Mormon Writers Ask for Manuscripts to be Treated on Quality of Work not Content of Biography

For the record, happily I signed the following statement:

Mormon Writers Ask for Manuscripts to be Treated on Quality of Work not Content of Biography

In response to recent events and attention in local and national media, we authors, who are also members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, feel the need to express our disagreement and disappointment with Cedar Fort in their dealings with David Powers King and Michael Jensen in regards to the manuscript, Woven. We appreciate that Cedar Fort has returned the rights to the work in question and want to note that there are many wonderful people working at Cedar Fort–staff members and authors–who strive to carry out their duties with professionalism and courtesy. Nevertheless we wish to offer our support to our fellow authors and feel compelled to speak out.

As writers, many of whom have published with Cedar Fort, we believe everyone should be treated fairly and with respect, regardless of political or religious affiliation, age, gender, or sexual orientation. We believe that degrading attacks are inappropriate in any business or personal relationship. As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), we understand our church to teach respect and encourage civility–even when we have differences of opinion.

While publishers have the right to choose what they will and will not publish, we believe books should be accepted or rejected upon the merits of their content, quality, and commercial viability, not on any other factor. If a publisher isn’t comfortable with an author’s personal choices, those concerns should be discussed clearly and respectfully upon signing a contract–not hours before the book goes to press.

We believe that all publishers should be clear and professional in their submission requirements, treat others with dignity and respect, and give all authors the right to be judged on the quality of their work, not the content of their biography.

You can find a full list of authors who have signed the statement here.

There's a story about this in the Salt Lake Tribune here.

My 2012 Election Prediction

I prefer to make election predictions the day before Election Day as both sides tend to throw in last minute shenanigans to upset the other party's apple cart. However, since I'll be nowhere near a voting booth on Tuesday and will have limited access to the Internet for the next week, I'm making it today. (And, yes, I already voted.) As per the map below I've got Romney squeaking into the Oval Office with 277 electoral votes to Obama's 262. I also predict Romney getting just above 50.1% of the vote to Obama's 49.4% with the remaining 0.5% going to wacko, third party candidates.

Also, this post isn't intended to make a political statement. Just throwing out my guess. I did guess the winner in 2008 though I underestimated the extent of Obama's election victory. No matter who wins, I hope the winning side is gracious in their victory and the losing side won't weep, wail and gnash their teeth about the world coming to an end.

Feel free to make your own guesses in the comments below though please refrain from any partisan bickering. This is all about guessing the winner not beating up the other side.

Voted

Since I’ll out of town on Election Day, I voted absentee this year. It’s the first time I ever cast a ballot at somewhere other than a polling place. I’m glad I can still vote but I’m going to miss taking a couple of the kids with me into the voting booth and letting them push the buttons on the touch screen I point to.

Aside from the big national races there wasn’t much going on locally. No mayor or city council races. Not even any controversial or polarizing state ballot initiatives. I was kind of surprised how few things were to vote on this year. Underwhelmed, actually.

I did shake my head when I got to the state house and senate races and noticed there was only one major party candidate on the ballot. Even though the presence of the other major party on the ballot probably wouldn’t have changed my vote, I like the idea of at least having a choice. Instead having a single choice feel like I was living in totalitarian North Korea or the former Soviet Union. (And no, vanity-fueled, wacko, third party candidates don’t count as a choice.) Both major parties need strong opposition to keep them in check. Sadly, there isn’t much of that here in my neck of the woods. But if you’re not even going to put up some token opposition, you’re going to remain the minority party for a long, long time.

Maybe after this election the minority party will get their act together and actually field a candidate. Well, I can always hope.

Private Equity Is not a Bad Thing

Much is being made of Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital. The narrative goes something along the lines of Mitt making millions while thousands of ordinary people lost their jobs. (Queue evil, cackling laughter.) While this narrative may play with those who are envious of the wealth or others and have no idea how to operate a business, I owe a big debt of gratitude to those who are willing to risk their money on companies in trouble. During my professional career I’ve worked for three tech companies. Two of those companies were bought by private equity firms while I worked for them. A third tried to find some private equity investors and was unsuccessful. The results?

