The Wrong Approach

With the recent mass shooting in Orlando, many lawmakers are trying to block assault rifle sales throughout the US.  The idea is that the type of assault rife that many gunmen use make it easy to kill lots of people in a short time, so making those kinds of guns illegal will save many lives.

When I first heard about the latest push, I got very upset.  It's not that I'm a staunch supporter of the second amendment (I don't care for guns and I don't plan on ever personally owning one), it's that I get mad when people, particularly politicians, ignore the big picture in favor of flashy, trending topics.

The Orlando shooting had the most victims of any mass shooting in the United States, with a total of 49 fatalities.  And since mass shootings are becoming increasingly more frequent, that record may not stand long.  Those 49 people senselessly lost their lives, yes, but what about the thousands who lose their lives every year?  Mass shootings make the news because they are legitimately terrifying, but they overshadow the individual murders that take place every day.  In 2012, 8,855 people were murdered with a firearm.  Where are the politicians rallying for them?  In fact, from 1980 to 2008, mass shootings accounted for only one percent of homicides.  In other words, the number of people who die in mass shootings are statistically insignificant.

I am not trying to make light of the murders that have taken place -- a murder is always tragic, regardless of the circumstances.  I am, however, trying to point out that many lawmakers (and many average citizens) are going after the wrong problem.  While I can't find any firm numbers by a reliable source, everyone agrees that the majority of guns used in criminal activity are illegally obtained.  But homicides committed with illegal firearms don't make for good headlines, so they're often ignored.  To be fair, law enforcement agencies all over the country are working constantly to stop the flow of illegal weapons, but it's a task for which they are understaffed and underfunded.

After mass shootings like the one in Orlando, lawmakers feel like they "have to do something," even if that "something" is pointless and ineffectual in solving the problem.  Now, the argument could be made that if even one life is saved by banning assault weapons, then the effort was worth it.  But if we can save even more lives by going after illegal guns, why don't we do that first or at least simultaneously?

Should the average citizen be allowed to purchase a military-grade assault rifle?  I don't know the answer to that question, but what I do know is that the City of Baltimore saw 344 homicides in 2015 and zero mass shootings.  Are those deaths less tragic simply because they were spread out over the whole year instead of happening on one night?

Shut Up

I attended the local YSA ward on Sunday and joined them for FHE this evening.  I made sure I introduced myself to as many people as possible, but I ended up interacting with more men than women.  If I'm to be attending this ward moving forward (which I haven't decided on yet) than I'll need some guy friends too, so that's okay for the first week (rest assured, though, that I'll be focusing my efforts on talking to the sisters in the ward).

Well, this is a pretty young ward -- the men more than the women -- and I feel a bit out of place, especially when compared to my last ward where the average age in the Elder's Quorum was in the early-to-mid thirties.  What's one thing that all young men have in common?  They think they're right even they aren't (I suppose it could be argued that all men have this in common, regardless of age).  That can pose a problem when I offer an opinion (which is neither right nor wrong), only for someone to argue otherwise.  This very situation unfolded a few times this evening, with several different men spouting nonsense and backing up their claims with something approaching sense that only fell apart when examined with any scrutiny.  (And yes, the irony that I did this sort of thing all the time not that long ago is not lost on me).  I was starting to get annoyed when I realized the solution.

I can't convince them of anything, so I shouldn't waste the effort.  Basically, I need to keep my mouth shut.  And I just realized that this approach will probably help me stand out more: in a ward full of guys endlessly pontificating, the one who doesn't always need to be right is unique.

Sometimes we need to see our own flaws in others in order for us to realize how negative they are.  After my interactions tonight, I want to make sure that I'm better than that moving forward.  Here's to progress.

Tuesdays with Media: Neighbors

Is it cheating for me to just provide a link to a new story without providing an analysis?  Or would it be cheating in a different way if I analyze something that I also wrote?

While I figure this out, enjoy this (very) short story.

Principles for Improved Interpersonal Ralationships

I read an article a few weeks back about a women who discovered her husband was secretly an internet troll.  For those who don’t know, a "troll" is someone that argues online for no real reason – they verbally assault people, belittling them and their point of view because they like feeling superior to other people; they're bullies, basically.  The woman in the article was shocked and gave her husband an ultimatum: he stops trolling and they go to marriage counseling or they get divorced.

