OMFG . . .

Image by NickStarr via FlickrOMFG, which stands for "Oh My Freaking Goodness" in my local parlance - as opposed to it's more popular sibling.

And why this reaction . . ?

"Community banking executives around the country responded with anger yesterday to the Bush administration's strategy of investing $250 billion in financial firms, saying they don't need the money, resent the intrusion and feel it's unfair to rescue companies from their own mistakes.

But regulators said some banks will be pressed to take the taxpayer dollars anyway." (reference)

Really? We are going to force banks to accept the money? I really like this quote from the article: Peter Fitzgerald, chairman of Chain Bridge Bank in McLean, said he was "much chagrined that we will be punished for behaving prudently by now having to face reckless competitors who all of a sudden are subsidized by the federal government."

This really does sound like we are punishing people for being successful. I really feel a John Galt post coming on.

I really recommend that those who haven't read "Atlas Shrugged" take the time. And don't feel bad about skipping John Galt's monumental speech later in the book. Everyone did.

My Concern is why we are forcing government help on people who don't want it. This moves us from a socialist position - where the government offers to "help" whether their help is the best solution or not, to communism - where by god (note the small "g") you WILL take our help, whether you want it or not.

I am disgusted that we have allowed our government to become an entity that robs us of our freedom to fail and learn our lessons from those failures.

And I continue to search for a way to positively impact my society as an individual.

Any ideas would be gladly considered.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Greg Zehner: Atlas Shrugged: A Reaction to the Paulson Plan (From A Former Goldman Partner)

Soapbox Time

Yep, it's soapbox time. I really didn't have a topic for the day but one dropped itself nicely in my lap this evening.

So I've mentioned that I live in northern Utah, where the population is predominantly Mormon.

I remember dating a girl while I was serving in the Army who pointed out that the Mormons she knew were all nice. How accurate that statement is. Mormons are just nice. Much the way southern and Evangelical ladies are nice when they say "well bless your heart." Anyone who knows a southern belle knows how damning that phrase can be. Much like Sarah Palin recently shut down a heckler in a recent speech.

Mormons are a different type of nice. It is a self-effacing screw you type of nice. My case in point: Tonight I went to the local grocery store to pick up a can of whipped cream. As I'm hitting the checkout line a lady rushes to make sure that she was in front. I really didn't mind. I really wasn't in that big of a hurry. My family was waiting for me to return with the whipped cream so we could have it with the pumpkin pie slated for dessert.

As we move forward in the queue and she is the next in line, she sends her son to the far side of the store to grab a Pepsi for his brother. Recognize that I have only one item. The person behind me has two items, the person behind them has only one item. Rather than doing what I (and any considerate person) would have done and let others go ahead until her son returned, she allowed the checker to start ringing up her items. And we waited . . . and waited . . . and waited for her son to return.

The lady was obviously uncomfortable with the delay she was causing everyone. She started avoiding everyone's eyes and saying she was sorry. Indeed, she was very nice. And so was I. I suffer from the same affliction of being nice.

I wish I could be more like my friend John. I don't know if it is because he is Australian, or because he is an "A" type personality. Regardless, I know that his response to the lady's claim to being sorry would have been "no, you are not. If you were truly sorry, you would do something to remedy the situation. You would have thought ahead and allowed others to go ahead until your son returned. So, no, you aren't sorry."

But, golly, she sure was nice.

Oingo Boingo Had it Right

This video details some (probably not all) of my concerns about Barak’s fiscal policies.

He is speaking with a small business owner (the plumber) who asks him a pertinent question “Your plan will raise my taxes, won’t it?” Barak avoids the question by saying “It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everyone that is behind you, that they have a chance to share in the wealth.”

His words resonate with the everyman who feels he is lower on the totem pole. Of course that wealth should be spread around, shouldn’t it? The problem is that it doesn’t take into account that it is the small business owner who takes the risk. He is the one who puts up his own money or gets the credit to get his business running. He is the one who has to make sure that resources are available. He is the one who has to make sure that all the bills are paid. He is the one who has to make sure his employees are trained and are doing what it takes to generate the income to cover all the expenses and (gasp) make a profit.

What Barak (and all Utopian liberals) are describing is Marxist theory the redistribution of wealth. The problem with communism, or socialism for that matter, is that it is an impossible utopia that depends on everyone involved be altruistic – to care as much about everyone else as they do themselves. This denies the reality of human nature.

Maslow’s hierarchy describes how humans value, starting with survival and working towards self-actualization. I believe there is a similar hierarchy for the way humans react socially. At the core, at the survival level, they are concerned only about themselves. They then care about those they have accepted as a family unit. I use accepted because some people have a closer familial relationship with individuals who are not biologically related to them. From here, the concern is for the local community, and it spirals out to regional, national, and global levels, as they perceive each previous level is resolved.

I believe that there is a recent mutation of this concept in the liberal community where, for some reason, there is a new self-loathing. We see this in the “hate humans first” crowd – those who think that humans are the cause of all of the ills in the world; in the “hate America first” crowd – those who think that all of the world’s ills are due to the existence of the US’s capitalist foundation. We even have a “hate Christian’s first” crowd and a “everything that is not the status quo is better” crowd.

