BTW

"YOU'RE GONNA LOVE THE WAY YOU LIE. I GUARANTEE IT."

(alternate titles: "BEATING (AROUND) THE (PROVERBIAL) BUSH"; and "PAVLOVIAN SLIP")

i have had a lot of (awkward) conversations lately. these are the sort of conversations that start with an innocently curious question, but result in a sort of "lucky shot" at my personal life. sometimes, the inquisitor gets more than they bargained for...


i have never been much of a (good) liar or even a secretive person--just very private. i willingly give opinions on general subjects, but i tend to withhold things that might divulge any real insight (about me). this may come across as a defence mechanism to protect myself from pain or dealing with my issues (as i explain to my students). but this is a HUGE assumption. simply put, it just isnt any of their business.





i think that this sudden increase in public query is (partly) related to my band. now, i am not famous by any means, but as my band gains more fans (as does our apparent notoriety), many total strangers approach me to make small talk. some are so bold as to add me as a friend on facebook. and i am fine with this. i just have to be (increasingly) more careful with the info i give about myself (certain pics have been removed...).


this is where i should use some sort of transition, but im too lazy...


my roommate is retarded. not literally, however; but in the 90's sense of the word. lets start out by explaining that he didnt have a chance to begin with. i have had lots of roommates over the years. some good, some bad, and some retarded. this particular roommate is not a good one, but certainly not the worst. he just has the unfortunate position of being my last roommate (im getting my own place and im not looking back). which means that no matter what he does, anything that reminds me that he is in the apartment will inevitably annoy me. its nothing personal, although it some times comes across that way.


and for the record, acknowledging my own hypocrisy does nothing to diminish my disdain for this ignoramus.


first, there is the bathroom. 95% of everything in the bathroom belongs to him. which in turn means that 95% of any messes in the bathroom are his doing. he doesnt flush, he doesnt put cloths in the hamper, he doesnt wipe up toothpaste spittle (or loogies) in the sink (or on the faucet), he doesnt clean off the blue hair gel on the walls or the blood on the counter (stupid diabetes...).


he is a night owl, which isnt altogether a bad thing since he is usually out and about when im going to bed. but he does get home at dawn on a regular basis...



as a night owl, he goes "clubbing" pretty much nightly, which means his taste in music is club music. now i dont really care for hip hop, dance, trance, techno, rap, r&b, or pop music, but i realize its mostly a difference in preference. not everyone likes my music either. but as the year has gone on (and on and on) i have noticed that its not just that we have different taste in music or that he has bad taste in music in general (musical taste is relative). i have come to realize that because his music library is so unfathomably pathetic that he must simply not have any taste in music... at all.


it was almost poetic when i realized this phenomenon. i know lots of people and everyone has different musical preferences. this is the first time i have ever met some one with seemingly no taste... at all. allow me to explain.


when some one likes a song they buy it and then seek out and buy any comparable songs by the same or similar artists. eventually they will have a nice little collection of a given genre of music. usually they will branch out to other genres, thus expanding their collection.

now in the 90's this was a bit cumbersome since you had to get tapes or cd's and most people didnt bother to make copies for friends. but in the 00's file sharing exploded with the aid of things like mp3 players, limewire, itunes, rapsody, zune market place, myspace, facebook, youtube, and pandora. so i think it is reasonable to assume that the average college student in this day and age of technology would have access to at least a few hundred (if not thousands) of songs at any given time.


so how the hell does a grown man listen to the same 10 songs every single day for months on end?



it truly blows my mind how i am not even exaggerating right now. he literally listens to the same 10 songs every day, and has done so for the last 9 months i have lived with this fool. he will even listen to the same song multiple times in a row... daily. and i bet in his mind he has a good collection. maybe even a well-rounded collection. after all, he does include one power ballad and one slow country love song.


"love the way you lie" makes me want to stab somebody in the face with a soldering iron...

