Outer Lightness

Feeds

5928 items (4671 unread) in 60 feeds

• a new eric (569 unread)
• Adventures in Mediocrity (25 unread)
• Agnostic Mom (37 unread)
• Anchor to my Soul (19 unread)
• Beyond Ourselves (25 unread)
• Blog Happens (34 unread)
• blog.mormonanswers.com (4 unread)
• chandelirious (1 unread)
• Cr@ig In The Middle (45 unread)
• CV Rick (281 unread)
• Degenerate Elite (88 unread)
• Doug Humphries' Eight Hour Lunch
• Easy to be Entreated (83 unread)
• emerging from the ashes (54 unread)
• Equality Time (53 unread)
• Every Wrong Move (33 unread)
• Exposing Mormonism (37 unread)
• Floating in the Milk (31 unread)
• Heart of Darqueness
• Hello Waffles (105 unread)
• In the name of religion (14 unread)
• Ishmael, the Wild Ass (12 unread)
• Jer Illuminated (66 unread)
• Kipona
• Kokaubeam voices (7 unread)
• La's Self-Discovery Blog (55 unread)
• Lair of the Demon (32 unread)
• Lair of the Sinister Porpoise (31 unread)
• Letters from a broad... (451 unread)
• Life in the Fast Lane (90 unread)
• Liminal Blather (28 unread)
• MagicCicero's Odyssey (72 unread)
• Main Street Plaza (924 unread)
• Molly The Mormon (18 unread)
• Mormon 2 Catholic (25 unread)
• Mormon 2 Catholic (10 unread)
• My Faith No More
• Notamormon (242 unread)
• On Religion (44 unread)
• One Dude's Mormon Studies (17 unread)
• Quaker Eclipse (2 unread)
• Ramblings of a SAHM (32 unread)
• Rebecca...and all that entails (26 unread)
• salubrious malcontent
• Scottish Brain (12 unread)
• Shallow Thoughts, by Trixie Granny (28 unread)
• Sideon's Sanctuary (26 unread)
• Sons of Perdition (119 unread)
• Talking to God (54 unread)
• The Fork in the Road (63 unread)
• The Freeway Overpass (10 unread)
• The Peep Stone (25 unread)
• this, that, and the other (192 unread)
• Thought Spot
• Thoughts by Sister Mary Lisa (84 unread)
• Todd's Hammer (77 unread)
• Trapped by the Mormons (229 unread)
• UTARNIA
• Winning by the Rules (22 unread)
• Within the Bubble (8 unread)

Unread items (30)

Main Street Plaza

• 

  Those BYU Volunteers

  Posted: January 23rd, 2012, 2:22am EST by Hellmut

  Tags:    [edit]

  Since McKay Coppins reported about the Romney campaign’s efforts to energize the South Carolina primaries with volunteers from out of state Mormon colleges, which has been linked by Profxm, I thought that a quick note to put the event into context might be in order.

  Every campaign is trying to swell its volunteer force by bringing in people from out of state. When I was the co-director of the Obama campaign in Prince George’s Coutny, MD, for example, we depoyed over 3,000 volunteers to Virginia for the general election campaign in 2008 after helping out in various states during the primaries.

  BYU and Bob Jones University are notorious for supplying volunteers to Republican campaigns across the nation. In part, their prominence may reflect Democratic paranoia but the real reason is obvious:

  There aren’t that many places with a high concentration of conservative young people with disposable time to volunteer.

  In this case, it’s an easy story to tell because the Mormon Mitt Romney receives help from Mormon college students. In reality, however, BYU volunteers routinely come in support of conservative gentile candidates in states like Virginia and California. Likewise, you can be sure that somewhere in Florida, there will be busloads of student volunteers from Bob Jones University supporting this or that candidate.

  Since they won’t be Mormons campaigning for a Mormon, the media will be less sensitive to their appearance.

  Views: 111
• 

  Sunday in Outer Blogness: Protest Edition

  Posted: January 22nd, 2012, 9:43am EST by aerin64

  Tags:    [edit]

  Chanson asked me to do the round up of posts this week. For the record, I think this process is more difficult than it looks (please bear with me stumbling through it). And I’ll give out a shout out to the work she does each week – an important part of the community, tying threads together. Yet she definitively deserves a break every once in awhile (just like all of us!).
  It has been a interesting week of protests, with the reddit and Wikipedia blackout(s) to protest SOPA and PIPA. Other blogs went dark as well in support. As a response, it sounds like the legislation is on hold for the near future.
  Here in the states, it was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. day. Mormon Heretic wrote about an early black mormon, one whom I hadn’t heard of before.  And it looks like another same-sex marriage debacle is brewing in Minnesota.
  In other news, some bloggers attended the mormon stories conference in Houston. There was more discussion of the milk before meat policy and who needs to teach church history. Maybe it’s time to stop making excuses for the church and the more unpalatable parts of its history.
  Some posters  are enjoying their Sundays and living in the present.
  There were also posts about sexuality and parenting a daughter. A famous blogger and her husband have separated but still appear to be putting their kids first. It seems many former mormons are parenting through divorce. Others are thrilled about pending grandparenthood and musing about life and faith.
  As it’s January, there’s also snow.
  Being the January before the U.S. presidential election, there’s lots of political wrangling and drama going on, particularly with the Iowa recount and South Carolina. Perhaps Romney doesn’t have the nomination wrapped up after all!
  Eta: fixed links (like I said, much harder than it looks).

  Views: 178
• 

  MSP post stolen and Mormons stumping

  Posted: January 22nd, 2012, 6:10am EST by profxm

  Tags:    [edit]

  I caught two interesting news stories in my news feed this morning.  First is this article in the Tampa Bay Tribune about the LDS Church being one of the largest land owners in the state of Florida: Mormon church is large landowner in Florida.  The information provided in the article is EERILY FAMILIAR, as in, it’s basically a duplicate of my post here on MSP from 2009: LDS Inc owns .7% of Florida.  I guess it wouldn’t look so good for the reporter, Kevin Wiatrowski, if he cited a website critical of the LDS Church as his source for the article, but plagiarizing a blog post for a news article probably wouldn’t look so good on a resume either.  Do me a favor, if you would, and go comment on that article asking Mr. Wiatrowski where he came up with the idea for his article.  My guess is that he did a Google search using the words “Mormon” and “Florida” and saw my post as the #1 link, then stole my idea.  I could be wrong though.

  The second news article that caught my attention didn’t get as much play in the big press as did the fact that Mitt was “Newt-ed” in South Carolina: young Mormons arrived by the busload to stump for Mitt.  Since they were young, loud, and energetic, it gave the impression that Mitt had momentum in South Carolina.  Um, yeah, not so much.  When a reporter questioned their enthusiasm, they admitted they weren’t from South Carolina but rather from D.C. and Utah.  It didn’t help Mitt in the end, but I call shenanigans nonetheless.

  Views: 158

a new eric

• 

  The Write Time

  Posted: January 21st, 2012, 11:03am EST by Eric

  Tags:    [edit]

  Sometimes, it can be difficult to get into the writing mode.  Lately, I've been fortunate enough to have a little bit of time, the right energy, and a good inclination toward writing to get it done.  Most of all, I've had amazing support from friends and family, especially from my wife.

  In the past, I had to have a proper setting to even sit down and get my brain in the right mode to write.  Back in 2008, when I blogged every day or one year, I started out simply needing a view to the outside world.  My writing room was in a good spot for that.  Then, we moved.  The room I write in is partially underground, but I can still see things from my window without having to look up from a well.  Sometimes, all I need is some greenery to get in the mood for writing.  Lately, I haven't needed it all that much.

  One thing that has definitely helped in the past has been getting away from home to someplace where I can really get away from the stress of work and the distractions of the house.  I've had a place I can go for a few years now which fits the bill.  For the most part, body willing, I can just sit down in front of a huge window and write like a madman while looking at scenery such as this:

  

  How can you not get away from work and home when you see this through your window?

  And to top it off, my wife is willing to let me write.  Right frame of mind, right scenery, right setting, time to write!

  Original post blogged on b2evolution.

• 

  Eric, Anew

  Posted: January 20th, 2012, 10:09pm EST by Eric

  Tags:    [edit]

  Today was a good day.

  It's almost time for my third wedding anniversary.  This also marks three years since our little accident while on our honeymoon - the one where I lost control of my wife's SUV and rolled it into it's side in the ditch in the middle of US 40.  In the snow.  Yeah, that one.