This doesn’t mean that the current politico-economic system in the US is perfect. In fact, I believe that Adam Smith would be spinning in his grave if he saw how things are working now. Smith’s theory presupposed a connection between private enterprise and the local community. I see why my liberal friends are disgusted when we see politicians selling out just to stay in power and corporations doing whatever they desire, regardless of who it hurts.

That being said, socialism isn’t the answer. When we place a burden on the small businessmen of America, we do exactly what Barak said he didn’t want to do – we punish their success. In my mind, if government wants to socially engineer business so that they “spread the wealth to those that back them”, they should do so by giving them incentives to do so, not by taking away that which they have earned through their risks. Oh, wait, that’s corporate welfare, now isn’t it? Hmmm, I’ll have to ponder that one.

Oh, and click the Boingo album cover for a musical and philosophic treat.

Back in the Saddle

I apologize for anyone who has checked this blog over the last several weeks. Like just about everyone I know, I have the sense that I am overwhelmed with everything required of me.

My life looks like this: I am married; we have five children; I work full time as an Intel contract employee I go to school at the University of Phoenix; I have a calling in my ward (Troop Committee Chairman); I am struggling to control my blood sugar, blood pressure, and my activity level; my wife and I recently finished Financial Peace University and am now writing budgeting software because the course was life changing but I can't stand the budgeting tools I've seen; I should be reading my scriptures and meditating; I should be improving my brain by reading from the best books; and I committed to blogging.

I'm sure I'm leaving something out of the list.

That being said (typed), I also recognized that I was wasting a huge amount of time doing frivolous stuff. Not that I'm opposed to frivolous. But it seemed to be dominating a great deal of my time (damn you, hulu).

So I went back to planning methodologies I have used in the past. I will be working on and adapting my new process over the next couple of weeks. I'll keep you posted with how that goes.

All this to say that I have repented - my I have turned my heart back to where it once was. I will be writing something on a daily basis. I'm looking forward to see where all of this goes. I hope you are too.

Doctrine, Policy and Tradition

This is my first foray into a deeper subject. As is ButtonGear, I am also a member of the predominant local denomination. Also like ButtonGear, I don't fit the local mold. Primarily because I am not a Utah Mormon.

I think that all of us, at one time or another - regardless of religious background, go through a phase where we question everything we have been taught. I think this hits those of us in the LDS community more heavily than others as we have some pretty odd beliefs . . . in comparison to the rest of the Christian community.

One thing I re-discovered in my search was a concept that my father explained to me as I was much younger. The church (and all churches I suppose) operates on three legs: Doctrine, Policy, and Tradition.

As I understand it, the doctrine of a religious community is comprised of those core issues they feel are requisite for salvation. All organizations, regardless of type, require policies to operate smoothly. As organizations mature, traditions grow and are the spice or flavor of the community.

As my father explained, policy and tradition can (and will) change. The doctrine remains as the core of the church. Problems arise when people start equating policy or tradition as doctrine. Some topics that often arise: "Coke (Pepsi, Dr Pepper, Mt. Dew) - are you going to hell for drinking it" or "White shirts - mandatory wear for all worthy priesthood holders?

The challenge becomes greater because of the tradition where anything said over the pulpit at General Conference is now scripture. On that same plane, if the Prophet makes a statement, it must be doctrine.

Bupkis! Brigham Young said that those of African heritage wouldn't receive the priesthood until the millennium. I loved President Hinckley. He was a Prophet of God. I also know that there are times that Gordon Hinckley's opinion came across the pulpit in conference or when he was conversing with Larry King.

So, the point of all this?

To my knowledge, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints brings one concept to the table that I haven't seen anywhere else. The concept that you shouldn't base your beliefs on anyone's say-so. We believe that you should consult your Heavenly Father with your questions and he will answer. Quite frankly, that is why I am here. I took Moroni's challenge but did so differently. My initial concerns weren't whether the Book of Mormon was true or whether Joseph was the Lord's prophet. I needed to know that there was a God. If not, nothing else mattered. If so, then I would continue the search.

So, I asked and got answers. The answers I received were not quite the answers I expected or even wanted. I know that there is a God and that he is my Heavenly Father. I know that He sent His Son Jesus the Christ and that he was anointed to atone for the sins of the world. That is the foundation for my testimony. This created a level of pain because I knew that it meant that I needed to change my life.

Back to the point. The process I followed is part of LDS doctrine. There is a God and you can converse with him to find out his will for your life. That is an example of doctrine. That we practice the ordinance of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is doctrine. The apparel of those officiating in that ordinance is policy based traditional. The bread and water used in that ordinance are policy based and traditional. I imagine that, in a worst case scenario, we could even use a caffeinated beverage in place of the water should the need arise.

Again I have probably overwritten. This has given me something to think about, though. Where is the division in the LDS faith between doctrine, policy, and tradition? The church helped cover this somewhat in 2007 with a press release entitled "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" ).

Me too ... two?

The blog you are about to read is true. The names have been changed to protect the nerdy.

