This Day in History

So I don't usually do this but I'm going to talk politics. I really hate doing that, I think politics are nasty messy things that make one late for supper. But I've seen some facebook activity that sort of made me want to express myself, but only in my safe space, not on Facebook where I could offend people I respect and care for. So I'm going to ask you to not share this post, especially not on Facebook. I'm asking this because instead of being bitter and sarcastic, I'm actually going to be honest and sensitive, but no matter how honest and sensitive you try to be someone on the internet wants to crucify you in your own house (see last post).
By now the five of you who read this meandering collection of banal ramblings have probably deduced that I am going to write about the supreme court's final decision about prop eight DOMA which we all await. I'm going to do that, but more than that I am going to come out to you. I am going to come out as a non-supporter of gay marriage. There I said it. I've only said that to one person outside my intimate Mormon friends. Ironically that person is a gay man. He was very nice about it and told me that he thinks everyone has the right to believe what they want. If only people on both sides of the debate were as understanding as my friend.
Probably part of the reason he reacted so well was because I explained my stance and my beliefs about the issue and why I don't actually campaign against gay marriage. And I'd like to explain those things right now.
In the most concise way possible, here is why I don't support gay marriage. I believe that homosexual behavior is a sin, it goes against the commandments of our Heavenly Parents and I personally don't feel that I could support a measure that would sanction it. You all know I'm a Mormon, and you'd think this would be easy to say in a mostly Mormon community, but I am also an actor, and in the dramatic community you get a lot of flack for not supporting a ruling that would allow several of your friends to marry their same sex partners. Heck, you get weird looks for believing in things like a divine plan for men to return to a state of happiness and live in the presence of God. But you also find respectful friends in places you never expected.
So let me clarify further. I don't buy most of the arguments against gay marriage. I'm not convinced it will open a door to other forms of unconventional marriage, which come to think of it is the only social argument I've heard. I don't believe much of the crap some proponents of gay marriage accuse non supporters of believing, for example, that God hates gays or that homosexuality is contagious, or that gay marriage endangers heterosexual marriage. I don't think I've really met a non support who does believe those things. There is ignorance involved in this debate, but it can be found on both sides of the issue. Neither side really seems to understand the arguments of the other. But that's another can of worms, let me stick to my beliefs here.
I don't oppose gay rights. I believe that no one should be discriminated against on such a personal basis. I believe that everyone should be able to live their life however they want (we Mormons call that agency). However, I do believe their should and will be consequences when the way one lives jeopardizes the personal safety or well-being of another person. That, I think, is where the government comes in, to protect the rights of all of its citizens. I don't believe that the government should be made into the conscience of the citizenry. If this issue is about protecting endangered rights, great, go for it, but if it is really about getting it in writing that something is "right," or "true," then I have to object. We all have the ability to tell right from wrong in us, we shouldn't need an entity to tell us that we're right. For example, Mormon marriages continue after death. The government has never acknowledged this, how could they? There are no groups of Mormons (as far as I am aware) that petition the government for a formal acknowledgement of eternal marriage, because we don't need a stamp to tell us it's real. Some countries do not recognize religious marriage as legally valid. Mormons in those countries who choose to marry first participate in a civil ceremony, then go to the temple to be eternally sealed. I haven't heard any reports of church members in those countries trying to pass laws to have their temple marriages legally recognized, because they recognize them as valid without the state's consent.
Now don't get me wrong, I know that heterosexual couples in those countries are not barred from being married civilly, and are not denied the rights given to married couples, things like being on each other's insurance, visiting each other in the hospital and so on. I'm not convinced its that beneficial to have those rights tied to marriage. I think anyone should be able to make any legal alliances they choose with or without having to marry. Marriage means something to me, something outside the scope of legally recognized units. For that reason I have to say that if it came to something like a national vote I wouldn't feel comfortable voting in favor of a measure that would represent marriage in a way that didn't reflect what I believe. If such a motion carried without my vote I wouldn't protest or despair, because I believe that things will shake how just how they need to in any case, and because I am not reactionary. I might add that I recognize the fact that everyone feels better when they believe they are being governed by an entity that supports their personal values.
Now I'm coming up on my only real political objection to the sanction of gay marriage. You guys know that Mormons believe in being sealed in eternal marriages that must be performed in the temple by the proper authority (conferred on men by God, not so much by the state). Only a man and woman who have been found worthy (not going to define that now, but it isn't as weighty as it sounds) may be eternally sealed in the temple. If gay marriage is sanctioned, will the church be censured for refusing to perform same sex marriages? Would clergyman from other faiths who refuse to perform same sex marriages be subject to citation? If so this is an infringement on the right to the free exercise of religion, and that I cannot support. However, I am fairly certain that that is unlikely. There may be lawsuits, but probably no strict legal action, and I am certain the church can handle whatever comes it's way just fine, as it has for the last hundred and eighty three years.
So yeah, I call myself a non-supporter because I don't actively support gay marriage, but out of respect for my friends, to whom it is very important, I do not actively campaign against it and I do not add any accusations to the cacophony of childish bickering coming from both sides of the debate. I believe what I believe, I don't judge you for believing what you believe, even if I disagree. Its not the opinions that tire me out, its the debate. I'm tired of the wild generalizations, the memes, the name-calling, the un-friending, and the over-sensitivity from everybody. So please, settle, allow us all to believe what we choose and if I make a joke, know that its only because I'm hoping that if people are laughing even for just a second, at least they're not arguing.

