H.B. 363

Utah lawmakers recently passed what is being called an "abstinence only" sex education bill.  You can read it here.

A childhood friend of mine recently posted about it on facebook.  At first I hesitated to comment on his post, but finally I jumped in because I feel it's an important issue and I strongly disagree with his premise.

As a result, I may have lost a friend, though that was not my intention.

I want to share here our conversation, transcribed verbatim, but with names changed, in order to make my case to the wider world.

Governor Gary Herbert will soon decide whether to veto this bill, which I sincerely hope he does though I also highly doubt he will.  Here's why I think it's a terrible piece of legislation.

I'll call my friend Nephi, and me Me.

Nephi's original status update:

I support HB363 and encourage you to also. It is the parent's responsibity to talk to their children about contraception, not the State's responsibility. Some argue that teens will not talk to their parents or ask them questions about the subject; therefore, the State should. The logic is flawed. They should argue for the State offering courses or training for parents/guardians who don't know how to talk to their children about contraception. However, that is not their goal. Do not be confused by the rhetoric! Parents have the responsibility, the right, and priviledge to educate their children on extremely sensitive moral matters, not the State.


Response from Jennifer: 


As a Mother of teenagers I agree and disagree. I know what it is like to experience 1st hand having a teenager NOT wanting to discuss the issue with either parent, reason for feeling uncomfortable, embarrassed, etc...not because she couldn't come to us or because we didn't go to her but she would of rather hear it from teachers or peers or even her Doctor compared to talking with us. Now on the other hand our teenage son has no problem coming to us with questions ( mainly his step-dad) but he also is learning in school. We as his parents got the exact same workbook that he did so we could follow along with him and know exactly what is being taught. Here in PA it is not like Utah was when I was in school, sex education is an 8 week course and there is a permission slip....the one thing that I disagree with on his workbook in which he will not be a part of is when they talk about same sex attraction and that it is OK. That feeds into their minds way too much and is immoral to be teaching in public school no matter how different the world is today or how liberal. I am thankful as parents we were able to see the material BEFORE allowing him to participate.
It is somewhat of a catch 22 some children will seek out their parents and some won't. Some parents are more than willing and comfortable to dicuss this with their children and some aren't. So either way I would hope that the education would come from somewhere if not at home....and correct education at that.


Nephi:

Young people do need to be educated. I think if my own children were not comfortable talking to me, I wouldn't default to the State or other representatives to teach them about sensitive moral issues. I would still want to direct them to someone that I choose, someone that holds the same values, not a State representative. Even with your points you make, I still see this as a parent's choice, not the State. The State can teach them how the human reproductive system works, the dangers of STDs, and then say, "Talk to your parents, or another trusted adult on matters of birth control."


Dingleberry McNuggetbottom:


You fool. What makes you think you know what is best for your family? These are professional educators you know. Especially those that lobby for the UEA.


Jennifer:


Dingleberry McNuggetbottom you made me laugh. All I have to say is good luck in what you want to have happen & what will really happen. It's a tough subject no matter what and every parent is different, I know I never would of gone to my own parents about any of this. Just thankful that at least one of my children has no problem coming to us...it's almost like an issue of taking prayer out of school and the pledge.


Nephi:


Let the Utah House of Representatives know that you support parent's rights by supporting HB 363. Do not defer your privilege as a parent to the State. Let them know!
http://www.le.utah.gov/GIS/findDistrict.jsp

Me:

Nephi, parents have always had the privilege of teaching their children about sex and they always will. They have also had the privilege in this state, of opting out of public sex-ed. Historically, only 10% have opted their kids out. Your rhetoric implies that the state is trying to take something away from parents, when in fact what this legislation takes away is something 90% of parents have gladly accepted. You are warning people not to be confused by the rhetoric, but your rhetoric is itself confusing.


The real issue at hand is republican lawmakers fear of being replaced by ever more conservative tea-party legislators trying to bolster their street-cred in a race to the right.

Nephi:

David, I would agree with you if I had not attended the conferences and met so many of these professional educators. They have an agenda that doesn't correspond with my values nor with my definition of a just society.