Her demands were unreasonable.  Here's why:

Firstly, while I do not condone keeping secrets from your spouse, discovering something dark about your significant other does not actually make everything else a lie.  Let’s say that you found out that your husband used to participate in dog fighting and only stopped because of a close-call with the cops.  That doesn't mean that every time he gently handled the family dog was disingenuous or that he hates animals.  Should his dark past be addressed?  Absolutely.  Should he feel coerced into talking about it?  No.  Now I recognize that it can be difficult to control your emotions when you’re under duress and that can make looking at the big picture difficult, which is why it's usually a good idea to try to cool off before addressing complex issues like newly-discovered secrets.

That leads into the next part, which is that things are never black and white.  Our brains naturally like to put things into categories because it makes life easier to process.  It's easy to think that carnivores are dangerous and herbivores are safe, but the truth is that hippopotamuses kill more people every year than crocodiles.  Life is more complicated than we want to admit.  Maybe our analogous husband got into dog fighting because it was a way to bond with his otherwise emotionally distant father, so he associates the activity with fond memories.  That doesn't excuse his involvement in a brutal, and illegal, sport, but it does add perspective to his past.  It also helps his wife see him as a person who made mistakes and not as a "monster."

Finally, you can't change another person.  Going back to the real example from the beginning, the woman saw her husband's behavior as a troll as unacceptable, so she demanded that he change.  The problem is that she doesn’t have the right to demand that.  She can say that she is uncomfortable with his behavior, that she can’t support him while he does it, she can even say that if he doesn't change she will be forced to leave him, but once she makes demands of him, she's crossed the line.

Let me try to elaborate a bit.  Last winter, I was unemployed and I had a lot of time to think.  I discovered that I wasn't the person that I wanted to be.  I didn’t like that, so I made a concerted effort to change.  I saw some failings that I wanted gone, so worked to get rid of them.  But, and this is important, I did it for me.  Motivation to change can begin with someone else pointing out what's wrong with us, but unless we adopt it ourselves, the change won't stick.  How many stories have you heard about someone working on an addiction, trying to lose weight, or even changing religions for another person, only for that person to revert to their old ways before long?  Too many to count, I’m sure.

My point to writing this essay is to put down in words some ideas that have been ruminating in my head for a while, but also to help anyone that may be dealing with interpersonal relationship issues.  Whether you’re having problems with your spouse, a friend, or a coworker, it’s important to employ the three principles discussed here:

1. One lie does not change everything
2. People are not all-good or all-bad.
3. True, lasting change needs to be personal.

Even if the woman with the troll for a husband had followed these steps, it may not have been enough to save their marriage.  Even under the best circumstances, marriages are hard.  However, using the right tools can make it possible to overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles.  I earned these tools the hard way, through adversity and hard work.  Hopefully, these tools will work for you as well.

Beautiful Women Have a Hard Life

With recent events (the Fappening and Ray Rice's assault charges in particular), I've been thinking about how women are viewed in our society and I wanted to address some of the conclusions I've come to.

Women are Either Pretty or Worthless

When a male politician is condemned, the speaker attacks his policies, his voting record, and his political leanings.  When the same is done with a female politician, the same criteria are taken into account, as well as her appearance.  I've encountered numerous times online (which I recognize is not the same as real life) when former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton were belittled, sometimes justifiably, and inevitably someone would say how ugly they are, connecting their worth as a politician with their attractiveness.

This way of thinking dehumanizes women, turning them into objects of desire.  Now, some women have made careers putting themselves on display as models, but the same rules that apply to them should not apply to all.  We don’t objectify men in the same way at all.  Think about this: when a male actor puts on weight or otherwise "uglies up" for a role, we think that’s just part of his job; but when a female actor does it, she is making a great sacrifice for her art, because women are supposed to be pretty.

Pretty Women are Expected to Share Themselves with Everyone

Beautiful women are harassed constantly.  Ignoring assault (we'll get to that in a bit), I have heard of many complaints from attractive women that when they're alone in public, men are constantly trying to start conversations with them, usually as a way to ask for their phone number.  Whether at the store, the gym, at school, or even just walking down the street, stupid guys will hit on a woman, simply because she's attractive.  And maybe we could say "Well, there’s no harm in trying," bu when faced with rejection, many guys will turn and insult his former object of affection for not being interested in talking to a stranger.  Many girls will lie and say that they have a boyfriend to be left alone, because men find it easier to respect another man than a woman.

On a different level are female celebrities.  While the recent leak of personal celebrity photos was a big one, it's nothing new.  Our celebrity worshiping culture is obsessed with anyone even arbitrarily famous.  But make no mistake, woman have it worst.  Case in point, one argument in favor of the leaked photos is that they shouldn't have taken any pictures that they didn't want leaked to the public.  That argument falls apart when you consider that none of the photos were of male celebrities.  People want to justify their curiosity and criminal behavior by turning it around on the victims.  The only time a male celebrity has a personal photo leaked is when he accidentally (or "accidentally") releases it himself.

