Thanks Will, for planting the seed of this rant. I was going to write it a few days ago but didn't really wanna kill my Christmas buzz. And then I read an article in the USA Today about health care reform and I blew my top.
So, after all the bickering and moaning, all the debating and investiture of tax payer dollars, and after all the bluster from radio commentators, it turns out that even with "Health Care Reform" passing, our trusty politicians have only managed to bring us more of the same.
The article I read today talks about how, once the bill is worked out, some people's insurance premiums with INCREASE. Yeah, that is right. Our worthless, spineless, witless, gutless, clueless, useless, brainless politicians have been working an entire year to bring us this great change and in the end it turns out that they have changed nothing. All they have done is move some of the pieces around the board but not truly advanced the cause of the American people.
It turns out (at least according to this article) that the only people who really stand to benefit from the changes are those who earn less than $40K and are paying for their own private plan. These people will get a government subsudy to buy health insurance while the rest of us will still pay full price, if not an increase in prices. Who the hell does this benefit besides the Health Industry?
The only justification I can think of for this kind of worthless legislation is cowardice. Plain and simple, the people we elect are ineffectual wet noodles. They don't have a real spine between them. America is the only nation in the developed world where sick people are routinely denied care, and our politicians lack the will power and courage to fix it. It is the greatest injustice in our society, but we would rather make sure our doctors remain overpaid.
So congratulations, Senate and House: you have failed us again. Your track record remains unblemished.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
Return to Rant
Wow, long time; no rant. How could I ever go that long with out complaining about something? Well, I wish I could report that I have been storing up rage and indignation for one world-saving, mind-blowing, paradigm-altering Rantzilla, but that is not the case. The truth is I kind of ran out of things to rant about. Even now I am at a loss as to what deserves a good tongue-lashing.
Have I lost my passion? Has the fire gone out? Has the world suddenly and unexpectedly become a perfect place? Or am I simply not paying enough attention? As I think about it, I figure I am probably just tired of my own thoughts and ideas. I need new material. Anyone out there care to help me out?
Lets do this: if you read this, and would like to hear me go off half-cocked on some topic either trivial or earnest, please tell me what that topic is, and I will proceed to explode. I will work myself into a righteous fury on your behalf, and launch my indignation into cyberspace. We could do it like Dear Abby, except instead of advice, I would offer pseudo-philosophical diatribe.
So request away. Who knows what we may end up with? Humor? Eloquence? A better mouse trap?
Have I lost my passion? Has the fire gone out? Has the world suddenly and unexpectedly become a perfect place? Or am I simply not paying enough attention? As I think about it, I figure I am probably just tired of my own thoughts and ideas. I need new material. Anyone out there care to help me out?
Lets do this: if you read this, and would like to hear me go off half-cocked on some topic either trivial or earnest, please tell me what that topic is, and I will proceed to explode. I will work myself into a righteous fury on your behalf, and launch my indignation into cyberspace. We could do it like Dear Abby, except instead of advice, I would offer pseudo-philosophical diatribe.
So request away. Who knows what we may end up with? Humor? Eloquence? A better mouse trap?
Thursday, October 22, 2009
On Why Executives are Morons
OK, so not all executives. But certainly many. I am thinking specifically about the reptilian oafs heading up the companies that tanked the American economy. GM, AIG, etc.
They drove their companies, either through incompetence or negligence or maliciousness, into the ground to such an extent that tax-payer funds were needed to bail them out. And now, when actual consequences are being threatened (if you haven't heard, their salaries are being severely restricted) people all over talk about this being a bad idea. And why do they say it is a bad idea? Because reducing the salaries "might drive the best people away from the position."
Seriously? Best people? These were the best people? These negligent, foolish, greedy sops were the best people?
No. They weren't. I don't buy that. Not for a minute. They were not the best. They were the status quo. They were not the elite through quality, they were the elite through position. Their actions have proven quite conclusively that they were not the best. More to the point, their actions have proven that they were among the worst.
If anyone else in America, from mechanics to doctors, did their job as piss-poorly as these executives have done theirs, the talk would not be of reducing their salary. Rather, the talk would be of termination and possible criminal charges. If a single doctor performed a surgery as recklessly and with as little foresight as these executives have prosecuted their responsibilities, that doctor (after the patient died a horrible, unnecessary death) would be subjected to board review, lose his/her license, be forbidden to ever practice medicine again, and would then have to stand trial for malpractice, if not for manslaughter.
That these executives even still have their jobs is more than generous. That they, even after losing their ridiculous bonuses, are still paid far more than the average American is insulting.
These men and women do not deserve to even be mentioned in the same sentence as the word "best." They are the worst, and we do not need them. We should set them aside, letting them drift away on their golden parachutes, while new blood with good ideas takes their spots. I know dozens of bright, motivated, savvy college grads who would do the job for a fraction of the cost. We do not need to overpay executives. Even if an exec here or there is worth the millions they are paid, that money is wasted on any single individual, and would be better spent on growing the company. In the cases of miserable failures like GM and AIG, those executives are not worth any kind of compensation, period.
They drove their companies, either through incompetence or negligence or maliciousness, into the ground to such an extent that tax-payer funds were needed to bail them out. And now, when actual consequences are being threatened (if you haven't heard, their salaries are being severely restricted) people all over talk about this being a bad idea. And why do they say it is a bad idea? Because reducing the salaries "might drive the best people away from the position."
Seriously? Best people? These were the best people? These negligent, foolish, greedy sops were the best people?
No. They weren't. I don't buy that. Not for a minute. They were not the best. They were the status quo. They were not the elite through quality, they were the elite through position. Their actions have proven quite conclusively that they were not the best. More to the point, their actions have proven that they were among the worst.
If anyone else in America, from mechanics to doctors, did their job as piss-poorly as these executives have done theirs, the talk would not be of reducing their salary. Rather, the talk would be of termination and possible criminal charges. If a single doctor performed a surgery as recklessly and with as little foresight as these executives have prosecuted their responsibilities, that doctor (after the patient died a horrible, unnecessary death) would be subjected to board review, lose his/her license, be forbidden to ever practice medicine again, and would then have to stand trial for malpractice, if not for manslaughter.
That these executives even still have their jobs is more than generous. That they, even after losing their ridiculous bonuses, are still paid far more than the average American is insulting.
These men and women do not deserve to even be mentioned in the same sentence as the word "best." They are the worst, and we do not need them. We should set them aside, letting them drift away on their golden parachutes, while new blood with good ideas takes their spots. I know dozens of bright, motivated, savvy college grads who would do the job for a fraction of the cost. We do not need to overpay executives. Even if an exec here or there is worth the millions they are paid, that money is wasted on any single individual, and would be better spent on growing the company. In the cases of miserable failures like GM and AIG, those executives are not worth any kind of compensation, period.
Friday, September 18, 2009
The Mighty Middle
Alright, so now that my employment worries are cleared up, I have more room in my head to think about other things. More specifically, I have room to think about social concerns and politics. So lets take out that particular dusty soap box. . . and up we go.
Political parties are deadly, toxic, inherently corrupt organizations, and both are equally anti-American. I have ranted about this before, yet I have not even scratched the surface of all of the things I think are wrong about political parties and American politics in general.
The parties are both (or all if you count the Libertarians, which I don't) anti-American. None of them, regardless of how they talk about social justice or patriotism, have the best interests of America the Country at heart. None of them represent America first. If anything the parties do benefits America in any way, it is only a pleasant side effect of the parties serving their own interests.
Rather than serving the country, political parties do a direct disservice to the country. They polarize the populace, and rob citizens of their constitutional right to be represented in the law-making bodies of the state. Here is how it plays out:
In order for anyone to have a chance of getting elected, they need a ton of money. So, unless you are a savvy Mitt Romney or a zany Ross Perot, you will not have the funds lying in your own pocket to make a successful run at office. In order to get the funding needed, candidates sell their loyalties (if not their souls) to one party or another in return for the financial backing of a mega-large organization. No later than that initial point, the candidates are no longer representing the citizens of their area. Instead, they begin to represent the interests of the party they have joined, which don't have a snowflake's chance in hell of being representative of the population that voted for them.
In the last 3 elections we have seen a country that is so evenly divided down party lines that even presidential elections have been decided by mere handfuls of votes. The senate seat in Minnesota is a perfect example. It is nearly a 50/50 split even in major races. If we had 3 parties, the split would be somewhere around 33.3333%. But to the victor go the spoils, so whoever comes away with the win can then proceed to represent their constituents in name, but their party in fact. To ensure the financial support needed to gain re-election, the winner then needs to play a game of favor-mongering to make sure the party likes them enough to pay their bills come next election season. If the majority of their constituents want something that the party is not in favor of, then the citizens are left out to dry, while the party gains more power.
There are a few politicians who buck this trend, and I applaud them. But even they are stuck in a system where they have to dance to the tunes the two parties are playing. The end result of all of this is that the overwhelming majority of Americans, who find themselves ideologically somewhere between the stances of the Democrats and the Republicans, are forced to pick the bad fit that fits the least bad. We are not as ideologically divided as the parties would make us. We agree far more than we disagree. If the fight is the left vs. the right, then you need to know which side you stand on. But from where I see it, the true fight is much more the right and left vs. the middle, and every time that fight happens, it is the American people who lose.
Political parties are a toxin to democracy. Like George Washington feared, they have corrupted the republic, and turned our would-be democracy into a farce. I cannot vote for what I want, because none of the parties want what I want. They want to be opposed to one another, and I want compromise. They want to lean away from each other to highlight their differences and justify their existence. I want the American people to lean closer and find a productive middle ground. That can't be done when the shots are called by opposing teams. So that is why the parties are both anti-American. They work together to divide our country. It is a Mason-Dixon line of ideology that keeps us from being One Nation under God. That is Anti-American. Membership to the parties keeps our representatives silent and forces them to follow party lines. They prevent political progress and stifle social growth. They are bad all around, and what is worse, we don't even need them. Our democracy would be better without them.
Political parties are deadly, toxic, inherently corrupt organizations, and both are equally anti-American. I have ranted about this before, yet I have not even scratched the surface of all of the things I think are wrong about political parties and American politics in general.
The parties are both (or all if you count the Libertarians, which I don't) anti-American. None of them, regardless of how they talk about social justice or patriotism, have the best interests of America the Country at heart. None of them represent America first. If anything the parties do benefits America in any way, it is only a pleasant side effect of the parties serving their own interests.
Rather than serving the country, political parties do a direct disservice to the country. They polarize the populace, and rob citizens of their constitutional right to be represented in the law-making bodies of the state. Here is how it plays out:
In order for anyone to have a chance of getting elected, they need a ton of money. So, unless you are a savvy Mitt Romney or a zany Ross Perot, you will not have the funds lying in your own pocket to make a successful run at office. In order to get the funding needed, candidates sell their loyalties (if not their souls) to one party or another in return for the financial backing of a mega-large organization. No later than that initial point, the candidates are no longer representing the citizens of their area. Instead, they begin to represent the interests of the party they have joined, which don't have a snowflake's chance in hell of being representative of the population that voted for them.
