Kitchen Project

Before:

 We received this hutch as a Christmas present our first year in our house.  This gave us a place to put the microwave so that it didn't have to take up counter space.  

8 years later..........

 

 After:

We finished putting in some built in cabinets so that we have more cabinet space within our kitchen.  Bryan did the majority of the work. Thank you Honey!!!

It's nice to have it done!!

Be Clear-Say It!

In the day's news review, I encountered a piece from mormontimes.com.  The title of the article is "Make no assumptions, LDS Doctrine has to be said" (click here for the article).  The title grabs me because I like argument and assumptions are critical underpinnings that often make or break the argument a person is making.  However, the article makes a far more poignant point in its argument.

The bottom line is that we Mormons, in our religious talk give a large portion of our words to ancillary gospel principles (word of wisdom, tithing, priesthood, fasting, work, marriage, etc) that she sheer volume of words given to those subjects leads the listener to believe that those subjects are most important.  The truth of the matter is that Jesus Christ and his Atonement is at the center of it all.  The problem is that we Mormons just assume that others (inside and outside the church) know that instead of saying it.

I think in this matter we would do well to take our cues from our prophets and make explicit the ties between the ancillary gospel principles and the Atonement.  Don't presume that anyone 'just knows' how the pieces fit together.  There is great power and great beauty in simple statements of testimony which illustrate the connection between all the "stuff" we do as Mormons and the mission of our Savior and Redeemer.  Don't let the message get lost.  We know we are all here because of Him; let us not shy away from saying it.

Our little Ballerina

I signed Megan up for ballet classes with En Pointe School of Ballet. Today was the first day of class.  She has been so excited to go to class and to wear her leotard and skirt.  So here she is before class all decked out in pink!

After I picked her up from class, I asked the teacher how Megan did in class.  The teacher said that Megan was cute to watch because every time she needed to do a certain move, Megan would watch herself in the mirror and when she thought she did a beautiful job, she threw on a great big smile (she posed).

We must protect our daughters!

On KSL.com today, they had a story (click here) which discusses a study that kids clothes are becoming more sexualized.  While not particularly impressive as a piece of journalism, the article it cites and links to from CNN makes a number of points in a very candid and straightforward fashion (click here for the CNN article).

The following quotes from the CNN article articulate better than I think I could my own feeling on this issue:

• The fact remains that sex only sells because people are buying it.  No successful retailer would consider introducing an item like a padded bikini top for kindergartners if they didn't think people would buy it....which raises the question: what in the [world] is wrong with us?
• I get it, Rihanna's really popular.  But that's a pretty weak reason for someone to dress their little girl like her.
• Friends bow to peer pressure.  Parents say, "No, and that's the end of it."
• A line needs to be drawn, but not by Ambercrombie.  Not by Britney Spears.  And not by these little girls who don't know better an desperately need their parents to be parents and not 40-year-old BFF's.

The article also cites a 2007 study by the American Psychological Association which found that early sexualization of girls was linked to eating disorders, low self-esteem and depression.  This is the primary harm from which we must protect our daughters.  The effect such clothing has on those of us not of the fairer gender is secondary to the psychological effects of such dress on the girl/young woman.

Jacob, the Book of Mormon prophet records that "it grieveth me that I must use so much boldness of speech concerning you, before your wives and your children, many of whose feelings are exceedingly tender and chaste and delicate before God, which thing is pleasing unto God."  We as parents should be no less concerned with the tender and chaste and delicate feelings of girls and young women, but not just in the moment--we must consider the long term effects and sometimes that requires difficult choices now to get blessings later.

What the author of the CNN article left the reader to figure out, I'll say outright: We as parents are both the correct people to be drawing the line and the ones with the responsibility to draw the line.  This may mean continued difficulty in hunting for cute, but modest dresses, swimming suits and other attire.  This may mean that during that hunt we have to explain to our daughters that in order to follow the prophets and protect them from harm, we have to insist on modesty.  It might even come to the point that if you want something modest you have to make it yourself.  But at the end of the day, all of those efforts will be worthwhile.