  After that accident, my father, brother, and I replaced a smashed-in door with one from a junk yard.  It was at that time that I first thought about fixing something that had been disfunctional on Jill's car since I'd known her - some of the dashboard switches.

  After pulling off the center piece that holds in the stereo as well as several of the vehicle functions, I found that things that didn't work, such as 4-wheel drive and the rear defroster, were simply unplugged.  I fixed the 4-wheel drive, cigarette lighter, and the rear defroster, but never could get the rear window wiper to come on.

  I took the thing out in hopes of finding a replacement.  I checked with the local auto parts stores, with no luck.  I checked the Internet, also without luck.  I even checked with the local Ford parts dealer, who pulled from the centralized warehouse in the state (where all the dealers pull from), and they couldn't find it.

  Sadly, I gave up.

  On our one-year honeymoon, the very same stretch of road where we'd flipped the year before was terribly snow-covered one night.  I drove the car around 15MPH over the 13-15 mile section between Park City, UT and Heber City, UT.  We were both mortified that we might have the same accident (but this time at night).  I drove for two hours, my knuckles white from gripping the steering wheel.  Jill did similarly from the passenger seat.  While the trip was one of the most trying things I ever had to do, that incident proved to me just how much the rear window wiper is needed on the early 90s Ford Explorers.  After finally getting into town, I stopped at a gas station and scraped off about an inch of snow from the window.

  So, this year, knowing that we might be in the same area, in similar weather conditions (we chose not to go last year), I decided it would be good to see if I could get it working.  So I popped off the center console (two screws and a little tugging), found the switch from it's hiding place in the armrest, twisted the stem to make sure it still turned, and plugged it in.

  CLICK.  WOOSH.

  Holy crap, the thing came to life.  The same part that hadn't worked about three years ago suddenly worked fine.  I was so excited I ran inside to get Jill, who thought I had seen some sort of real-life Jackalope or something by my level of excitement.  I fix things around the house all the time, the last being a garbage disposal that was leaking through the electrical portion.  But for some reason, I felt like I'd accomplished the feat of a lifetime.

  The feeling was so strong that it lasted throughout the rest of the day.  I felt like I could do anything: fix the car, repair the house, put a shower in the downstairs bathroom, or even build an addition to the house.  It even went so far as to make me excited to cook dinner (which I often do, but this time I wanted to try something new) and to sit down and write.

  Most of you who once read my blog are now gone.  In fact, only a few of you remain.  That is my own fault.  But you know what?  I think I needed it.  I spent almost a decade without writing, and when I went back to it I was energized - just as I was today, fixing a three-year-old problem with Jill's car.  This week, a group of writers I contributed with on a project that was known as The Sugar Beet, decided to start working on a second book (the first can be found here).  Over the last month, I've been doing some preliminary brainstorming with a friend from work on a screenplay for a TV sitcom we've talked about developing for a couple of years now.  And on top of that, I'm writing a novel in my spare time, of which I am on chapter four now.

  I can't remember the last time I've been so energized.  For the first time in a long time - perhaps the first time ever - I feel as if I can take on the world.  Scratch that - not only can I take on the world, I WILL take on the world.  This is finally my time.

  Sorry to say, don't expect much from me on the blog.  Maybe something here or there.  If you've followed me over the years, you know my track record.  What can I say?  In some ways, the blog is in the past.  There is much more in the future.

  If friends or family are interested in reading some of my writing while it's being developed, send me an email.  You know how to reach me.

  Original post blogged on b2evolution.

Hello Waffles

• 

  HW: 105 Furry Conference

  Posted: January 19th, 2012, 12:32pm EST by JR

  Tags:    [edit]

  
  

  Furry Conference
  ZenMoney
  Cho Li worships big fatty
  Update on life
  Castro Expositor
  Philz SF

  hellowaffles.blogspot.com or email at hellowaffles@gmail.com!

  Thank you for listening.

  Click here to download
  

  

Letters from a broad...

• 

  Cars 2: still my favorite James Bond flick, but...

  Posted: January 17th, 2012, 4:18pm EST by C. L. Hanson

  Tags:    [edit]

  

  You may recall that I saw Cars 2 in the cinema with my kids and quite enjoyed it. My husband didn't go with us, so he had to get the kids the DVD for Christmas in order to see it.

  He thought it was OK, but found it riddled with problems. For example, the theme seems to be that -- as long as you're being true to yourself -- it's OK to be ignorantly disrespectful to other cultures. (Indeed, the movie seems to say that McQueen had no business expecting his friend not to make a scene everywhere he goes, as a condition for being invited along.) Also, the spies could have transferred their photo anywhere, so why did they arrange to do it at that huge party that was being covered on international television? Neither one of them had any reason to be at that party, or even in Japan at all. (Answer: It was the simplest way for the writers to arrange for Mater to get mistaken for "the American spy.")

  Personally, I don't really like it when a script is obviously written as a vehicle for showing off stunning visuals and effects. This film has really amazing, cool visuals, but suffers a bit from this cart-leading-the-horse storytelling. And to have a leading villain who's not only German, but is a professor wearing a monocle -- can you get more cliche than that?

  

  Now, I don't want to see any comments telling me "lighten up -- it's just a kids film." If you're tempted to do so, please read this post carefully first. Yes, all the formulas are new for kids, so they can't tell the difference between something that's original and something that's last week's refried hash. But that's no excuse for phoning it in and acting like kids don't deserve better than last week's refried hash. You guys have probably had the experience of re-watching a film as an adult that you loved as a kid, and being carried away by the mixture of magic and memories. And you've probably also had the experience of re-watching a childhood favorite and thinking, "This is total garbage -- how did I ever watch this?!" And the memory is ruined. So, I hold kids' entertainment up to high standards, and I'm not going to apologize for it.

  (Though I will admit to sitting by and not making any negative remarks when my kids choose and like something that I think is total garbage *cough* Bey-Blade cartoons *cough* and I'll even listen and talk to the kids about the stories and characters, etc. But I like to recommend and watch better fare with them.)

  That said, Cars 2 is not garbage. I'm actually trying to figure out why I like Cars 2 in spite of its flaws. Crazy plot holes aren't always a major problem if a film has other strengths to make up for it (I learned that from Heat Miser and Snow Miser). I think it's because of the following:

  I don't usually like James Bond movies (or action movies in general) in part because the set-ups for the action sequences are so absurd that my suspension of disbelief is completely overwhelmed and I have trouble getting excited about the action. (Related: I really don't need to see any more sequences of people outrunning exploding fire-balls.) But with Cars 2, it's so absurd that there's hardly even any pretense of suspension of disbelief. Instead of having the characters drive cars covered with crazy gadgets, have them be cars covered with crazy gadgets!!! It doesn't matter that it doesn't make any sense, indeed their whole universe doesn't make sense if you think about it. Don't even try to make sense out of it -- just sit back and enjoy! :)

  

Notamormon

• 

  Mormonism Promises much, gives so little

  Posted: January 16th, 2012, 2:33pm EST by Matt

  Tags:    [edit]

  Mormonism promises so much and gives so little. Or so it seems to me.
  
  The strange thing about Mormonism is that it seems to vary so much from one ward to another, from one branch to another and from one stake to another and one district to another.
  
  In general in most churches everyone knows what the theology is and if you do not like the theology, well, in theory, you can attend a different church. If a Baptist becomes a Methodist, if a Methodist decides to join the Church of England, nobody seems to mind so much.
  
  But if a Mormon decides he or she wants to become a Methodist -for example- on, dear! It's Mormon Church Court time!
  
  Why? Is it the loss of tithing receipts from that member that bothers the Mormon church so much?

Main Street Plaza

• 

  Sunday in Outer Blogness: Mormon Portraits Edition!

  Posted: January 15th, 2012, 6:23am EST by chanson

  Tags:    [edit]

  First and foremost, start thinking about your favorite blogs, bloggers, and posts, etc., from 2011 and nominate them for the Brodie Awards!! Then check out Bill Hess’s great photo essay on Mormon missionaries in New York City:

  

  In addition to taking photos of the mishies, Bill tells the story of his own difficulties and the prejudice he faced in his own Mormon interracial marriage. Interestingly, the priesthood ban (preventing men of African ancestry from holding the priesthood) also prevented women of African ancestry from being sealed to their families in the LDS temple — yet the revelation that changed that policy was only about men — the women affected by it weren’t even mentioned. (Of course, being sealed in the temple does have certain drawbacks…)

  Mormons may not like being in the same boat with Muslims, but the racism in the Book of Mormon is a belief that Romney may have to answer for (see here for a counterpoint). At least some Mormons are willing to root for Mitt because he’s Mormon. Of course, Mormonism isn’t necessarily Romney’s biggest problem — being a plutocrat maladroitly dismissing the not-rich isn’t as popular as it used to be.

