute of sorts: Another story just broke about a group of school girls in Massachusetts who made a pact to get pregnant. 17 of them gleefully succeeded. Apparently most of the fathers are adults—one is allegedly a 24 year old homeless man.

Did somebody say, ‘statutory’? Ah yes! It’s times like these when parents and boyfriends alike are mighty glad they’re not a member of an unpopular religion. Why, if young Jamie Lynn’s family were FLDS instead of Southern Baptist, the state CPS might have stormed her parent’s mansion and hauled her off to a foster home on the other side of the state. Instead, she’s on the cover of People magazine and teeny-boppers everywhere are saying, "I gotta get me one a them."

And the 17 underage girls in Massachusetts? Well, they’re probably good Episcopalians, or at the very least Catholics. It’s all good—kids will be kids. And get knocked-up by homeless strangers. Hey, no harm, no cults, no foul.

As a side note, the response of these girls' high school was precious. The school wants more contraception in school. I don’t think they quite get the whole pregnancy pact thing. Unless these girls were stupid enough to be convinced that a condom would actually help them get pregnant, I don’t think they’d have gone that rout. After all, they want to be like Jamie Lynn!

The backdrop for all of this drama is, of course, the recent raid on the YFZ ranch near San Angelo, Texas, which unequivocally demonstrated that if you’re a pregnant 17 year old who’s a member of the FLDS church (or any of their siblings, or a 27 year old that looks like a 17 year old), things aren’t so rosy. Yes, you’ll also be on the cover of several magazines. But the pictures will show you and 450 other (mostly) minors being hauled away by men with badges and guns.

Of course, the difference is that the FLDS girls were coerced into a relationship and pressured into having babies. That’s obvious. No teenage girls would ever choose to marry an older man and have his baby. If they chose to get pregnant, that would be socially excusable (and very trendy). But that just wasn't the case for those polygamist girls. They didn't choose that--the very idea is preposterous! Why, that would be like a school girl choosing to get impregnated by a homeless m.....a home.....a.....

Well anyway, they’re in a cult, and cults are dangerous!

...on being selfish

Before having children I traveled to 36 countries. I haven’t left the lower 48 since. Back then I climbed 20,000 foot volcanoes, explored the sand-clogged streets of Timbuktu, enjoyed rock climbing and mountain biking with friends, spent my money with impunity and nearly always got a good night’s sleep. Now days, I change copious amounts of diapers, burp babies in the middle of the night, clean up the house, clean up the house again, take the kids to the park, shop for diapers and onsies, watch Go Diego Go! and clean up the house yet again. I love my kids and wouldn’t trade my life now for a million yesterdays, but it isn’t easy. I’m not after sympathy or accolades here, just pointing out what I consider to be a self-evident fact: Choosing to be a parent is an act of love, sacrifice and selflessness.

Imagine my surprise then when a coworker of mine, during an otherwise mundane lunchtime conversation a few weeks back, tells me that having children is selfish. Yes, selfish! And this guy knows I have kids!

Well, Seattle is a “progressive” town and I know that kids cramp a lot of people’s secular, three-martini lifestyles around here, but to have someone come right out and say it to my face…I was gobsmacked to say the least. How does one in my situation—fresh off steam cleaning orange puke from the living room carpet—respond to that?

Of course there’s the way one responds in a professional setting, which is to politely say something like, “Hmmm, that’s an interesting perspective. Why do you feel that way?” That’s basically what I said to this coworker, but it’s not what I was thinking.

What I really wanted to say was, “I don’t mean to be indelicate here, but YOU’RE NUTTIER THAN A SQUIRREL TURD! Don’t tell me I’m selfish for having children, you Madelyn Cain wanna be! I’ve got at least two fingers that smell like Desitin 24/7—and I hope that’s all they smell like! Why don’t you come on over here and smell them, Doctor Phil, then tell me how selfish I am!”

But let’s be realistic. Not only is this coworker of mine far from alone in his views, he’s increasingly not alone in his willingness to proclaim them. The BBC reports that, “Not so long ago, all women without children were known as childless. Nowadays, a growing number of women are insisting on the term childfree - with its emphasis on liberation.”

Ah liberty, how noble and wholly intoxicating! Without diapers and onsies to purchase, and with discretionary time aplenty, the self-emancipated can afford that sexy European sedan, settle into their deluxe accommodations with their life partner and two miniature poodles, and indulge themselves with daily double-yuppichino lattes. In fine, the childfree can bring home the organic, locally produced soy-bacon, fry it up in a pan and eat every single piece of it themselves.

The only problem with all this is that it’s transparently selfish. So while you’d think the childfree would go happily on their emancipated way, many don’t. Seems there’s a small matter of conscience to deal with first. Hence, sites like Childfree.net bluntly proclaim, “In our opinion, it seems that all of the reasons for having children are selfish.” Walking away from children is a good start, but to fully expunge any perceived selfishness and assuage any guilt, the childfree have to turn the tables on parents like me. Thus, not only are the childfree NOT selfish, but I am. Guilt assuaged.