Solution in search of a problem

The Utah State Legislature, in another brilliant display of solving a problem that does not exist, gathered the necessary votes to override Governor Herbert's veto of House Bill 328, which mandates that state agencies operate at least one location for nine hours, Monday through Friday except for holidays.  (Please note, many, if not most state employees will likely be able to keep working 4 10's if they choose.)

First, let me take a shot at the governor for putting himself in position to be over ridden.  If he would have shown sufficient spine to veto House Bill 477 (the government records bill) instead of signing it and then having to go back and beg the legislature to take another look at it, the legislature might have believed that he actually put some thought into the vetos for the other bills.  But I'll save the rest of that soap box for another day...until Utah elects a governor who at least looks like he has a backbone....but alas, I digress.

My real problem with the legislature on this one is that they did this just because they can.  Surveys of state employees as recently as September 2010 show that more than 80% are happy with the 4 10's, about 15% are essentially ambivalent and less than 5% really dislike it.  None of the state agencies was having complaints from the public about access to services except the DMV--which was already addressing the issue under the direction of the governor to open offices on Fridays before the legislature took the matter on.  So there is no data to back up any claim that the 4 10's was any better or worse than the 5 8's in terms of providing government services.

What about the state employees?  Well, those that have to return to a 5 day work week are going to have a 25% increase in transportation costs.  For someone who rides the bus and has a monthly or yearly pass, this might not be a big deal.  But for people who have to drive to work because there is no bus service (the whole Department of Corrections and all the HR and IT people assigned to it for starters) and with gas prices going up, this is not an insignificant change.  My daily commute is 28 miles.  Even in my fuel efficient little Honda Fit, if gas is $3.80 like it is right now, that's $3.33 per day in gas alone (we'll leave brakes, tires, windshields and other ongoing maintenance out of this equation for simplicity).  So commuting 4 days per week costs me $13.32/week while 5 would cost $16.65.  Over a year, that extra day of driving would cost me more than $150.

Fans of House Bill 328 like to say that all the savings then Governor Huntsman promised would happen by closing down every Friday never really materialized.  I'm not going to argue with that because I've seen the data and it is too soft to make a determination either way.  While the 4 10's may not have saved the government a lot of money, it was an indirect raise to many state employees--one that did not cost the state a cent!!  So let's review...no lack of service, employees are happier, use of leave is down, employees get indirect raise in the form of transportation cost reduction, no hard data shows that it is costing the state any more or less money to operate 4 10's as opposed to 5 8's...so why make a change that would reverse many of these benefits?!?!?

Then let's not get started on the quality of life improvement.  MSNBC.com posted a nice article on the nationwide trend toward 4 day work weeks (click here for the article) wherein Utah's Working 4 Utah initiative was highlighted.  The story ran on Sunday.  Apparently the editors were unaware that just the night before, legislators overrode the governor's veto of their bill to restore 5 8's.  In the article, many quality of life arguments are made and some data provided.

When the legislature hasn't (understandably) had the money to give raises, they cut the benefits and make employees pay a higher percentage of them (repeatedly) and now are forcing some employees to add a day of commuting...with no data to back it up.  Thanks a lot!

The University Has No Clothes

A co-worker put me on to an article published in the New York Magazine on Sunday.  The article explores in great depth the question of what a college education actually is and what economic benefits come from it (or not).  Click here if you want to read the full article--but be aware, there is a photo at the beginning that is non-sexual, but has 7 people with...as the title says...no clothes (intimate areas covered).

The author explores a lot of information showing the increase in the price of college education while the quality of learning has not changed or even decreased.  He also points out that the United States has the highest college dropout rate (with just over half of those who start college getting 4 year degrees) and has fallen from first to twelfth world-wide in percentage of 25-34 year-olds with a college degree.  Although there are a variety of reasons, many do not finish because it simply costs too much.