I Ain't No Nazi! (I'm a socialist...and a liar)

Hey everyone! How are the six of you doing? Good? Good. So I wasn't sure what to write my next post about, then I got a little message from heaven! And by heaven I mean the internet, the lazy man's heaven! It came in the form of the following comment on my last post: (Disclaimer: Font has been changed for dramatic effect.) 

"So anyway the misuse of words kills me because I think its linked to the second thing I say." 
Does using the wrong it's/its kill you too?
You can call people out but can you handle being called out? How long does this comment stay up?

I was going to be all mature and secure and let this comment pass unnoticed, but I thought, "Nah, I've already ranted about people who use words badly, people who get mad about things they can't control, and douches who don't want to buy jewelry, so why not rant some more?" Also it kind of got me feeling a little guilty...maybe I have been hypocritical, and maybe I should clarify my stance on the whole words issue. Also, it could be pretty dang funny. 

So in case you were wondering the same things as samorsam, my anonymous comment poster, the answer is no, the its/it's rule doesn't bother me because I can't remember how it works either. No I cannot handle being called out, hence this post. I don't know how long that comment will stay up, but I hope its (it's?) forever because this is one of the few comments I've received from someone I actually don't know. So hooray for attention! Anyway, I clicked on this poster's I.D. to see what his angle was and the poor fellow doesn't seem to have a blog. He does have a brief profile description which reads, "Calling out grammar nazi's on their grammatical errors." So from what I can deduce this person or these persons just troll the interwebs (and I hope it pisses him/her/them off that I say "interwebs") looking for bloggers who make grammatical errors. What a career eh? When I put it like that I feel a little bad caring enough about this comment to post about it, especially when a big chunk of my last post was about how no one can be more right about me than I am, but not bad enough to quit typing this. Also, now I'm a little worried that someone I actually care about might get the idea that I think I'm some kind of truth teller, or that I really am a "grammar nazi" as samorsam put it (jokes on him Nazi gets capitalized because it's a proper noun. You don't get to use lower-case letters for an organization's name even if that organization is evil). So for the sake of those of you ho's opinion matters to me, I would like to make the following clarifications. 1. I am not a truth teller. 2. I am not a grammar Nazi. 3. I am not angry.