  (Also, as fun as it is to talk about the entertaining bits of US politics, let’s not forget that imprisoning people (and torturing them) without trial, without even charging them is no joke, and not a minor issue.)

  On the other hand, the Mormons aren’t the only ones with discrimination to answer for. There’s now some question about how legally binding Canadian same-sex marriages really are. (See Benny’s touching description of what it feels like to fall in love without being permitted to have a relationship: “But then, what am I supposed to do with the overwhelming need I have to be loved and cherished and appreciated, etc.”) And be sure to get out there and buy Girl Scout Cookies — mmmmm, I could totally go for a thin mint right now! On the other other hand, the US Supreme Court affirms religions’ right to discriminate at will for ministerial positions, and the CoJCoL-dS is first in line to abuse the privilege. Mormon patriarchy can be so… interesting.

  Let’s get back to portraits!! Leia would like to show you what an atheist looks like:

  

  And check out Bowie’s new tattoo!!

  

  Unfortunately, these cool people aren’t represented by the new Pew Forum survey on Mormons that everyone’s talking about. As soon as I read the demographics (in a post that was perhaps deleted), I had about the same reaction as Daymon:

  Who is a Mormon? The board simply drew from their own stereotypes of what a True Mormon was, and then formulated questions that targeted these people, asking initially if they were Mormon, and then, if they were a member of the LDS Church.

  Fortunately, the less-TBM face of Mormon culture finally got some recognition in the press!!

  Now for this week’s personal stories!! Oxymormon Girl tried alcohol for the first time! Erin is enjoying… well, experiencing… the perks of pregnancy. Sulli is a little hesitant about moving on. MoHoHawaii recommends the Mormon Stories podcast about the exit story of a CES instructor and his wife (I agree — it’s worth the listen). Kuri’s life is remarkably pithy. Heidi recounts her feminist upbringing. And Chandelle’s blog is now solar powered!

  And discussion topics: How does the “age of accountability” really work? How is sex like a twinkie? How do you get members to appreciate the blessings of cleaning the chapel? Is Lehi the father of the Polynesians? Are Mormons Henotheists? How can you see the moon during the day? Can we be good without sun gods? How do airplanes fly anyway?

  Wow, this is a long one, isn’t it? I finally had some free time, and there were so many great posts this past week!! When you’re done reading them, get out there and nominate your favorite posts from last year!

  Views: 252
• 

  2011 Brodie Award Nominations!!

  Posted: January 15th, 2012, 1:24am EST by chanson

  Tags:    [edit]

  It’s that time of year again — time for you to look back on the past year of posts and choose the ones that were the most excellent!! This is the third year of the Brodie Awards. Just have a look at the winners from the last two years to get an idea of what these awards are all about. I’ll start with this year’s proposed categories, then finish with the nomination guidelines.

  Year-long awards for people and websites:

  • Best New Blog
  • Best Discussion Forum
  • Best Humor Site/Blog
  • Best Static LDS-Interest Site
  • Best LDS Church Watch or News Reporting
  • Best Bridge-Building
  • Best faithful-perspective Mormon Blog
  • Best LDS-Interest Video Channel/Series

  Awards for Individual Works:

  • Best Book-Length Memoirs (This one is new — we have some really strong contenders this year!!)
  • Funniest Humor Piece
  • Most Amusing Vignette or Personal Anecdote
  • Best LDS-Interest Comic or Image
  • Best Poem
  • Most Poignant Personal Story
  • Best Deconversion/Exit Story
  • Best “Life Beyond Mormonism” Post
  • Best Interfaith Interaction
  • Best Chat with the Bishop, Mishies, or Other Church Leaders
  • Best News Reporting
  • Best LDS Church Watch
  • Best LDS-Related Political Commentary
  • Best Post Title
  • Best Philosophical/Religious Discussion
  • Most Insightful Commentary on Mormonism
  • Best Response to Apologetics
  • Best Religion-and-Gender Discussion
  • Best Religion-and-Homosexuality Discussion
  • Best History Piece
  • Best Science Piece
  • Best Book Review
  • Best LDS-Interest Video
  • Best LDS-Interest Podcast

  Suggested guidelines:

  As you know, the idea behind the Brodies is to highlight excellent work from all over the LDS-interest Internet, and introduce as many people as possible to great blogs they may not be aware of. So here are my nomination guideline ideas:

  • Please nominate as many people, sites, and articles as you want. However, please do not nominate more than two individual works by any one author.
  • You are allowed (even encouraged!) to nominate your own works. No more than two, though.
  • Please nominate works that first appeared during 2011
  • Please try to nominate people and works that have some connection with Mormonism or with Outer Blogness (eg. either the work touches on Mormonism, or the author is a current or former Mormon and/or is an active participant in our community).
  • A category must have at least three nominations in order to be included in the voting and awards phase.
  • You may suggest your own categories — however please do it as early as possible in the nominations process, to give others plenty of time to add nominations in your proposed categories.
  • Any other proposed changes to the categories or to the guidelines are welcome — feel free to discuss it in the comments.
  • The nominations will be open for two weeks. (And I’ll add my own nominations when I make the polls.)

  Let’s have some fun with this!!

  Views: 478
• 

  Would Romney dare choose a Female VP?

  Posted: January 13th, 2012, 1:50am EST by Alan

  Tags:    [edit]

  I assume Romney’s gonna win the GOP nomination.  Currently, some of the other candidates are playing populist cards to try to paint Romney as a “vulture capitalist,” and the rest of the GOP is folding in on itself, wondering whatever happened to the party that supported laissez-faire capitalism.

  Meanwhile, evangelicals are coming to terms with what seems an inevitable nomination.  As Texas pastor Robert Jeffress (who a few months ago called Mormonism a “cult”) has put it:

  It’s probably better to embrace a non-Christian like Romney, who embraces biblical values like the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage, rather than a professing Christian like President Obama, who embraces unbiblical positions.

  Meanwhile, I took some interest in this Vanity Fair article detailing Romney’s relations with women in the Church (starting at the bottom of page 2).  It’s mixed.  On the one hand, as stake president, Romney was open to a meeting where suggestions were made to better include women in the life of the Church.  But on the other hand, as bishop, he threatened excommunication on a pregnant single woman who refused to give her child up for adoption when it was born.  Another pregnant woman had a serious blood clot in her pelvis, and the child had a 50% chance of survival.  Romney simply couldn’t fathom how the stake president (who was a doctor) had recommended an abortion.  The woman writes:

  Here I—a baptized, endowed, dedicated worker, and tithe-payer in the church—lay helpless, hurt, and frightened, trying to maintain my psychological equilibrium, and his concern was for the eight-week possibility in my uterus—not for me!

  To get to the title of this post, I don’t think Romney will choose a female VP.  Even if he has to pick an evangelical in hopes of securing the conservative base just like McCain did in 2008, I don’t think he’ll pick a female evangelical (who would he pick?).  It just wouldn’t be the Mormon way of doing things.  (A Mormon man inviting a woman into a position of power?  *gasp of unthinkability*)

  Unlike evangelicals, Mormons blend the secular and the religious more when it comes to gender roles.  While most evangelical churches still refuse to ordain women, it’s my understanding that there’s not so much of an emphasis on women necessarily becoming stay-at-home moms.

  If indeed part of the reasoning behind McCain choosing Palin was to close a gender gap among swing voters, Romney’s religious background insisting women are “made” to become stay-at-home moms is going to be an issue even among evangelicals.  With role models like Palin and Bachmann, when Romney picks a male running mate later this year, women evangelicals are sure to feel some disappointment.  How deep that disappointment will run is unclear.

  (Edit:  here’s an article on female voters supporting Romney more this time around and why)

   

  Views: 231

Notamormon

• 

  Update

  Posted: January 12th, 2012, 2:45pm EST by Matt

  Tags:    [edit]

  There's been a very unusual winter here. We have had no snow at all here, where I live.
  
  Hardly any frosts, either. The rose trees are still blooming with last year's roses, bulbs are coming up two months early.
  