Both companies that were acquired by private equity firms lived on to fight another day. Yes, it meant that some employees lost their jobs after the purchase was finalized (both times I kept mine) but the end result was that the companies were given a second chance to turn things around. I was actually very relieved when one of the companies was bought because it was bleeding money very fast. If the investment hadn’t occurred, the entire company would have closed its doors in a matter of months costing ten times as many employees their jobs. Of the two companies, one was eventually sold several years later at a loss. The other become leaner and meaner and, as of now, is doing quite well.

The tech company that was unable to find investors eventually shut its doors and laid off all its employees. An injection of capital would have not only stopped the company from closing but also injected much needed leadership that could have saved it, made it profitable, and brought on even more employees.

It’s easy to play Monday morning quarterback and criticize the decisions Romney or others at Bain made after buying different companies. But no one seems to be asking what would happen to those companies if Bain Capital or someone else hadn’t stepped in. Companies can only create jobs or hold on to existing ones if they’re making money. Companies that can’t make a profit eventually close their doors. This affects not the employees who worked for these companies but customers who use that product or service. (I say this as someone who drives a Saturn.)

Private equity companies do everyone a service by evaluating companies that are in trouble and deciding if they’re worth saving. Job losses often occur after any acquisition but pale in comparison to an entire company closing down. Bain Capital may have laid off employees but it seems that most of their investments have generated far more jobs than lost with many companies, like Staples, becoming phenomenally successful and employing thousands upon thousands of people.

I owe years of employment to those willing to inject capital into unprofitable or mismanaged companies. I tip my hat to the men and women willing to undertake that challenge. And I wouldn’t hesitate to vote for one as POTUS.

Adam Carolla on Occupy Wall Street

A recent (and much needed) Adam Carolla rant (below) on the Occupy Wall Street crowd reminds of me of the following untitled Hart Crane poem: A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation."

Enjoy the rant. (Warning: Contains graphic language. Probably not safe for work.)

Government Bureaucrats and For-Profit Schools

Driving home from work this week, I caught a story on NPR about government regulators and culinary schools. Apparently regulators are upset that students are graduating with loads of debt and entry-level jobs that can’t pay off their loans.

[Roger] Hollis says he has taken out thousands of dollars in student loans to pay for an associate degree in cooking. Despite his work experience and his expensive degree, he'll still be starting at the bottom, as a line cook. "Twelve, 15 [dollars] maybe an hour, yeah."

Many former students say that with that income, it's virtually impossible to keep up with their student loan payments. Newbies may spend years as a line cook; the average salary, according to the online industry magazine Star Chefs, is less than $29,000 a year.

Attorney Michael Louis Kelly represents California students suing the parent company of Cordon Blue, Career Education Corp. His clients say the school promised something it cannot deliver.

"The model doesn't work," Kelly says. "You can't go to school, accumulate $30- or $40- or $50,000 in debt, and then go into an industry where you're going to have to start out at $8 or $12 an hour anyway."

Why are government regulators worried only about students who attend for-profit schools? There are plenty of public and private schools who churn out graduates with loads of debt and little or no job prospects. Last year The New York Times ran a story about Cortney Munna, a former New York University student who racked up $97,000 in student loan debt majoring in religious and women’s studies. After college she found herself making $22 an hour working for a photographer. Back in January the same paper ran a similar story about law school graduates with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt who are unable to find work (or at least work as an attorney) and, as a result, can’t come close to paying back their loans. Shouldn’t government regulators be just as concerned about the cost and job prospects of private and state sponsored non-profit schools as they are about for profit schools?

The education industrial complex generally oversells the value of a degree. It’s something that public institutions do as much as for-profit universities. Kids go through the school system school hearing how a college degree will lead to great jobs and financial security. While this is statistically true in broad terms, rarely do you see these educators showing the market value of a science or engineering degree compared to, say, a liberal arts degree. I’m not saying that college degrees are worthless. It’s just that some have more market value than others.

Students looking to finance their education through student loans should be shown the cost of paying off the loan and realistic job prospects and pay upon graduation and be given some time to think about whether or not the cost is worth it. However, it’s hypocritical for Washington bureaucrats to zero in on just for-profit institutions when you have students graduating from state-sponsored institutions with loads of debt and job prospects that are no better than those who graduate from a for-profit culinary school.