Jennifer:


Hey now Kate is a "professional educator" LOL just imagine what its like living outside of the Utah box. I mean really teaching 7th graders that same sex attraction is OK and perfectly natural if you feel that way. Ugh! Don't think so!!!

Nephi:

The issue is what I have stated, parents should not defer to the State to teach their children about extremely sensitive moral issues. Teach them how the human reproductive system works and let the parent guide from there.

Jennifer:

Wait a just society? When you find one let me know :D


Question? Did your patents sit down and talk with you? Curious. And you know nothing I say is in malice towards you or your thoughts, we go eons back.

Me:

So don't defer to the state. Opt your kids out. Problem solved. Where is the justification for new legislation?

Nephi:

I guess I'm viewing this from more macromoral lenses than myopic preferences.

Me:

I'm not sure if you're insinuating that I am myopic or not there Nephi, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since I know and admire you. But it's very clear from your original posts that you feel a parents right to educate their children about sex is somehow in jeopardy. My point is that you are wrong about that. There is no legislation either on the books or under discussion that would in any way infringe on your rights as a parent. If that's what you're really concerned about, don't worry, because it isn't happening. If on the other hand your real contention is something else, you should say what it really is make your argument based on that rationale-- whatever it may be. Throwing out a fear-based facebook firebomb that isn't remotely factual is not productive political discourse.

Nephi:

I say myopic preferences in general, not as an attack on you.

Dave,
I think you have misunderstood my argument. First of all, I am not referring to a parents right to decide IF their child should participate in sex education. As you have stated, that is a mute point. Further, I am not referring to merely an issue of contraception. I don't see this so much as about narrow minded views from either side of the issue of contraception. This is about whether you feel it is okay for the State to educate your children on extremely sensitive moral issues which traditionally remained within a parent's realm. What other sensitive moral issues would you defer to the State to educate your children on?

One of the assumptions of my argument is that you can teach how the human reproductive system works without making the instruction a moral issue.

Me:

Sounds like what it's really about for you then, isn't whether I feel that the state should teach MY kids about sex, but whether YOU feel the state should teach MY kids about sex.

Nephi:

Your missing the point.

Me:

What is the point? First you aver that I should stand up in defense of parental rights that aren't in question. Second, you reiterate your first point. Third? What is your real contention?

The fact is, there are unfortunately lots of kids who are going to have sex, even here in Utah. Many of those kids are not going to go to their parents with questions, and many parents are not equipped to answer those questions. I would rather they had an educator to turn to for information, than leave them to their own devices. Any kid can get all sorts of information about sex from google, and you can bet they'll go there for it. In an ideal world it would be parents that did all the teaching. But we don't live in that world and there are kids that need help. If this bill passes, it will be illegal for a teacher to answer a sexually active teens questions about how to avoid pregnancy other than to say "stop having sex." A teen with a disease won't be able to ask a trusted teacher for help, it would be against the law for a teacher to even discuss it.

Legislating ignorance will not make the problem go away.

Nephi:

Deferred morality is ignorance.

Overall, I would caution you to be careful not to legislate away your parental rights to the State.

Me:

Again, nobody is deferring anything. I wish you would just make your case. For all I know I may agree with you. But you haven't made an argument. I'm left to assume here. I assume you feel that if the state teaches sex-ed they will teach something that goes against your morals. Maybe you fear they will teach kids about homosexuality or abortion, I don't know. And maybe they would. And maybe I wouldn't like that either. But you haven't made that case. The only case you have made is that parents should be afraid of losing their rights to teach their kids, and that somehow if something is taught in schools, something you or I or anyone has the freedom to opt out of, that somehow it still is deferring the teaching of morality to the state, which is simply not the case.

Your caution is appreciated but it is moot Dan. You agreed that it was a moot point when you said, " I am not referring to a parents right to decide IF their child should participate in sex education." My rights as a parent will not change one bit whether this legislation passes or not. It's a laughable assertion. What your argument then becomes is not one of keeping the State out of my rights as a parent, but one in favor of the State deciding whether my child should have access to sex-education. In other words, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You say I should be afraid of the State taking over, and the solution? The State should take over.

