2015

As with last year, let's review the things I said I'd like to see in 2014, with my new notes in ALL CAPS:

-The (continued) fall of the so-called Tea Party conservatives.
(NOT REALLY.  GIVEN THE OUTCOME OF THE MID-TERM ELECTIONS, THEY'VE AT LEAST HELD AND MAYBE GAINED STRENGTH.)

-Less Kanye / Less Miley.
(NO FOR KANYE, YES FOR MILEY.)

-Apple TV.
(NOPE, BUT WE GOT APPLE PAY AND WE'RE GETTING THE APPLE WATCH.)

-NCAA basketball Sweet 16 trips for either Iowa and Iowa State.
(NO FOR IOWA, YES FOR IOWA STATE.)

-Better football from the Cyclones and Vikings - the bar is incredibly low.
(NO FOR THE CYCLONES, YES - BARELY - FOR THE VIKINGS.)

-Warmer Spring weather, at least where it doesn't snow again in May.
(IT WAS DEFINITELY BETTER.)

-More legalization of marijuana beyond what's happening in Colorado on 1/1/2014.
(YES, SORT OF.  THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PASSED A VOTE TO LEGALIZE IT.  BUT STATES LIKE IOWA STILL CAN'T BRING THEMSELVES TO EVEN LEGALIZE MEDICINAL USE.)

-A la carte cable TV channels.  It's only a matter of time before cable providers will have to do this to compete with computer streaming.  Why not in 2014?
(NO AGAIN, ALTHOUGH COMPANIES LIKE NETFLIX AND AMAZON PRIME ARE INCHING US CLOSER TO IT.)

For 2015 I'd like to see:

Less glorification of big butts.

A Final Four for Iowa State men's basketball, and an NCAA tournament berth for both Iowa and Northern Iowa men's basketball.

More action, less inaction by the U.S. Congress.

Stephen Colbert dominating late night television, with Conan and Fallon and Stewart right behind.

Common use of Apple Pay.

Might as well go for it again -- at least medicinal marijuana legalization in Iowa.

A vaccine against Ebola.

A week-long vacation for me.

Yes Means Yes

When our kids were little, and said 'yes' to something we asked, we usually threw in a reminder that 'yes' meant something.  Specifically, it meant a promise, and a person doesn't break a promise.

Unfortunately, some people don't live up to this verbal contract / moral obligation.  Even more unfortunately for me, when this happens in my line of work, that results in a monetary loss.

I'm a fee-only financial planner.  When I first meet with prospective clients, it's typically a fact-finding mission coupled with a trust-building conversation.  I'm asking them what they need, and they're asking me what I do,

Occasionally, this Q & A evolves into the prospect asking a number of specific questions about their situation, basically poking around for free advice.  I have no problem with that, but before it goes far I ask them for a commitment.  This is where it gets real.

Every so often, I'll get the 'yes' from the prospect, and we'll go on to have lengthy conversations about their situation.  Often, I'll put together a more formal presentation, at no cost to them.  Of course, this does cost me, but at this point, I'm relying on the 'yes' that a will eventually be collecting a fee from them.

In the past month, two of these 'yes' folks have called me after I'd done this work, and told me that they were going to work with someone else.  As you might expect, they suddenly disclosed they have a friend or family member who does this kind of work.

So basically, they lied to me to get something they wanted.  Ironically, they had both previously disclosed to me something that suggested they were faith-based.  When people do that in a voluntary manner, any discomfort I may have is overshadowed by the comfort I have in thinking their word will be their bond.

I'm glad to say, these situations happen infrequently -- I can only think of one other time in the past couple of years.  That's good, because working for free isn't something I want to do.

Those who say 'yes' when they have no actual intent to commit are intellectually dishonest, at the least.  At the most, they are freeloading liars with no moral compass.

Even my children know that.

Do You Hear What I Hear (I Hope Not)

It's Christmas time, and as much as I'd like to vent again about the lack of understanding and effort when it comes to Christmas cards, this year I want to say something about Christmas songs.

Generally speaking, I don't have a problem with Christmas songs on the radio or in stores.  Sure, they start too early in the year, but it gets you into the spirit, I can appreciate that.

But why do I keep hearing so many old songs that are sung by long-ago-dead people?

For example, if I hear another Karen Carpenter rendition of Home For The Holidays I'm going to puke.  Same goes for anything by Burl Ives.

In fact, this goes for any artist who's been dead for over 25 years, with the possible exception of Nat King Cole singing The Christmas Song.  I don't think anybody can perform that song any better.  (A quick reminder: Tony Bennett isn't dead yet, so anything by him is also OK.)

To put it another way, I don't really want to hear traditional Christmas songs that were recorded 30 or 40 years ago.  There are plenty of songs that have been recorded by contemporary artists, assisted by the best instrumentation / sound that today's digital recording technology can bring us.

In conclusion, if I'm listening to Christmas music, I want to hear traditional Christmas songs by contemporary recording artists (with Nat King Cole occasionally sprinkled in), and rotate those singers out once they kick the bucket.

Otherwise, make it a Silent Night.

White Privilege

The events of the past two weeks -- where grand juries refused to indict on-duty white police officers in Ferguson, MO and Staten Island, NY who controversially killed black men, and the sometimes riotous protests that followed -- have re-confirmed some things that too many Americans still don't understand after all these years:

1) White privilege exists.  No matter how you slice it, if you factor out race, there would have at least been indictments in these cases.  The NY case is absolutely crazy, considering the irrefutable video evidence of what happened, and secrecy of the grand jury.  Ask yourself who's more likely to be stopped for speeding -- is it a dumb white guy in a minority neighborhood, or an intelligent minority in a white neighborhood?

2) Wealth privilege exists.  This is more recognized by society, but regardless, you can replace the word 'race' in the paragraph above with 'socioeconomic background' and it still works.  If the victims were white but poor, nothing changes.

3) Property destruction / rioting in the wake of the non-indictments is terribly foolish, adds to people's lack of understanding of white privilege.  People see this disproportionate and wrongful reaction, and get angry about that instead of the underlying problem -- that minorities poor don't believe they are treated fairly by law enforcement, nor by the judicial system.

4) Criminal actions have consequences.  The punishment (death) doesn't comes close to matching the crime, but both of the victims were or had been doing something illegal.  They drew attention to themselves, then resisted arrest.  They didn't get what they deserved, which at least in the NY case also appeared to be criminal, but they got what they got.

5) There's still a lot of latent racism in America.  If you haven't noticed this during the Obama presidency, then you probably won't notice it now, but let's be real -- how many white people do you know who are openly critical of the rioting in the MO case, but don't know any of the facts surrounding the case?  And aren't those same people also being a little quiet about the NY case?

I rest my case.