Men are not Responsible for Their Actions When Women are involved

The other day when I was in the locker room at my gym changing into my workout clothes, I heard a couple of other patrons discussing the Raven's decision to suspend Ray Rice for assaulting his fiancee.  Since I don’t follow sports or sport news, this was my introduction to topic.  These two guys at my gym were justifying Rice beating his fiancee because "you know how women be."  Like I said, I wasn't familiar with the issue, but I was dumbfounded that they were trying to make it the victim's fault.  This is just another version of "she was asking for it" and I’m ashamed that we still live in a society where that argument holds water.

When I actually made it out to the gym floor, I saw one of the TVs showing a loop of the surveillance footage that filmed Rice hitting his fiancee and knocking her off her feet.  And he was only suspended?  The leniency shown to him is pretty shocking on its own.

I wish I had solutions to solve these despicable problems.  Unfortunately, the state in which we find ourselves living in has been developing for a long time, so it will take a long time to undo.  However, I believe that my opinions in this matter stem from my faith and knowledge of the gospel.  As we work to share the gospel with the rest of the world, these problems can start to go away.  A woman shouldn't have to fear harassment or worse simply because she's a woman, beautiful or not.

(And no, I still don't consider myself a feminist.)

Beautiful Words

Pardon me while I indulge myself on a favorite topic of mine.

I was thinking recently about how amazing it is that we have written language.  With written language, not only do we have a way to communicate with someone who isn't right in front of us, we also can lock words into place.  Our memories are unreliable and it is easy to, not only forget things, but to remember things that didn't happen.  For example, I remember seeing the traffic crosswalk sign show the symbol for "walk" when I was hit by the bus, but according to all other testimonies, that's incorrect.  When we write things down, we have a permanent record of what actually happened.  There have been multiple times when I've gone back through a journal or this blog and reread entries and been reminded of events that I had long since forgotten.

Not only does this mean that we can communicate to ourselves in the future, but we can relay information to people who haven't even been born yet.  In 1 Nephi, the Lord expresses the importance of the scriptures to Nephi, to the point of commanding him to slay Laban in order to obtain the Plates of Brass (though, yes, according to the law at the time, Nephi had every right to slay Laban for stealing his property).  The word of the Lord existed because His prophets had written down revelations they had received.  The scriptures could not exist today without written language.

Since we know that Adam and Eve had written language, that means that written language was created by God.  And with it, what an amazing tool we have!

I'm sure that it's not terribly surprising I would contemplate something we all take for granted (myself included) since I've dedicated my life to the written word, but it's still nice to take time and appreciate what a beautiful thing that we have with writing.

Do Americans Have the Right to Be Stupid?

Recently, celebrity doctor, Dr. Oz, has come under fire for faulty advice he's given out on his show.  As a way to pay for his show, in addition to traditional commercials, he has endorsed homeopathic products with little or no scientific evidence of being effective.  Some people have even put Dr. Oz's advice over that of their own physician.  He is being sued for his false claims.

Here's the question that no one is asking: is he responsible for people blindly following his advice?  This isn't really about him endorsing products (celebrities do that all the time), this is about Americans wanting to place the blame for their own stupidity on someone else.

So, going back to the title of this post, do Americans have the right to be stupid?  I believe so.  If I want be lazy and not work, I shouldn't be forced to - nor should I be cared for if I take that route in life.  If I want to only eat junk food and avoid vegetables like the plague, the FDA shouldn't be there to put broccoli on my hamburger.  I'm not suggesting that all regulations cease; it's nice to know that there can be no more than one rodent hair per 100 grams of chocolate produced in the US and I don't want that to go away.  What I'm saying is that too often, we want to be protected from ourselves.

I for one do not see Dr. Oz as a villainous person that is taking advantage of his show to hock sugar pills to unsuspecting saps.  I also don't see him as a victim who was duped into selling worthless crap.  He's a guy that got caught up in being a celebrity.  People say that as an actual doctor, he should know better.  I say that we should know better than to treat an advertisement as medical advice.

I realize that I'm at an advantage when compared to the average American: I'm a member of a church that teaches it's members to look beyond the surface and gain a deep understanding of the truth for themselves and not to simply take someone else's word for it.  With that kind of outlook, it's a lot harder to get swept up in lies and half-truths.

Another Year Older

For those of you playing at home, yesterday was my 31st birthday.

