Recently in Pop culture Category

Here's a question for any financial planning guru who may be out there. I put enough in my 401(k) each paycheck to receive the maximum matching benefit from my employer. I also have an option to have Roth(k) funds taken directly from my paycheck.

My question is this: if we were in a position to be able to increase the amount we had taken out of my paycheck for retirement, would it be better to increase the percentage going into my 401(k) (I have plenty of room to increase before I hit the maximum allowable contribution) or should I start a Roth(k) account? Or is there some other retirement investment I should look into? Or, is retirement as Americans typically "do" it even Biblical? Discuss.

Our culture hates children. It sees them as an inconvenience. I know that people think they have a lot of good reasons to justify avoiding pregnancy, but their reaction to my wife and me (and other families like ours) belies the more noble excuses people make (i.e. I want to be a good steward of my resources). At least, in my experience. Let me give an example.

By far the most common (somewhere in the 80% range) response I get when I tell acquaintances we are expecting another child is "Do you know what causes that?" As I try to be polite even in the face of such rudeness, my usual rejoinder is something along the lines of "yeah, we've pretty well got it figured out."

Why do I call it rude? Well, for starters, inherent in the question is the belief that my wife is pregnant because we are ignorant. The thought behind it goes something like, "If you really knew what caused you to be cursed with a pregnancy, you wouldn't let it happen."

Along the same lines, the response assumes we don't want more children. Why is that? What is so strange about wanting to have children? Well, in my opinion, it is because having children is truly inconvenient. It's not easy and there are many costs involved -- and I'm not just talking about financial costs. We lack for nothing we need. We have no problem making ends meet and are able to do so on a single income while giving away a sizeable chunk (about 5 times the national average, according to the software I use to do my taxes) and saving a good amount as well.

We don't, however, enjoy all of the material comforts many of my peers do. We don't have a third vehicle. We don't have a big screen plasma TV. We don't have a timeshare, or go on cruises, or vacation in Europe. We manage to enjoy life just fine without any of those things. And we'd rather be blessed with children than any of those other things.

We also don't have time to ourselves. I don't play Ultimate frisbee anymore, or even very much disc golf (usually only on vacations). I don't go hang out in bars or engage in other extracurricular activities. I rarely have time to play computer games, or even read for pleasure (though I do read quite a bit considering our situation). Jamie isn't in any clubs, but I do try to get her out with her girlfriends once a month or so.

My point is, I don't believe (most) people when they make arguments as to why they don't want more kids. I think most people look at a life like ours and say it's not worth it. Having children is too much hassle and too much work and too, well, personally inconvenient.

I'm not saying any of this to glorify the choices we've made and the lifestyle we lead, or to paint myself as holier-than-anyone (God knows I'm not that). I do get tired of the rude responses we get and I feel much more free to vent in this space as opposed to unloading on the next idiot in meatspace who asks me if I know why my wife is pregnant. So take this for what it is, and nothing more. And of course, feel free to take offense and tell me why I'm wrong. 'Tis the beauty of the medium.

I am an American. I believe in the free and civil exchange of ideas; in public discourse as a means of determining policy and social governance. I believe that all people are created equal, and should be given every opportunity to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I believe that of all the countries of the world, America is the best place to live because it is founded on, and for the most part governed by, principles that include the ones I've listed above.

It is still sometimes a shock to me when I come across, in public discourse, someone who sees the world so very differently from me. An American who supposedly shares my beliefs, but whose worldview is at its core so different from mine that it may as well be from someone living on another planet. Such is the case with the author of a recent New York Times op-ed, Gloria Steinem.

If you don't want to suffer through the whole diatribe, I'll summarize for you: the results of the Iowa caucuses (this article was written before the New Hampshire primary) proves that women are still discriminated against in every way possible, it's better to have a different color skin than to be a woman, and men are pigs.

Of course, the results of the New Hampshire primary make Steinem's essay look foolish and short-sighted. But even more, she comes across (to me) as bitter and hateful. She implies that women who don't vote for Hillary are traitors to their gender because they "hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system." The way she writes, it seems clear to me that the way of interacting my wife and I have chosen is anathema to Steinem. If we think we are both happy, then we must be in denial. If my wife prefers to stay at home and raise children, it can only be because she doesn't realize how oppressive her condition is. (Jamie, in Steinem's mind, must be incredibly deluded since she sees the freedom to stay home as a blessing, not a curse).