REFRACTED LIGHT

i was raised to be homophobic. i didnt realize i was homophobic until i went to collage and found that i had gay friends. i had to choose to either shun them (like i was taught) or befriend them. i chose the latter.

it wasnt until i took a psychology class at byu, during which we discussed **homosexuality, that i realized that i really didnt agree with the mormon view that homosexuality is a choice, and can therefore be "cured."



this brings me to what caused me to write this. one of my (many) cousins recently made a comment (spurred from a women's conference of some sort where a speaker touched on homosexuals in the mormon church) where she said "i dont see what the big deal is. we dont ask gays to do anything different from any other singles in the church. just obstain from premarital sex. it has nothing to do with being gay."


the problem is that the statement isnt true. gays in the church are not asked to do the same thing as heterosexual singles in the church. here is the difference: because gays can not marry (which is what the church wants) they have to live their entire lives in celebacy in order to remain in good standing with the church. whereas heterosexuals are taught to marry and have a healthy sex life with a spouse. celebacy is not the same thing as abstinance ...at all. just ask any number of returned missionaries who have bible-bashed with a catholic about the celebacy of priests.

now if the church changed its position on gay marriage to allow them to have a civil marriage (not an eternal marriage in a mormon temple) then it would be asking the same thing. or at least a similar thing. but the church has made it clear that they have no intention of changing that policy.


the notion of a cure for the "disease" of homosexuality has been prevelant in the church pretty much since the beginning. LDS social services use "reparative therapy" to cure homosexuality. this method is based on the idea that, with enough prayer and scripture study, one can overcome homosexual thoughts and urges, thus becoming heterosexual again.

this in turn implies that anyone who does not overcome these thoughts is not working hard enough and should read more and pray harder. when this does not work (and really, how often has it worked?) people become distraught and have to make a choice: choose a life of celebacy in a church that does not fully accept them; or leave the church and live a life among people who embrace them.

for many the choice isnt a choice at all. it is more of an epiphany, really. as a social worker, i see teens who seem to be unable to make that decision (usually due to family pressure) and too many of them either leave home or kill themselves. the truly terrifying thing is that this is a growing trend in utah and a sign that something needs to change.

personally, i think it is high time for mormons to get off the soapbox that homosexuality is a choice (and therefore a sin) and let gays get married. afterall, "two dads are better than none" (i realize this is a separate topic--get over it).

current polls on the subject show that younger generations are overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage. this means that it is just a matter of time until the older generations die off and gay marriage is passed. when this happens, expect to see an "official statement" by the church... the same thing happened with blacks in the church having the priesthood. the difference is that blacks didnt kill themselves...

**for a long time homosexuality was actually considered a mental disorder by psychologists. but this was partly because scientists had yet to differentiate between homosexuality and gender identity disorder (which is still considered a mental disorder). once the distinction was made, however, they withdrew that section from the DSM IV and have ever since quelched the sentiment that it is abnormal.

keep in mind that one of the main reasons a distinction was made was because studies showed that homosexuality did not cause disfunction (or an inability to lead an otherwise normal life). all mental disorders (potentially) cause disfunction that extents to many aspects of the persons life. homosexuality does not fit this discription.

ITCHING FEELINGS

(i refuse to explain the title.)


so it has certainly been a while since my last post. i have been very busy with my band and school and work and failed attempts at a social life. but i find myself today with some free time (at work, no less) and some thing interesting to say. today's topic is "moral impositions."

the founding fathers are often misunderstood when it comes to religion. i have heard many, many people claim that the founding fathers were all god-fearing christians and as such founded a christian nation. while it may be true that many of them were religious, many of them similarly hated organized religion. but that is hardly the point they were making. they wanted a nation where people could worship who and how they wanted with out persecution.

religious freedom and christianity have had a bit of a messed up relationship in the past (christianity isnt answering their cell phone). just look at the crusades, the spanish inquisition, and any number of european nations which used christianity to unify tribes of barbarians under a common government during the dark ages.

where was i? oh ya, moral impositions. so, living in utah county i see mormons and non-mormons trying to live peacefully together, but it is clear that there is some tension and quite a bit of resentment on both sides (i am mostly referring to locals. byu students add to the tension, but not intentionally). the source of the tension comes from moral impositions placed on non-mormons. and since they are the minority they get pushed around and taken advantage of quite easily. the most recent example of this has to do with one of the last bars in provo, "atchafalayas."

originally a strip club on center street in provo, in the 90's "atchas" was constantly protested by stalwart mormon mothers until about 10-12 years ago it was finally shut down and converted into a bar. in order to become a bar they, of course, needed to buy a liquor license. for those that dont know how a liquor license works, it is basically a permit purchased from the government which allows you to sell (heavily taxed) alcohol in your place of business. there are various annual fees associated with these licenses and there is a limit to the number of licenses allowed in a given county. all bars and restaurants have to have a current liquor license in order to sell alcohol.