I didn't start blogging to change the world, or stand up for something or voice an opinion. I started blogging so my family could see pictures and posts about my zany antics. Then I discovered that facebook was better for that and my blog became a place to publish my cartoons. Now I've started writing because I have a lot of musings to muse and I think maybe someone else might find them amusing. I have things to vent about and facebook is to public and they only give you so many characters. When I get my panties in a bunch over something that pisses me off, I don't actually think I'm going to change anyone's behavior by writing about it, I just want to get it off my chest. That's sort of the point of blogs. Most people who started blogging just found it therapeutic and it led to other opportunities, or didn't... s'all guten bruder. I'm not planning to offend anyone or make them think or any of that crap. And I don't really think I'm important enough to do any of that stuff if I tried. If someone does find a skittle of truth in my delusional rainbow of nuttiness, cool, if they are pissed that I have a certain opinion, well there's nothing I can really do about that. No I don't expect this to change samorsam's mind, but it is giving me a chance to think through what my real intend was with that last post. Because I am aware of my non-mesagey non-truth-teller status I don't guard my editing or my facts and I begrudge no one their right to make idots of themselves on the internet as I do. So yes, there are typos, and that story about Galileo definitely ignores all the political complexities of his trial, it's mostly stuff I gleaned from Brecht's play about Galileo, but it makes my point about logic. Oh well. 

I must maintain that I am not a grammar Nazi. I'm a word-choice Nazi. Actually I'm not any kind of Nazi, if I was I would be a zombie Nazi! The most formidable kind of Nazi! But I digress. I didn't rant about confusion of case or tense (tens? tence?), or sentence structure. My real concern is the way words are used. The misuse of words I was complaining about isn't mechanical at all, it's communication error. I definitely didn't explain that very well last time. The reason "logic" and "literally" bug me is that when they are used badly they represent a confusion of ideas that can muddle real communication. The word literally makes a distinction between something temporal and something abstract. I don't like that so many of us are okay with blurring that line. I don't like that we put so much importance on logic when it is actually very fickle. Words mean things and they influence the way we perceive our world. When we get casual about the meanings of the words we use we get casual about the way we approach the world. When we carefully guard the integrity of our language we can convey stronger meaning with fewer words. There's a great chapter of the Book of Mormon where the prophet Jacob is addressing the people of his country for what he knows to be the last time. When he closes his address he says, "Brethren Adieu." The Book of Mormon was translated from an ancient Semitic dialect, they didn't use the word "Adieu." I asked my Dad why it was translated that way, and I really hope the answer he gave me is accurate because it was beautiful. He said that the direct translation of, "adieu" is "with God." When you say "adieu" you are leaving your loved ones with a wish that God be with them while you're apart. We don't have a word in English that expresses that as well as "adieu." A friend also pointed out to me -- and I hope this is correct too because it's great -- that French speakers use "au revoir" as the conversational parting expression, and "adieu" when they expect to be parted permanently. See all the dimensions that one word has? If you use it wrong, or badly you risk losing all that. I don't give a crap if apostrophes come in the right places or not until it starts to muddle communication and adversely effect the way we approach our world. Also, let me add, I didn't "call people out" per say. I didn't scout out a bad use of the word "logic" and point it out to the user, I just heard it in passing a couple of times and ranted about it in my rant space. I believe there is a difference.

I just through the point about not being angry in for fun, but it is accurate. I don't seriously begrudge anyone their feelings or their errors, until they take it out on me at work. If I do get mad about this stuff its because it worries me. I wonder if society is headed in a bad direction because so many of the people I meet (most of them middle aged and up) are baffled by concepts like following rules and regulations, random chance, and the inability of complaints to change every situation. Listening to people adopt lines of thinking that are unhelpful and even ridiculous genuinely makes me feel bad for these people and reminds me to try and deal with the things that come my way in the manner most helpful to me. In the moment listening to these people is annoying, and that is why I rant about it, but at the heart of my frustration is a deep concern. Maybe you don't share that concern. Cool. Maybe you do. Cool. I definitely don't feel enough concern to do more that whine and make jokes about it. 

Anyway, I really owe samorsam a thank you for inspiring this post, which I think is one of my most organized posts so far. I wish the poor net weasel luck on his noble quest to make bloggers aware of their grammar hypocrisy. Though I have to say, he kinda missed the mark on this one because clearly, my qualms are with the diction of others, not their grammar. Also the poor sod should probably loosen up, otherwise he's starin' down the barrel of becoming what he hates. It would appear that in trying to break the spirit of grammar Nazis he has become the ultimate Nazi in a ridiculous  recyclops-like twist of fate...just sayin'. 