Nephi:

Maybe I have been too abstract. Here is the curriculum I support: "Here's how the human reproductive system works. If you want to know about contraception, ask your parents."

Me:

Ok. Knowing that you have a right as a parent to opt out anyway, you are making this argument based on larger "macromoral" lenses. You believe that it is immoral for contraception to be taught in schools for everyone. Now we're getting somewhere. So let's just dispense with the "State is usurping parents rights" argument right there, it's a red herring. Let's assume this law passes and it becomes unlawful for any teacher, staff member or volunteer in any public or charter school in the state of Utah to even so much as admit that contraceptives exist: What do you expect the net result to be? Will it further your goals or be congruent with your moral compass? Will fewer teenagers have sex? Will teens all just go ask their white moms and dads about sex during family council in their upper-middle-class homes? I doubt it. Will fewer teens use contraceptives? Most likely. If fewer sexually active teens use contraceptives what will then be the result? Is it moral according to your conscience for more teenagers to be pregnant or infected? Is that the recipe for a better society? Will that build up the kingdom of God?

Nephi:

Must... stop... facebook... argument... So... hard... not... to... respond... to... fallacies...

Me:

Nice rebuttal. I'm not trying to argue with you. I only wanted to reason with you. The fact that I disagree with you in no way diminishes my esteem for you or my love and appreciation for your friendship all these years. I haven't meant any insult in this discussion.

When you posted your first comment, I felt it was important to call you out on it because the position you took there is indefensible. I hope we've finally gotten to the heart of the matter. If so, then we simply disagree about what a moral society looks like.

I am trying to be the kind of parent my kids will talk to about anything. I am also trying to teach them to make wise choices, including abstinence before marriage. I recognize that they have moral agency, and at some point in their lives they will probably make critical decisions that I will disagree with. I hope these decisions involve which brands of cars they buy, or whether to become vegans. I allow however, that no matter how good of parents my wife and I may be, there is an outside chance one of our kids will have premarital sex. And no matter how much I insist that I will love and support them and they can talk to me about anything, I probably won't be at the top of their list of people to talk to about it-- I know that. I hope they have a trusted adult they aren't afraid of to give them advice--good or even not so good-- because if I have succeeded at teaching them anything they will be able to winnow truth from error and though they may stumble they will turn out all right. This law has very little to do with these ideals except for that it precludes my hypothetically screwed-up kid from talking to a teacher. But that doesn't matter because this legislation isn't really designed to do anything of any material significance other than bolster our republican representatives chances for re-election in an environment where the tea-party, republican/libertarian/mutant/hybrids that they are, has hijacked all moderation in an insane race to the right that has taken them right off the edge. And it appears that you have bought a ticket to watch.

Help!

I have a problem and I need some help with it.  It's about our dog.

I know I've blogged and facebooked about this before.  The thing is, I've always joked about this in the past, but it's no laughing matter.

Lately I've been watching episodes of Monk on Netflix.  My kids have watched it with me sometimes.  One day, after hearing me complain about the dog, my daughter said, "Dad, you're just like Mr. Monk.  You're afraid of dog germs."

The thing is, it's true.  More and more I see it in myself.  And I know that the problem isn't the dog.  It's me.  And it's straining my relationship with my daughter.

Here's the lowdown:

Sometimes I pet the dog when I leave the house in the morning.  Just a pat on the head.  When the weather's cold this is easy because I put my gloves on first.  If it's warm outside or I haven't got gloves on yet I usually just don't pet him.  If I do, because his sad face makes me feel guilty, I usually wash my hands immediately afterwards.

Sometimes I challenge myself to pet him with my bare hands and not wash them.  I can sort-of deal with it because if I'm going to work anyway my hands are going to get covered with grease, scrubbed, and covered with grease again several times throughout the day.  But I can't bear to leave my hands unwashed if I'm staying home.  In fact I swear I can feel the residue from his fur on my hands for hours afterwards and I'm very conscious about what I touch.  It just about drives me crazy.