  Is it global warming or a natural variation? Who knows? Who can say?
  
  The Met Office is predicting a bout of colder weather over the next several days and the next couple of weeks.
  
  We shall see what happens.

MagicCicero's Odyssey

• 

  S&P 500 Dividends: The Futures Flatline... Again

  Posted: January 8th, 2012, 6:49pm EST by irbob sevenfold

  Tags:    [edit]

  The stock market's forward looking economic prediction for the next six to nine months of 2012, in one picture:
  
  
  
  Commentary from today's picture:
  
  

  Between 9 December 2011 and 9 January 2011, the expected future for S&P 500 dividend payments have essentially "flatlined". This repeats the year-end pattern we saw in 2010.

  
  
  

  In early 2011, the U.S. economy slowed down into what we describe as a "microrecession", characterized by very low economic growth rates, which lasted through 2011Q3.

  
  
  

  The U.S. didn't leave those economic doldrums until the fourth quarter of 2011.

  
  
  

  Is this a signal that forward looking investors believe the U.S. economy is about to repeat that performance?

  

Main Street Plaza

• 

  Sunday in Outer Blogness: Here We Go Again Edition!

  Posted: January 8th, 2012, 10:05am EST by chanson

  Tags:    [edit]

  Are you like me? Can’t stop rubbernecking that train wreck known as the Republican primary? The Mormons rooting for Romney are a little miffed that Romney’s lead isn’t more solid. (He has his disadvantages, but he stands out from the pack for not being certifiably insane — just stop asking about Mormonism!) It seems the new Christian sweetheart is Rick Santorum. Yes, that Santorum. While careful Santorum watchers actually caught him saying something reasonable, his main contributions seem to center around an unhealthy obsession with other peoples’ bedrooms, spiced with a dash of general stupidity. Like the Drudge Report, I won’t ignore Ron Paul, but he has some serious drawbacks as well. (As does Obama…)

  Note that Romney is apparently related to Parley P. Pratt and to Jon Huntsman, bolstering the claim that the term ethnic Mormon makes sense (and don’t forget we’re related to these guys). At least there’s a cool one running for office!

  There were some great discussion topics this past week! Joanna Brooks asked her Twitter audience how to sell the value of “a religious / faith / spiritual life” to 23 year olds, but failed to connect with her target audience:

  I can’t even get on board with the premises implied in these statements.

  Stevebloor takes a stab at the oldest question in Mormonism: If you can leave the church, why can’t you leave it alone?!!? Take Sulli — she’s not merely attending again, but is giving “correlation” a thumbs-up! Others are less thrilled by the correlated milk (Not to mention the Church Educational System itself). Fortunately, President Paternoster is redirecting apostates to faith-promoting correlated materials.

  There was a whole sub-theme on the connection between religion and morality (leading people to ask if holy cloth is OK as a security blanket). Thomas Riskas wrote a book on Deconstructing Mormonism — listen to his deconstruction on the radio here. And check out this study on LGBT Mormons!

  The skeptical community seems to be working through a bit of a sexism problem. Here’s hoping it gets cleared up. Maybe the Pink & Blue project will help. (Tangential: captured at my last post-mo gathering girls play with Legos.) Also, a singer’s nonsensical line pushed Daniel over the edge.

  Now for personal stories, one lost a house, another a heart. So let’s talk about undies, treats, personal youtube videos, and road rage poetry instead!!

  Sorry I didn’t get around to my Brodies’ nominations post this past week as promised — like many of you, I’m still recovering from my relaxing Christmas vacation! But the Brodies and the X-Mormon of the year really are coming up — just bear with us.

  Views: 381

MagicCicero's Odyssey

• 

  Your Paycheck in 2012

  Posted: January 5th, 2012, 7:15pm EST by irbob sevenfold

  Tags:    [edit]

  How much money will you really take home from your paycheck in 2012?

  
  
  

  To find out, we've created the tool below so you can run the numbers that matter the most for you! In addition to finding out how much money Uncle Sam will be taking straight out of your paycheck for income tax withholding and FICA (which we've broken down into your Social Security and Medicare tax components), our tool will also work in your 401(k) or 403(b) retirement plan contributions, as well as the effect of any flexible spending account arrangements you may have set up through your employer.

  
  
  

  Better yet, our tool will also let you see how you take home pay might change if you earn a raise during the year!

  
  
  

  Just enter the indicated data into our tool, and we'll run your numbers for 2012, or at least your numbers through February 2012, depending upon what happens with that temporary Social Security payroll tax cut. If and when that changes, we'll post a new version of the tool!

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Your Paycheck and Tax Withholding Data
  Category	Input Data	Values
  Basic Pay Data	Current Annual Pay
  Pay Period	Daily Weekly Biweekly Semimonthly Monthly Quarterly Semiannually Annually
  Federal Withholding Data	Filing Status	Single Married
  Number of Withholding Allowances	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
  401(k) or 403(b) Contributions	Pre-Tax Contributions (%)
  After Tax Contributions (%)
  Flexible Spending Account Annual Contribution Data	Health Care Spending Account
  Dependent Care Spending Account
  What if You Had a Raise?	Desired Raise (%)

  
  
  

  
  
  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Your Paycheck Data
  Category	Calculated Results	Values
  Basic Income Data	Proposed Annual Salary (Including Raise!)
  Typical Paycheck Amount
  Federal Tax Withholding Amounts	U.S. Federal Income Taxes
  U.S. Social Security Taxes
  U.S. Medicare Taxes
  401(k) or 403(b) Contributions	Pre-Tax Contributions
  After-Tax Contributions
  Total Contributions
  Flexible Spending Account Contributions	Health Care Spending Account
  Dependent Care Spending Account
  Take Home Pay Estimate	Net Paycheck Amount

  
  
  
  

  That's all well and good, but how does your paycheck compare to what it would have looked like in 2010, the last year before the Social Security payroll tax cut? And for that matter, when both Single and Married tax filers had lower federal income tax withholding rates in place as well? Did you really get the benefit of that full 2.0% reduction of your income more in your pocket? Our results table below shows how you take-home pay would have been....

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Compared to 2010
  Category	Calculated Results	Values
  Major Changes	Payroll Tax Cut "Savings" per Paycheck (*)
  Change in Income Taxes Withheld per Paycheck
  Net Gain (+) or Loss (-) to You per Paycheck
  Your Personal "Stimulus" (Percentage of Income)

  
  
  

  (*) As part of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, the taxes collected from all Americans with wage or salary income to support Social Security was reduced by 2.0%, from 6.2% to 4.2%. This change only affects what individuals see on their paychecks, as the employers' portion of these taxes will remain at 6.2% of their employees' wage or salary incomes.

  To make up any resulting shortfall in the Social Security tax collections used to pay benefits to today's Social Security recipients, the U.S. Treasury will increase its borrowing to cover the cost of providing those benefits at their current level. The Social Security payroll tax cut was extended for most wage and salary earners through February 2012 by the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011.

  
  
  
  
  

  As for why President Obama's promise of a 2.0% payroll tax cut really doesn't add up to 2.0% of your salary or wage income, see the charts here (if you file as Single) and here (if you file as Married), for the explanation of those tax withholding dynamics....

  
  
  

  And remember, one of the consequences of not putting that extra 2.0% of your paycheck into Social Security is that the program will run more deeply in the red, which will force the government to have to borrow more money just to pay benefits to today's Social Security recipients.

  
  
  

  Our advice: if you'd like to put Social Security on a more sound footing, and keep your take-home pay from being reduced by 2.0% when the temporary Social Security payroll tax cut is set to expire in February 2012, have your U.S. Representative or Senators reduce all the other income tax rates (and withholding tax rates) by 2.0% (or more). As far as President Obama is concerned, it will make no difference to how much money the federal government will borrow on his watch.

  
  
  Previously on Political Calculations
  
  

  We've been in the business of calculating people's paychecks (not including state income tax withholding) since 2005!

  
  
  

  
  
  • Your 2005 Paycheck
  
  
  • Your 2006 Paycheck
  
  
  • Your 2007 Paycheck
  
  
  • Your 2008 Paycheck
  
  
  • Your 2009 Paycheck
  
  
  • Your Paycheck in 2010
  
  
  • Your Paycheck in 2011
  
  

  
  
  

  But before we forget, your employer pays a lot more to keep you on the payroll than just your paycheck! The tool below shows how much it costs to employ you in 2011-12!