Axes to Grind

Believe me, when I decided to start blogging I planned to mostly write funny stories and witty quips, and special events and what not. I never intended the tone of the blog to be as vitriolic as the last post....or this one. Maybe vitriolic is a strong word. Yeah, I'll say....whiny, yes, whiny. I am going to whine, but I will do it splendidly! After all, I am the Wonder Llama.

I called this post axes to grind, because I have two axes to grind. I'd like to say I'm not a negative person, but...I get annoyed super easy, so I won't say that. The latest things that annoy me are misuses of words and misconceptions about the world (I'm not objective on this, don't worry about it). So anyway the misuse of words kills me because I think its linked to the second thing I say. If you use the wrong word its either because you really don't know what that word means, or you have some kind of bad ideas about stuff. Like the word "literally." We all hate the misuse of that one. No, you did not literally die, you are still here, you are talking, you are alive. What's even worse is when people say literally superfluously. If you drove over here, I don't need to know that you "literally" drove over here, because I didn't believe you could do that metaphorically or figuratively. Ugh! But this post isn't about the word "literally," it is about the word, "logic." I hear a lot of people talk about how certain things aren't "logical" or that there has to be a "logical" explanation, when they actually mean, "sensible" or "scientific" or "believable." We put so much importance on something being "logical." I think this is because we were all forced to learn algebra and geometry as children. According to the OED (OED!!!!!!) logic is: "Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity; a particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference." Logic is a codification, a system, a method of devising proof, not proof itself. Even if something is crazy it can still fit into "a particular system or codification of principles of proof and inference." That's what both sucks and is awesome about logic. Something can be totally stupid and untrue and still logical. As far as I'm concerned logic's a fool. Take this example: in the 1600's the Catholic Church declared Galileo and Copernicus' idea that the earth revolves around the sun, heresy. The church's claim was that man, as God's greatest creation, must be placed at the center of the known universe. By that logic, if Galileo is right, God doesn't love us as much as the sun. It's perfectly logical if one assumes that God structured the universe with his favorite creations at the center. But the assumption cannot be proven, even by logic. As far as I'm concerned logic is a fool. The fact that we've made it a really important and misused word in our language is annoying.

The other thing I wanted to rant about is this misconception about life that most things are someone else's fault. Most of the people who actually read this blog have heard most of my stories about this misconception. Because my annoyance with it stems from my years of working in customer service. I can't count the number of times I've seen someone get upset because a show was sold out or their kid didn't get a pell grant. Some of my favorite phrases I've heard, and yes, these are direct quotes.

When the premier section of the Randall was sold out, "We couldn't believe you would hold a block of seats for anyone more important than us."

When I explained that a student's family made too much money for the kid to qualify for a grant, "So we're being punished for doing better?" (Can't tell you how badly I wanted to say yes to that one).

Numerous times, "You mean I'm calling TWO MONTHS in advance and you're still sold out?!"

So many times when I've had to tell someone that they'll need to submit extra paper work or that they didn't apply for a scholarship on time, that they get upset and start blaming me, or my office, or the government. To me it demonstrates an unhealthy dependency on institutions for conscience and unwillingness to accept personal responsibility. Everyone says, "this is a rip-off," or "no one told me," or "so you're saying..." when I'm not saying anything, I'm just relaying the truth.

I remember watching a thing on PBS right after Hurricane Katrina. It was documentary type show examining why the damage was so devastating. The tag line for the report was, "Who's fault was it?" I thought, "Oh, I don't know...maybe...THE FRENCH!!!! They're the damn fools who built a city between a river a big-ass lake and the ocean. But guess what, the Frenchmen who built N'Ahlands are dead! And no one can prevent a hurricane, so why waste time with blame, just fix the levies, or don't, whatever.