It gets worse.  The dog likes to happily roll around on our living room rug.  It literally turns my stomach to watch him do this, snorting and shuffling and slobbering all over.  Usually my feet are the only part of me that touches that rug.  If I sit down on the floor to play a game with the kids I wash my hands afterwards and my clothes usually go in the laundry.

The dog also sits on one of our couches regularly, so I never sit on that couch except when the home teachers come over.  While they are visiting with us, I feel acutely conscious of my body position and the parts of my body that touch the area where the dog likes to sit.  I don't dwell on this too much and it doesn't nag at me for very long, but It's definitely outside my comfort zone.

If I feed the dog, touch his food or food bowls, touch the doorknob to the room where his food is kept, or if heaven forbid his wet nose or snout ever touches my skin, it goes without saying that I immediately wash my hands.

I know that this is irrational.  I know that he isn't toxic and that living with a dog is not dangerous to me.  But I can't stop feeling this way.  I've even prayed about it some.  I've tried to train myself to be nicer and more affectionate with him.  The best I've been able to do is coexist without too much vocal complaining.  My daughter made a deal with me that I owe her a dollar every time she hears me complain, so I've kept my mouth shut lately.

A couple of months ago I had a serious talk with the kids and I tried to explain this problem to them in at way they'd understand.  I told them that we had to sell the dog because he deserved to be with someone who could be affectionate with him and play with him.  There was weepingandwailingandgnashingofteeth.  I backed down.

Since then my daugher has been extra affectionate with Midnight.  She is constantly hugging and nuzzling and petting him.  She really loves him.  This morning as she was leaving for school she came to give me a hug (after just hugging the dog) and inside I kind-of cringed.  I hugged her anyway, but it wasn't easy.

After she left I sat and thought about this problem.  It comes down to this:  Either I get over this phobia or I damage my relationship with my daughter.  I don't know how to do this.  So I'm sending a request into the vast ocean of stupidity we call the blogosphere.  Somebody help me please.

The First National Bank of Kmart

By now everyone has seen the news about "Layaway Angels."  This is a phenomenon in which people are anonymously paying off the layaway purchases of Kmart shoppers.  It's a Christmas miracle.

Yesterday in response to a thread on facebook, I made a snarky comment about this.  While I thought it was humorous, it drew the ire of several people I don't even know.  Ain't facebook grand?

I will quote my comment here, though it will probably just serve to enlarge the angry mob I incited yesterday.  Here you go: 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that though I think this is great, it seems that the best thing you could do for the K-mart layaway customer is buy them a basic course in life skills. You know, teach a man to fish instead of smoke with his kids in the car.

I've been thinking about this comment, and the response it got a lot since yesterday.  This morning I woke up early thinking about it.  I'm sorry I wrote it because I think I spoiled the Christmas buzz people had gotten by reading the associated article.

However, since this is my blog and I can do what I want, I think I'll put my comments in context.

I used to work for a company that provided retail assembly services to all the big chains.  Mostly I assembled bicycles.  I regularly worked at Target, Walmart, Shopko and Kmart.  Most of the time I worked at stores in Utah, but on three occasions I was sent out of state to work.  I worked in Detroit, Chicago and Fairbanks.  (Interesting tidbit: the Fairbanks Kmart sold more bicycles than any other store in the chain.)

When you spend a lot of time at these stores, you start to notice things.  They all look the same, no matter where you are.  It's like LDS meetinghouses.  For example:  Target stores are generally cleaner, the lights are brighter, the aisles are wider.  Employees are everywhere.  The shopping carts roll smoothly.  Shopko is generally a little less presentable up front, but with a homey vibe, while their warehouses are much smaller and less organized.  Kmart is at the bottom of the spectrum.  Aisles are narrow and often cluttered with boxes.  Employees are scarce and not very helpful.  Merchandise looks as if it's been thrown on the shelves by an angry teenager who didn't want to clean his room.  The shopping carts are old and rusty, their wheels a good way to teach three-year-olds about shapes other than circles.  Fluorescent lights flicker from a ceiling of crumbling yellow-stained acoustic tile.  The warehouse is a dank dungeon from which light cannot escape.  I hated working at Kmart.