Birthdays are weird things.  For many people, having a birthday means that they are now a year older.  That's completely false, of course.  Time moves at a constant pace on our planet, so you age one day everyday.  Having a birthday doesn't make you older.  I don't think this is news to anyone, but because of the way that we track our age, it often feels like we've suddenly aged a year.  This perception can lead to having a bit of an existential crisis.  If you don't believe me, think about this: have you ever met someone who doesn't want to admit that they're older on their birthday?  If you haven't yet, you will.

Part of the problem is that even though time moves forward at the same, constant rate, we don't perceive it that way.  Time flies when you're enjoying yourself but drags at a snail's pace when we're doing something tedious or boring.  Add to that the fact that we measure our ages by whole years, it can often feel like an entire year has dropped itself on you.

To prevent having weird feelings of getting older on the anniversary of my birth, I start thinking of myself as being older a few months before my birthday.  Around New Year's, I upgrade my age in my head.  When my birthday finally rolls around, my new age is old news.  I realize that this approach isn't for everyone, but it works for me.

I do want to mention that while I don't use my birthday as a marker for my age, I do still enjoy celebrating it.  As with last year, I went to the Larsen's to celebrate my birthday, though it was more convenient to party the day before.  We ate burgers, had cake, and played board games.  It was fun and easy going, which is how I prefer things.

As a marker of time, birthdays aren't important to me, but as an excuse to have fun, they're great.

A Basic Right?

I heard a news segment yesterday about a business not wanting to provide certain types of birth control for their employees, citing religious reasons, despite the fact that the Affordable Care Act states otherwise.  The case has gone to the Supreme Court.  With my job dealing (indirectly) with government funded healthcare, I've thought a lot about this case and want to share my feelings.

I understand that certain types of birth control can help regulate a woman's cycle and that can be beneficial, but the case I referenced above doesn't deal with that kind of birth control, it deals mainly with so-called "morning after" pills.  In the report that I heard, some representative of the plaintiff said that the business was "picking and choosing" what part of women's health to care for, but that all of men's healthcare would be covered.

The problem with any of these arguments is that the underlying question is being ignored: do all citizens have the right to sex without consequences?  And this isn't about STD transmission because if it were, this case would be about condoms.  No, this is about being able to have sex without worrying about pregnancy.  To be clear, I relate to the worry.  When money's tight, the last thing you want to deal with is another expense.  I relate to that worry because while Allison and I were still attending OSU, she was late once.  We started getting worried, but as the days dragged on, we accepted our fate and even started getting kind of excited.  Once we found out that we weren't pregnant, we breathed a heavy sigh of relief, but we were ready to face what we thought was coming.

I am frustrated by the moral state of our country that states that birth control is a basic necessity that needs to be provided for all people.  If you don't want kids or aren't willing to accept the fact that pregnancy may occur, keep it in your pants.  (I just realized that as weird and alien a concept as polygamy seems to me, that's how everybody else feels about abstinence, or so their actions would indicate.)

I realize that I'm probably not swaying anyone in my audience as you're likely on my side already, but I've learned that writing out my arguments for some philosophical dilemma or what have you can help me make peace with it.  So thank you for allowing me a platform from which to speak.

A Special Brand of Weird

During my time visiting the Larsens for Christmastime, it was rather nice to just get a chance to hang out and talk with Ian and Amanda.  During my time there, I explained something unusual that I occasionally do while watching TV.  While I don't do this all the time, sometimes when an ad comes on, I'll repeat back random phrases directed at the audience, but spin it around so that it's a "Yo' mama" joke.  For example, a car commercial might say that their vehicle has the best mpg in its class and I'll repeat back, "Your mom has the best mpg in her class."  I have absolutely no idea why I do this.

Ian's response was that I'm "a special brand of weird."  He didn't say it maliciously, he was just dumbfounded that I would do something so absurd.  I replied back that, as someone who answers the phone "Ahoy," I was well aware that I was abnormal (for those that aren't aware, I answer my personal phone with the word that was suggested by the telephone's inventor, Alexander Graham Bell, rather than the more universally recognized greeting, "Hello," that is credited to Thomas Alva Edison, though it was a common greeting at the time; when I'm at work, I say "Hello").

This got me thinking about why I do things differently.  The TV ad thing has evolved mostly from me living alone.  I answer the phone differently just because I got bored of "Hello."  I also would consider myself a "facial hair enthusiast", which has gotten more popular in recent years, but it's still the exception rather than the rule.  I do things differently sometimes just to do them differently, not for any attention.