  
  
  

  
  
  • How Much Does It Really Cost to Employ You? (2011-12 Edition)
  
  

  

Letters from a broad...

• 

  Our Lego collection -- still crazy after all these... well, I guess it hasn't been that long...

  Posted: January 5th, 2012, 1:44am EST by C. L. Hanson

  Tags:    [edit]

  I had so many goals for what I wanted to accomplish during the holiday break!! Unfortunately, I accomplished almost none of them. One of the few exceptions was that I sorted all of the junk that had accumulated in our apartment, including sorting all the kids' toys -- notably the Lego collection! (A little like last time.)

  Fortunately, a photographer friend (Maya Lucchitta) visited us, and captured the Lego collection in all of its crazy-sorted splendor!

  

  Thanks -- it was a fun visit!!

  

MagicCicero's Odyssey

• 

  Meet the Married Rich of 2012!

  Posted: January 4th, 2012, 6:56pm EST by irbob sevenfold

  Tags:    [edit]

  We're following up our look at the payroll and income tax withholding plight of Single tax filers today with a look at the plight of those who have their income taxes withheld at the IRS' initial 2012 married tax rates:

  
  
  
  
  

  Once again, we're comparing the initial tax withholding rates for 2012 against those that applied in 2010, the last year before the employee's portion of the Social Security FICA payroll taxes of 6.2% of the employee's income was "temporarily" reduced to 4.2%.

  
  
  

  What we find is that the benefits of extending the Social Security payroll tax cut into 2012 is limited to roughly 51% of those who might choose the Married filing status for their federal tax withholding, namely those whose incomes might fall between $7,900 and $78,800.

  
  
  

  For all practical purposes, no individual who has their taxes withheld under the Married filing status whose income equals or exceeds $78,800 can expect to see any meaningful increase in their take-home pay with respect to what they might have done under the tax withholding rules of 2010. The increase in the income tax withholding rates will offset the reduction in they might otherwise see from the payroll tax cut.

  
  
  

  In the chart above, we've used two different shading levels to indicate the range of incomes for which the 2.0% income surtax incorporated into the December 2011 temporary payroll tax cut extension might apply.

  
  
  

  The lighter gray zone indicates the incomes where a married individual's income may be affected by the surtax while the darker gray zone indicates the incomes where a married couple will definitely be exposed to the surtax (since married filers combine the incomes of two people, it's possible for their combined income to be above the $110,100 level, yet still not be individually subject to the new 2.0% surtax.)

  
  
  

  All in all, we're not sure it's worth forcing Social Security to run more deeply in the red for the sake putting a smidgen more take-home money into just 51-53% of American income earners' paychecks. It would benefit way more people, and put way more disposable income into the economy, if the federal government would let the temporary Social Security payroll tax cut expire and cut regular income and withholding tax rates across the board by 2-3% instead.

  
  
  

  But if nothing else, at least we now know that President Obama's definition of who is "rich" really starts at $37,500 for single tax filers and $78,800 for married tax filers.

  
  
  References
  
  

  Internal Revenue Service. Payroll Tax Cut Temporarily Extended into 2012. IRS-2011-124. 23 December 2011.

  
  
  

  Internal Revenue Service. Early Release Copies of the 2010 Percentage Method Tables for Income Withholding. Notice 1036. Released December 2011.

  
  
  

  Internal Revenue Service. Early Release Copies of the 2010 Percentage Method Withholding and Advance Earned Income Credit Payment Tables. Notice 1036. Released November 2009.

  
  
  

  Internal Revenue Service - Statistics of Income Division. 2009 Individual Complete Report (Publication 1304), Table 1.2 - All Returns: Adjusted Gross Income, Exemptions, Deductions, and Tax Items: Size of Adjusted Gross Income and Marital Status. [Excel Spreadsheet]. Accessed 2 January 2012.

  
• 

  Meet the Rich of 2012

  Posted: January 3rd, 2012, 7:15pm EST by irbob sevenfold

  Tags:    [edit]

  Two days before Christmas 2011, the U.S. Congress acted to pass a temporary extension of the Social Security payroll tax cut that had originally been passed a year earlier, and which had been set to expire at the end of 2011. To celebrate the occasion, the White House issued the following statement describing who would benefit from extending the Social Security payroll tax cut:

  
  
  

  
  

  President Obama today signed into law a two month extension of the payroll tax cut, which means that 160 million American workers will not see their paychecks shrink starting Jan 1, 2012. The President thanked Congress for ending the stalemate and urged them to keep working to reach an agreement that extends this tax cut as well as unemployment insurance through all of 2012, saying it is the right thing to do for American families and for the economy, and called it "a boost that we very much need right now."

  
  

  
  
  

  While technically true, we find that the White House's statement is misleading.

  
  
  

  The part that's true is that had the Social Security payroll tax cut that had originally passed into law as part of the Job Creation Act of 2010, as many as 160 million individuals would indeed have seen their paychecks shrink as the Social Security payroll tax would have risen back to the level it was in 2010.

  
  
  

  The only problem is that just over half of those wage and salary earning individuals ever saw any benefit from the Social Security payroll tax cut on their paychecks in the first place!

  
  
  

  We'll illustrate why that was the case with the following chart, which presents the withholding income tax rates for individuals having money withheld at the "Single" tax filing status rates throughout the year for both 2010 and 2012.

  
  
  
  
  

  The 2012 withholding tax rates shown in the chart above are nearly identical to those for 2011 - the only difference is that the incomes at which the withholding tax rates apply for 2012 have been adjusted upward slightly from 2011's levels to account for the effect of inflation over the past year.

  
  
  

  What we find is that for all practical purposes, the only individuals who really benefitted from the payroll tax cut of 2010 were individuals with incomes between $6,050 and $37,500.

  
  
  

  Assuming that the income distribution given by the IRS' adjusted gross income data for single tax filers from 2009 is representative of today's single tax filers, we estimate that roughly 53% of the wage and salary earners who have their taxes withheld at the Single filing status will see any significant benefit on their paychecks from the extension of the Social Security payroll tax cut. At least, as compared to what their paychecks would have looked like for earning the identical incomes in 2010, before the temporary Social Security payroll tax cut was enacted.

  
  
  

  Much of the same math applied for 2011, which is a major reason why there was so little economic "stimulus" from the payroll tax cut - instead of having more money to take home, a very large percentage of individuals took home less money after all tax withholding from their paychecks than they would have in 2010.

  
  
  

  And for all practical purposes in 2012, almost all individuals with incomes above $37,500 will see the federal government's withholding and payroll taxes claim a larger share of their paychecks than they would have seen in 2010. With almost exactly the same economic benefit from the "stimulative" effect desired by President Obama.

  
  
  

  But at least now the pain of higher federal taxes taking more money out of every paycheck is being spread among all those single tax filers with incomes above $37,500.

  
  
  

  Meet the rich of 2012!

  
  
  References
  
  

  Internal Revenue Service. Payroll Tax Cut Temporarily Extended into 2012. IRS-2011-124. 23 December 2011.

  
  
  

  Internal Revenue Service - Statistics of Income Division. 2009 Individual Complete Report (Publication 1304), Table 1.2 - All Returns: Adjusted Gross Income, Exemptions, Deductions, and Tax Items: Size of Adjusted Gross Income and Marital Status. [Excel Spreadsheet]. Accessed 2 January 2012.

  
  
  

  White House. President Obama: Extending Payroll Tax Cut Is a "Boost We Need Right Now". 23 December 2011.

  
• 

  Median Adjusted Gross Incomes by Tax Filling Status

  Posted: January 2nd, 2012, 6:51pm EST by irbob sevenfold

  Tags:    [edit]

  Sometimes, as we work on our various projects, we stumble across data that's kind of interesting in and of itself.

  
  
  

  To that end, today's example of that would appear to provide more evidence that social factors have more to do with the perceived rise in income inequality in the United States over time than do economic factors:

  
  
  
  
  

  In the chart above, we've presented the median adjusted gross incomes we've estimated for 2009's income tax filers according to their tax filing status. The number in parentheses below each column in the chart indicates the number of tax returns filed in 2009 for each group.

  
  
  

  It would seem that just marital status has a lot to do with the observed differences between the various kinds of income tax filers.

  
  
  Data Source
  
  

  U.S. Internal Revenue Service Statistics of Income Division. 2009 Individual Complete Report (Publication 1304), Table 1.2. [Excel Spreadsheet]. Accessed 2 January 2012.