In the last 3 elections we have seen a country that is so evenly divided down party lines that even presidential elections have been decided by mere handfuls of votes. The senate seat in Minnesota is a perfect example. It is nearly a 50/50 split even in major races. If we had 3 parties, the split would be somewhere around 33.3333%. But to the victor go the spoils, so whoever comes away with the win can then proceed to represent their constituents in name, but their party in fact. To ensure the financial support needed to gain re-election, the winner then needs to play a game of favor-mongering to make sure the party likes them enough to pay their bills come next election season. If the majority of their constituents want something that the party is not in favor of, then the citizens are left out to dry, while the party gains more power.
There are a few politicians who buck this trend, and I applaud them. But even they are stuck in a system where they have to dance to the tunes the two parties are playing. The end result of all of this is that the overwhelming majority of Americans, who find themselves ideologically somewhere between the stances of the Democrats and the Republicans, are forced to pick the bad fit that fits the least bad. We are not as ideologically divided as the parties would make us. We agree far more than we disagree. If the fight is the left vs. the right, then you need to know which side you stand on. But from where I see it, the true fight is much more the right and left vs. the middle, and every time that fight happens, it is the American people who lose.
Political parties are a toxin to democracy. Like George Washington feared, they have corrupted the republic, and turned our would-be democracy into a farce. I cannot vote for what I want, because none of the parties want what I want. They want to be opposed to one another, and I want compromise. They want to lean away from each other to highlight their differences and justify their existence. I want the American people to lean closer and find a productive middle ground. That can't be done when the shots are called by opposing teams. So that is why the parties are both anti-American. They work together to divide our country. It is a Mason-Dixon line of ideology that keeps us from being One Nation under God. That is Anti-American. Membership to the parties keeps our representatives silent and forces them to follow party lines. They prevent political progress and stifle social growth. They are bad all around, and what is worse, we don't even need them. Our democracy would be better without them.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Colorado, Round 2
OK. On Monday I start my new job at Bridge House, and I am super excited. Not only because I will be working full time again, but also because I won't have to worry about impending homelessness and looming destitution, both of which I would just as soon do without.
Bridge House is a great place, and I am stoked to work with a new population, where I can continue to grow and expand my therapeutic repertoire. I really am very excited. I am supposed to come in on Monday and start to learn the ropes, get to know the staff there, and maybe even start to work with my clients.
The clients I will be working with are in Acute treatment, which means they are, for a variety of reasons, unstable and need intensive, in-patient treatment for a short-term basis. These are not individuals who need hospitalization, but rather folks who have had a major incident in their lives and need some insulated time to recover. As I understand it, I will be working with a lot of the community mental health hospitals, and referring a lot of clients to other facilities once they are no longer good candidates for Bridge House services. For my part, I will be working on assessing and stabilizing my clients, working with them intensively for a few weeks, and then helping them find a suitable next-step.
I am really excited about a few features: for one, I will be working intensively with my clients, seeing them multiple times a week. For two, my case load is not going to be ridiculous like it was at my last job. I will only have 5 or 6 clients at a time, so I will be able to stay on top of things without getting my cleints mixed up. Also, I won't have to do any traveling, which was a huge time-drain and schedule-scrambler.
Plus, Bridge House is a part of the Arapahoe-Douglas Mental Health Network, which is the county service for both Arapahoe and Douglas counties. ADMHN is really huge, and they have a multi-facility approach, and tons of resources at their disposal. I am stoked to work in a multi-disciplinary team, and they have already shown me a great degree of respect and consideration.
So yeah, I am excited. The job that brought us out to this neck of the country turned out to be a huge disappointment, but it may just have opened the door for us to find something even better.
Bridge House is a great place, and I am stoked to work with a new population, where I can continue to grow and expand my therapeutic repertoire. I really am very excited. I am supposed to come in on Monday and start to learn the ropes, get to know the staff there, and maybe even start to work with my clients.
The clients I will be working with are in Acute treatment, which means they are, for a variety of reasons, unstable and need intensive, in-patient treatment for a short-term basis. These are not individuals who need hospitalization, but rather folks who have had a major incident in their lives and need some insulated time to recover. As I understand it, I will be working with a lot of the community mental health hospitals, and referring a lot of clients to other facilities once they are no longer good candidates for Bridge House services. For my part, I will be working on assessing and stabilizing my clients, working with them intensively for a few weeks, and then helping them find a suitable next-step.
I am really excited about a few features: for one, I will be working intensively with my clients, seeing them multiple times a week. For two, my case load is not going to be ridiculous like it was at my last job. I will only have 5 or 6 clients at a time, so I will be able to stay on top of things without getting my cleints mixed up. Also, I won't have to do any traveling, which was a huge time-drain and schedule-scrambler.
Plus, Bridge House is a part of the Arapahoe-Douglas Mental Health Network, which is the county service for both Arapahoe and Douglas counties. ADMHN is really huge, and they have a multi-facility approach, and tons of resources at their disposal. I am stoked to work in a multi-disciplinary team, and they have already shown me a great degree of respect and consideration.
So yeah, I am excited. The job that brought us out to this neck of the country turned out to be a huge disappointment, but it may just have opened the door for us to find something even better.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Hooray for Nice
I just graduated a married couple from therapy who have been seeing me for about half a year. They are great folks, and I have really enjoyed working with them, but when they first came in to therapy, things did not look rosy by any means.
In our first session, they were cold, aloof, and ready to fight. I asked them how close to divorce they were, and they responded that they were already 80-90% divorced. They had major issues, and were pretty convinced that they needed to work out some kind of solution to those issues specifically.
Well, instead of focusing on what was wrong with their marriage, we focused on what was right. Instead of letting them duke it out in my office every week, I made them be nice to each other.
And as it turns out, nice works. The couple reported today that they feel that the original issues are no longer a cause of concern. They are simply not worried about it anymore. They reported that they are more understanding, more patient, and more appreciative of one another, and feel less burdened by one another's shortcomings. Long story short: they don't need me anymore.
It is one of the best feelings I have ever had to help someone to the point that they no longer need your help. It is an even better feeling to know that they don't need my help because they have mastered the most powerful marriage therapy technique of all: being nice to each other.
So hooray for nice. It is almost like Jesus knew what he was talking about when He told us to love one another as He has loved us.
In our first session, they were cold, aloof, and ready to fight. I asked them how close to divorce they were, and they responded that they were already 80-90% divorced. They had major issues, and were pretty convinced that they needed to work out some kind of solution to those issues specifically.
Well, instead of focusing on what was wrong with their marriage, we focused on what was right. Instead of letting them duke it out in my office every week, I made them be nice to each other.
And as it turns out, nice works. The couple reported today that they feel that the original issues are no longer a cause of concern. They are simply not worried about it anymore. They reported that they are more understanding, more patient, and more appreciative of one another, and feel less burdened by one another's shortcomings. Long story short: they don't need me anymore.
It is one of the best feelings I have ever had to help someone to the point that they no longer need your help. It is an even better feeling to know that they don't need my help because they have mastered the most powerful marriage therapy technique of all: being nice to each other.
So hooray for nice. It is almost like Jesus knew what he was talking about when He told us to love one another as He has loved us.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
The Sadness of Being Anti
In a little less than three weeks from now, Dana's parents are coming into town from Germany. Since we live in Denver now, that places us a lot closer to some of the LDS historical sites in Nauvoo and Kirtland, so we decided to swing up that way so they can see the sights. It will be a first for me and Dana as well. And, just to sweeten the pot, my brother Jesse and his wife Wendy live in Chicago, so it is as close to a travel hat-trick as you can get.
Anyway, the last few weeks have been witness to a lot of planning and replanning of our trip itinerary, and hotel reservations, and I have been reading a lot of reviews on hotels and restaurants and such. Among those reviews I stumbled upon more than a few reviews that had nothing to do with hotels or restaurants, but rather were reviews of Nauvoo as a city, and more specifically, reviews of Mormon culture and history.
Most of them were instantly recognizable as being beligerent, argumentative and abashedly one-sided, anti-Mormon propaganda, so I didn't read them beyond their first paragraph. Others, however, were intelligently written, and objective enough to be considered at least fair and honest, even though they were still admittedly anti-Mormon. Those I read out of curiosity, but they still left me flat, and had nothing new or compelling to say.
But all of them left me feeling something in common: sadness. I can hardly think of anything that is more melancholy than being 'anti-something.' Being anti-X is nothing more than telling people what you are not. An anti-Mormon is clearly not a fan of Mormonism, but we know nothing about what he is for. Of all the possible causes to support, we have no more information than one of the causes that he is against. The assumption could be that he is diametrically opposed to Mormonism, and in support of whatever the diametric opposite of Mormonism is, but that entire assumption is uncertain, and a dynamic and versatile concept like Mormonism cannot have a diametric opposite in the first place.
So these 'anti-X'ers spend hours of time writing down what they do not like about X, but precious little time writing about what they do like about Y. We know nothing about them and who they are. Simply what they are not. That would be akin to me writing an Antibiography in which I relate several impassioned stories that are not about me, and talk at length about the hopes and dreams I have never had.
And that is what makes me sad. Where are the stories of who these people are? I am not interested in what they do not do or what they do not believe in. It would be far more compelling, as far as I am concerned, if they would actually come out and say "I am an anti-Xer. But that is boring, so let me tell you why I am a pro-Yer" If a person tells you who they are, you have the option to relate and understand them on a human level. But if all they tell you is who they are not, then you are no closer to relating to them and understanding them than if they spoke to you in Martian.
I have no problem with their beliefs, no matter what they are. They are free to believe anything in the world they want, and are free to express those beliefs until the last of the cows comes home. But it is sad that they are so caught up in telling the world what they don't believe. And so, they never really express themselves after all.
Anyway, the last few weeks have been witness to a lot of planning and replanning of our trip itinerary, and hotel reservations, and I have been reading a lot of reviews on hotels and restaurants and such. Among those reviews I stumbled upon more than a few reviews that had nothing to do with hotels or restaurants, but rather were reviews of Nauvoo as a city, and more specifically, reviews of Mormon culture and history.
Most of them were instantly recognizable as being beligerent, argumentative and abashedly one-sided, anti-Mormon propaganda, so I didn't read them beyond their first paragraph. Others, however, were intelligently written, and objective enough to be considered at least fair and honest, even though they were still admittedly anti-Mormon. Those I read out of curiosity, but they still left me flat, and had nothing new or compelling to say.
But all of them left me feeling something in common: sadness. I can hardly think of anything that is more melancholy than being 'anti-something.' Being anti-X is nothing more than telling people what you are not. An anti-Mormon is clearly not a fan of Mormonism, but we know nothing about what he is for. Of all the possible causes to support, we have no more information than one of the causes that he is against. The assumption could be that he is diametrically opposed to Mormonism, and in support of whatever the diametric opposite of Mormonism is, but that entire assumption is uncertain, and a dynamic and versatile concept like Mormonism cannot have a diametric opposite in the first place.