But I also don't care for sports and that has often made conversing with other men my age difficult.  It's not that there aren't other things to talk about, it's that after an exciting game, other men (and some women, too) will often not want to talk about anything else.  I've considered changing this just for the sake of getting along (as some have suggested), but I find professional sports rather dull.  If I personally know who's competing, then I have a stake in the outcome, but otherwise I just don't see why I should care.  And due to the way that football was often more of a focus at OSU than the education (the University built a professional-sized stadium without adequate parking and was in no hurry to remedy that error), I could never muster up enough school spirit to care if our team won or lost.

So, while my "special brand of weird" can sometimes get in the way, it mostly just means that I do certain things differently than others would expect.  I'm surely not the only one who answers their phone with "Ahoy," just as I know that I'm not the only guy who crochets (there's even another one in my ward) or who enjoys baking.  I may be weird, but one thing I am certainly not is boring.

Is It Worth Your Time?

As I was waiting in line at the grocery store this week, I eyed the candy bars, as I often do.  I didn't buy anything, but the thought occurred to me that if we earn money based on how much we work, then the goods that we buy are paid with the hours of our lives.  It's kind of like the concept for the terrible, terrible movie In Time, but less literal.

Anyway, the average price of a single serving package of Reese's Peanut Butter Cups in 2011 was $1.14 (it's harder to find historical candy prices than you might think).  Using income data from the same year (which is much easier to get a hold of), I did some basic calculations and figured out the following statistics: for someone with just a high school diploma, a package of Reese's costs just shy of five minutes of their life; for someone with a bachelor's degree, it costs slightly more than three minutes; and for a person with a master's degree, it costs about two and a half minutes.  At the very bottom, someone making minimum wage would pay nearly 9 minutes for the same treat.

While I know that I'm not the first person to think of money as a representation of time worked, it was kind of a fun to see how it breaks down.  I do wonder if this knowledge would have affected my candy purchases when I was a teenager, though I highly doubt it.

Morality as a Constant

I recently encountered two different pieces of media that argued, very briefly, that morality is a social construct.  The first was a in a book that I've been reading on my lunch breaks at work, the terribly named Deathworld 2, and the second was a stupid video defending the existence of "pink toys."  These were each released nearly fifty years apart, yet they still take the time to argue the same thing.

In Deathworld 2, the main character, Jason, has been arrested by an overly righteous policeman and is being taken back to the planet he robbed to face his crimes (Jason cheated while at a casino in the first Deathworld).  In order to distract his captor, Jason challenges his beliefs by saying that morality is set by the society that creates it.  This of course angers the cop enough for Jason to make his next move.

In the video, the creator, Movie Bob, addresses the concern that apparently many people have about the perceived sexism of boy- or girl-themed toys.  You know, action figures for boys and dolls for girls.  According to Movie Bob, these toys aren't the problem, rather society is.  And then in an off-hand comment, says that morality changes depending on which society you belong to and that things for kids in the future will be better as more people recognize that.

I also recently read about the conversion of the king of Lamanites and how his people would rather die than to ever pick up another weapon of war.  These people had created their own moral code that said that a ruler could kill his servants if he was displeased with them, but it was a false code.  True morality comes from God and is unchangeable.  Just as the Anti-Nephi-Lehies changed their lives to align with the Gospel, we too are required to live according to the commandments.

Even though many aspects of society change as time moves forward, morality was given to us by our Creator, and since we didn't create it, we have no right to alter it.

How Do We Live?

I was reading my scriptures the other day and a verse stood out to me, as they sometimes do.  This verse was simple, but it came across to me as being very profound.

And it came to pass that we lived after the manner of happiness. (2 Nephi 5:27)

This is Nephi's description of how his people lived after removing themselves from the Lamanites.  The Nephites were happy, but what does that mean?  And why did this stand out to me?

We know that the Nephites were industrious because they supported themselves with farming and herding livestock (5:11).  They also found hard work to be a good quality because Nephi denounces the Lamanites by calling them "idle" (5:24).  We also know that there were battles between the Nephites and the Lamanites (5:34), so it's fair to assume that at least some people on both sides were killed.

All of this stands out as being hard.  Physical labor is hard work, which is one of many reasons why I earned my degree: so I can avoid it.  Plus, the closest I've gotten to being in a real fight was being in a shoving match in eighth grade (it was with a kid twice my size who would have destroyed me if it had turned more serious than just pushing).  Having to defend my life and the lives of my family sounds really hard.  If life was so hard, what made the Nephites so happy?

