The Failed Politics of Religion

Yesterday the following letter to the editor appeared in the Des Moines Register:

"Recently, I received a request for money from the Catholic Diocese of Des Moines. This annual appeal, signed by the bishop, arrived about the same time his lobbyist was testifying in the Iowa Legislature in favor of House Study Bill 50, the Religious Conscience Protection Act."

"This proposal would legislate broad discrimination aimed mostly at married gays. That this measure is cloaked in "religious conscience" seems hypocritical, and that my church actively supports it is for me appalling and embarrassing. Fortunately, at least for the moment, the bill is dead. Unfortunately, for me, the disappointment in my church lingers."

"Sorry, bishop, my conscience will no longer allow me to support the diocese."

I couldn't have said it better myself. Forget about how this bill is an incredibly stupid attempt to legislate morality in this state. Focus instead on this being one of many examples of the consequences of mixing religion with politics.

If my religion strongly opposes something I strongly believe in, how do I reconcile that with their requests for me to tithe, or otherwise fund their ability to continue that opposition? The only answer I can come up with is to show support by way of service and not by way of money.

I understand the fight for social justice must in some respects be played out in the legislature or the courts, and there is a financial cost to that. I get that. But that fight for compassion is a far cry from financially supporting a religious dogma that has little to do with faith.

So how to you keep religion from mixing with politics? Easy. Eliminate the tax-exemptions for churches and other organizations who actively lobby. Once these organizations experience the financial hurt of their actions, they might just be a little bit more keen to the emotional hurt they put on people who simply don't share their faith or political convictions.

Keeping Score

Competitive sorts like myself are notorious for keeping score on just about anything. I'm talking about things beyond games here, things like how often I have to wait for people who aren't on time, or how many times my neighbor clears my sidewalk of snow compared to how often I clear theirs.

I don't keep score of these things to win them, I keep score to make sure I don't lose them, to at least stay even. That way I don't have to feel guily, or worry about looking like an ingrate.

I'd say most people don't keep score. I'd further say that most people would tell you that's a good thing. I disagree. Sure, sometimes that's a plus, because there are people out there who are simply generous. The score means nothing to generous people; everyone should be thankful for that.

But in the final analysis, I think most of the people who don't keep score are inconsiderate at best, mean-spirited at worst. These people never pay it forward, either, because they don't realize that others have done something for them. They take no ownership in their lack of consideration, and give no gratitude to those kind enough to forgive them for it.

I even see this in families. Certain family members may show tremendous support for their kin in times of success or failure, then largely ignore simliar times in another relative's life. I suppose in some families this might be intentional, but regardless, it ultimately ends in resentment.

If people want to start being more considerate, I suggest they start keeping score.

Whacked Out In The Head

In a couple of prior posts, I've gone over something called the Tyson Zone, popularized by writer Bill Simmons of ESPN. I've noted a couple of local politicians who ought to be in the that club, and over time I'm sure there will be more.

However, I've decided I need my own name. to enshrine those, especially politicians, who aren't all there. For now, I will give these people the moniker of Whacked Out In The Head.

Along with Bob Vander Plaats and Steve King, my inital inductees to WOITH are 3 new Iowa legislators who apparently don't care about anything but social conservative issues, along with a speaker at a open legislative forum on gay marriage.

Let's start with the 3 Fox TV wannabes. Their names are Glen Massie, Kim Pearson, and Kent Sorenson. Each of them happen to be a Tea Party favorite with (coincidentally?) extreme right-wing views. Although freshmen legislators, they are, among other things, taking the lead in supporting legislation to impeach the remaining Iowa supreme court justices who were a part of the court's unanimous ruling that legalized gay marriage. (You'll recall that removing those judges, purely for this single political reason, has become the life goal of Bob Vander Plaats.)