  

Main Street Plaza

• 

  “Religious Exemption” in Sexual Orientation Nondiscrimination Law

  Posted: January 2nd, 2012, 2:00am EST by Alan

  Tags:    [edit]

  I’ve been thinking about how a couple leaders of the LDS Church have vocalized how they wouldn’t mind the 2009 nondiscrimination laws in Salt Lake City (in housing and employment, on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity) be expanded across the state of Utah.  Specifically, what they’re interested in is duplicating how those laws include “religious exemptions” that let Mormon and other religiously-owned institutions be exempt from the nondiscrimination laws altogether.  The leaders don’t bring attention to this, of course — rather they just voice their support for the “balance” in the laws — but you can bet your breeches that if the exemptions were removed, the Church would not support the nondiscrimination laws whatsoever.

  Not all Mormons are convinced these laws are good, regardless of the exemptions.  Many Mormons continue to believe that such laws are a sign of “death by a thousand cuts” to traditional family culture.  This is because it’s possible to imagine the phrase “religious exemption” as a temporary placeholder for when everyone will eventually have to follow the same law, rather than the language setting in stone a divide between “civil society” and “religious institutions.”  When it comes down to it, no Utahn is a member of a religious institution and not also subject to civil society.  I can understand why the dialogue hasn’t moved much in the Utah State Legislature, even as a few more individual cities have followed Salt Lake City’s lead since 2009.

  There’s an angle of why the Church feels its exemptions are necessary that I think is worth examining in order to move the dialogue forward.  Let’s take, for example, a teacher at BYU in a same-sex relationship.  Currently, if the school finds out about the relationship, the teacher will be fired on the basis of breaking the honor code:  namely, the rule that students and faculty are not supposed to have sexual relations with anyone other than a married spouse (“married” as defined by the Church must be an opposite-sex spouse).  If that teacher were able to sue BYU for “discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation,” then that would open up BYU’s honor code to legal scrutiny (as it is applied to everyone, gay, straight or otherwise).  Is it possible to protect people from being fired on the basis of sexual orientation/gender identity at BYU, but also not affect BYUs honor code?  I can’t think of how.  Still, does an individual citizen’s “right” to privacy trump a religious institution’s “right” to have knowledge of private affairs and discipline accordingly for the sake of religious assembly?  Perhaps this isn’t the way the legal world would frame the issue exactly, but hopefully I’ve made the contention clear.

  Recently, I asked an orthodox gay Mormon who supported the SLC nondiscrimination ordinances (to include the exemptions) what is more important to him:  protection in housing/employment, or preventing same-sex couples from being allowed in Mormon spaces.  He told me that he would rather deal with Mormon homophobia, which he believes to be dissipating anyway, than bring “sexual orientation law” into Mormondom.  He feels such law would limit the Church’s right to discriminate on the basis having sex with someone you’re not married to.  He casually added that same-sex couples are allowed at church, “everyone is allowed,” which, well…I’m slightly curious about the current cultural dynamics (that is, how my local ward would respond to a same-sex couple…though my partner isn’t interested in carrying out such an experiment with me, understandably).

  Anyhow, I’m not sure how to resolve this protection and/or privacy vs assembly issue other than the exemptions that are in place.  On the other hand, I’m not a fan of the exemptions because I see them as wiggle room for the Church and individuals in the Church to continue to be as homophobic as they want, and not have to be subject to the same law everyone else is.

  Views: 447

MagicCicero's Odyssey

• 

  Solving the Biggest Civil Rights Crisis of 2012

  Posted: January 1st, 2012, 7:34pm EST by irbob sevenfold

  Tags:    [edit]

  Welcome to 2012! We're kicking off the new year by solving the biggest civil rights crisis in America today, at least according to the United States Department of Justice: the racial disparity in the percentage of individuals without current photo identification needed for voting in South Carolina!

  
  
  

  The editorialists of the Wall Street Journal were a bit taken aback by the apparent priorities of the U.S. DOJ:

  
  
  

  
  

  Eric Holder must be amazed that President Obama was elected and he could become Attorney General. That's a fair inference after the Attorney General last Friday blocked South Carolina's voter ID law on grounds that it would hurt minorities. What a political abuse of law.

  
  
  

  In a letter to South Carolina's government, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez called the state law—which would require voters to present one of five forms of photo ID at the polls—a violation of Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Overall, he noted, 8.4% of the state's registered white voters lack current photo ID, compared to 10% of nonwhite voters.

  
  
  

  This is the yawning chasm the Justice Department is now using to justify the unprecedented federal intrusion into state election law, and the first denial of a "pre-clearance" Voting Rights request since 1994.

  
  

  
  
  

  According to the 2010 U.S. Census, 66.2% of South Carolina's 4,625,364 entire population were racially classified as being "White alone", while 27.9% were racially classified as being "Black or African American alone", who make up the lion's share of the state's "non-white" population. We will assume these percentages hold for the state's voting age population, which would put the number of individuals Age 18 or older at 3,544,890.

  
  
  
  
  

  Simple multiplication then tells us that there are approximately 2,346,717 "whites" and 989,024 "blacks" of voting age in South Carolina.

  
  
  

  Using Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez' figures, we can now estimate the number of each racial subset of South Carolina's voting population that he claims lacks current photo identification. For whites, that works out to be 201,818 individuals, while for blacks, the number estimated to not have current photo identification is 98,902, bringing the combined total of current photo-ID-less potential voters to 300,720.

  
  
  

  These figures assume that 100% of the state's voting age population is registered to vote. In reality, an estimated 65.6% of South Carolina's voting age population actually voted in the 2008 election, which suggests that the actual number of registered voters in the state who might be affected by not having a current photo ID will be nearly one-third smaller than our figures suggest. We'll assume the 100% figure for our remaining calculations however, because they would represent a worst-case scenario.

  
  
  

  Using those larger numbers then, all it would take to make the percentage of blacks without current photo IDs be equal to the percentage of whites without current photo IDs to achieve Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez' vision of perfect racial equality is for 13,846 blacks to take the simple action of renewing the photo IDs they have previously been issued by the state of South Carolina, and which have since expired.

  
  
  

  After all, common sense tells us that individuals who have previously been able to obtain valid state-issued photo identification should have a pretty simple time doing so again. Apparently, the state's Department of Motor Vehicles will even pick you up and drive you to their office for the sake of getting you a valid and current photo ID to support your desire to vote in the last days to register ahead of an election!

  
  
  

  Going back to the numbers, South Carolina's Department of Elections reports that 240,000 state voters lacked current ID cards as of October 2011. The state's Department of Motor Vehicles has indicated that 200,000 of those represent a combination of individuals whose existing photo IDs have expired (most often), or who have moved to other states, or who have passed away.

  
  
  

  For those who haven't moved to other states or died, perhaps the easiest solution for obtaining a current photo ID would be to follow the directions provided by South Carolina's Department of Motor Vehicles for renewing their expired driver's license to make them current.

  
  
  

  And to help "nudge" them in the right direction, we would recommend that Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez take steps to prevent these particular individuals from doing things like boarding aircraft, buying alcohol, tobacco or firearms, depositing a check at a bank, applying for a loan, or voting in a union election, to name just a few ways the government might use its power to compel such people to eliminate the specific racial disparity of which he is so concerned.

  
  
  

  At least then, perhaps Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez will feel like he is achieving something meaningful in his career!

  
  
  Data Sources and References
  
  

  U.S. Census Bureau. 2010 Census Data. Accessed 2 January 2012.

  
  
  

  File, Thom and Crissey, Sarah. Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2008. Current Population Reports. U.S. Census Bureau. May 2010.

  
  
  

  Howden, Lindsay M. and Meyer, Julie A. Age and Sex Composition: 2010. 2010 Census Briefs. May 2011.

  
  
  

  Wall Street Journal. Holder's Racial Politics. 30 December 2011.

  

Main Street Plaza

• 

  Sunday in Outer Blogness: Happy 2012 Edition!

  Posted: January 1st, 2012, 10:59am EST by chanson

  Tags:    [edit]

  Warren Jeffs has decided to start off the new year for his followers on an interesting note. And, by interesting, I mean that — if you doubted that the FLDS are a danger to themselves and others — Jeffs has decided to remove all doubt. At first, it looked like he was threatening to command his followers into mass suicide. Then it turned out that he merely declared their marriages null and void, and told them they can’t have sex again until he re-seals them. As a result, he may have lost some communication privileges.