In addition to the hard life already described, they built a temple (5:16), had the scriptures with them (5:12), and observed the law of Moses (5:10), so we know that they were devout—plus, with Nephi as their leader, it'd be hard not to be devout: even Laman and Lemuel temporarily changed their ways when Nephi spoke up.

Life was hard for them, but they were happy because they had the Lord with them.  And because of that, we know that they helped each other and they worked to make sure that there were no poor or needy among them.

Life is different today in that there are new challenges and dangers, but life is still hard.  Instead of waring with our brethren (which still happens), we have to deal with unemployment, marital separation, and severe allergic reactions (although, a fly-infested home may still have been a challenge they faced).  Life is hard, but happiness is a choice.  I hope that we can all choose to live after the manner of happiness.

Women in Fiction

I was talking to Margot the other day about a movie that she had recommended to me, the most recent adaptation of The Great Gatsby.  While we both enjoyed the film, she did mention that she really detested the character of Daisy, to the point of saying that she was one of her most disliked characters in all of fiction.  While I didn't ask her directly where the ire towards Daisy came from, I suspect that most of it has to do with Daisy's materialism and choosing to marry a rich man rather than wait for her poor true love.

This got me thinking about other women in fiction and how they're depicted.  How often is the major decision that they have to make about their man (like Allie in The Notebook)?  Pretty much every Disney Princess is rescued from tragedy by her prince (Snow White, Aurora, Cinderella, Ariel, Belle, Jasmine, Rapunzel, even Tiana were all saved by their respective prince).  I think filmmakers are more guilty of this than book authors, as I can think of several novels that have strong female characters that are interested in more than simply finding a husband, but how many movies show women as only being concerned with either their man or lack of man?  Far, far too many.

Another problem is that even in movies with strong female characters, they either don't interact with other women, or only talk to other women about a man.  There is a test that was created by cartoonist Alison Bechdel to see if a movie is sexist towards women.  For a movie to pass the so-called "Bechdel Test," it must contain the following:

1) It has to have at least two women in it,
2) who talk to each other
3) about something besides a man.

It shouldn't be that difficult, but so many movies fail this test.  The original Star Wars fails despite having a very strong female lead in Princess Leia simply because she's never onscreen with another woman.  That is not to say that the Bechdel Test is completely definitive and any movie that fails it is sexist, but it is a good place to start.

What is my point in all of this?  Women are people, too.  I realize that that is nothing astounding, but too many filmmakers seem to think of women's interests beginning and ending with men.  Even though we are experiencing a huge boom in superhero movies, Warner Bros. and DC seem to think that the third biggest name in the genre is "tricky" to bring to theaters.  Why, because Wonder Woman is a female warrior that doesn't need a man in her life to feel fulfilled?  I'm not saying that woman can't be loving wives or mothers, but if that's all they are, we as the audience are being cheated of a fully rounded character.  Remember, fiction is a reflection of reality, so these (at the very least) partial depictions of women mean that people still think this way.  And that needs to change.

[And after all of that, I swear that I don't consider myself a feminist.]

Peace ... through Vegetarianism?

I recently wrote about a bumper stick that I've seen quite a bit.  Today, I want to write about a bumper sticker that I've only seen once. I wish I could remember the exact wording of the sticker, or at least find a copy of it online, but I only remember the gist of it.  It was something along the lines of "I'm doing my part for world peace by being a vegetarian."  When I read that, I laughed out loud.

I'm no stranger to people with left-wing agendas (or right-wing ones, for that matter) proudly stating their outrageous claims via bumper stickers, but this one was still pretty outlandish.  From my understanding, the owner of the vehicle was claiming that meat-eaters are more violent than vegetarians because violence to animals leads to violence to humans.  Just like people argue that violent music, violent movies, and violent video games lead to violent behavior, even though a connection between them has never been proven.  I am not advocating partaking in violent media, but one does not automatically lead to the other.

That's also forgetting that one of the most evil people in history, the one person that everyone can get behind as being a bad dude, was a confirmed vegetarian.  Yes, I'm talking about Adolf Hitler.  A man who committed countless atrocities against his fellow human beings stopped eating animals for the final years of his life.

My point to all of this is that extremism tends to lead to bizarre arguments.  If someone wants to be a vegetarian, fine, good for them, but don't claim that not eating a hamburger makes you superior to me.  I see animals as resources to be used wisely.  I usually only eat meat once a day and, when compared to the average American, I eat a high amount of whole grains and fresh produce.  I also believe that animals should be cared for in humane conditions and killed in a fast, painless way.  I choose to eat food that is good for me, not because it puts me on some moral high-ground.