Anyone and everyone in Iowa knows this impeachment idea is a non-starter. No crimes were committed. It doesn't even have the support of the majority of their Republican party brethern. It's a total waste of taxpayer time and money. But that hasn't stopped these three WOITHers. In the meantime, dealing with the fiscal restraint issues on which they were supposedly elected (isn't that the Tea Party mandate?) will have to wait. They make me embarassed for Iowa, a la Steve King, that they could be elected to political office by a supposedly intelligent electorate.

Now to our anonymous speaker, who spoke this week at an open legislative forum regarding putting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage on the ballot. (Note: This is actually the only sensible approach to this issue - let Iowans decide how they want to govern themselves. That's how many other states handle social issues; the representative approach doesn't work. Let people, not politics, decide.) This female speaker, whom I've chosen not to name, warned of unintended consequences of same-sex marriage by saying, "How do we fend off bigamy, polygamy? What about people who want to marry computer generated images?"

Regardless of our differences about gay marriage, can we not all agree that this lady, and anyone else who believes that, is Whacked In The Head? (Contrast that comment with another speaker, which has gone viral on the internet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q

Please feel free to send your future nominees for the WOITH club to me. There is certainly no shortage of candidates.

Best Song Lyrics (Part V)

Anyone over 40 who gives a damn about music will remember the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens. He made a lot of popular acoustic music in the late sixties and early seventies, including songs like, 'Oh Very Young' and, 'Wild World'. Like a lot of singers those days, his music was as much about the words as the melody. He had something to say.

After a religious conversion in 1977, he changed his name to Yusaf Islam and left the recording industry behind for more than two decades. He's since returned to write and perform music to communicate a message of political and religious tolerance.

This blog entry showcases the lyrics from the 1971 hit, 'Peace Train'. (I always thought Obama could have used this as an election theme song in 2008, had the artist not been somewhat controversial.)

Now I've been happy lately,
thinking about the good things to come
And I believe it could be,
something good has begun

Oh I've been smiling lately,
dreaming about the world as one
And I believe it could be,
some day it's going to come

Cause out on the edge of darkness,
there rides a peace train
Oh peace train take this country,
come take me home again

Get your bags together,
go bring your good friends too
Cause it's getting nearer,
it soon will be with you

Now come and join the living,
it's not so far from you
And it's getting nearer,
soon it will all be true

Cause out on the edge of darkness,
there rides a peace train
Oh peace train take this country,
come take me home again

When Preschool = Free Daycare

In the Spring of 2007, I had a couple of letters to the editor published in The Des Moines Register. The letters decried a bill in the Democrat-controlled Iowa legislature that would create a statewide, taxpayer-funded preschool program. The bill was paassed and signed into law by our goofball governor at the time, at a then-estimated first year cost to taxpayers of $15 million. (Actual cost since then: $156 million.)

I was reminded of this again this week, as the now-Republican controlled legislature attempts to end this program along with many others, to cut spending. Actually, it wouldn't be eliminated, but replaced by a voucher system with income/means testing. Sounds reasonable, right?

Well, the tax-and-spenders don't think so. Nor do the parents who want to use the preschool program. They want us to believe that the tax money is worth it, that we're getting better-prepared kids out of this deal. They have better 'social skills' you know. And they can really fingerpaint up a storm.

The thing is, there's no independent study that can verify that preschool leads to a better civilization, and certainly no way to justify the cost. Regardless, if a person truly believed it was worth it, they should be willing to pay for it themselves. Why socialize the cost to taxpayers who don't believe in it?

My argument against what some call 'free' preschool today is the same as it was in 2007. If we're being intellectually honest, a program with no means testing is all about dual-career parents who don't want to pay for daycare.

Here an exerpt of the letters I wrote:

"Unless someone gives Iowa a golden goose or a money tree, I doubt Iowa taxpayers will consider it to be 'free' preschool. At a projected cost of $75 million annually by 2013-2014, that isn't free preschool, it's taxpayer-funded daycare. A statewide preschool program is simply a natural evolution from all-day kindergarten, another taxpayer-funded creation that didn't exist entil dual income parents decided they didn't want to pay for another year of full-time daycare. If it's so worth it, why stop at preschool? Just set up a program that makes Iowa taxpayers fund an educational program that starts at birth."