There are some things in life that are no one's fault, some that are your own damn fault, and some that are Rutherford B. Hayes' fault. The trick is knowing when to tell the difference, and how and when to respond. Quite often this means forgiving. I got this "sometimes-its-no-one's-fault" bee in my bonnet because I was surfing the internet and I came across a blog of a former LDS guy who wrote with resentment about the pressure he felt from his family and fellow church members how it led him to believe all sorts of things about himself. He said he felt that the church causes that pressure. Not only was it apparent that he had very little understanding of how much of that pressure comes from the church and how much comes from church members, but he really didn't own up to the fact that what really determined his behavior was the fact that he bought into the pressure. He chose to believe that other people were more right about him than he was, and that that wasn't his choice. I went through a similar thing. I used to think there was pressure on me to either get married or go on a mission. When you're single and your friends and siblings are married, people like setting you up. When people find out you're 21, Mormon and not married, they ask if you're going on a mission. When you say "no" they back-peddle, its good fun. I felt kind of bad that I wasn't anywhere close to getting married and I had no desire to go on a mission. I would rant about all the reasons I shouldn't go on a mission and how glad I was that I wasn't married. Then, over time I noticed that I was the only one who was talking about it. People weren't asking me about the mission because I should want to go, they were asking because they see it as an option and a good one. People weren't asking me about dating because its what I should be doing, they were asking  because that's what they did, that's where they were at my age and it was a good thing for them, so they think it would be a good thing for me. And guess what, that's okay. I really overestimated how much what other people say to me means about me, and how much anyone would really judge me if I didn't do what they did.

Own your crap! How you react to an outside force has way more to do with you than it. The government is not your mom, it is not here to punish and reward, it is here to maintain order when possible and provide a few services. Businesses that provide services are trying to make money, they are not trying to cater to you personally, they are not trying to hurt or inconvenience you personally, and they cannot control all the factors that surround them (if it rains on an outdoor show, or someone sneaks in a four-year-old and claims they're six). The people around you can't possibly know you better than you do. Most don't care enough about you to judge you and those that do care about you usually want to help you, and mostly they don't know how, can you really blame them for that? No one can control your behavior any more than you can control anyone else's behavior.

So what's the moral of this here incoherent ramble? This: most things are no one's "fault" and yelling at me is neither going to get your paperwork done sooner or remove the necessity of said paperwork. So shut up and go get your forms done.

Oh What A Piece of Work Are Dudes

So yes,  this is a dude-hated post. But hopefully it will be a. Charming and funny over-generalization, ans not a bitter reticent one. I'm going to just tell a story, cause that's what I do best,  then I'll leave the conclusions up to all four of my readers.

So the other day I get a facebook invite to this party hosted by someone I don't really know, but I see that all my friends are going and there's free waffles so I figure I'll check it out.

So I go and it's actually pretty fun. Some of my friends are there, there are indeed waffles,  and the girls throwing the party are Milford fans, so that's a plus. I'm telling this because I want you to know that the things I learned about guys that night didn't ruin my evening. In case you were worried.

So anyway, we're all having a good time and I'm meeting some new people and kicking butt at ping pong and I hear this guy behind me say, "if a girl wants Tiffany's you dump that shit." Which started a conversation about buying cheap jewelry for women. I thought, "don't worry about it. You keep talkin' about ladies that way you won't have anyone to buy jewelry for."

What's disturbing about this isn't that these guys weren't willing to spend money on a girl. Nor was it the use of the phrase,  "dump that shit." After all,  if we're being totally fair its entirely possible I misheard and he actually said, "jump that ship." I doubt it,  but there ya go. No, what I found most disturbing is that these were all LDS guys. I see most of these guys regularly, always at church related events. Now I'm not saying that you have to be perfect to go to church, being a little screwed up and laser is why we need church. Its just a little disheartening to see that none of its rubbing off. Even more disturbing was that they were outnumbered by LDS women, none of whom called them out or walked away. Shamefully, I didn't bother to call them out. In my defence, the ping pong was getting intense.

I don't like being this person, but I kind of have to. What happened to all these men? Why aren't there nice guys that go to parties? Why are women putting up with this jazz?

Someone once told me that I'd have an easier time dating outside Utah because the guys here think they can afford to be picky. Is that true? These duchebags think they can take their pick? Why is that? Is it because ladies keep letting them off the hook? Probably....ugh.