Anti-Mormon Nonsense

I like to think I'm tolerant of other people's beliefs. It goes back to the ol' Golden Rule. I'll believe what I want to, you believe what you want to, let's not force our beliefs on each other and everybody wins.

So as the LDS general conference approaches and the corresponding spike in anti-Mormon propaganda, it just leaves me scratching my head a little bit as to what these people's motivation could possibly be. Take "too small shirt with bullhorn" guy, for example. Anyone who has taken the stroll to the Conference Center to attend a session knows just who I'm talking about. I guess what he's trying to say is "your religion is false, you're all going to hell". But whatever his message is, in whatever form he tries to deliver it, it completely escapes me. The only thing I think, in those precious few moments as I walk by, is "my man...it's uncanny how astronomically insignificant your life is." And then a split second later I am thinking about what's on the menu for dinner afterwards. :)

Basically my model of the belief spectrum goes like this...on one end you have people who believe good things. Next comes the people who believe bad things. And at the crap end you've got the people who only believe that what you believe are bad things...and for some inexplicable reason even take action on that belief. It's ludicrous.

Hey bullhorn guy...what are you doing?? What's the point? Life is too short for this. Go watch a sunset and play with a puppy. And get a shirt that fits for crying out loud...

Grand Canyon Skywalk

When I first heard about this, and saw the artist's conception drawing of it, I thought, "Oh boy, what an ill-conceived, tourist-trappy, sellout idea." Well apparently they finished the monstrosity and had the grand opening ceremony yesterday. Here are a couple pictures, first the conception drawing, and then an actual photo of the finished product:




Is anyone surprised that the conception drawing, while still a horrible idea, at least makes an attempt to be at harmony with the environment, while the finished product looks like some kind of hastily constructed Evel Knievel publicity stunt, completely desecrating one of the most serene and beautiful places on earth, yea, even one of the 7 natural wonders of the world. Just shameful.

And what really gets my goat, is that while I think it's a bad idea from top to bottom, at least if it did end up looking like the conception drawing it would kind of be a trip standing on a platform that stuck that far out (relatively). But they didn't even accomplish that. The finished product looks like it sticks out maybe half as far. All that effort and hoopla and fanfare for what? This thing is overflowing with anticlimax.

And one more thing. :) Even if it did stick out as far as in the drawing, the view from the floor (it's got a glass floor so you can look down to the canyon bottom) could not possibly warrant the $75 they are asking for one measily stroll around it. I may be going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing the view of the canyon is not that different from the rim, and from 65 feet from the rim.

Nice work, Hualapai. Way to completely sell out. What happened to all the "the land is sacred" BS that we get force fed in the movies these days? I hope it never makes back its unbelievable $30 million pricetag and sends a message to other would-be sellouts...

I fire up Yahoo this morning, and happen to notice the top overall searches for the day. And who do I find in the top 6, but the no-talent skank triumvirate of Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and Lindsay Lohan. I cannot, for the life of me, see what is so fascinating about these 3. There is no shortage of messed-up mildly attractive drunkard chicks running around. The only explanation I can come up with is it is a self-feeding frenzy, meaning, the more we see of them the more people WANT to see them...and the vicious cycle continues.

I, for one, couldn't be happier if I never saw or heard of any of them ever again. But there they were, in the top 6 most popular searches on the most popular website on the entire internet. There had to be an explanation. So I got thinking and I've come up with a theory, especially after I saw that the "WWE" also made the top 6.

I believe that we, as society, have totally messed up the fundamental evolutionary process of natural selection. For humans, that is. We have come up with so many ways to protect the stupid, e.g., seat belt laws, avalanche management, lifeguards, road closures, etc., that the "prone to off one's self" gene has been able to survive. Nay, has been able to flourish. And I believe this is the same gene that makes people like Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, and crap like the WWE interesting to people. A few generations of this, a little exponential growth, and the next thing you know...look who winds up on the most popular search list.

Just a theory. :)

I got another word misuse pet peeve. I heard this on a sports talk show today: "I wanted to root for my alumni." I also remember hearing on another show something to the effect of "He is an alumni of (such and such university)". Since when did "alumni" become the one correct catch-all word when talking about people and the school they attended?