Whatever else Steinem may be -- right or wrong in her judgments, depending on where you stand -- she isn't tolerant of me and my ilk. Which is just fine with me. All the more reason not to vote for Hillary. I'm glad I live in a country where I'm free to take or leave other people's ideas about how to live my life. I know it cuts both ways, but all in all, I think it's a good deal.

I was unaware that Robert Jordan, author of the Wheel of Time series of books, died in September. I knew he had been fighting a blood disease for the past 2-3 years and had good days and bad, but I hadn't checked his blog since August or so. He will be missed. I started reading the series in 1997, at which point I think book 5 had just come out.

CNN is reporting that the 12th (and final) book in the series will be finished by another author. Apparently Jordan left behind enough notes about the plotlines to allow the story to be finished the way he intended it to be. This is a good thing. I am sure the book will contain an appropriate tribute to J.O. Rigney, Jr. (Mr. Jordan's real name).

So, I've heard that the people who write scripts for television shows have gone on strike and western civilization is coming to an end. Okay, so not really. Hopefully for most people the inconvenience of stale television ranks right up there with having your appendix taken out: as in, we didn't really need it and now that it's gone, we don't even notice -- though the removal process itself was painful, if only for a short time.

I don't know if the WGA thinks it provides any kind of useful service, but it doesn't. Entertainment is not a basic human need (though we may think so sometimes) and hopefully, rather than turning to some other format, the American Public (whatever that means) will just turn off their televisions and find something more useful to do. I can't remember the last time I watched a scripted TV show. And while I enjoy watching movies, I could walk away from them in a heartbeat and never watch another movie in my life, and my life would not be one bit less fulfilling and enjoyable.

I hope the strike lasts for years. . .

Required reading.

NYTimes summary:
"The marketing of the “mommy makeover” seeks to pathologize the postpartum body, characterizing pregnancy and childbirth as maladies with disfiguring aftereffects that can be repaired with the help of scalpels and cannulae."

In case you choose not to read the article, the "mommy makeover" involves a tummy tuck, breast lift, and the removal of any other fat accumulated during pregnancy. The message: pregnancy ruins your body, but the miracles of plastic surgery can make you whole again. Nice.

Men, this is our fault. Well, at least some of your fault -- I'm not going to take any responsibility for those of you who expect a woman to look a certain way, a way which is determined by TV and movies.

My wife told me a story once about a woman she knows who was looking at herself in the mirror and worrying about her post-pregnant appearance. She turned to her husband and asked him, "Do you like my mommy body?" He replied, "Honey, I gave you your mommy body." I'm with him. If you're not, there's something wrong with you.

Sagging breasts are not a medical problem. Stretched skin around the midsection does not affect your quality of life, unless said "quality" for you is dependent on being able to walk around in a bikini and draw admiring stares -- in which case, you can have your quality and stick it where the sun don't shine.

I'm all for people taking care of themselves (even though it's harder for some of us than others) and looking our best as a way to honor God. But ladies, if your husband expects you to look like a supermodel and pressures you about your appearance -- if he doesn't tell you every day how beautiful you are, no matter what your hair looks like or what may be sagging where -- then he is a selfish jerk and you should tell him so.

As you can tell, nonsense such as the "mom job" infuriates me to no end. I have no patience for our culture's narcissism to start with and such frippery only incenses me all the more. Have a nice day.

I've read it.

It's great if people think they can live happier lives by following Randian ethics. But I disagree with the premise that it is better to be rational than irrational, especially when the difference between the two is often judged by the outcome of one's actions or decisions -- from our finite points of view.

For instance, Jesus' plan to be killed isn't in the least rational if you don't already know His Father would bring Him back to life.

My point is, rational self-interest is a flawed worldview. More than that, my personal opinion is, it is incompatible with the Christian worldview. The Christian ethic of personal sacrifice and humility smacks in the face of the Randian self-promotion and pride.

I understand the Randian belief in self-interest. I agree in principle with those who decry government involvement in economics. Where I diverge with Randian libertarians is the point at which people are judged by their economic output. I also disagree that our country depends on an educated elite to keep it running. But it's getting late.