in recent years, the city of provo decided to tear down certain sections of the down town area in order to build a new conference center. atchas is located on one of the blocks that will be torn down and has been working on a contract with the city to make the transition to a new location as smooth as possible. one of the conditions of the contract was that atchas would be able to keep their liquor license. and all was fine and dandy until the last election for mayor...

the new mayor decided not to honor atchas' contract and they sold the liquor license to byu (who apparently has a standing order to buy up any available liquor licenses in the area in an effort to make the county "dry." they have been doing this for years, thus preventing the city from recieving those heavy taxes from alcohol sales). the city then told atchas that they can still relocate and reopen as a restaurant instead of a bar. well, this didnt stand well in court as atcha's lawyers cited the contract which clearly states that they are entitled to a liquor license.

now, some of you maybe thinking that a dry county is a good thing (and in many ways it is, im not disputing that) but the manner in which the city and byu are trying to make the county dry is both underhanded and unethical. forcing other people to follow your set of moral values in this way is no different from the crusades, the spanish inquisition, or any number of european nations which used christianity to unify tribes of barbarians under a common government during the dark ages... and (for those of who are still keeping score) it goes against the intentions of the founding fathers and their understanding of religious freedom. such an odd predicament for a group of people who pride themselves on following "the spirit of the law."

in related news: my band will be playing at the grand opening of the new atchafalayas some time in january.

SOAP BOX

i recently watched the movie "there will be blood" (which is not as violent as its name would suggest) and at the end of the movie i realized two things. first, i didnt get it. and second, religious nuts irritate me.



about the first point: the movie is fairly straight-forward in terms of its story telling and it flows nicely. it keeps you interested until the end of the 2 and a half hours. but when i say i didnt get it, i mean i didnt get the point. seriously, what was the point? the director has been acclaimed as an artist with a keen insight into humanity and the way people treat each other. and his other movies hold true to that. but i got to the end of "there will be blood" and i thought to myself "so what?" (for those who have not seen it, i am being vague on purpose). i guess it was sort of like the movie "signs" when the twist was that there was no twist.



about the second point: one of the main characters of the movie is a young pastor of a church in the middle of no where (now here?). now, the actor did a good job portraying a "fire and brimstone" preacher that has all the good intentions in the world (for those who havent seen the movie, think of the pastor from "pollyanna"). and i think that as a character he fit the movie well. but as i watched him cast out a devil from the hands of an elderly lady with arthritis, i realized that if i ever came across some one with that much vigor for religion i would probably slap them... with my fist... while holding brass knuckles... which i may or may not have in a shoe box in a closet... some where... now, this has nothing to do with my religious beliefs conflicting with theirs. nor does it have anything to do with me being offended by them. if they want to act that way, fine. it just annoys me.



about the second point (sort of): the other day i was with a friend who had recently become a vegan. so obviously i had to ask him "why?" after denying that his vegan wife made him do it, he said that he liked the feeling that nothing had to die for his meal. (which to date is the best explanation a vegan has given me). so then we got in to a (polite) discussion about whether or not the bible condones eating animals. and he made the comment that we should only eat meat in times of famine (thus retracting to the typical LDS-vegetarian stand). which i normally would accept as a valid answer (or say that the current prophet has said that it is ok to eat meat). but the problem i have with this answer is that he is not mormon. it was a defense that he stole from his (also not mormon) vegan wife who has made it a habit to quote the book of mormon and the d&c against mormons. usually about this very subject. now, i think it is great that two non mormons like to quote LDS scripture. but because the arent LDS they usually take things out of context and (like i mentioned before) the current prophet has said that it is ok to eat meat, a fact that they wouldnt know about. but the real question i have is why they use LDS scripture to support their views at all? they dont believe in the church or its teachings except for (seemingly) this one thing. and because of this they dont accept current revelations. what i am getting at is that because they are both born and raised non-LDS utahns they have built up a defense to combat the culture they are stuck in.

and frankly, i dont blame them.

POST-IT

i have recently found a new pass time. writing comics. i figured i should post the ones i have so far since i havent posted anything for a while. enjoy.

...you can also check out full size versions at photobucket.

CD

well, i have been very busy lately working 60 hours a week and doing stuff for my band. including recording an album. here are a few samples.