So these 'anti-X'ers spend hours of time writing down what they do not like about X, but precious little time writing about what they do like about Y. We know nothing about them and who they are. Simply what they are not. That would be akin to me writing an Antibiography in which I relate several impassioned stories that are not about me, and talk at length about the hopes and dreams I have never had.
And that is what makes me sad. Where are the stories of who these people are? I am not interested in what they do not do or what they do not believe in. It would be far more compelling, as far as I am concerned, if they would actually come out and say "I am an anti-Xer. But that is boring, so let me tell you why I am a pro-Yer" If a person tells you who they are, you have the option to relate and understand them on a human level. But if all they tell you is who they are not, then you are no closer to relating to them and understanding them than if they spoke to you in Martian.
I have no problem with their beliefs, no matter what they are. They are free to believe anything in the world they want, and are free to express those beliefs until the last of the cows comes home. But it is sad that they are so caught up in telling the world what they don't believe. And so, they never really express themselves after all.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Decline of '09 and God Bless Our Troops
There are a few reasons for this post. The first is to simply publish my new name for the economic mess we are in. I am calling it: The Decline of '09.
There. Now, if anyone uses that phrase who has not published it before this blog hits the ether will owe homage and allegiance to me. OK, so maybe not allegiance, but at least homage. And royalties. 10% sounds about right. Call my lawyer.
Something completely different that has been on my mind is this whole "God Bless Our Troops" thing. Bumperstickers abound that contain some version of this sentiment. I saw one today that said "God Bless Our Troops. Especially Our Snipers." When I saw that I thought, "What a wierd thing to wish for." And then I started thinking about how it was meant. The obvious and ugliest meaning is the "Bless them that they can kill a lot of our enemies from far away without being noticed so they can come back home safe." To me, that doesn't seem like something God would be particularly fond of, since the poor sap at the business end of the .50 is one of His children, too.
Another meaning I thought of was "Bless them so that they will be safe, since my son is a sniper and I don't want him to die." This version seems to be more allong the lines of what God might be interested in, since it is about saving life, rather than taking it. However, the sniper in question is at war, and is out to kill other people, so in a larger sense, him getting killed is (while tragic) only fair. You can hardly be a soldier who does his job and expect the soldiers on the other side to not do theirs, now can you?
The last meaning I thought of was this one, but I doubt highly that this is what the author of the bumper sticker meant: "Bless our snipers so that they won't be able to find any enemies to kill from any kind of distance, since all of the enemy soldiers will have laid their weapons down and made peace so that we don't have to kill anyone anymore so everyone can go home to their families and live happy, peaceful, productive lives." Now that is a sentiment I think God would be completely on board with.
I would like to think that is what the bumper sticker really meant option 3, but I doubt it. It makes me sad to think that people feel so self-righteous in their own causes as to think that God is only on their side as to be opposed to His children on the other side (like when BYU fans pray for a win over Notre Dame or U of U). Any one who knows anything about God surely must admit that He has a vested interest in the happiness and prosperity of all of his children. Our wars, our fights, our inability to live peacefully with each other, can be nothing more than sources of heartache and sorrow for Him.
If God were to miraculously intervene in the lives of the soldiers of the world, I think He would do so by making them all unneccessary. The world would be at peace, the only side to take would be His, and hurting anyone for any reason would be seen as treason against one's self.
Sadly, we aren't there. Not even close. So we need our snipers to keep ourselves safe, and there are people in the world who have avowed to never stop killing Americans. I do hope that our boys get home safe. And if I am completely honest, I hope they kill a lot of Taliban and Al'Qaida fighters from a long distance and get home safely. But that is not my godly side. That is quite definitely my worldly side. It try to make sure I know the difference between the two.
There. Now, if anyone uses that phrase who has not published it before this blog hits the ether will owe homage and allegiance to me. OK, so maybe not allegiance, but at least homage. And royalties. 10% sounds about right. Call my lawyer.
Something completely different that has been on my mind is this whole "God Bless Our Troops" thing. Bumperstickers abound that contain some version of this sentiment. I saw one today that said "God Bless Our Troops. Especially Our Snipers." When I saw that I thought, "What a wierd thing to wish for." And then I started thinking about how it was meant. The obvious and ugliest meaning is the "Bless them that they can kill a lot of our enemies from far away without being noticed so they can come back home safe." To me, that doesn't seem like something God would be particularly fond of, since the poor sap at the business end of the .50 is one of His children, too.
Another meaning I thought of was "Bless them so that they will be safe, since my son is a sniper and I don't want him to die." This version seems to be more allong the lines of what God might be interested in, since it is about saving life, rather than taking it. However, the sniper in question is at war, and is out to kill other people, so in a larger sense, him getting killed is (while tragic) only fair. You can hardly be a soldier who does his job and expect the soldiers on the other side to not do theirs, now can you?
The last meaning I thought of was this one, but I doubt highly that this is what the author of the bumper sticker meant: "Bless our snipers so that they won't be able to find any enemies to kill from any kind of distance, since all of the enemy soldiers will have laid their weapons down and made peace so that we don't have to kill anyone anymore so everyone can go home to their families and live happy, peaceful, productive lives." Now that is a sentiment I think God would be completely on board with.
I would like to think that is what the bumper sticker really meant option 3, but I doubt it. It makes me sad to think that people feel so self-righteous in their own causes as to think that God is only on their side as to be opposed to His children on the other side (like when BYU fans pray for a win over Notre Dame or U of U). Any one who knows anything about God surely must admit that He has a vested interest in the happiness and prosperity of all of his children. Our wars, our fights, our inability to live peacefully with each other, can be nothing more than sources of heartache and sorrow for Him.
If God were to miraculously intervene in the lives of the soldiers of the world, I think He would do so by making them all unneccessary. The world would be at peace, the only side to take would be His, and hurting anyone for any reason would be seen as treason against one's self.
Sadly, we aren't there. Not even close. So we need our snipers to keep ourselves safe, and there are people in the world who have avowed to never stop killing Americans. I do hope that our boys get home safe. And if I am completely honest, I hope they kill a lot of Taliban and Al'Qaida fighters from a long distance and get home safely. But that is not my godly side. That is quite definitely my worldly side. It try to make sure I know the difference between the two.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Arm-Chair Physics
I will admit right off the bat that I am not a physicist. I am a social worker, which is about as far as you can get from physics and still call yourself a scientist. However, there is something rattling around in my brain that has to do with physics, astronomy and theology, and a little to do with history as well. And maybe some sociology too. Meh, it's a mess.
I am talking about Dark Matter and Dark Energy. I have read a lot about this topic, seen TV shows on Discovery and Nova, even had a chat or two with physics types about it. And one thing keeps cropping up around it that bugs me to death.
Let me set the stage first, though. Generally, physicists and astronomers are a godless bunch. Those for whom I have the most respect are the agnostic bunch, but as a general rule they are non-believers. This is fine. More power to them. Either they or I am going to be surprised when we die - if they are right, I will no longer exist to be perplexed or disappointed. If I am right, they will have just about forever to regret their lack of faith. But I digress.
So these brainy, sciency types are convinced there is no God. They claim that God is a construct used to explain mysterious phenomena that have no other ready explanation. I distinctly remember one astronomer in an interview talking about 'the day he realized there was no God' as being analogous to the day he 'found out there was no Santa Claus'. They base this claim on one fact: you can't prove God exists, and have to therefore act on faith, which they seem to feel is tantamount to buying beach-front property in Arizona.
So that is the set-up. The science community has overwhelmingly embraced an atheist or agnostic stance on God, because God cannot be proved and is only a convenient way to explain the mysterious and unexplainable.
Well, enter Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
Don't know much about this stuff? Allow me to give my non-physicist summary: The material in the Universe should be creating enough gravitational pull to cause the universe to contract. Einstein and CO. did all sorts of calculations that indicated the Universe contains enough mass that it should be all pulling on itself until eventually the whole thing gets pulled back together. Except that is not what is happening. Instead, what the good people like Hubble discovered is that the universe is expanding. Using measurements with Red Shift and other fancy sciency stuff I don't really understand, they concluded that, instead of shrinking, the universe is growing. And instead of that growth slowing down, it seems to be speeding up.
So physicists and astronomers got their melons cranking, and came up with the ideas of Dark Energy and Dark Matter. This stuff is supposed to be the reason that the Universe is not contracting. They theorize that Dark Matter fills up 30% of the space in the universe, while visible matter like stars, planets and you and me only make up 4%. The other 66% is empty. The only trouble with this Dark stuff is that is has never been seen, and can only be surmised by looking at its effects.
Is anyone else hearing the hypocrisy alarm going off?
So, when people use an invisible, unknowable construct to explain the unexplainable, and they call that construct God, they are naive and simple. But if they call that construct Dark Matter they are serious scientists?
I'm sorry, but it doesn't wash. Further, many many people have had direct interactions with God, and can show proof that He exists. Nobody has EVER had any kind of interaction with Dark Matter. Does that mean that physics doesn't exist? For that matter, nobody has ever been able to prove that their really is such a thing as 'gravity.' All we have is observations of the effects of gravity: stuff falls when you drop it. So, we infer that there must be a gravity, even though nobody can tell you why it works. But sciency types theorize and dream of a Higgs Boson, which is supposed to explain all of it. Of course, no one has ever seen a Higgs Boson, so the scientists who are searching for it are acting, bizarrely enough, on faith.
I desperately wish that two things would happen: One - that science would finally fess up to being what it really is: people making up constructs to explain the unexplainable, and then looking for proof to support those constructs, which is precisely what science criticises religion for doing.
Two - that everyone, both religious and scientific, stop claiming to be so damned right all the time. I mean, I believe in a faith that claims a direct link to God all the time. Revelation and the whole nine yards, and yet I still recognize that my church has room to grow and improve. We may be good - even great - but we are not completely right. Not yet, anyway.
So we all just need to chill and be less defensive. Because as history has shown, the only guaranteed outcome of someone claiming to be right is that they will eventually be proven, more or less, to be wrong.
I am talking about Dark Matter and Dark Energy. I have read a lot about this topic, seen TV shows on Discovery and Nova, even had a chat or two with physics types about it. And one thing keeps cropping up around it that bugs me to death.
Let me set the stage first, though. Generally, physicists and astronomers are a godless bunch. Those for whom I have the most respect are the agnostic bunch, but as a general rule they are non-believers. This is fine. More power to them. Either they or I am going to be surprised when we die - if they are right, I will no longer exist to be perplexed or disappointed. If I am right, they will have just about forever to regret their lack of faith. But I digress.
So these brainy, sciency types are convinced there is no God. They claim that God is a construct used to explain mysterious phenomena that have no other ready explanation. I distinctly remember one astronomer in an interview talking about 'the day he realized there was no God' as being analogous to the day he 'found out there was no Santa Claus'. They base this claim on one fact: you can't prove God exists, and have to therefore act on faith, which they seem to feel is tantamount to buying beach-front property in Arizona.