ADDENDUM:
While preparing for this post, I looked online for the bumper sticker that I saw and, even though I couldn't find the one I was looking for, I found one that was also silly.  It compared eating livestock to eating pets. I think that's silly because I would totally eat cat meat if given the opportunity.  Why is it that eating a cow is okay, but eating a horse is not?  I've heard, as an argument against eating them, that pigs are about as smart as dogs, but why can't we eat dogs?  Squirrels and groundhogs can be pretty cute, but I've eaten them.  And deer are beautiful, majestic creatures that can be quite tasty.  This isn't a "Modest Proposal" type satire, I'm honestly curious.  Leave a comment with your thoughts.

Coexist

You've probably seen the above image before, usually as a bumper sticker on the back of a car.  Isn't it a nice message?  We can all live together in peace.

I hate it.

I want to be clear, I do not use the word hate lightly.  I may dislike a lot of things, but I hate very little.  I hate this image and the message associated with it.  The message isn't "We can move past our differences and live together," rather it's "If you think about it, we're really all the same" or at the very least "So many problems arise from different ideas; let's stop fighting over who has the best god."  Obviously, I feel strongly about my beliefs because I actually decided for myself what I believe rather than just going along with what other people were doing.  I earned my faith.

I mostly blame two things for the prominence this image has gotten: ignorance and social pressure.  Ignorance because people see that image and don't bother thinking about it past the most superficial message on the surface and social pressure because people see the bumper sticker and a) think it looks "neat" and b) don't want to look like a douchebag.  I emphasize "look" because who cares what kind of person you actually are, as long as look like a caring person?

This all seems like a new way of saying the message that was at the heart of John Lennon's "Imagine," only more succinct for our shorter attention spans.  As you might have guessed, "Imagine" is a song that I really despise.  It has a beautiful melody that's simple, yet haunting.  Again, if you only half-listen, it has nice message of "stop fighting."  But if you pay even the smallest amount of attention you'll hear that the true message is "we fight because of our differences, so if we got rid of the things that make us different, we won't fight anymore" (which is one of the main philosophies of the Amish).  That's rubbish.  We accept each others differences and choose to not fight.

In the end, it's probably best not to adopt world views based on bumper stickers or songs.

Generation Y

My generation has two labels that are often used interchangeably: Generation Y and the Millennial Generation.  For reasons I don't fully understand, I don't mind Generation Y and I despise the term Millennial.

The term Generation Y originated as the logical follow up to Generation X.  This makes sense to me.  Plus, I like the potential for "Generation Why?" as a play on words.  Millennial sounds much more like it was created as a marketing tool.  "Millennial" sounds "hip" and "cool" and kids will "dig" that "noise."  [Vomits.]  Sorry, that just doesn't open quote jive close quote with me.

Maybe part of the reason I don't like Millennial is because I'm at the beginning of my generation.  Depending on who you ask, Generation Y begins around 1982 (though possibly as early as 1979 or as late as 1983) and ends around 2000, though it's hard for me to think that a thirteen-year-old and I are in the same generation.  The term Generation Y appeared first, back in 1993, and I was exposed to it first.  The term Millennial appeared in, you guessed it, 2000.  I feel that the older term fits better, but it seems to have fallen out of favor.  Being an older member of Generation Y, I think I may be set in my ways.  Millennial sounds too new.  I'm in my thirties and I don't think too many new things apply to me.  Personally, I feel that the generation should be split and Generation Y covers the first half (including me) and the Millennial Generation covers the second half.

Either way, we're not the best group of people.  Based on my readings, Generation Y-ers or Millennials tend to be more narcissistic than previous generations.  We tend to be more tolerant and accepting of others.  We tend not to have strong philosophical views or to be very religious.  Entitlement is a major issue with my compatriots as is procrastination.  We tend to delay both getting married or starting careers when compared to past generations.  We also tend to put a very high value on entertainment.  Anxiety in some form is more prevalent than with previous generations.

Ultimately, I think I like Generation Y better because I adopted the term when I heard it and I feel that Millennial was thrust upon me.  And, as is common among my generation, I don't like being forced into anything.

Day of Service

[A quick update: I did the follow up test on Friday as I said that I would with no reaction whatsoever.  I'm disappointed, but not surprised.]

As I wrote last week, I am the ride for a new member of the ward, Samuel.  I didn't pick him up yesterday because he contacted me ahead of time that he was going out of town to visit someone.  I certainly didn't mind giving Samuel a ride, but a week off wasn't a terrible thing, either.  Well, the Lord recognized that I needed to still serve others and found a way to make up the difference.