Besides, a degree from any post-secondary education facility—public, private, trade, or for-profit—only goes so far toward financial or career success. In reality one’s work ethic, creativity, and ability to build relationships and adapt to a changing world are much better indicators whether or not you’re going to be successful—financially or otherwise. Instead of focusing on the value of a degree, students and post-secondary schools should teach the aforementioned concepts along with their degree-related material.  The schools and their graduates would be much better off as a result.

Steve Wozniak vs. the FCC

Steve Wozniak, the cofounder of Apple Computer, does a much better job than I ever could explaing why  the FCC's "Net Neutrality" vote will end up screwing we the people. Writes Wozniak: 

Imagine that when we started Apple we set things up so that we could charge purchasers of our computers by the number of bits they use. The personal computer revolution would have been delayed a decade or more. If I had to pay for each bit I used on my 6502 microprocessor, I would not have been able to build my own computers anyway. What if we paid for our roads per mile that we drove? It would be fair and understandable to charge more for someone who drives more. But one of the most wonderful things in our current life is getting in the car and driving anywhere we feel like at this moment, and with no accounting for cost. You just get in your car and go. This is one of the most popular themes of our life and even our popular music. It's a type of freedom from some concerns that makes us happy and not complain. The roads are already paid for. You rarely hear people complain that roads are "free." The government shines when it comes to having provided us pathways to drive around our country. We don't think of the roadways as being negative like telecommunication carriers. It's a rare breath of fresh air.

I frequently speak to different types of audiences all over the country. When I'm asked my feeling on Net Neutrality I tell the open truth. When I was first asked to "sign on" with some good people interested in Net Neutrality my initial thought was that the economic system works better with tiered pricing for various customers. On the other hand, I'm a founder of the EFF and I care a lot about individuals and their own importance. Finally, the thought hit me that every time and in every way that the telecommunications careers have had power or control, we the people wind up getting screwed. Every audience that I speak this statement and phrase to bursts into applause.

Read the entire article at The Atlantic.

Unintended Consequences

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

(Hat Tip: The Daily Bayonet)

Washington D.C., the Next Two Years

It will look something like the following—only not as funny.

Getting a Utah Driver's License is Like Getting an Anal Exam

Big thumbs down on Utah’s more restrictive driver’s license requirements.

After going through the requisite, but metaphorical, anal exam to renew my license today, I wondering if the legislators who passed the law are more concerned with people's citizenship then keeping unsafe drivers off the road.

In the past renewing a Utah driver's license, providing you had no points or citations on your record, was easy. You filled out a form, wrote a check, and mailed it in or do the entire process online. Two weeks later you’d get a renewal sticker. Only once every 10 years did you actually have to show up in person to renew. And aside from the requisite long line to stand it, getting a new one was pretty straight forward.

Now, it seems, the Utah Department of Public Safety is more concerned with applicants' citizenship status than whether or not they can actually drive. Whether you’re renewing your driver's license or getting a new one, you have to provide proof of citizenship along with a host of other proof of residence documents. (For a full list of what’s required, click here.)

So when I showed up this morning, I came with a birth certificate, social security card, a bank and utility statement (dated within the last 60 days). All of my documents were examined twice. After the second examination, my birth certificate and social security cared were scanned into their computer. (I assume they’re now part of some Big Brother database.) Amazingly they didn’t ask for a DNA or blood sample.

Don’t misunderstand. I have no problem ensuring driver license applicants are Utah residents before issuing them a Utah driver's license. However, I’d rather see more concern for keeping unsafe drivers off the roads than non-U.S citizens from driving. I’d rather share the road with 10 non-U.S. residents who know how to drive then one citizen of this great country who can’t. (And based on my daily commute to work, there are plenty Utah residents/US Citizens who can’t.)

Instead of worrying about citizenship, a smarter way to go would be to have every non-citizen or non-Utah resident applying for a driver's license take a driving test. If you don't pass you don't get a driver's license. Apply for a State ID card instead. All the new rules will accomplish is discouraging non-U.S. citizens from applying for a driver's license.

Sadly, having safe drivers behind the wheel seems to be the last thing on the minds of the wise, all-knowing elected officials in Salt Lake and the bureaucrats at Utah Department of Public Safety.