So that is the set-up. The science community has overwhelmingly embraced an atheist or agnostic stance on God, because God cannot be proved and is only a convenient way to explain the mysterious and unexplainable.
Well, enter Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
Don't know much about this stuff? Allow me to give my non-physicist summary: The material in the Universe should be creating enough gravitational pull to cause the universe to contract. Einstein and CO. did all sorts of calculations that indicated the Universe contains enough mass that it should be all pulling on itself until eventually the whole thing gets pulled back together. Except that is not what is happening. Instead, what the good people like Hubble discovered is that the universe is expanding. Using measurements with Red Shift and other fancy sciency stuff I don't really understand, they concluded that, instead of shrinking, the universe is growing. And instead of that growth slowing down, it seems to be speeding up.
So physicists and astronomers got their melons cranking, and came up with the ideas of Dark Energy and Dark Matter. This stuff is supposed to be the reason that the Universe is not contracting. They theorize that Dark Matter fills up 30% of the space in the universe, while visible matter like stars, planets and you and me only make up 4%. The other 66% is empty. The only trouble with this Dark stuff is that is has never been seen, and can only be surmised by looking at its effects.
Is anyone else hearing the hypocrisy alarm going off?
So, when people use an invisible, unknowable construct to explain the unexplainable, and they call that construct God, they are naive and simple. But if they call that construct Dark Matter they are serious scientists?
I'm sorry, but it doesn't wash. Further, many many people have had direct interactions with God, and can show proof that He exists. Nobody has EVER had any kind of interaction with Dark Matter. Does that mean that physics doesn't exist? For that matter, nobody has ever been able to prove that their really is such a thing as 'gravity.' All we have is observations of the effects of gravity: stuff falls when you drop it. So, we infer that there must be a gravity, even though nobody can tell you why it works. But sciency types theorize and dream of a Higgs Boson, which is supposed to explain all of it. Of course, no one has ever seen a Higgs Boson, so the scientists who are searching for it are acting, bizarrely enough, on faith.
I desperately wish that two things would happen: One - that science would finally fess up to being what it really is: people making up constructs to explain the unexplainable, and then looking for proof to support those constructs, which is precisely what science criticises religion for doing.
Two - that everyone, both religious and scientific, stop claiming to be so damned right all the time. I mean, I believe in a faith that claims a direct link to God all the time. Revelation and the whole nine yards, and yet I still recognize that my church has room to grow and improve. We may be good - even great - but we are not completely right. Not yet, anyway.
So we all just need to chill and be less defensive. Because as history has shown, the only guaranteed outcome of someone claiming to be right is that they will eventually be proven, more or less, to be wrong.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Iran
OK, so if you watch the news today, you see two things: crying, pathetic, two-faced, lying POS governors who will trade their families, wives and careers for a skanky latina homewrecker. (see my last post)
OR
You see coverage, or better the lack of coverage of what is going on in Iran. Since I have already ranted about the governor, I want to say a word or two about Iran.
For the first time in my life, I find myself rooting for Iran. Not for the leadership of Iran – I think they are self-righteous, hypocritical, hegemonic scumbags who have no respect for their people, and who know they only way they can retain power is to repress the voices of their citizens. No, I am not a fan of President I’madinnerjacket or of Supreme-Dictator-For-Ever-Because-I-Am-More-Righteous-Than-You Al’choholy. I hope those guys both die the death of a thousand cuts.
No, I am finding myself rooting for the common Iranians. I am so proud of them for marching and protesting, even though they face imprisonment, violence or even death for doing just that. When I hear about these protests, instead of imagining Iran as being a haven for radicals and extremist baby-killing-suicide-bombers, I imagine Iran more like a college campus in the 1960s. Or, maybe more accurately, like Boston of the 1770s. I see a people who have rallied together, not to oppress, but to stand up for the principle that their voices deserve to be heard.
In America, it was ‘No Taxation without Representation’ and in Iran it seems to be ‘Transparent Government and True Democracy.’ The people are standing up to an oppressive ruler, just like a bunch of uneducated, back-water colonists did in 1776. They have the Ayatollah, we had King George.
Another parallel I see is this: the results of Iran’s recent presidential election may, in fact be completely legal and legit. But the way the Iranian government is treating their people is certainly anything but. When the Stamp Tax (the thing that prompted the Boston Tea Party, for you non-history geeks) was enacted, it was completely legal. But we rebelled against the principle according to which that tax was passed: our voices were not being heard, and our people were being repressed. Well, that is exactly what is happening in Iran, and their people have certainly been oppressed on a greater level than stamp and paper taxation.
So I find myself rooting for Iran. I can only hope that modern politics and the ticklish nature of Iran’s relationship with the rest of the world doesn’t kill this movement before it really gets a chance to mature. I believe that, if Iran’s people carry the day over the current government, a new Iran could emerge as a force for democracy and justice in what was once the most troubled and turbulent area of the middle east. I kinda like the thought of Iran becoming the leading force for democratic reform in the middle east. I also like the idea of an Iran who is a close ally of America, instead of a scary enemy who may or may not blow us into nuclear winter.
Of course, time will tell. It wasn’t until after WWI that the majority of the world even took the United States of America seriously. Europe looked at our form of democracy as a quaint oddity. But we persevered and grew to be the most powerful, influential power in the world. Iran certainly has the same chances, if the movement that is now brewing is able to survive long enough mature beyond being merely reactionary. Of course, they will need a good deal of luck to have things go their way, but my hopes and prayers go with them.
OR
You see coverage, or better the lack of coverage of what is going on in Iran. Since I have already ranted about the governor, I want to say a word or two about Iran.
For the first time in my life, I find myself rooting for Iran. Not for the leadership of Iran – I think they are self-righteous, hypocritical, hegemonic scumbags who have no respect for their people, and who know they only way they can retain power is to repress the voices of their citizens. No, I am not a fan of President I’madinnerjacket or of Supreme-Dictator-For-Ever-Because-I-Am-More-Righteous-Than-You Al’choholy. I hope those guys both die the death of a thousand cuts.
No, I am finding myself rooting for the common Iranians. I am so proud of them for marching and protesting, even though they face imprisonment, violence or even death for doing just that. When I hear about these protests, instead of imagining Iran as being a haven for radicals and extremist baby-killing-suicide-bombers, I imagine Iran more like a college campus in the 1960s. Or, maybe more accurately, like Boston of the 1770s. I see a people who have rallied together, not to oppress, but to stand up for the principle that their voices deserve to be heard.
In America, it was ‘No Taxation without Representation’ and in Iran it seems to be ‘Transparent Government and True Democracy.’ The people are standing up to an oppressive ruler, just like a bunch of uneducated, back-water colonists did in 1776. They have the Ayatollah, we had King George.
Another parallel I see is this: the results of Iran’s recent presidential election may, in fact be completely legal and legit. But the way the Iranian government is treating their people is certainly anything but. When the Stamp Tax (the thing that prompted the Boston Tea Party, for you non-history geeks) was enacted, it was completely legal. But we rebelled against the principle according to which that tax was passed: our voices were not being heard, and our people were being repressed. Well, that is exactly what is happening in Iran, and their people have certainly been oppressed on a greater level than stamp and paper taxation.
So I find myself rooting for Iran. I can only hope that modern politics and the ticklish nature of Iran’s relationship with the rest of the world doesn’t kill this movement before it really gets a chance to mature. I believe that, if Iran’s people carry the day over the current government, a new Iran could emerge as a force for democracy and justice in what was once the most troubled and turbulent area of the middle east. I kinda like the thought of Iran becoming the leading force for democratic reform in the middle east. I also like the idea of an Iran who is a close ally of America, instead of a scary enemy who may or may not blow us into nuclear winter.
Of course, time will tell. It wasn’t until after WWI that the majority of the world even took the United States of America seriously. Europe looked at our form of democracy as a quaint oddity. But we persevered and grew to be the most powerful, influential power in the world. Iran certainly has the same chances, if the movement that is now brewing is able to survive long enough mature beyond being merely reactionary. Of course, they will need a good deal of luck to have things go their way, but my hopes and prayers go with them.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Double Standards
If you are watching the news, you have undoubtedly heard about this governor from North Carolina who lied to basically everyone about going on vacation in the Appalachian trail, while he was really cheating on his wife with some lady in Argentina.
This story is getting a ton of coverage, and two things have stood out to me: first, that the guy at least had the decency to come out and admit what he did, rather than conjure up yet another lie to cover his tracks. I respect that. If you are going to be a spineless, disloyal and deceitful slime, at least own up to it.
But the second thing that stood out to me is what I want to rant about: the double-standard of American media coverage and culture (and of the North Carolina governor, apparently). This man admittedly had an affair, and got caught. Sucks to be him right now, but he certainly should have known this would happen. As a result of the controversy, he has resigned as the president of the Republican Governors association or something like that, but not as governor of his state. And that is what people are talking about, which is driving me nuts.
Granted, this guy cooked up some ridiculous story about a farcical vacation while he snook away to betray his wife and family, as well as prove himself to be a hypocrite of the highest order. So he is guilty of not covering his tracks very well, of lying and of cheating on his wife. Those three things only differentiate him from the vast majority of politicians in that he didn’t cover his tracks.
I can probably count the number of politicians I believe to be faithful husbands or wives on one hand (go Mitt!). The Bill Clintons probably outnumber the honest politicians 10 to 1. So the question that I am forced to ask myself is why people are giving this guy such a hard time. Why are they all demanding his head? Because he had an affair? If that was the case, then we would have to re-people American politics on a whole-sale basis. This is where the double-standard comes in. For some politicians, dalliances are permitted, and even (as in the case of Teflon Willie) admired. But for others they are a political death sentence, and I just can’t see any way that is fair.
My personal politics is this: if you get married, you have made a legal agreement to not have sex with anyone else. Period. In truth, I would love to see every politician who lacks the rudimentary common sense required to not trade your career for a piece of intern ass get kicked to the curb. But it is not going to happen.
I would also like to live in a world where it is impossible for people to criticize someone for doing something that they are doing themselves. You have these commentators and pundits who are up in arms, but my inner cynical prophet tells me that most of these wind-bags are only years away from their own affair scandal.
Stuff like this makes me tired, because people only claim to care when the affair is sensational, but when it is their own marriage, it seems that virtually the whole world thinks cheating on, betraying, harming, embarrassing, and debasing their spouses is completely OK, as long as you don’t get caught.
And that is the other thing: why should this guy resign? Does his affair somehow make him a less competent governor? Sure it is bad for his public image, but he is still the same guy he was before he decided to partake of some sex-tourism. If he hadn’t been caught, nobody would have ever thought less of him. I heard today that he was on the short list for Presidential candidacy for 2012 before he stupided himself to career death. If he had not been outed, he could have easily been elected, and likely would have run on his “upstanding character and family values.” And people would have voted for him. But he got caught, so we can be mad at him, while selectively choosing to NOT be mad at ourselves, or our favorite movie stars, who do the exact same thing as him. Because we, famously, are two-faced, double-standard-loving, hypocrites.