For the sake of relative anonymity, I'll refer to myself as ButtonGear.

It's probably not a GREAT disguise, but it will do.

My participation in this Blog is actually in opposition to the desires of my wife. Rather recently, I started a personal Blog and at a family gathering, someone mentioned it openly - which I assumed to be no particular issue. My wife, however took great issue with my blogging.

In short, she expressed that bloggers are silly slackers who peddled their worthless opinions, thereby wasting their time and efforts. A "real" writer would be paid for his words and efforts, not "give it away for free." She made it clear that - since I was at least college-educated, had a fairly good vocabulary and am a reasonable communicator - the definition of a blogger and her definition of me was completely incompatible.

Certain members of my family were amazed that I immediately "tucked my tail between my legs," as it were and simply said, "ok," since I had publicly argued with her about far less important issues. I just felt it was not worth the argument.

However, after some thought and encouragement from others, I decided to accept the invitation to participate in this blog ... anonymously ... for now.

Why?

Mostly because I feel that I have something to say -- even if I never make an intelligible point; even if no one reads or cares about the words I string together; even if my wife feels it would be far to degrading for me to spout my observations and opinions of life, the universe and everything.

So ... Briefly: Who am I?

I'm an about-forty-something white heterosexual Christian male with 3 kids, a wife and a mortgage. I live in Northern Utah, where despite being (I believe) a faithful member of the local predominant religion, I feel I break the "local mold" (read: tradition) by having original thoughts and opinions about subjects ranging from the origins of life and the universe to politics and religion.

My education consists of public schooling, a B.A. in Communication, a 2-year volunteer ecclesiastical mission to Germany, and (at the risk of sounding trite) the school of medium-hard knocks. I am not a great lover of literature or graphic arts, but I am (mostly) a self-taught musician who enjoys a rather eclectic assortment of musical styles. I even compose a little myself.

I have struggled over the years to define myself both professionally and politically. I consider myself relatively conservative, but have recently found that I have very small but curious outcroppings of what can be considered liberal leanings (like perhaps unions are not the minions of Satan).

... I will likely pontificate on my various belief systems as this blog progresses.

In short, I find myself at a number of crossroads in my life and I find this blog a fortuitous forum in which, not only to share my beliefs, but to document my journey of self. I am grateful for the invitation and opportunity to participate.

Musings

So, I have been working on the foundation for this blog now for a while. After speaking with those currently involved, I updated the description of the blog and gave a brief description of the purpose of the blog.

Part of my challenge is that there are so many topics that are important to me that I don't really quite know where to start.

I did get some good advice from a blogger whose work I really enjoy. His site is http://www.bigredkitty.com/. It is definitely a topical site and doesn't touch what I or my co-writers will be discussing, but his information about blogging was priceless. Here is the gist of it, modified so that it isn't quite as specific to the topic of his blog:

1. Don't re-post from other sites without adding something of your own.
2. Don't steal ideas.
3. Make more whitespace: Massive chunks of text turn people off. Break up the paragraphs.
4. Focus: Once you find your niche, write about those issues. Your fans will get upset if you write about non-topical issues.
5. Don't worry about your niche, people will come based on your topics, but they will stay based on your writing style.
6. Don't write for the readers: Worry about your writing not the readers, the readers will come.
7. Write frequently: Once per week isn't going to cut it. The more you write, the better you'll get, and the more people will visit you to see what you have to say today. Daily, if at all possible. Schedule posts for the future if you can.
8. Adapt and evolve. If your audience doesn't want X anymore, don't give them X unless it is a core issue for you.
9. Don't change just for change's sake. Your blog has to meet a minimum readability standard, absolutely. But people will read you for your words, not your background image.
10. Love what you do. Your blog is for you . If you think it's for someone else, it becomes a job. Jobs stink and so will your blog.

/Thanks Daniel

Finally, to wrap up this entry, some personal information.

I am married with five (yes, I said five) kids. Quite happily married, by the way. We recently moved to Utah from Southern California. I really miss California. The move came because I have had some great employment experiences, many of them well above my education level.

Early in life someone said one doesn't need a degree to be successful in life. I lived that concept with a level of pride. I even have empirical evidence of this . . . I am amazed by the number of people who either educated idiots or are borderline useless but are validated in life because they are "educated".

While I still believe this is true (I will put what I've learned through my non- standard education path up against that of at least 80% of those who would be considered "educated"), I also recognize that there is definitely a Boy Scout mentality to the employment world. By that I mean that you have to have earned the correct merit badges in order to advance to the next rank. It became clear to me as I was managing one of the largest construction companies of its type in California as the housing market started to crash, that I would need a degree to really move my career forward.

So we loaded up the truck and we moved from Beverly . . . Long Beach, CA actually. Talk about an ego hit. As my wife and I looked at our life, we realized that we were far from where we needed to be. So, we cut our expenses drastically, moved in with family and are changing our lives to live prosperously. This means that I am back in school. We are digging out of debt (in another post I'll blog about Financial Peace University). We are working at choosing to act rather than be acted upon by external forces thus gaining control of our lives.

That's probably way too much so I'll end for now.