Seven Knockdown Reasons to Get a Puppy.

The minute I knew I was gonna marry Hannah, my mind was struck with amazing images of little kiddies in sundresses running through tall grass, family eggnog around Christmas time, and Hannah & I getting old together.

But I'm an impatient guy. Kids cook like a Crock-Pot, Hannah hates eggnog, and we both still look pre-puberty. So, I'll need something to hold me over.

A puppy.

I don't care about the breed, I don't care about the nothing.

Of course, the reasons for getting a puppy are inherently obvious... but I'm still here. Lap is puppy-free. Facebook has no selfies of me & Tasha (her would-be name.)

Hannah, I'm going to say this nicely but firmly.

WE'RE GETTING A PUPPY. 

Please.

Think about it?

(Love you.)

Just consider a few of the many knockdown reasons. (This list is not exhaustive.)

1. The most awesome stress relief tool. 
Those pet medication commercials have been saying for YEARS that pets help you LIVE longer because they reduce STRESS.  I'm stressed! You're stressed! We're juggling some dangerously stressful things right now -- working, breathing, living with me, all at the same time.

It's basically a totally justified preventative care measure. There's GOTTA be a clause in Obamacare for it. Who knows? (Seriously, probably nobody knows.)

2. We'd be on the social map. 
Pet owners are cooler than boring people. EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS.

Exhibit A: http://magazine.foxnews.com/celebrity/celebrities-and-their-exotic-pets

And I'm not even ASKING for a kinkajou like Paris Hilton. (What is that thing anyway?)

There's even a well-known slogan for this phenomenon: Want cool? Get drool!

3. The perfect baby warmup. 
I'd love our little puppy like one of our own, but I'd also be willing to experiment on it as preparation for a baby someday.

Dream with me for a moment.

Think of all the organic, MSG-free, high-fructose-corn-syrup-lacking, non-gluten meals you could feed this dog, all without (much) fear of a lawsuit coming our way if something goes horribly wrong.

Admit it. You'd love it. I'd love it. The dog would probably hate it but that hate would be vastly overpowered by our love.

4. Our families would love it. 
In a recent survey of my sister, 100% of the respondents were totally on board with us getting a puppy. In addition, she was quoted as saying this:

"I'd like it because then I would have another friend."

The simple question is this: Do we love our families, or do we not? Completely up to you...

5. They're cheap cuteness. 
Let me be clear. I really think babies are better than dogs.

But dogs are cheaper. And I'm willing to bet I could scrounge one up for a grand total of free.

6. Develop an immunity for your pet allergies. 
I know there's that one allergy you have that might hold us back with this. But I once read on Yahoo! Answers that you can develop a cat allergy immunity if you hang around cats.

Must work with dogs too? Right?

7. I'd smile more. 
Don't you like it when I smile?

Let me know when you decide! Love you!

Obama's Doing Business Backwards.

If you're on the Twitter, it's hard not to notice the Obama administration trying SO hard to sell its newest faulty product.

President Obama has one more campaign in him, and he's asking you to be a part of it: http://t.co/3gfRGCvFc0 #Obamacare
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) November 12, 2013

FACT: Thanks to #Obamacare, 73,000 more Floridians will gain access to care through community health centers —> http://t.co/WAcF02SMk8
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) November 7, 2013

“This marketplace is open now … The deal is good. The prices are low.” —President Obama on #Obamacare
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) October 30, 2013

"Nearly 50% of young adults will be eligible for a plan under $50/month…that's an amazing rate" —@Simas44: http://t.co/byS8JaB1KN #Obamacare
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) October 29, 2013

This cancer survivor supports #Obamacare because it helps people with pre-existing conditions #GetCovered. http://t.co/JB7fXmYizM
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) November 10, 2013

Scroll through the White House or Obama's Twitter feeds, and you'll see it never ends. 

My first reaction to all of this was pretty cynical-conservative-typical: Wow, must be a pretty screwed up deal if he's trying so hard to sell it.

But I should to be fair. Whenever something's messed up with government, we're quick to compare it to how a business should operate, like some sort of political plumb line. Whatever a good private business does, so should government. We say things like:

If Obama worked for me, I'd fire him for launching a product before it was ready. 

Or...

The government should balance its stinkin' budget just like my business does. 

Why should this be any different? Even the best business needs to sell its product -- no matter how great it is, right? Right!

So, why am I having a fit when the government tries to sell its own?

Here's why: Obama's trying sell us a product after we've been forced to buy it. 

And that's not good business. That's coercion. Even worse: the product doesn't work and there's no return policy.

Obama's doing business backwards, and we have no choice but to sit and suffer from it. 

Why I Voted "No" on the MPS Referendum.

To my surprise & excitement, the recent operating referendum proposed by Marshall Public Schools has been shot down, and I wanted to explain why I voted "no."

Take this all with a grain of salt, because 1) I'm not a property owner and probably won't be one soon, 2) I'm relatively unfamiliar with referendum history in the Marshall area, and 3) I'm relatively unfamiliar with referendums in general.

But I feel confident in voting "no." First: some (very) quick details on the referendum itself. 

WHAT IT IS
The referendum would endure for 4 years, increase general education revenue by $150 per pupil, and run side by side the existing referendum passed back in 2011. The priorities would be two-fold: improve educational technology and update security infrastructure.

HOW IT WOULD HAVE WORKED
Property tax increase.