This story is getting a ton of coverage, and two things have stood out to me: first, that the guy at least had the decency to come out and admit what he did, rather than conjure up yet another lie to cover his tracks. I respect that. If you are going to be a spineless, disloyal and deceitful slime, at least own up to it.
But the second thing that stood out to me is what I want to rant about: the double-standard of American media coverage and culture (and of the North Carolina governor, apparently). This man admittedly had an affair, and got caught. Sucks to be him right now, but he certainly should have known this would happen. As a result of the controversy, he has resigned as the president of the Republican Governors association or something like that, but not as governor of his state. And that is what people are talking about, which is driving me nuts.
Granted, this guy cooked up some ridiculous story about a farcical vacation while he snook away to betray his wife and family, as well as prove himself to be a hypocrite of the highest order. So he is guilty of not covering his tracks very well, of lying and of cheating on his wife. Those three things only differentiate him from the vast majority of politicians in that he didn’t cover his tracks.
I can probably count the number of politicians I believe to be faithful husbands or wives on one hand (go Mitt!). The Bill Clintons probably outnumber the honest politicians 10 to 1. So the question that I am forced to ask myself is why people are giving this guy such a hard time. Why are they all demanding his head? Because he had an affair? If that was the case, then we would have to re-people American politics on a whole-sale basis. This is where the double-standard comes in. For some politicians, dalliances are permitted, and even (as in the case of Teflon Willie) admired. But for others they are a political death sentence, and I just can’t see any way that is fair.
My personal politics is this: if you get married, you have made a legal agreement to not have sex with anyone else. Period. In truth, I would love to see every politician who lacks the rudimentary common sense required to not trade your career for a piece of intern ass get kicked to the curb. But it is not going to happen.
I would also like to live in a world where it is impossible for people to criticize someone for doing something that they are doing themselves. You have these commentators and pundits who are up in arms, but my inner cynical prophet tells me that most of these wind-bags are only years away from their own affair scandal.
Stuff like this makes me tired, because people only claim to care when the affair is sensational, but when it is their own marriage, it seems that virtually the whole world thinks cheating on, betraying, harming, embarrassing, and debasing their spouses is completely OK, as long as you don’t get caught.
And that is the other thing: why should this guy resign? Does his affair somehow make him a less competent governor? Sure it is bad for his public image, but he is still the same guy he was before he decided to partake of some sex-tourism. If he hadn’t been caught, nobody would have ever thought less of him. I heard today that he was on the short list for Presidential candidacy for 2012 before he stupided himself to career death. If he had not been outed, he could have easily been elected, and likely would have run on his “upstanding character and family values.” And people would have voted for him. But he got caught, so we can be mad at him, while selectively choosing to NOT be mad at ourselves, or our favorite movie stars, who do the exact same thing as him. Because we, famously, are two-faced, double-standard-loving, hypocrites.
Friday, June 12, 2009
High Time for a Blog, Methinks!
Wow, more than a month with no ranting. . . Either I am really busy, really distracted, or I have attained Nirvana. You decide. At any rate, it is time for me to descend from my exalted state of Zen bliss to share a rant with the world once again.
In my crosshairs today: TV commercials that are not only stupid, but which insult the collective intelligence of their audiences.
I have several complaints about commercials. In fact, I have a LOT of complaints about commercials. Here are a few of them:
Volume: It is completely ridiculous that TV commercials are broadcast at 10 or more decibels louder than the program they are sponsoring. How on earth is this kind of crap not illegal? Sometimes, I will be watching a dramatic movie that is using volume to build suspense (AKA, it is quiet), so I have to turn up the volume so as to hear the TV above the dog and bird. It is some kind of hide-and-seek scene, and the hero has cleverly secreted himself behind some rafters, but it is hot, and sweat is dripping down his nose, threatening to betray him with the sound of a single water drop. The music pulses slowly like a heart-beat, and you see the bad-guys slow, stalking footsteps as he comes around the final corner . . . and then:
I ALWAYS THOUGHT MY CONSTIPATION WAS 'CUZ I EAT A POUND OF CHEESE AT EVERY MEAL, BUT MY DOCTOR TOLD ME THAT I JUST NEED TO TAKE ONE CONSTIGONE TABLET A DAY, AND NOW I CAN POOP LIKE I HAVE AMOEBIC DYSENTERY!
AAAAaaaarrrrggh! Not only are the commercials loud, but they are ridiculous, which totally kills my movie buzz, and which also leads me to my next point - Pharmaceutical adds should be more tightly regulated.
Let me explain. I think it should be illegal to run a commercial for any pharamceutical wherein the list of adverse side effects is longer than the list of positive effects. Have you seen these ads? It is like this: "Constigone tablets, when taken with a diet rich in fiber and water and wood pulp, have been shown to reduce constipation in 3% of participants in a double-blind study. Results are not typical. Participants also reported experiencing vomiting, nausea, head aches, numbness of the tongue and scalp, vertigo, psychosis, growth of additional limbs and skin discoloration. Constigone is known by the State of California to cause cancer and Republicanism. So ask your doctor if Constigone might be right for you!"
Yeah -- FAIL.
OK, so the last one is the one that bugs me the most, and is also the most ubiquitous. It is the almost-statement, or the near-claim. Not only are these annoying, but they are insulting, and could only be intended to play upon the perceived stupidity of the purchasing public. Let me give you an example. There is an ad running right now for a car. Let's call it the Niceson Impressive. The whole ad is based on the premise that a competing car company, Boy-Yoda doesn't have a comparable car in the same price range. So basically, the Impressive is compared to something that doesn't exist. The question I am left asking is this: what kind of crap-log is this car, that it has to be compared to nothingness in order to compare positively?
And then there is this one: the "5 times better" non-claim. They appear in commercials like this: "Our new line of Constigone works 5 times better, with fewer side effects!"
Sounds good right? Well, not to me.
I am left asking - 5 times better than what, precisely? Fewer side effects than what? It sounds like they are making a big claim, but they are saying precisely nothing.
It would be like me advertising myself like this: "Try the new and improved Dan, now 5 times stronger and 100% taller!" I can get away with it, because I am only claiming to be 5 times stronger than my Beagle, and 100% taller than a 3'1" tall child. You have to read the small print, which is written in nanites on the bottom of the screen for a nanosecond.
So yeah, that is what I hate about commercials. At least some of the things I hate about commercials. So how do I strike back? I make a point to remember which items have the worst ads, and I boycott them. Forever. Take THAT, Oxyclean!
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Back in the Saddle!
I am back in business! What is more, I am in business for myself!
On Monday I officially opened the doors of Riverbend Counseling, and I am now the proud owner of my own business.
I am equal parts excited and terrified.
I am excited because of all of the different opportunities that are now open to me. I can now start to realize some of the dreams I have always had, and make a practice that truly reflects my own personality and philosophy.
I am terrified because, as of right now, I am paying money to work. I have a few leads on clients, but nothing really concrete. So that is going to be the first order of business: get some clients.
I am working on that aspect of things right now. Meeting with folks in the community, in the Church, in schools. Basically just getting my name out there and hoping that someone will take a shot with me.
So many of you have been helpful and supportive. Thank you for that. There have been plenty of obstacles, from politics to bankers to office logistics, and those obstacles have been depressing. But then we get phone calls, emails, and Facebook messages that are so uplifting and encouraging that we know we can go on. We have also gotten so much direct support from our friends and family. It is reaffirming to see that, when the chips are down, our friends and loved ones have stepped up to help us out. We are so grateful for that support and kindness you have shown.
So keep your eyes open for new developments. I have a website that is under construction, and as soon as it is up I will be posting weekly blog entries on mental health topics. I will be posting links to that blog on this one.
So now it is win or go home time. I have always wanted to start a private practice, but I always imagined I would wait until I was in my 40s and the economy was booming. Well, that is not the hand I was dealt, but I am still going to make a run for it.
So, if you know anyone who needs a good therapist, I am available. In fact, I have appointments open from 9:00 to 6:00, Monday through Friday. The number to call is 303-250-8329. Ask for Dan, and tell him that Dan sent you.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
King Louie
It has been a long time since I last had a dog. To be honest, I never really had a dog of my own. My family has had dogs. Several in fact. There were the Samoyed Huskies when I was very little, then a succession of black labs, including Briquette and Muscles. And then of course, there was Gizmo. The family has always had dogs, but they were more like community property, belonging to everyone together and no one specifically. To be fair, the whole family actually belonged to Gizzy, but that is to be expected from Chihuahua royalty.
But now I have my own dog. My very own. And it is incredible. Louie is, without a doubt, the best dog I have ever had. Gizzy is a very close second, may she rest in little doggy peace, but there is just something special about Louie.
As I have struggled with unemployment, and the injustice of the whole situation, there have been times when the emotion of it all has overwhelmed me. There was one instance, when I was searching in vain for new job postings and feeling particularly bitter and angry, when Louie made himself noticed. I sat at the computer with bitter tears welling in my eyes, and Louie came up to me, tail wagging and floppy ears dangling. He put his front paws on my knees, and wanted to come up. I picked him up, and he started licking the tears off my cheeks, and then nuzzled down into my neck. It was precisely and exactly the emotional support that I needed at the moment, and it came from a dog.
How do they know? How do dogs know just how to respond to human emotion? Do we smell different when we are upset? Do they have a special 6th sense for picking up on human emotions? However they do it, I am grateful for it.
I am especially grateful for Louie in a way that many people will never be able to understand. I know it is irrational, and I am even a little embarrassed to admit it, but Louie is like the son Dana and I have been unable to have.
Some of you will know what I am talking about, because you have been there. You have struggled to have children, and in the mean time, you have been enormously grateful for the unconditional love of a dog (or two). You know who you are. The rest of you will just have to imagine. When what you want most of all in the world is to have children, a dog is like a godsend. A dog gives you someone to love, someone to teach, and someone to take care of. And a dog loves you back. A dog gives you a reason to refer to your wife as "mommy," which is a gift of such great value that I can't even describe it. A dog of my own has given me somebody who looks up to me, someone who depends on me. Someone who makes me feel, even just a little bit, like a dad. And that, again, is a gift of such great value as to defy description.
I love him. More than is even remotely logical. He is the best therapist I have ever had, and exactly what Dana and I need right now. I love what he has done for her, and how often he makes her smile with affection and pride. He is not a pet at all. He is family.
Which, in what might be an odd turn, helps me to feel even more confident about our adoption decision. I figure, if I can love a little adopted four legged beagle as intensely as I do, then loving an adopted baby should be as natural as sunrise. I think I always knew that, but having the proof right in front of me, licking my toes and making me laugh in spite of myself, makes me that much more certain.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
One More Adventure in Joblessness
I thought I would take the opportunity of this beautiful lazy Sunday morning (love 1:00 church!) to fill you all in on how the job search is going, since many of you have asked me and given me very warm wishes and encouragement.
Basically, I have sent my resume out to every position that looks even remotely close to what I do, and I have heard back from three spots already. I have also had two preliminary interviews. One of them was really good, and the other was, well terrible. Let me explain. . . no, no, there is too much. Let me sum up.