I should submit those old letters to the Register now - they're still accurate.

Resolutions For Investing

The start of a new year lends itself to making personal and professional commitments for the future. Here are a few resolutions that might be helpful anyone's plans for financial success:

Ignore the financial media. Like others in their field, the financial media want to tell the extraordinary story, something that will increase their audience. Fortunately for them, there are many ‘experts’ claiming an extraordinary ability to predict the future direction of markets. Unfortunately for investors, such stories mask the truth – no one can accurately predict the future. Identifying and ignoring this hype allows investors to make investment decisions based on personal needs, instead of the biased opinions of strangers.

Determine your risk tolerance. One of the cornerstone concepts of investing is that risk and return are related. Investors who seek higher returns can only do so by accepting more risk, but more risk also increases the possibility of a negative outcome. It’s crucial for investors to decide how much volatility they are willing to accept over both short and long-term periods. Only then can one construct an asset allocation that is right for their risk tolerance. This is the cornerstone of investing, yet it is often overlooked.

Do not attempt to time the market. In 2010, the broad stock market hit its low point around July 1. If you would have left the market at that time, and followed the conventional wisdom of a double-dip recession, you would have missed the subsequent broad stock market rally of 20%+ over the last half of the year! Plus, now you would have to decide the ‘right’ time to reinvest. While it’s human nature to follow the latest investment fad, this is yet another example of the outcome an investor can expect when trying to time the market.

Focus on what you can control. Worry is a useless emotion, especially in financial markets, where movements are largely based on unpredictable and uncontrollable events. Investors who focus on that uncertainty are sure to have anxiety over what the future holds. That unease can be avoided by concentrating on financial planning items that can be controlled, such as discretionary spending and desired risk. Investors cannot control the market, but they can control making emotional decisions related to it.

Just as an exercise partner will help someone keep a resolution for a healthier future, I tell people that I will be their investment partner to keep these resolutions for their financial future. Here’s to good health and good wealth in 2011!

The Biggest Loser Losers

I don't watch much reality television, which come to think of it, is fairly limiting. However, I watch enough to know that some reality shows are more watchable (e.g. The Amazing Race) than others (e.g. anything on MTV or VH1).

There's one reality TV show that many would consider to be more watchable, but that I consider to be a blight on the nation - The Biggest Loser. Obese people from across America who go to a fat ranch to learn how to eat right and exercise, the 'winner' being the person who loses the highest percentage weight, and also happens not to tick off other contestants who might vote them out along the way. (It even sounds boring, doesn't it?)

What kills me about this show is how it's framed as a 'feel good' story for everyone. Basically, each contestant has a reason why they are fat, something that no mere mortal could possbly have overcome. It's usually blamed on a rough upbringing, or death, or depression, or genetics, or whatever, and apparently they tried to cope with their problems by doing little else but eating. How could you blame them, right?

Let me try. I have a certain disdain for obesity, something that goes way beyond just the gross-ness of it. To wit, fat people cost society money, ergo fat people cost me money. I've blogged about this before (http://streffblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/tax-on-fat-people.html).

While there may be a few exceptions, the vast majority of obese people are that way by choice. Genetics and childhood environment may have something to do with it, but let's face it, it also takes a big dose of lazy. It's a mindset, the kind that takes the easy way out. Most Americans are like that, it just that most Americans also muster up the will to move, to take control of their life, to do what's right instead of what's lazy. On most days.

But The Biggest Loser doesn't want people to think about that. They want viewers to root for their poor, common sense-challenged contestants, who have suddenly decided to try to lose weight with the help of network television. Why those same contestants can't try to exercise and eat right without millions of other people watching, I don't know. Apparently some people aren't motivated by trying to not be a replusive-looking burden on society, they also need to be motivated by money and attention.

Dear Obese People - Stop trying to become a reality show freak, set down the Twinkies, roll off of the couch, look in the mirror, and stop living your life in a way that makes everyone else pay for your poor choices.