Saturday afternoon, I got an email from the Sunday School president asking me to teach the Gospel Doctrine class the next day.  I have plenty of experience teaching Sunday School, but most of that experience has been in either the Primary or the Young Men/Young Women's age ranges.  Teaching people that are my age or older was an entirely different challenge.  Of course, I agreed to teach. (One thing that I think is interesting is that I prepared with the idea that I would ask for lots of class participation, but didn't get as many comments as I hoped for.  Luckily, I was ready to make adjustments and I ended up reading more stories to fill the time.) The class went well and I got a few comments that I did a good job, though I felt that I could have made some improvements.

Later, in Elders' Quorum, one of the members asked if anyone was a fast typist.  We have a deaf fellow who attends the ward and one of the Ward Clerks signs for him for the first two hours, but attends High Priests' Group for the third.  In Elders' Quorum, the deaf member sits next to someone with a laptop and reads the transcription.  I said that I could type quickly and moved into the available seat and started typing.  Now, I should say that the last time that my typing speed was tested (last year some time), it was 50 words per minute.  That's not really fast enough to transcribe someone speaking in real-time, so I had to edit things down.  Picking and choosing what to type and what words to quote what to paraphrase and what to skip was rather nerve-wracking.  By the end of the meeting, the back of my shirt was wet because I was sweating so hard.  The brother (I never learned his name, unfortunately) that I was typing for shook my hand and made it clear that he appreciated my effort to include him in the lesson.

I know that service is an important part of life and as we work to lift others up, we end up on a higher level as a result.

Ms. Larsen

At work this week, I was contacted by another engineering firm through email, with the letter addressed to "Ms. Larsen."  This was not the first time that something like this has happened, but it was the most recent (I never corrected the writer of the email, by the way).  It made me think about my name and, unfortunately, even with the inclusion of my middle name, there's no clear indication of my gender.

This is not the fault of my parents.  Jordan is a traditionally masculine name.  In fact, it was around the early eighties when I was born that the trend of naming girls Jordan began.  During most of my childhood, I never met a female Jordan, though I did encounter a few male ones.  It wasn't until high school that I became aware that girls being named Jordan was even an option.  It seemed odd to me, like naming a girl Robert or Steven.  Since then, while I do encounter the occasional male Jordan (there was one that works at the restaurant I tried working at), if I meet a Jordan, it usually is a girl: while I was working at IHOP during college, I encountered at least a dozen female Jordans.  But, and this is important, they were all younger than me.

Girl names go through trends that boy names don't.  You always have at least one Michael in a classroom and usually a few Davids and Juans and Joshuas, but while I attended middle school with lots of Heathers and Megans and Ashleys [or is it Ashleies?], I'm betting that you'll find a lot more Mackenzies and Addisons and Madisons these days.  Anyway, girls' names change a lot, but that also means, for some reason, taking surnames and making given girl names.  Personally, I think this is remarkably idiotic.  "I have a cute baby girl.  I should name her Papadopoulos!"  I really don't get it.

Anyway, if the trend continues, and I have no reason to think that it shouldn't, by the time I'm an old man, I'll have a girl's name.  I can see it now: "Back in my day, Jordan was the manliest name around..."

The Need for Balance

Since I was recovering from my most recent severe allergic reaction on Tuesday and did not go in to work, I had some catching up do to when I got back on Wednesday.  This was to be expected and I readily made the decision to work through lunch in order to make a deadline.  However, that meant that I missed R-JAM.  I didn't think anything of it, but as the day got longer and I ended up staying two hours passed the time that I normally leave (bringing the full work day to eleven hours), I realized that having that time set aside for recreation is an important stress-reliever.  By the time I finally left, I was having to hold back to refrain from running to my car.

I schedule my day full of things that I need: I wake up early so that I can have some time with the scriptures before a light breakfast and rigorous exercise; after doing my daily grooming routine and dressing, it's off to work where I diligently work; once that's completed, I have a second round of exercise (either running or more body-weight exercises) before dinner and some goofing off before bed.  That last bit, the "goofing off" is still an important part of my day.  Sure, watching TV or playing a game on my tablet or reading a book may seem like a waste of time, but if I don't get time to relax, I go a little nuts (but getting too much in is bad, too).

By missing my lunch break on Wednesday, I took away an important part of reducing my stress.  True, I've worked through lunch before and probably will again, but when combined with staying late, it was simply too much.  I see it as further incentive to work hard during the appropriate times so that I feel justified taking a break to play a silly game with my coworkers.