The first interview I had was the terrible one. It was at a residential treatment facility for teens in Wheat Ridge. From talking to the director, Dr. P on the phone it was clear that he was opinionated and offensive, and that he lacked even the basic social grace of not being a jerk to strangers. For instance, he stated on the phone, before he even knew anything about me, that he was taking applications from "social workers, retards and Republicans." Now, I dunno if that sort of thing is supposed to be funny, but I didn't think it was funny at all. I gave him a courtesy laugh, because I was trying to get in his good graces, but that was the first very bad sign.
So then I show up for the interview two days later. I was on time, by which I mean I was 15 minutes early. I was given some paperwork to fill out, which I did. It was a lot of paperwork and took me nearly 45 minutes to finish. When I was done, Dr. P had still not arrived for our appointment. So I wandered around the waiting room, looking at the paintings and books. For 30 more minutes. In the end, my interview did not start for a full hour and a half later than the scheduled time. Second very bad sign. I took that as evidence that this guy is clearly ego-centric and inconsiderate, feeling entitled to other peoples' time and having no respect for their schedules.
So he finally comes in with two of the other therapists who would have been my colleagues if I had hired on there. He starts asking questions, but it was not like a usual interview in which the interviewer actually wants to learn things about the interviewee. No, it was more like an inquisition. I made a statement on one of the forms he gave me that I prefer to be transparent with my clients about what is going on, and what I am thinking. He asked me what I meant by that, then cut me off three words into my answer to tell me that transparency is wrong, and then rambled for ten minutes telling me why I was wrong, and what he thinks transparency should be. He did that sort of thing often: cutting me off during my answer. Third very bad sign.
The last straw was the worst one, and it was this: the guy was a world class jerk. If I ever meet someone who is as big an unprovoked jerk as Dr. P, I will give that man an award. He was so brusk, so off-putting, so offensive in the interview that I can only imagine what he is like to people he is familiar with. He swore all over the place, and not just in common places. He was vulgar, rude and thoughtless in his comments. He claimed to be "culturally sensitive" and asked me all sorts of aggressive questions about my ability to work well with other cultures. The whole time I am thinking to myself "Buddy, you are a complete tool, and the most insensitive guy I have ever met." And then, after a particularly vulgar tirade, he asked me if I have thick skin. I told him, "You haven't even phased me yet."
Then he says, and this is a direct quote (my apologies to the sensitive) "Don't be so narcisistic. I get a hard-on from jerking people around, and you haven't even taken a wrinkle out of my dick." And that was pretty much the end of the interview. Go out with a bang, eh?
And this guy claims to be able to be sensitive enough to help people with their problems? I doubt seriously if he can even see them past his own swollen ego. Fourth and final very bad sign. So thanks Dr. P, for replacing the pedophile principal of my old elementary school as the biggest jerk I know.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
A Rant to Clear my Mind
So I have a lot of junk rattling around in my noggin' lately, especially since I was forced to leave my job on Friday. The mixture of being frustrated/angry and having a lot of time to think is not a good one for me. It drags on my native optimism.
So, ironic as it may seem, I am ranting now to cheer myself up. Nothing adds a little extra silver lining to my own emotional thunderheads like complaining about someone else's mistakes or foolishness.
It seems like I have beat the economic bail-out into the ground lately, and I am personally tired of talking politics, so lets move on to greener pastures and talk about something I am equally passionate/disgruntled about but rarely rant about: psychotherapy.
Specifically, it bothers me to no end that therapists so seldom seem to practice what they study. I mean, generally, we tend to be good in relationships, and are great in clinical settings. But so often, those relationship/communication skills and understanding of the human psyche fall to complete crap outside of those clinical environments. Get us out of our offices and away from our couches, and we are just as instinctual and irrational as the general population.
I see therapists do crap of this sort all of the time. They make poor, thoughtless decisions, act on shallow and irrational emotions, and systematically avoid the very things that would bring greater productivity and happiness into their lives. In short - they are disordered.
The worst is when a group of several trained therapists fall prey to these negative behaviors themselves, and no one has the presence of mind to pull them out of the Group-Think funk. Even though they really ought to know better, they simply go along with the prevailing idea, not stopping to challenge the validity of it in the first place.
So, decisions are made poorly, and the consequences are terrible, and it is all avoidable from the outset. And even though therapists actually do know better, they don't use that knowledge except when asked to use it by clients. Because we lack the same introspective talent that so many of our clients lack. We don't have that native gift that some people have to question themselves and their own conclusions. We are therapists, so we believe that our opinions and conclusions are always right, and we don't second guess ourselves. More is the pity.
See, and even though I wanted to not rant about losing my job, I just managed to rant about it passive-aggressively. No different than anyone else, even though I do know better. It seems to still be true that knowing is not doing.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
The Newest Unwanted Adventure
I know it is an impersonal way to give everyone this news, but I just didn't feel like repeating the story a dozen times on the phone.
As of yesterday I no longer work for LDS Family Services. I no longer work for anyone, for that matter.
I wish I could tell you why it happened, but I honestly don't really know. I thought things were humming along nicely when I came in to work on Friday, but then my boss came in and told me that I was being let go. He cited that my paperwork had fallen behind, but couldn't give me more than two incorrect claims of arrears paperwork. So it remains a mystery. What I know for sure is that the company is restructuring, and I fear that I may have been an easy target to get rid of before the changes hit, so that there are less people in the office to move around. Of course, that is speculation, but a lot of evidence seems to point in that direction.
As one might expect, I am angry and feel betrayed. I mean, what I am accused of doing with my paperwork is nowhere near as bad as the mess that I had to clean up after the guy I replaced. He didn't have a single file that was not missing important documents. You know what happened to that guy? He got promoted. Where is the justice there?
So yeah, I am bitter. Maybe ranting against my newly-former employer is bad form, but I think they deserve it. My boss feels that he went to bat for me, but I don't see how all of the positive work and hours of overtime I have put into that job can count for virtually nothing, while a few unfiled documents can torpedo me without so much as me being given a heads-up about the problems before hand.
I mean, in the last two months, I have placed adopted children with 7 families, worked almost every other weekend, and come home later than 8 at least once a week. In fact, the day before I got fired, I was working until 10:30 pm. I thought I was doing a good job. Maybe I was just working too hard, and hence didn't have enough time to fill out all of my paperwork in a timely enough fashion. Who knows?
What I do know is that I expected better of an LDS organization. I would have at least expected them to work with me to resolve their concerns, rather than keep a super-secret collection of complaints against me without giving me the knowledge needed to change things. I am sure that the folks involved feel that they were fair. That is precisely the problem: their system is broken, so they can do tremendously hurtful and unfair things behind closed doors, pat themselves collectively on the back, and feel justified in terminating an employee for spurious reasons without even letting that employee face his accusers and present his own arguments.
I had precisely two hours to clear out my office and leave. My boss was told to watch me the whole time. I can only assume they were worried that I would steal a stapler or format the hard-drive. I mean, being fired was hard, but being watched like a criminal was insulting. What a joke. I have a Temple recommend, and have never stolen anything or acted in malice towards anyone. I think it just shows that they knew their actions were unjust. If they felt it was done right, then they should have had no grounds for fearing that I would do something irrational or spiteful. My boss watching me like I was a sex offender in a preschool is just evidence to me that he knew what was happening was not right, and he expected me to follow suit.
Well, I didn't, and I wouldn't have. But I now know more about LDS Family Services than I previously did. And hopefully, they know more about me now than they previously did. This blog entry is the extent of the venting I will do. I bear no malice for them, but I will always know that I was not treated fairly. I was set up to fail, so I failed. If that is what they wanted me to do, I only wish they would have had the honor and courage to tell me to my face.
So I am back in the job market, during the worst economy of my life. Hoo-friggin'-ray.
As a side note, my wife is the awesomest woman alive. When she found out, you know what her response was? "Should I put back this stuff I just bought at Costco?" No blaming, no anger, just awesome patience, level-headedness and supportiveness. With Dana at my side, I could be a homeless beggar and still have more wealth than LDS Family services (or anyone, for that matter) could ever give me.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
The Next Frontier
I have come to a conclusion: I can't keep up this blog. At least, not in the way that I have been keeping it up. I have way too many random thoughts, and I type way too slow to keep up with my thinking. On the other hand, I can talk plenty fast enough to keep up with my rambling cognitions.
That leads me to a simple truth: I need to change this blog to something more like a vlog. I need to use a medium that will allow me to be both expressive and also not require me to hit [backspace]500 times per entry. I am still working out the kinks, trying to find a way to do this that will be more aesthetically pleasing than just watching me yack for a few minutes. I will figure it out, though.
So stay tuned. Big things are about to start hap'nin round here.
That leads me to a simple truth: I need to change this blog to something more like a vlog. I need to use a medium that will allow me to be both expressive and also not require me to hit [backspace]
So stay tuned. Big things are about to start hap'nin round here.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Bathroom Stall BFF
So here is my dilemma: I am a pretty healthy guy, bulging waistline notwithstanding. There are aspects of my general physical health that are very dependable. Regular, you might say. The result of this. . . regularity is that I find myself leaving my office virtually daily at or very close to 10:00am. I take a short stroll down the hall, past the secretaries, turn right at the corner, go through the double doors, and then enter the large, echoing, tile-floored room on the right.
There is nothing extraordinary about this by itself. Quite natural, and a welcome respite from the work day. Not the most pleasant of respites, but that is not to be avoided. However, recently something extraordinary has been happening to me during these excursions.
Here is the scenario: I enter the little boy's room, and take care of my -ahem- business. While I am in there, as compromised as I tend to ever be on a daily basis, I have been startled to find that someone else in the building is, well, digesting on the same schedule as me. It plays out like this - I enter the stall, yadda-yadda-yadda, then, mid-business, a mystery person enters the stall next to me, and starts his own business. The thing is, it is always the same guy!
I mean, having a stall neighbor is never comfortable. It is not exactly a social activity I am engaged in. That discomfort is compounded exponentially when it is the same guy over and over. All I know about this man is that he wears brown wing tip shoes, and is on the same digestive plan as me. Suffice it to say, when he enters, I hastily make my exit.
But what is the socially appropriate thing to do? How many times do I have this encounter before I break the ice, and start up conversation? And what would I possibly say? "So, brown-wing-tip guy. I am black-slip-on man. Did you have Cheerios for breakfast, too?"
No, I don't think there is any way to make this not awkward. The only saving grace is that I haven't met brown-wing-tip man outside of the stalls. If I did, I might not feel comfortable shaking his hands. After all, I do know where he has been.
There is nothing extraordinary about this by itself. Quite natural, and a welcome respite from the work day. Not the most pleasant of respites, but that is not to be avoided. However, recently something extraordinary has been happening to me during these excursions.
Here is the scenario: I enter the little boy's room, and take care of my -ahem- business. While I am in there, as compromised as I tend to ever be on a daily basis, I have been startled to find that someone else in the building is, well, digesting on the same schedule as me. It plays out like this - I enter the stall, yadda-yadda-yadda, then, mid-business, a mystery person enters the stall next to me, and starts his own business. The thing is, it is always the same guy!