The interesting thing about this is that even though the stores sell a lot of the same crap, they attract a very different clientele.  (In fact, the bicycles at Target were among the worst.  They had a brand there that made Huffy look decent.)  This isn't to say that all of the stores fit my descriptions.  These are generalizations after all.  But real trends are readily observed, and these trends are established at a corporate level, where the suits set their sights on their "target" customer.  (This is why I find the name Target appropriate if not a little "in your face.")

I used to wonder if Kmart was just overseen by a bunch of idiots.  But I believe that there is a method to the madness.  They attract a certain clientele because of their seeming ineptitude, not in spite of it.

This brings me back to the "Layaway Angels."  I believe that at best this is misguided giving, which is still giving and therefore good, right?  But at worst, this is one of the most brilliant viral marketing schemes ever.

Think about it for a minute:  Layaway is a program which provides numerous advantages to the retailer, and very few to the consumer.  Best of all, layaway shifts the risks of the loan back onto the head of the lessee.  Imagine borrowing money to buy a car, paying the loan origination fees, downpayment, and any surcharges they might invent at the time of purchase, then having to leave the car at the dealership until you have paid off the loan.


Kmart loves layaway.  By providing a Layaway program, Kmart effectively becomes a bank.  And not just any bank either: they become a bank like a pawn shop or a payday lender.  They make short term loans at absurdly high rates of return with almost no risk.


Here's how it works:

  


When you make a layaway at Kmart, you can choose an 8 week or 12 week plan.  If you are buying Christmas gifts, this means you are committing to buy those gifts from Kmart in September or October; well before any holiday sales begin.  Kmart wins.


Next you pay either a $5 or a $10 service fee.  You also pay a down payment.  No matter what happens, Kmart keeps your service fee, and your down payment covers the cancellation fee if you default so Kmart will never have to spend a penny on collection.  Kmart wins.


You then make payments every two weeks to pay off the balance.  Each time you do so, online or in store, Kmart has the opportunity to sell you more stuff.  Kmart wins.


If you are more than a week late, Kmart returns your would-be purchases back to the shelves and you forfeit a $10 or $20 cancellation fee.  You can get a refund for the remaining paid amount.  Kmart wins.


At the end of your contract you can take home your purchases.   


Imagine a person makes a $200 8-week layaway.  If they don't default, Kmart makes only $5 (in addition to the profit they made on the merchandise).  Seems like a fair deal.  Actually though, if you calculate that money as interest, the annual rate is 16.25%.  A similar 12 week layaway yields 21.66% APR.  That's a really high yield considering that Kmart had no risk other than the expense of taking your shopping cart full of stuff and sticking it in the warehouse for 8 or 12 weeks.


If you default it's even better for them.  They don't have to repossess anything.  The merchandise in question is still brand-new, and they triple their return by withholding cancellation fees from your refund.  A customer can default in as little as 3 weeks.  A $200 purchase on a 12 week layaway defaulted in 3 weeks means you paid Kmart over 115% APR on a loan that wasn't really a loan in the first place because goods never changed hands.
  
Is it so hard to save up a little, buy what you can afford, and hide your gifts until Christmas?  Clearly there is little benefit provided to the consumer that they can't obtain for free with a locked closet and a modicum of self-discipline, while Kmart reaps huge rewards.    


This is why I said that people who use layaway would be better served by being given a free course in life skills instead of by "layaway angels."  This type of program encourages people to buy more than they can afford, and works even better for the retailer when the "loan" goes bad.  And now with the rumors of "layaway angels" swirling (real or fabricated), you can bet Kmart will be laughing all the way to the bank.

I haven't posted in a long time.  Sometimes I sign in and stare at the blinking cursor for a while, then sign out.  A week or two ago I signed in and read a bunch of my old posts.  It was actually pretty entertaining for me.  I had forgotten a lot of what I had written and it was fun to remember.

This Summer was good.  Business was good.  The challenges and the frustration at work were good.  I had a few really great vacation experiences-- two with family, one without.  I read some good books.  I finally finished Catch 22.  I read Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut.  I'm working on The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else by Hernando de Soto.  I read J.D. Salinger a Life by Kenneth Slawenski, along with re-reading Nine Stories by J.D. Salinger.  I've just begun reading The Elements of Computing Systems by Noam Nisan and Shimon Shocken (an introductory Computer Science textbook).