Buttressing this obtuse thesis, The Daily Mail tells the story of Toni Vernelli, who maintains that, "having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet. Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population." Toni was sterilized at age 27 to “save the planet” by reducing her carbon footprint. I personally think it’s a shame her parents weren’t as environmentally committed.

The same article features the story of Mark Hudson, who explains to moral drifters like myself that, "It would be morally wrong for me to add to climate change and the destruction of Earth. [My wife] and I don't need children to feel complete. What makes us happy is knowing that we are doing our bit to save our precious planet. That's why I had a vasectomy.”

Well let me ask you something Mr. Snippety-snip. Who are you, Toni and my co-worker saving the planet for? Unless your rejoinder is ‘aliens from outer space’ there’s but one answer here: You’re saving he planet for that segment of the human population who chooses to procreate and populate the planet. In other words, for selfish, immoral and unenlightened people like me and my earth-wrecking progeny. And in the process, you’re also removing yourself from the gene pool. I’m not sure who hands out the Darwin Awards, but if I were you I'd start working on my acceptance speech.

I don’t mean to seem callous toward environmental concerns. In fact, I take environmental stewardship seriously. But unlike my co-worker and his ilk, I understand that my children are more than the human equivalent of cattle. Yes, they’ll leave a carbon footprint, but they’ll also be well-educated and ready to contribute to society and help solve its problems. They may well be part of a much more intelligent, less dramatic solution to climate change than sterilization.

A vasectomy—if it truly is for the sake of the planet—is a complete copout. Anybody who’s genuinely concerned about climate change should get in the game and do something constructive, rather than committing genetic suicide. But it’s not really about the planet, is it? It’s about the fact that kids are a lot of work. Sacrifice. Time. Money. Patience. Unconditional love. And in our consumer society, that price is too high for some—especially when it eats into their double yuppichino latte fund.

So do I think that couples who decide not to have children are selfish? Barring special circumstances, yes I do. Now, if you disagree with me and don’t want to have kids for whatever reason, that’s fine. The species propagation bus stops here and you’re welcome to jump off. But do have the decency and good sense not to make the overtly twisted and pathetic argument that I’m selfish for having children.

...on being traditional

"Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers. How do ye know of their surety?"
- Alma 30:14-15

As members of the church, we must ask ourselves, "If Korihor were talking to us, would he be right? Do we consiously follow a living prophet or have we settled into a default set of familiar but unexamined traditions?"


More to come...

...on being racist

If the sight of hundreds of thousands of protesters parading through the streets of U.S. cities, waving Mexican flags, chanting "Viva La Mexico!" and making demands caused you to scratch your head and say, "Wait just a doggone minute here." then I've got bad news for you: You're racist.

The beauty of the racist label lies not only in its egregiously negative connotation but in its ease of use. Like a big stick, it packs a punch and its use requires no training or skill. No facts, figures, logic or arguments are necessary to play the race card. In fact, the lack of a substantive argument is the best possible time to cry racist. It immediately puts your opponent on the defensive and changes the debate from whether or not illegal immigration is good/bad (for example) to whether or not your opponent is in fact a racist.

I might, for example, make the argument that illegal immigrants from Mexico are racist towards Americans because they disregard and disrespect our laws by entering our country illegally. But immigrating illegally does not make one a racist. Nor does opposing illegally immigration. I’m not saying that there are not racist who oppose illegal immigration—of course there are. But I’m not one of them and I’ll bet you’re not either. So, racism aside, let me mention several substantive reasons for concern over illegal immigration, then focus on what I consider to be its greatest malady.

The Short List
The reasons to be concerned about or opposed to illegal immigration are numerous and varied. To lead-off, there's the issue of rule of law. Does the law rule in the United States, or can each person bend/break it to meet his own definition of expediency?

Then there's the issue of large numbers. Can the United States reasonably and profitably accommodate the estimated 20 million illegal immigrants currently residing within its borders? If so, can it continue to accommodate the .5 to 2 million illegal immigrants entering the U.S. every year? And for how long?

Closely related to this is the issue of manageability. Can the U.S. authorities reasonably manage millions of undocumented residents and workers when they don't know who they are, where they are or what they're doing?

This leads to the inevitable question of safety. Sure, the vast majority of illegal immigrants are probably not terrorists. But of the thousands that stream across America's southern border every day, what if just one was?

More probable than terrorism is crime. In 2004, the Center for Immigration Studies noted that, "Roughly 17 percent of the prison population at the federal level are illegal aliens. That's a huge number since illegal aliens only account for about 3 percent of the total population." Some estimates show illegals now make up half of California's prison population. Is this acceptable?

National allegiance is another important consideration. If the 2006 street protests indicated anything, it was that many 'immigrants' are in fact foreign nationals who still identify with and hold allegiance to another country--in most cases Mexico, since Mexican nationals make up nearly 70% of all illegal immigrants entering the U.S.

This issue is closely related to another one: Integration. Hispanic immigrants have tended to concentrate regionally, rather than dispersing and integrating into the greater American culture.