I mean, having a stall neighbor is never comfortable. It is not exactly a social activity I am engaged in. That discomfort is compounded exponentially when it is the same guy over and over. All I know about this man is that he wears brown wing tip shoes, and is on the same digestive plan as me. Suffice it to say, when he enters, I hastily make my exit.
But what is the socially appropriate thing to do? How many times do I have this encounter before I break the ice, and start up conversation? And what would I possibly say? "So, brown-wing-tip guy. I am black-slip-on man. Did you have Cheerios for breakfast, too?"
No, I don't think there is any way to make this not awkward. The only saving grace is that I haven't met brown-wing-tip man outside of the stalls. If I did, I might not feel comfortable shaking his hands. After all, I do know where he has been.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Too Broken to Save
I know I have commented a lot about this topic, and you may be getting tired of it, but I feel a lot of steam about this one, and I need to vent.
First - an announcement: YOUR GOVERNMENT WASTED BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THE AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY. That is right, wasted. GM and Chrysler, both of whom got enormous bailouts from the American tax payers, have come back to Washington, begging for more money, since the first astronomical sum was not enough.
You know what they call this sort of thing in the banking/investment industry? Throwing good money after bad. It is not a good idea. Not good for you, not good for your family, not good for your business, and certainly not good for the United States of America. GM is a dying animal. Why are we feeding it more and more? Why on earth do the politicians who hold this country's purse strings believe it is a good idea to give even more money to a company that is obviously incapable of making sound financial decisions? I mean, sure: GM is in a tight spot, and that tight spot is very complicated. Unions, legacy costs, poor quality, bad reputation, blah, blah, blah. It seems to me that those exact same items make a good argument AGAINST investing tax payer dollars in GM.
Now I know this sounds heartless, and I know that hundreds of thousands of jobs are on the line, but GM has got to be allowed to die. It is never wise to let a cancer grow, and that is what GM has become. A cancer. A malignant, deadly tumor that has wrapped itself around several major organs of the American economy. The good news is, the economy can survive a GMectomy. It will be painful, but we can do it. This whole argument about companies being too big to fail is a false premise. I don't buy it. If they are too big to fail, then they wouldn't fail. So, since GM is failing, it is obviously not too big to fail. More correctly, it is too broken to rescue.
But instead, our wise and benevolent leaders in Washington don't see the trouble in feeding this tumor. They don't worry about the sickening effect on the nation of maintaining the existence of such a fundamentally unsound mega-corporation. They are too worried about keeping their jobs to make the hard decisions that need to be made. And then, to add ultimate insult to injury - they are spending some of the taxpayers billions on expensive lobbyists, who go to Washington in silk suits to lean on the legislature to keep their disease alive and thriving to sicken the economy for another few months.
Let's just do what every farmer worth his salt already understands to do: if one of your animals gets too sick to work, you have to shoot it. Otherwise, it eats the feed and drinks the water needed to keep the other animals strong and working. GM, you need to die. I will miss you. Especially the Corvette. But you have outlived your usefulness, and have now become a disease.
First - an announcement: YOUR GOVERNMENT WASTED BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THE AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY. That is right, wasted. GM and Chrysler, both of whom got enormous bailouts from the American tax payers, have come back to Washington, begging for more money, since the first astronomical sum was not enough.
You know what they call this sort of thing in the banking/investment industry? Throwing good money after bad. It is not a good idea. Not good for you, not good for your family, not good for your business, and certainly not good for the United States of America. GM is a dying animal. Why are we feeding it more and more? Why on earth do the politicians who hold this country's purse strings believe it is a good idea to give even more money to a company that is obviously incapable of making sound financial decisions? I mean, sure: GM is in a tight spot, and that tight spot is very complicated. Unions, legacy costs, poor quality, bad reputation, blah, blah, blah. It seems to me that those exact same items make a good argument AGAINST investing tax payer dollars in GM.
Now I know this sounds heartless, and I know that hundreds of thousands of jobs are on the line, but GM has got to be allowed to die. It is never wise to let a cancer grow, and that is what GM has become. A cancer. A malignant, deadly tumor that has wrapped itself around several major organs of the American economy. The good news is, the economy can survive a GMectomy. It will be painful, but we can do it. This whole argument about companies being too big to fail is a false premise. I don't buy it. If they are too big to fail, then they wouldn't fail. So, since GM is failing, it is obviously not too big to fail. More correctly, it is too broken to rescue.
But instead, our wise and benevolent leaders in Washington don't see the trouble in feeding this tumor. They don't worry about the sickening effect on the nation of maintaining the existence of such a fundamentally unsound mega-corporation. They are too worried about keeping their jobs to make the hard decisions that need to be made. And then, to add ultimate insult to injury - they are spending some of the taxpayers billions on expensive lobbyists, who go to Washington in silk suits to lean on the legislature to keep their disease alive and thriving to sicken the economy for another few months.
Let's just do what every farmer worth his salt already understands to do: if one of your animals gets too sick to work, you have to shoot it. Otherwise, it eats the feed and drinks the water needed to keep the other animals strong and working. GM, you need to die. I will miss you. Especially the Corvette. But you have outlived your usefulness, and have now become a disease.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
The United Corporation of America
OK, so I have to unload something. Buckle up, because this one has been building up steam for a while now, so I can't predict where it will go or what it will do. Got your safety goggles on? Good, then here 'goes.
Since when did America become a nation of the people for the corporations? When did that happen? How did it become suddenly appropriate for the private, self interested corporations of this country to take assistance from the public coffers as if they were entitled to it? This whole idea of "too big to fail" has a very nasty under-belly, and that under-belly is called "too big to be responsible."
OK, to provide a little context to this rant - this morning I was watching the news as I usually do, and they ran a story about Wells Fargo, which just so happens to by my own bank. Well, it seems that Wells Fargo got into a bit of trouble when folks in Washington found out that the bank was planning a snooty, high priced retreat for some hundreds of its employees to Las Vegas, where they had booked rooms in Vegas' most expensive hotel. Now this would all be hardly news-worthy, except the money that was going to send this heartless greed-balls to Vegas was taken from the American tax payer. Yeah, Wells Fargo got a few hundred million dollars from the federal government out of the TARP program, and then tried to turn around and spend some of that money to pat themselves on the back. If not for some diligent auditor in Washington, my grandma and countless thousands of other fixed-income tax payers would have been conned into paying for some extravagant, wasteful and entirely unjustified corporate orgy. How on earth can these schmucks sleep at night? They are little more than petty thieves if they try to pull this crap.
Don't you just wanna puke at this stuff? Here is another part of it that blows my mind: what on earth are they congratulating themselves for? What could they possibly have to celebrate? I imagine the reasoning at a lot of banks in America is something like this:
"Our poor decisions, wreckless policies and complete disregard for the long-term interests of both our customers and share holders, as well as our whole-sale failure to practice prudent lending and fiscal policy have resulted in the near bankruptcy of our corporation. Our actions, which have partially caused a global recession of epic proportions, have forced us to seek the assistance of the American government, relying on the financial support of the tax paying public. At times such as these, it has become necessary to lay of thousands of employees and make drastic changes in policy and practices. However, since we are too big to fail, and we hold the average tax payer in the most extreem contempt, we have found it prudent to reward ourselves lavishly for our success in getting the poor suckers to bail us out in the first place."
It makes me ill. Seriosly ill. I can't let myself think about it for too long, or I start to punch things. But lets just take a look at the complete disconnect from reason that our government is practicing: Lets take GM for example. They make a series of ridiculous and self-damaging decisions, produce sub-standard cars for several decades, and are unresponsive to the oil and energy crisis. Their cars are over-priced, poorly built, and uninspired. In short - the have proven time and time again that they are poorly run, and that the people at the helm make piss-poor decisions and have 0 foresight and vision. Is this really the kind of company the American tax payer should be forced to throw their money at? And what on earth makes us think that GM is capable of doing anything other than what they have done thus far? Don't you think that if they were capable of correction that they would have already corrected themselves? But no. We don't want them to fail for their failures. We want to keep them on life support so it takes them forever to finally die, so that meanwhile they can remain sick and continue their failed practices.
And here is a little fun math for you. TARP is somewhere around 700 billion dollars. The United States of America contains somewhere around 300 million people. The same money that is being given to corporations that have already proven themselves to be flacid, ineffectual and greedy beyond rational explanation would work itself out to be somewhere around $12,000 per American family of 5. How is that money doing more good in the hands of wreckless and irresponsible corporations than it would be doing in the hands of the average American?
If I had an extra $12,000 bones to spend, you know what I would do? Probably use the money to make payments on my mortgage, or to pay for half of a new car. I certainly could buy myself a kickin' home theater system, for sure. Too bad our banks and car makers and home electronic stores don't need any help, huh?
Since when did America become a nation of the people for the corporations? When did that happen? How did it become suddenly appropriate for the private, self interested corporations of this country to take assistance from the public coffers as if they were entitled to it? This whole idea of "too big to fail" has a very nasty under-belly, and that under-belly is called "too big to be responsible."
OK, to provide a little context to this rant - this morning I was watching the news as I usually do, and they ran a story about Wells Fargo, which just so happens to by my own bank. Well, it seems that Wells Fargo got into a bit of trouble when folks in Washington found out that the bank was planning a snooty, high priced retreat for some hundreds of its employees to Las Vegas, where they had booked rooms in Vegas' most expensive hotel. Now this would all be hardly news-worthy, except the money that was going to send this heartless greed-balls to Vegas was taken from the American tax payer. Yeah, Wells Fargo got a few hundred million dollars from the federal government out of the TARP program, and then tried to turn around and spend some of that money to pat themselves on the back. If not for some diligent auditor in Washington, my grandma and countless thousands of other fixed-income tax payers would have been conned into paying for some extravagant, wasteful and entirely unjustified corporate orgy. How on earth can these schmucks sleep at night? They are little more than petty thieves if they try to pull this crap.
Don't you just wanna puke at this stuff? Here is another part of it that blows my mind: what on earth are they congratulating themselves for? What could they possibly have to celebrate? I imagine the reasoning at a lot of banks in America is something like this:
"Our poor decisions, wreckless policies and complete disregard for the long-term interests of both our customers and share holders, as well as our whole-sale failure to practice prudent lending and fiscal policy have resulted in the near bankruptcy of our corporation. Our actions, which have partially caused a global recession of epic proportions, have forced us to seek the assistance of the American government, relying on the financial support of the tax paying public. At times such as these, it has become necessary to lay of thousands of employees and make drastic changes in policy and practices. However, since we are too big to fail, and we hold the average tax payer in the most extreem contempt, we have found it prudent to reward ourselves lavishly for our success in getting the poor suckers to bail us out in the first place."