WHY I VOTED 'NO'

1. Half of the funding needs should have been budgeted well in advance. 
I'm talking technology here. From Moore's Law, to the rise of Apple, to the greatness that is Wikipedia, technology is rapidly changing all. the. time. While often unpredictable how things will change, one thing's for sure: it's going to happen. 

That said, there should have been an existing budget in place for technological improvement years ago. I don't know the budget, I don't know the numbers. But there was nothing in the sales pitch to suggest that there was such a budget, or even an admittance that it was just poorly planned and didn't meet unexpected needs. That said, the best I can assume is that tech budgeting didn't happen at all. 

And now taxpayers are being asked to make up for that mistake.

2. I felt as if marketing for the referendum was trying to hide that it'd be a tax increase.
Reading through the website, the mailings, the newspaper articles, much time was spent on talking about a net tax decrease. While the actual property tax increase (the true part of the referendum) was barely mentioned at all. Loosely suggesting (in my mind) that this referendum won't raise taxes. Which is technically wrong. 

Make no mistake. The referendum was a tax increase. But bond debt refinancing has decreased that tax by a greater margin anyway, and so in conjunction with the referendum, there would have been an overall tax decrease. 

But no credit goes to the referendum for that. Regardless of the referendum, taxes would have been lowered. In fact, taxes are even lower now that the measure failed. Even so, throughout the months of marketing, I got this weird, disconcerting vibe that if you wanted your taxes lowered, you should vote 'yes.' Which is sort of misleading. Maybe that's just me, but it's not. 

And by the way, telling me "Taxes are going to be lowered anyway" is a poor justification for passing a referendum. 

3. I was unmoved by the "Hey, these schools are doing it!" rationale. 
Playing a pretty hefty role in the case for the referendum, promotional material was very clear that area schools were also voting on referendums, and that several were already in place. 

In short, "Hey, they're doing it -- so should we!"

But I care neither about how many schools are doing it, nor how many pass. If it's such a good deal, there should be much better reasons to convince me. Until I hear those, I'm not going to succumb to what I think is a bad idea just because other people are doing it.

4. I get this unsettling vibe that all referendums are inherently good. 
And I hate that. Because it's just not true.

I heard virtually no public opposition to the referendum in the press or anywhere else (maybe that's my own fault). It was all skipping through daisies, free unicorn rides, and candy for everyone. 

But if something's so darn good that no one has any criticism or skepticism for it, it's probably not that darn good. At least from my experience. 

5. I felt uncomfortable supporting another referendum to fund a broken system. 
Easy stab back: "So, why are you punishing the schools? It's not their fault."

True. But messages are sent through the polls. The message is this: Something's got to be done to prevent the need for future referendums. I have ideas of where to start, but those are for a different day.

I really do sympathize with the district upon hearing about the results of the vote. But I can't regret voting 'no.'

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps next time, the two items of technology and safety should not be paired together. I did see some justification for additional funding for security measures, mainly because of unpredictable, awful events that happened recently. But combining that 'need' with something many perceived as more of a 'want' probably held a lot of people back.

I know there's a need for money in the schools right now. I know the people who put the referendum together sincerely felt a need for what they were asking. But in the end, I still wasn't persuaded.

Why a "Create Your Own" Marriage Terrifies Me.

I'm not the biggest fan of Dan Savage. If you're unfamiliar, he's a fairly well-known author, speaker, and prophet of "tolerance," but also has quite the reputation to blatantly mock & ridicule Christians. (If he registers as an "anti-bullying" role model in your head, undo that by performing a quick YouTube search.)

But I came across a video of him that's been making its way through social media, and instead of immediately dismissing it, I wanted to be open minded.

In it, he offers an interesting (and for many, attractive) redefinition of marriage -- one that's completely defined by the individuals and no one else.

No restrictions. 
No boundaries. 
100% "Create Your Own."

Initially, it really does sound freeing, liberating, and empowering. But shortly after thinking about it, I'm concerned.

I'm concerned not because I believe marriage is defined as between a man and a woman in a life-long relationship (I do), not because I'm worried about the further breakdown of an important, purposeful institution (I am), and not because I just have this huge distaste for Dan Savage (that's a given).

I'm concerned because I don't think there's as much freedom in Savage's definition as he touts. Rather, no freedom, no liberation, no empowerment.

Just slavery to uncertainty. 

Beginning at about 4:06 in the video, he says,

This idea that if you buy into marriage, you're buying into some gendered, patriarchal institution... Wake up and pay attention. Marriage is what the two married people in any individual marriage say that it is. 

It can be monogamous or not, children or not, religious or not, for life or not.
Each individual couple... gets to create their own marriage. [emphasis my own]

Awesome! My wife and I have full power to make marriage exactly what "we" want it to be.

Until one of "we" expects something else out of it.
Until one of "we" says it means something else.
Until one of "we" decides to create something the other doesn't want to create.

And all with no reference point. 

Savage's definition is a constant fight against sinking sand. The unknown of how one of us could begin to see the marriage differently. No standard, no foundation, no unchanging path for us to pursue or for it to guide.

Nothing to hold us accountable in one of the most important relationships of our lives.

This definition won't work in a world of imperfect people. It won't last. It won't hold meaning. In a marriage completely & exclusively created by the couple itself, a deep vulnerability exists that will ultimately pull the couple apart.

My marriage needs a foundation. Something to guide us when things are rough. Something to hold us to a standard not set by ourselves. Something less fragile, more enduring, and so much greater than either one of us.

This is why I don't want a "create your own" marriage. And I hope you don't either.

Below is the video, and here's where I came across it.