  On that note, even if you’re not thrilled about the holidays, your year wasn’t so bad, was it? Some things have changed for the better! Here are some examples of holiday traditions, presents, holiday celebrations, holiday memories, reviews of last year, and plans for the upcoming year. Personally, I’m grateful for Kuri’s good reads, for people who contribute interesting content to MSP, and that I didn’t grow up homeschooled in Rexburg. Also, people have had positive and negative experiences with family and friends. The faithful had to attend church on holidays this year (somewhat grudgingly), and some less-believing got sucked in as well!

  Anyway, at church I seemed to catch a fairly surprising amount of hostility. I slipped out to the bathroom in the middle of services between musical numbers and was given a couple of full body scans and scowls from the women standing in the back with irritated children. My sister goes to a Mormon church, but I was raised Mormon and am fully able to dress myself appropriately for church (and I had the shawl fully covering my shoulder actually in church). I don’t know if standards have changed or if hopeless spinsters like myself are expected to be more mild and, I don’t know, pastel. Perhaps the rumors we always heard about Utah mormons being more cliquish and judgy than the rest of the world, but that seems a little unfair of me to conclude with so little data. Oh well, I think I was fabulous.

  Now, to be clear on what we’re celebrating, remember Jesus’ birth calculations don’t quite add up, and the Christmas story isn’t as rosy as you may think. Astronomers can explain the orbit of the Earth, but simply predicting the end-times based on the Mayan Calendar may be simpler.

  Here are this week’s discussion topics: First, does the CoJCoL-dS encourage mediocrity, and is that why so many of us square pegs have trouble fitting in? Also why is female sexuality so threatening? To the point where it’s the first thing some parents worry about and we end up with these awful object lessons? And while things are getting a little better, it seems that from day one women have to put up with a lot of shit. Bonus topic: is “I’ve Experienced God in My Life” a good reason for belief?

  Happy New Year!!!

  Views: 447

MagicCicero's Odyssey

• 

  Best Albums of 2011

  Posted: January 1st, 2012, 3:05am EST by irbob sevenfold

  Tags:    [edit]

  It may have been a bad movie year, but the music industry did not disappoint. I actually had a hard time narrowing down this list to fifteen. There are certainly others that were in the running, others that didn't make the list because of one track or another--it was that hard. Here it is:
  

  1. Tom Waits: Bad As Me
  2. Bon Iver: Bon Iver
  3. Wilco: The Whole Love
  4. Black Keys: El Camino
  5. The Civil Wars: Barton Hollow
  6. Trampled by Turtles: Palomino
  7. The Roots: Undun
  8. Glenn Campbell: Ghost on the Canvas
  9. Foo Fighters: Wasting Light
  10. HARDTOBREATHE: The Reckoning
  11. Bush: Sea of Memories
  12. Miranda Lambert: Four the Record
  13. Lucinda Williams: Blessed
  14. Matt Nathanson: Modern Love
  15. Christina Perri: Lovestrong

  Narrowing it down to fifteen may have been difficult, but picking the number one album of 2011 was incredibly easy. After listening to one track of Tom Waits' seventeenth studio album, I was sold. If you haven't listened to it, go. Now! It's that good.
  It was a great year for upstarts (Christina Perri and The Civil Wars) and artists that have been around for what seems like ages (Lucinda Williams, Tom Waits and the incomparable Glenn Campbell). And that I can only think of two disappointments (return of the Red Hot Chili Peppers and Ryan Adams' Ashes & Fire) is saying something. The music industry better get cracking because 2011 is going to be hard to beat.
  
  

Letters from a broad...

• 

  2011/2012 State of the me address

  Posted: January 1st, 2012, 12:05am EST by C. L. Hanson

  Tags:    [edit]

  I was thinking of not writing a "state of the me" this year since I'm not feeling very ambitious this year, so most of my goals are of the "just keep swimming" variety. I want to work harder at helping my kids develop good study habits so that they'll eventually do their homework on their own -- plus I'm trying to encourage their independence in other age-appropriate ways, even when (or especially when) it's easier for me to do stuff for them than to insist they do stuff for themselves. I'd like to continue to get my stuff in order in preparation for moving to a new apartment next Fall. (I'd like to travel light through life, but the kids aren't always on the same page with me on this.) I have some things I'd like to write for Main Street Plaza, and I'm planning to attend Sunstone. And, as always, I need to keep studying German.

  Anyone who follows this blog knows I'm always on about learning German. (Just click on my "German Language" label below!) So it seems like I should be done by now, right? It's frustrating that I've put other projects I care about on indefinite hold in order to devote more time to German, and it's still not "done"!

  The other frustrating part is that I'd thought that once I got to this level (the level I'm at now), improving my German would stop being work because I'd be constantly getting German practice in my daily life. And it's true to a certain degree. I often read the free newspapers, and I always read all of the ads in the tram and at the tram stops -- and these items improve my vocabulary and my familiarity with different grammatical constructions. (Ads are very helpful because they often include wordplay.) But in day-to-day conversation, people are as likely to speak English or Swiss-German (Züritüütsch, specifically) as they are to speak high German, and the local dialect isn't really mutually intelligible with high German until you've reached a level of both that's... well, higher than the level I'm at.

  These days, when I meet new people that I need to communicate with, the first question that comes up is language. Do I speak Switzerdeutsch? No? Shall it be high German, then, or English? After two years of working on this, I still can't just communicate and interact with people without this whole Ausländer! Foreigner! American! thing constantly in my face and everyone else's. It drives me nuts.

  I don't mind being different, I don't mind being a foreigner, and I don't mind the fact that I don't always fit in, but I don't like the fact that the second I open my mouth, I get sorted into a little mental cubbyhole that I don't want to be placed in. And I'm tired of always having to make small talk about where I'm from. I don't want to be rude to people who obviously mean to be polite and friendly by asking, but I'm just tired of it. Sometimes I want to reply: What does it matter where I'm from? It's far from the most interesting thing about me...

  Also (to make this post more pathetically self-absorbed than it already is) nobody understands why it bugs me. Seriously, nobody. My fellow foreigner-in-Switzerland friends are basically like Of course we always go around with the equivalent of a big neon "Ausländer" sign around our necks -- you'll be happier once you stop fighting it and just accept it. But I don't want to accept it.

  The thing is that in France it wasn't like this. It was never like this in France. There I could define myself in my own terms. I feel like I lost something valuable in the move, and it's costing me a pretty penny to get it back.

  I was trying to explain it to my Austrian friend the other day. I told her that in France, I would talk to people for a while, and they'd perceive that I have some kind of foreign accent, but it wasn't obvious where I'm from. People would try to guess, and they would essentially never guess correctly. This surprised my friend, and her surprise depressed me all the more. So my crappy German makes it hard for people to believe that my pronunciation in French is (or was? :,^( ) pretty good...? Lovely.

  The German language itself is actually quite interesting. My goal for the year is to read all of Nouvelle grammaire appliquée de l'allemand avec exercices corrigés, and do all the exercises. I'd even call it fun if I didn't have so many negative/frustrating associations with the whole procedure. Plus I want to take an evening conversation course, to help me motivate myself to compose my thoughts in German.

  I imagine that, once I'm ready to start learning some Switzerdeutsch, the whole procedure will become fun again. Nothing against high German, but on some level it feels like high German is something I have to do simply to get myself out of this hole and back up to ground level again, and then when I start learning the dialect, I'll be building something up. We'll see.

  Wish me luck!

  

Notamormon

• 

  Happy New Year, Everyone!

  Posted: December 31st, 2011, 10:02am EST by Matt

  Tags:    [edit]

  I know there has been some pretty nasty s**t going down for some people who read this blog.
  
  I just hope everyone has a better 2012 than they could have hoped for!