It makes me ill. Seriosly ill. I can't let myself think about it for too long, or I start to punch things. But lets just take a look at the complete disconnect from reason that our government is practicing: Lets take GM for example. They make a series of ridiculous and self-damaging decisions, produce sub-standard cars for several decades, and are unresponsive to the oil and energy crisis. Their cars are over-priced, poorly built, and uninspired. In short - the have proven time and time again that they are poorly run, and that the people at the helm make piss-poor decisions and have 0 foresight and vision. Is this really the kind of company the American tax payer should be forced to throw their money at? And what on earth makes us think that GM is capable of doing anything other than what they have done thus far? Don't you think that if they were capable of correction that they would have already corrected themselves? But no. We don't want them to fail for their failures. We want to keep them on life support so it takes them forever to finally die, so that meanwhile they can remain sick and continue their failed practices.
And here is a little fun math for you. TARP is somewhere around 700 billion dollars. The United States of America contains somewhere around 300 million people. The same money that is being given to corporations that have already proven themselves to be flacid, ineffectual and greedy beyond rational explanation would work itself out to be somewhere around $12,000 per American family of 5. How is that money doing more good in the hands of wreckless and irresponsible corporations than it would be doing in the hands of the average American?
If I had an extra $12,000 bones to spend, you know what I would do? Probably use the money to make payments on my mortgage, or to pay for half of a new car. I certainly could buy myself a kickin' home theater system, for sure. Too bad our banks and car makers and home electronic stores don't need any help, huh?
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Blogger Therapy
I just wanted to get something off of my chest. Dana and I have decided, after 6 years of trying more or less intensively to get pregnant, to adopt a child. If you have ever had to make a similar decision, then you know how horrible and painful infertility is, and how hard the decision to adopt can be. Even though adoption is a wonderful thing, it is still a very hard choice to be forced to make, and one that is usually made only after all the other options have failed.
Dana always says that she wants little kids who look like I looked as a boy, with curly blonde hair and rosy cheeks. With adoption, we have a chance to be parents, but it comes at the cost of never seeing a little version of yourself running around. It is a high price, and is particularly hard for Dana to pay.
But the dream of parenthood is stronger than the regret, so we are proceeding this year with our adoption plans. However, we have already run into our first hurdle. You might think that, since I work for an adoption agency, we would have an advantage over other adopting parents, but you would be wrong.
It turns out that Colorado has a fairly strict conflict of interest law that prohibits us from adopting through an agency for which either of us works. I have tried several different interpretations of the statute, and have asked just about everyone I can think to ask, but I have not been able to find a legal way of staying with LDSFS and adopting through them. It looks like we may have to adopt through a private agency, which is the height of irony.
I help people in the adoption process every day, but I am not allowed to help my own family grow. Get outta here. I understand the reason behind conflict of interest laws, but this one seems extraneous in the extreme. It is not like I am going to go pay someone to give us their baby, or force someone to pick us. We would just be another normal adoptive couple on the books, like everyone else. It just seems like we should be able to sign some kind of affidavit that we have not used undue influence in the process. Grrrrr.
Anyway, we now are looking at adopting through a private agency. The only problem is that a private agency is going to charge us 2 to 4 times more than LDSFS would. Of course we are willing to pay whatever in order to become parents, but a higher fee means a longer time saving up the money, which means more waiting before we can be parents. Which of course just aggravates the already-extant frustration of infertility.
Other people have babies left and right, without wanting them or being capable of raising them, and those children are paid for by Medicaid or other social funds. We, who are both desiring and capable, also have to save up a large sum of money before we can even hope to be parents. Fair doesn't even come into it.
Dana always says that she wants little kids who look like I looked as a boy, with curly blonde hair and rosy cheeks. With adoption, we have a chance to be parents, but it comes at the cost of never seeing a little version of yourself running around. It is a high price, and is particularly hard for Dana to pay.
But the dream of parenthood is stronger than the regret, so we are proceeding this year with our adoption plans. However, we have already run into our first hurdle. You might think that, since I work for an adoption agency, we would have an advantage over other adopting parents, but you would be wrong.
It turns out that Colorado has a fairly strict conflict of interest law that prohibits us from adopting through an agency for which either of us works. I have tried several different interpretations of the statute, and have asked just about everyone I can think to ask, but I have not been able to find a legal way of staying with LDSFS and adopting through them. It looks like we may have to adopt through a private agency, which is the height of irony.
I help people in the adoption process every day, but I am not allowed to help my own family grow. Get outta here. I understand the reason behind conflict of interest laws, but this one seems extraneous in the extreme. It is not like I am going to go pay someone to give us their baby, or force someone to pick us. We would just be another normal adoptive couple on the books, like everyone else. It just seems like we should be able to sign some kind of affidavit that we have not used undue influence in the process. Grrrrr.
Anyway, we now are looking at adopting through a private agency. The only problem is that a private agency is going to charge us 2 to 4 times more than LDSFS would. Of course we are willing to pay whatever in order to become parents, but a higher fee means a longer time saving up the money, which means more waiting before we can be parents. Which of course just aggravates the already-extant frustration of infertility.
Other people have babies left and right, without wanting them or being capable of raising them, and those children are paid for by Medicaid or other social funds. We, who are both desiring and capable, also have to save up a large sum of money before we can even hope to be parents. Fair doesn't even come into it.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Witness to History
I am so proud to have seen this day. I am so proud to live in a time when America, the land of my home and my heart, has shown a small glimpse of its wonderful promise. I am so proud to be able to tell future generations that I lived in the days when a black man became President of the United States of America.
I am not sure why President Obama's story is so moving to me. I am not sure why I relate to it so strongly. I do not know why I teared up while I watched the inaugural speech and saw the millions of Americans gathered on the Washington Mall, listening to their newly elected leader.
Perhaps it is because I identify myself with two persecuted groups: the Mormons and the Native Americans. Perhaps it is because I am a believer in the enduring strength of the human spirit, which belief was vindicated in great measure today. Perhaps it is because, throughout my whole life, I have stood on the privileged side of race and wished, desperately, that I could erase the divide, and give to all of God's children the opportunities He intended us all to have.
Perhaps it is because I have seen myself as an unwilling member of an oppressive group. My face looks more like the Custers and Klansmen of the past than it looks like the Martin Luther Kings and Ghandis. I don't want to be one of that group, or at least I don't want that legacy. I wish I could disown the past insults to humanity that are part of the history of the Anglo/Saxon tribe, everything from the enslaving of the African continent and its people, to the wholesale execution of entire cultures in the Americas. I hate that legacy, and I want no part of it.
So it makes me feel cleaner somehow that Barak Obama is President. I still know the hateful and despicable things that my forefathers did. History doesn't change. What does change is my fear that history cannot be overcome, that oppression is permanent. Barak Obama is proof that all human beings are capable of tremendous things, no matter what oppressed population he or she comes from. It reaffirms my belief that all people, regardless of color, are overflowing in potential and are born with the seed of greatness within them. People of all races are the children of God, and have that divine potential within them.
So I think, in those ways among others, that Barak Obama's victory is not only a victory for him, or for black men, or for black people in general, but is a victory for all people, regardless of race. A victory for the oppressed and for the oppressors, and for the children of both.
I am not sure why President Obama's story is so moving to me. I am not sure why I relate to it so strongly. I do not know why I teared up while I watched the inaugural speech and saw the millions of Americans gathered on the Washington Mall, listening to their newly elected leader.
Perhaps it is because I identify myself with two persecuted groups: the Mormons and the Native Americans. Perhaps it is because I am a believer in the enduring strength of the human spirit, which belief was vindicated in great measure today. Perhaps it is because, throughout my whole life, I have stood on the privileged side of race and wished, desperately, that I could erase the divide, and give to all of God's children the opportunities He intended us all to have.
Perhaps it is because I have seen myself as an unwilling member of an oppressive group. My face looks more like the Custers and Klansmen of the past than it looks like the Martin Luther Kings and Ghandis. I don't want to be one of that group, or at least I don't want that legacy. I wish I could disown the past insults to humanity that are part of the history of the Anglo/Saxon tribe, everything from the enslaving of the African continent and its people, to the wholesale execution of entire cultures in the Americas. I hate that legacy, and I want no part of it.
So it makes me feel cleaner somehow that Barak Obama is President. I still know the hateful and despicable things that my forefathers did. History doesn't change. What does change is my fear that history cannot be overcome, that oppression is permanent. Barak Obama is proof that all human beings are capable of tremendous things, no matter what oppressed population he or she comes from. It reaffirms my belief that all people, regardless of color, are overflowing in potential and are born with the seed of greatness within them. People of all races are the children of God, and have that divine potential within them.
So I think, in those ways among others, that Barak Obama's victory is not only a victory for him, or for black men, or for black people in general, but is a victory for all people, regardless of race. A victory for the oppressed and for the oppressors, and for the children of both.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
U-T-A-H, Fight! Fight! Fight!
Every once in a great while, life becomes sublime. Poetic. The tumblers fall into place, the stars align, and fate smiles on the little people.
That is not what happened yesterday. Yesterday, a fantastic yet underrated football team took a similarly fantastic yet overrated football team to the woodshed and gave them an old fashioned Mountain West whuppin.
I had prayed for a Utes win, but my faith was admittedly shaky. I listened to the pundits talk about how Bama would manhandle the Utes, and I was annoyed at their lack of respect for the nations ONLY undefeated team, but I also was concerned that they might know what they were talking about. The Utes had never played against Alabama. They were ranked #1 for 5 weeks. They had lost only to a very strong Florida program. They were touted as the best defense in the land, etc. etc.
My prayers for a Utes win were admittedly more wistful than fervent, but I went into the game hoping, and maybe even expecting a win. At the very least I wanted my Utes to acquit themselves well, and make a respectable showing.
And then Brian Johnson got the ball. That first quarter was stunning. Beautiful, powerful, dominating football. Bama looked like Toto after the tornado: "What the h*** just happened, and where the h*** are we?" I loved the body language on the Bama sideline after we went up 21 to nothing. I imagined that is what the Philistines must have looked like when Goliath lost his head, and David started picking up more rocks.
I also loved the delicious silence from some of the moderators who were busy pulling their feet out of their mouths. It took until half time, but when they eventually did come around, they were singing the same tune that Ute fans have been singing for four years now: The Utes can play with the best in the nation, and the BCS keeps them out without a single credible reason.
It was very sweet to watch my Utes come away from the Sugar Bowl with National recognition and respect. It was very sweet to watch them tear that respect away from a grudging national powerhouse like the Crimson Tide. It was very sweet to hear the Fox moderators talk at length after the game about how the Utes deserved a shot at the championship, and how they could likely beat any team in the nation, including Florida. What was most sweet of all was the fact that my Utes earned every piece of it. A perfect season, pounded out one game at a time, proving week after week that they are an elite team and deserve their top ten ranking, topped off by a similarly hard-earned win over a "top-tier" team.
Plenty of excuses have been and will be made about why Bama lost to the Utes. When all is said and done, the only real reason is that Bama lost because the Utes were better. The only team in the United States that has no loss in 2008 is my Utah Utes. That will be on the books forever. That is sweet as Sugar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)