But I haven't written much of anything.  There's that cursor taunting me.  I have so much to say, but most of it should probably be abandoned in a journal somewhere.  Privacy, Shame and Tact have all conspired against me and the parts of my life that would make the most captivating narrative are all held hostage by those three old spinsters.

It has been a good year.  I've been blessed with a lot of positive changes in my life over the past two years.  I came pretty close to dying.  I was strengthened by abundant blessings and prayers.  I have seen God's hand at work in my life.  Miracles have been frequent and profound.

A few days ago I was sharing some of my thoughts with an addiction recovery group I attend.  I told them about some of those miracles.  I know that Jesus healed the blind and the lame, the leprous and the possessed, the adulterous and the afflicted.  I've read of those miracles and been touched by those accounts.  But those miracles are no more real nor greater in magnitude than the miracles He has worked for me personally.  Those are the stories I would tell here if I had the courage.

I discovered U2 when I was in 7th grade.  I had heard they were good, and I thought that socially it would probably be a good move to get into them.  I asked a friend in my English class (whose brother was a confirmed U2 fanatic) to get me a mix tape of their best songs.

The tape was a winner.  It had all the best tracks and even some deep cuts ranging from their earliest work up to Wide Awake in America.  I listened to it at night while reading The Chronicles of Narnia.

Later The Joshua Tree was released and I purchased it on Vinyl.  Rattle and Hum was the first CD I ever bought.  Achtung Baby was the soundtrack of my entire senior year of high school.  I think I listened to it at least once a day.

When I went on my mission one of the things I had a really hard time with was letting go of my music.  I was afraid that I'd come home after 2 years of no popular music and find myself hopelessly out of touch with musical reality.  (This from a guy who completely missed Pearl Jam, Nirvana, and the entire Grunge scene because he was listening to Mysterious Ways 10 times a day.)

Once, as a missionary, we had dinner with a young family who had a large Pink Floyd collection on display.  The father of the family was a huge fan.  My own exposure to Pink Floyd had been fairly limited due to my fear of anything remotely associated with long hair, black T-shirts, and drugs.  (Bono's mullet notwithstanding.)  But I knew that their Dark Side of the Moon album had broken all kinds of sales records, so we made conversation about it.  I left there meditating on the sad state of people who stagnate on tired-out old bands.  "Luckily for me," I thought, "I'm into U2 so that will never happen."

Tonight I went to see Arcade Fire.  It was a great show.  I have to say though, that a lot of douchebags have discovered them since I saw them play at Thanksgiving Point a couple of years ago.

Notes on Crystal to the Rescue

My sweet little daughter loves to draw and write stories.  When she hangs out with me at the shop she takes all the printer paper, the stapler, and a box of markers and gets to work binding her own books.

The story below was one of my favorites but it just about broke my heart.  I fear that she feels she is always left behind.  I worry about what might happen to her.

Just this morning as she told me about the outfit she was putting together for the day, I looked at her eyes and was struck by how bright and clear they are.  I said a silent prayer that nothing would ever happen to her to darken those eyes.  Yet I know that those things happen in all our lives.  And I know that those things can turn for our good.  Yet I pray that nothing ever darkens her bright eyes.  And I hope against hope.

Last night we were having ice cream and she said, "Daddy, if I died would you be sad forever?"

I answered, "Yes, sweetheart."  But there are no words to express the grief that would consume my every waking moment.

As I prayed this morning, I thought of how the Savior entreated us all to be as little children, and I imagine he means that our eyes should be as my daughters eyes, bright and clear.  But doesn't it also say somewhere that we should wise as serpents?  I don't know how to reconcile that.

I just want my daughter to always be safe.

Crystal to the Rescue

Crystal to the Rescue

I am a girl that always gets left behind.

One day I saved someone 'cause I have wings.  The only one with wings.

Mister Pratt had everybody wear fake wings.

Now I'm called a fairy.

The whole school made a statue of me when I died from cancer.

The end.