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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.