"The cost of college in the past 30 years has gone up tenfold.  Healthcare has only gone up six fold, and inflation only threefold."  So this begs a purely economic question: Why do Americans keep buying a college education if the cost is so high and the return so low?

To explore that question, the author asks "What kind of economic good is a college education?"  In other words, what other purchases is buying a college education like?  Some say that it is a luxury good--a high end product whose appeal grows in proportion to the sticker price.  Some also say it is a good investment--that you will make more later and at the end of the day you're better off.  Another argument is that completion of a college degree serves an important 'signaling' function, advertising that the holder of the degree has a minimum level of talent, pedigree and ambition.  But do these answers really explain why Americans, despite the worst job market in 50 years, keep sending their kids to college despite the cost going up tenfold over the last 30 years?  I have to agree with the critics, that it is not an adequate explanation.  The article's answer is best in its own words:

But if college is neither a luxury good nor an investment, what is it? For Thiel, the commodity college most closely resembles is the humble insurance policy. Americans have become terrified, he says, of what will happen to their children if they don’t send them to college. The recession, widening income inequality, growing job insecurity, the uncertain future of the welfare state, the increasing costs of health care—all have deepened the anxieties that made college such an attractive option for a rising middle class in the first place. “I think that’s the way probably a lot of parents think about it. It’s a way for their kids to be safe, to be protected from the chaos. You’re paying for college because it’s an insurance policy against falling out of the middle class.” The larger question this raises, he says, is, “Why are we spending ten times as much for insurance as we were 30 years ago? And does that tell us something has gone really badly wrong with our country?”

(Peter Thiel is the founder of Pay-Pal - See the article for more detailed background information.)

Obviously, there are plenty of exceptions to these general rules.  You do not finish high school chemistry properly prepared to enter the working world developing groundbreaking drugs or industrial chemicals.  But for many of the liberal arts degrees, there is ample evidence that a college degree is optional.  In my current position with the State of Utah, I have 18 more or less equals throughout the state.  Most of us are college graduates and about a half dozen of us have advanced degrees (MPA, MBA, Law Degree, etc).  However, there is at least one (maybe more) whose highest formal educational attainment is a high school diploma.  Yet, we are all paid in the same range.

While I have a difficult time thinking of a college degree as nothing more than an insurance policy, I find it difficult to refute the argument that such is the best comparison in terms of the type of economic commodity a college education really is.

Please do not misunderstand me.  I am not saying in any way that young people should not go to college.  What I am saying is that when it comes time to decide on the amount and type of post-secondary education one is to seek out, make this decision carefully and with vision--don't just go on auto-pilot thinking all will work out.

Competitive Parking

I just have to write about something I find to be extremely ironic and amusing.

I drive a lot.  Which means I also park a lot.  I park at Walmart.  I park at the Texas Roadhouse on 5400 South just west of Redwood.  I park at the state capitol during the legislative session.  Each of these can be challenges in their own way when it comes to parking.  But there is another location that consistently takes the cake: the Kearns Fitness Center!

It is amazing to me that people will stop and plug up traffic to wait for someone who is getting into their car when there is an empty parking spot 4-5 stalls down.  I might be a little less amused if the people who did this were physically limited in some way and the close access parking spots were full.  But what I usually see is people plugging up traffic just to get a spot a little closer to the door and then those people get out and go play basketball or jump on a treadmill or elliptical trainer.

Let me get this straight.  You came here to work out, but are too lazy to walk/jog/run/whatever the extra 50 or even 100 feet from a parking spot that is more than 10 feet away from the front door?  Instead of having to do all that extra work, you circle the parking lot repeatedly, then plug traffic waiting with your blinker on while someone gets into their car.  I can't tell whether I'm supposed to admire their persistence, efficiency, or neither...but it's funny.