No, you don't root for your alumni, that makes no sense. You're not hoping that anyone who has ever gone to a particular university is having success in whatever endeavor they are currently involved in at the moment. You root for your ALMA MATER. No, a given person is not an alumni of a school, they are an ALUMNUS (singular) of that school.

It's like saying "I am a big fans of the Jazz". It sounds stupid. Now stop it. :)

"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger."

We've all heard this. It sounds nice...almost inspirational. But with a little thought, you realize it's a pretty stupid phrase. To illustrate, I'll use one of my favorite debating techniques, the always handy proof-by-counterexample...

How about if someone smacks you upside the face as hard as they can with a boat paddle? Probably won't kill you. Did it make you stronger? I would argue that it did not, in any way, make you stronger. Probably just a lot of pain, a severely damaged relationship, and perhaps a permanent mark.

How about a nasty bout with Leukemia? One which devastates your system to the point of NEAR-death. Unlikely you would be chosen 1st for the tug-o-war team.

And finally...let's say you have SEVERE case of facial acne. Doesn't kill you. Maybe you've learned to deal with it and continue to live your life...maybe even hit the inspirational speaking circuit to tell your story. Oops, no one will book you, don't want to give people nightmares with your scary-looking grill.

Now, in fairness, I think that I get the gist of the phrase. I guess I just take issue with the absoluteness of its tone. More appropriate, I believe, would be "SOME things that don't kill you make you stronger". But how un-inspirational does that sound? :)

BYU wins! BYU wins! That was a classic game in almost every sense. Nothing quite like winning a close one against your rival, and it doesn't get any more "down to the wire" than that. Makes me wish I'd been there. There is something about this rivalry, however, that bothers me...and that is what the media has apparently dubbed it, i.e., the Holy War.

The Holy War? What? Clearly BYU has a religious affiliation, but Utah? They're just a state school, the U of UTAH. Last I checked Utahn was not a religion. If the rivalry were BYU vs. Notre Dame, the title Holy War would make sense. Is it supposed to be...Mormonism vs. Atheism maybe? Mormonism vs. Agnosticism? And what makes it extra stupid is that the predominant religion at the U of U is probably ALSO Mormonism. Are there feuding sects within the LDS faith that I'm unaware of??

A great rivalry deserves a great name, not a contrived misnomer.

It's time to talk a little cell phone etiquette...or lack thereof. :)

Let's face it. Using a cell phone impairs your ability to drive safely. BUT, I would venture to say it impairs some a little more (or much more) than others. Have you ever been out driving around, minding your own business, when you see another driver do something so inexplicably stupid or unsafe that you just have to get a look at the driver? And isn't it the case, 9 times out of 10, that they either have a phone crammed into the side of their face, or they're really old, OR (heaven forbid) both? Fortunately technology anxiety makes that last case virtually impossible...but in time it's conceivable that that will change. But I digress. My point is, just as not everyone is suited for driving in general, not everyone is suited for driving while talking on their phone. I think they should make it part of the driver license test. If you fail the "driving while talking" portion of the test, you get a restriction put on your license, like if you wear glasses, etc. Then if a cop pulls you over for doing something stupid, and you were on your cell phone, you get a big NASTY ticket...and the cop has the option to confiscate and stomp on your phone repeatedly, on-the-spot.

Also...it goes without saying (or should, anyway) that you either turn your cell phone off, or put it in silent mode, when you're at church, or in a movie, etc. I get that sometimes you forget, at least I GOT that sometimes you forget...like 8 years ago. :) But now I think there is no excuse for it. Cell phones and their use are so ubiquitous now that not turning them off in church, or a movie, or where ever is simply unacceptable. It would be like showing up to church and then realizing, "Oops! I forgot my pants!" Nevertheless, almost without exception these days, the poor sacrament prayer is tainted by a low-fi, blippy-sounding rendition of some Eminem song echoing louder than life in the chapel...quickly followed by the sound of some poor schmuck desperately trying to silence it (usually takes about 10 seconds). I think you should get a 6 month temple recommend suspension for that. Or maybe...have to give a talk the next week in church. There must be consequences or people will never learn! :)