MagicCicero's Odyssey

• 

  Smorgasbord Saturday (New Year's Edition)

  Posted: December 31st, 2011, 9:02am EST by irbob sevenfold

  Tags:    [edit]

  • "New Rules for the New Year"/Bill Maher, New York Times
  • "Alcohol and the Idaho legislator"/Randy Stapilus, Ridenbaugh Press
  • "12/30/1905 - Today In History"/John T. Richards, Idaho Meanderings
  • "A brainpower revolution"/Eugene Robinson, Washington Post
  • "Perry's Abortion Stance Gets Even More Extreme"/Kate Sheppard, Mother Jones
  • "25 Literary resolutions for 2012. What's yours?"/Jacket Copy (via L.A. Times)
  • "2011: A Year of Transitions"/Greg Johns, MLB.com
  • "Keynes Was Right"/Paul Krugman, New York Times
  • "Why Is Nepal Cracking Down On Tibetan Refugees?"/Jon Krakauer, The New Yorker
  • "Pudge would welcome return to Rangers"/Texas Rangers Report, ESPNDallas.com
  • "A Drug That Wakes the Near Dead"/Jeneen Interlandi, New York Times Magazine

  
  
• 

  The Cost of Executing Monsters

  Posted: December 31st, 2011, 8:46am EST by irbob sevenfold

  Tags:    [edit]

  This week the Idaho Department of Correction released the amount the state's execution of Paul Ezra Rhoades cost the state of Idaho. Not surprisingly for those who are familiar with the cost of carrying out the death penalty, the cost was great. The exact cost IDOC released to the press was $53,411, not including the construction of the new execution chamber (F Block, as it is named).
  In an interestingly timed release, the IDOC stated the following:

  BOISE, December 30, 2011 – The recent execution of Paul Ezra Rhoades, IDOC #26864, cost the Idaho Department of Correction $53,411.
  Of the total, $25,583 went to employee overtime and $27,828 went to operating costs [...]
  [...] Operating expenses include medical supplies, equipment rentals and meals. The total cost figure does not include salary and benefits paid to IDOC staff who would have been working regardless of whether or not there had been an execution. Only overtime costs that were accrued as a result of the event were included in the final tally.

  The press release went on to compare the cost of the state of Idaho's execution of Rhoades with that of the state of Oregon as they prepared for the execution of an inmate who was ultimately granted a reprieve when the governor of that state placed a moratorium on executions. The two states were separated by merely a few thousand dollars. The insertion of this information in the press release may only be a way for the IDOC to explain to the general public that the cost is comparable to other states and other executions, but it seemed inappropriate to be announcing that we can kill a man in the name of our people for cheaper than another state can.
  When the new execution chamber was revealed to the people of the state of Idaho prior to Rhoades' execution, we were told that the necessity presented itself when the state began to realize there would be several more executions in the coming years. Maybe that is so, unfortunately to those of us who would rather our state not take lives in our name, but it doesn't erase the cost.
  As long as we choose to execute the monsters among us, there will be a cost.
  
• 

  The Finder

  Posted: December 31st, 2011, 8:33am EST by irbob sevenfold

  Tags:    [edit]

  It's official, The Finder has it's own page on the FOX website! And they've been running ads for the hour-long show that will premiere on January 12, 2012 at 9/8c.
  Check out this video for a preview of the show:
  
  
  If you're not a regular watcher of Bones, you may have missed FOX introducing The Finder (aka Walter Sherman). They're calling it a spin-off of Bones, but the only connection I see is that both shows are based on a series of books and have the same creator. There isn't much of a connection between the two, other than the story line devised to introduce one show in the time slot of the other. The Finder is based on two amazing books by Richard Greener. Called The Locator series, Greener wrote The Knowland Retribution and The Lacey Confession centered on the unique gifts of a military veteran who can find nearly anything or anyone--lost, missing or stolen. Not unusually, there are some differences between the books and the soon to premiere tv show (just as there are differences between the books by Kathy Reichs and the Bones show). Most notably, there are far less characters in the tv show than in the book, one major character specifically. Differences aside, it looks to be a very entertaining show.
  Given my track record of liking shows of late that are cancelled after a season or even less, I hope that Bones fans and fans of the Greener books will tune in and give this show a chance.
  

Main Street Plaza

• 

  Illustrating Mormonism is a Social Construct

  Posted: December 31st, 2011, 8:28am EST by profxm

  Tags:    [edit]

  A cousin recently sent me a message via Facebook.  I’m guessing it was related to his sister giving birth to a badly deformed child that died within about four hours, but he didn’t mention that.  Anyway, here’s his message and the questions it contained:

  Hi [ProfXM]. I hope you are well. I’ve had the chance to read some of your writings. Very interesting. Given your education and background, I have a question for you. (There is no underlying motive here. ) Do you feel that “religion” (if that word can be defined adequately) has been created by man as a coping mechanism?

  Some of my professional work was recently in the press in Utah and was spotted by several family members.  I’m guessing that is how he is familiar with the work I do.  Regardless, I thought I should answer his question since this is a question I answer in my classes where I teach.  Here’s my response:

  Hi [Cousin],

  I’m happy to don my “Sociologist of Religion” cap and answer that question.

  Within the sociology of religion there is no question that religion is human-made. We call it a “social construction.” What that means is that religion only exists because humans collectively agree to pretend that it exists.

  It may be helpful to compare it with something like “government.” We all agree that “government” exists, but when we are forced to think about it, government only exists as an idea. You can’t touch government. Buildings (e.g., courthouses, state capitols, etc.) are not government. People (e.g., judges, lawyers, lawmakers, etc.) are not government. Government is an idea that humans share. It only exists because you and I and everyone else agree that it exists. And it has obviously been called into question at times when people have revolted and overthrown governments.

  Religion is the same. Religion is not the buildings (e.g., churches, temples, synagogues, mosques, etc.). Religion is not the people (e.g., prophets, pastors, priests, bishops, etc.). Religion is an idea. If we stopped believing in religion, religion would cease to exist. It is just an idea.

  That is the standard way of thinking about religion in the sociology of religion. That doesn’t mean that sociologists also reject any notion of a deity or other supernatural influence on religion; that is a question that has no evidence and is therefore not a scientific question. But every religion shows substantial evidence of being constructed by humans for humans.

  Maybe some specific examples would help illustrate this. I’ll use Mormonism since we are both familiar with it.

  First example. In 1830, Hiram Page, one of the Eight Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, began receiving revelations through a “peepstone” or “seer stone,” like what Joseph Smith Jr. used to translate the Book of Mormon (and for various other activities). Because Joseph Smith was in the process of consolidating his authority and power as the leader of his new religion, he immediately received a “revelation” saying that Hiram Page’s revelations were from the devil. This is detailed in Section 28:11-16 of the Doctrine and Covenants. As a sociologist, I see this as an obvious attempt by Joseph Smith to consolidate his power and remove a threat to his authority. In other words, whether or not there was an actual revelation, this event can be interpreted from a “social constructionist” perspective to suggest that Joseph Smith was doing something pragmatic – defending his authority by “receiving a revelation” that defended his authority.

  Another good example also comes from the Doctrine & Covenants. Section 132 is dated from 1843, less than a year before Joseph Smith’s death. He had been practicing polygamy for somewhere around 7 years at this point. His wife, Emma, found out about it and was furious (part of the reason she didn’t follow Brigham Young after the split in 1844). In Section 132, Joseph Smith uses his ability to receive “revelations” to reprimand her (see verses 51-57). He basically tells her, through revelation, to shut up about the polygamy and accept that he is having affairs with multiple women. And, if she doesn’t, she will “be destroyed.” You and I have been married and had wives. It’s not hard at all to see through such a “revelation” and realize what is happening here: Joseph Smith is using his “authority” to cover his philandering.

  Again, in neither of the above examples can we say definitively that God was not speaking with Joseph Smith and telling him to say or do these things. But a social constructionist looks at these and sees someone clearly abusing his authority to get what he wants: consolidated power and an obedient wife who accepts his adultery. Maybe that is what God wanted. But the sociologist doesn’t see it that way. The sociologist puts these events into their context and looks for alternative explanations. The simplest explanation here is that Joseph Smith was pretending to receive revelation to get what he wanted, not that god wanted him to do these things.

  I could give more examples, but hopefully those help illustrate the sociological perspective on religion.

  As far as whether religion was created just to help people as a coping mechanism, there is some question about that. Certainly it functions as a coping mechanism for many people, but there is a lot of current debate as to why religion sprang into “existence” among humans that goes beyond just a coping mechanism. I could go into some of the details of that debate if you’d like me to.

  I hope this helps.

  Best,

  [ProfXM]

  Anyone have other good or perhaps better examples from Mormonism to illustrate that it is socially constructed or human-made?

  Views: 922
• 

  Sister Wife: the Pop Song

  Posted: December 31st, 2011, 9:14pm EST by Holly

  Tags:    [edit]

  Can’t believe someone didn’t think of it sooner: a pop song about rivalry between sister wives. 

  Here’s the direct link.

  Views: 183