Regional concentration also places a strain on local public services, like hospitals and schools, many of which have been overwhelmed by sharp increases in uninsured, non-English speaking residents.

English language use is a key issue here. According to a U.S. Census Bureau report, in 1990 about 95% of Mexican-born immigrants spoke Spanish at home; 73.6% of these did not speak English very well; and 43% of the Mexican foreign-born were “linguistically isolated.” Is a linguistic divide good for business in the United States?

Add to this high fertility rates associated with most immigrant groups, and especially Hispanics, and most of the above issues become exponentially problematic.

So that's my short list. Your take on any one of these issues may be radically different than my own, and that's fine. But each issue--and many others that I haven't listed here--has merit and is worth consideration and debate, if not immediate action on the part of the U.S. government and its citizenry.

And while I believe these issues constitute strong arguments in favor of planned, controlled and intelligent LEGAL immigration, none of them represents what I consider to be the strongest argument. I've saved that for last.


The Big Issue
My biggest concern with illegal immigration is that it will make the United States increasingly less competitive. I like living in the strongest economy in the world. The advantages and opportunities that this gives me and my children are, like the freedoms I enjoy as an American, well worth fighting for. So when I read about 20 million illegal immigrants, 70% of whom are from Mexico, with millions more on the way--when I read that Hispanics will go from 15 to 30% of the U.S. population by 2050--I want to know what these people bring to the table. Are they going to help America stay competitive in an increasingly competitive world, or are they going to squander the work of generations of Americans?

The ability to compete begins with education, and the numbers here are grim. In 2000, 86.6% of native-born Americans had graduated from high school. The rates for the foreign-born population in the United States varied from 94.9% for Africans, 83.8% for Asians, 49.6% for Latin Americans overall, and just 33.8% for Mexicans, who make up nearly 70% of the illegal millions in the United States.

It gets worse. Not only does the education of people of Mexican origin in the United States lag well behind the U.S. norm, it does so in perpetuity.

* 24.7% of first generation Mexican immigrants to the U.S. have a high school education; 5.4% have some type of college degree. For second generation Mexican immigrants, these numbers move up slightly, to 39.2% and 9.3% respectively. For the third generation, it's 58.5% and 8.5%, finally above 50% but still well below U.S. averages. Amazingly, in the 4th generation the numbers actually decline, with only 49.4% finishing high school and 9.6% getting a college degree.

Why these numbers are the way they are, I don't know. I can and do speculate that there's a strong cultural values element at play here, but I could be wrong. In any case, here's what I do know based on the numbers:

First, Mexicans make-up a dominant majority of immigrants in the United States and will soon account for nearly a third of the population.

Second, Mexican immigrants come poorly educated, a condition that seems (at least historically) to perpetuate itself across generations.

Finally, the United States cannot compete with the likes of China, India, Europe and the rest of the developing world with a work force composed largely of uneducated laborers.

My conclusion, then, is that the United States needs to be selective when it comes to immigration. And to do that, we need to control immigration.

Is there a place for uneducated immigrants in the United States? I believe there is, just as I believe every football team needs a good kicker. Without a good kicker or two a team will probably loose a fair number of games. But show me a team that, year after year, fills its roster with mostly kickers, and I'll show you a team that's going to get beat soundly every game, every season.

Likewise, show me an economy that's comprised largely of uneducated laborers and I'll show you...well...Mexico. Mexico is a nice place to visit, but I don't want to live there. And I don't want my children to have to live in Mexico either. I want them to live in a land of opportunity.

The United States of America is that land of opportunity, for many good reasons. One of them is that we have a strong, vibrant economy driven by hard working, educated, intelligent and innovative Americans--many of whom have immigrated here. So, I'm in favor of any immigrant who is willing to come here legally and able help us continue that tradition.

By the same token, I'm opposed to any immigrant who illegally enters a country where education is not only free but mandatory, consciously and consistently fails to earn a high school diploma, propagates uncompetitive ideas and values to his plentiful progeny, then parades down Main Street waving a Mexican flag and insists that I'm racist for not wanting to make him an American citizen.

- - - - -

* Source: Rodolfo O. De la Garza, Angelo Falcón, P. Chris García's "Mexican Immigrants, Mexican Americans, and American Political Culture," in Barry Edmonston and Jeffrey S. Passell's (eds.) Immigration and Ethnicity: The Integration of America's Newest Arrivals (Washington: Urban Institute Press, 1994); and "Census of Population: Persons of Hispanic Origin in the United States," Washington: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990)

...on being fruity

For nearly two centuries Anti-Mormonism has been bringing people from diverse backgrounds, religious affiliations and ideologies together. It provides those who feel the need with a common cause--a focal point for their intolerance and insecurity. The same tired arguments, which lay siege to the roots of Mormonism, are rehashed in perpetuity online, in pamphlets, in the media and across many pulpits. These arguments, and those who weild them, inevitably go after the historical roots of the Mormon tree, while denying out of hand the legitamacy and refusing to sample the fruits of Mormonsim.




Coming soon...