Lastly, there is a relatively new cell-phone related phenomenon that has been especially bugging me of late, which also occurs in a movie theater. You're watching an exciting movie on a big screen, the room is dark, you're enveloped, engrossed, and then...a small but annoyingly bright light appears three rows ahead of you and takes you temporarily out of the movie. MAN that is annoying. I mean, wouldn't want a little thing like the MOVIE you paid $8 to see, not to mention everyone else in the theater, get in the way of your important text message. HEY TEENAGE CHICK, YOUR MESSAGE CAN WAIT UNTIL AFTERWARDS!!! :) I'm telling you, if they installed cell phone jamming devices in theaters YESTERDAY it wouldn't be too soon. I think it's inevitable...but only time will tell.

Every year around election time (like right now) someone will inevitably get in my face about "getting out to vote." Try as I might, a few simple reasons explaining why I usually DON'T vote never suffices. This so-called "civic duty", as they often put it, must have been ingrained very deeply and from a very early age, because I can never persuade anyone. Or maybe my arguments just suck. :) I'll let you decide...

First, I would like to clarify that I view the act of voting and the right to vote as different. The right to vote I view as very important. The act of voting, specifically me voting, however, I don't view as nearly important. I have several reasons why I feel this way, but I will only go into my latest one here.

If you're the type of person who carefully considers every candidate, reads all the provided literature, and (heaven forbid) does some independent research on the candidates, then this reason does not apply to you. In fact, you are the type of person I would want to vote. That is to say, an informed voter. But the average citizen, myself included, is a far cry from this ideal...or in other words, an grossly uninformed voter. This fact is not lost on the candidates, of course, whose sole purpose in life come election time is to get into office.

Why do you think the message we get shoved down our throats every couple years is a simple "get out and vote."? Wouldn't it be more productive to send a message something more along the lines of "research the candidates and get informed about the issues."? If someone were to take the time to do that, my guess is the simple act of casting a ballot would follow naturally.

The reason is, when you have so many uninformed voters, winning an election is a simple matter of getting your name out the most. E.g., TV commercials, signs, radio ads, flyers, etc. Who you are and what you stand for are pretty inconsequential. He who spends the most money, and therefore gets the most exposure, wins the election. And that's why I think the message they push is simply "get out and vote". The uninformed voter, or the average voter, is just a sheep susceptible to the proven marketing methods that candidates undoubtedly utilize.

An election that can be bought, which is what it pretty much boils down to, I think naturally leads to corruption. And of course corruption is bad for everyone except the corrupt. So to summarize...I consider myself so grossly uninformed that I feel I would be doing society a disservice by casting my ballot and potentially negating an informed voters ballot. Or put as succinctly as possible, an uninformed vote is worse than a no-vote. And that is why I won't be visiting the polls tomorrow. Well, that and a few other reasons, not the least of which is sheer laziness...but I won't elaborate on that point. :)

Okay, Little Ceasar's Pizza, you make a really crappy pizza and sell it for really cheap. MESSAGE RECEIVED LOUD AND CLEAR!

Clearly you've subsidized the cost of the pizza by cutting the marketing budget dramatically. It would seem you've created exactly 1 (lousy) radio ad and 1 (equally lousy) TV ad in many many months. One part of the marketing budget you haven't scrimped on, however, is the number of times you run your ad. It's a rare day that I don't hear that nausea-inducing radio spot at least 3 times on my way home from work: "Hot 'n' Ready, just 5 bucks!"

The ironic thing is, I would happily dish out $6 or $7 if you would promise to switch your ads up once in awhile. There's a happy medium on the "cost of pizza" vs. "marketing budget" spectrum, but you're a LONG ways from it. Think about it, little toga man. :)

For the LOVE, people. "Loose" does not equal "lose". You don't loose your mind. You don't loose a game of checkers. You LOSE them! LOSE LOSE LOSE. I see this all the time...and someone needs to say something. :)

"Pardon me while I blow my noose." No one seems to have a problem with that. So what is it about loose and lose?

Just stop it!