My employer has a list of corporate values it wishes to instill. One of them is consistency, but consistency is only a virtue if you are not a screw-up. By and large, I do consider it a virtue...at least when it comes to food. When I go to Mickey D's, I can be assured of predictable food and a dynamite beverage (courtesy of their superior water filtration system).
The main problem with consistency is that it often becomes the new norm. If somebody is given 'exceptional' service every time they may see it for what it is, but typically view it as progressively mundane. That is until they go somewhere else. Let me go back to the Mickey D's example. Next time you are eating fast-food inside, try the water first. If I only ate at Mickey D's and no where else, then I wouldn't feel that way.
It's the same way with Pharmacy business I suppose. I don't offer exceptional service to every customer because most of them don't need it. There are a few that do need it on occasion. Some folks are scared, ignorant (not to be confused with rude), miserable, in pain etc. I will expend extra effort on these folks because they need it. Far too often it is the other way around. People will 'go the extra mile' on the low-hanging fruit and ignore the 5% who need it most. That way they can say that 95% of our customers rate our service as excellent...but it is a lie. Just like saying I fired my pistol at someone and it missed their ear by three inches. The implication is that they weren't shot, when in reality I plugged them between their eyes.
One of the tenets of Taoism is to be frugal. It is not for the purpose of being miserly, but to be generous when somebody needs your generosity. I have been both the giver and the receiver of such generosities. Lately, more on the receiving end. So what is better, the frequent giver of small gifts or the infrequent (or unexpected) giver of large ones? Before you answer ask yourself if consistency is a virtue.
Sunday, June 8, 2014
Thursday, June 6, 2013
John Muir would have driven a Jeep
Sierra Club members and Jeep enthusiasts can both bristle at the title. But it's true.
I've had my Jeep just four days and it has forced me to do a lot introspection. Obviously my back-country capabilities took a massive leap forward. The question then becomes, "what am I do to with my Jeep". Before answering that question, I should mention that my Jeep has a name now. My car's name was "Great Protector". But it has gone to that endless highway in the sky. The name of my new pony is "Grusche"
The name I have given her is a particularly apt moniker. She will carry me and protect me like her namesake in "Die Kaukasiche Kreidekreiz". I also think Bretolt Brecht would have driven a Jeep. Hell, everyone should!
So the answer to the question "what am I to do with Grusche" is not something I can answer directly nor quickly. Perhaps I can sum up my plans, as well as my belief that Muir would have driven a Jeep, by discussing Mount Moriah.
Mount Moriah is the middle mountain range that forms the western edge of the Snake Valley. It is a 12,000 footer and is only peak. Many times I have viewed it afar with wonder. To date, I have driven close to it (within 5 miles) only twice. That changes now. You need to go on 30 miles of dirt road just to get to the turn off towards the mountain. My car could take me no further. Grusche can get me to the mountain. She can also carry me part of the way up.When the existing road ends, Grusche shall go no further. I will then dismount, load my gear onto my back, and reverently proceed on foot.
Wilderness should not be penetrated by machine. It should only be had by physical exertion. I also have a personal code of conduct when in wilderness also. It's almost bushidoesque.
Mount Moriah is rarely climbed due to it's remoteness, difficult access, and a 6000 foot vertical climb that rivals Grand Teton in total elevation gain. It's like climbing Timpanogos...from the front! I may not make it to the top, but just entering the wilderness of Mt. Moriah will be a lifelong dream.
And when I get done, I'm going to grab my brother Vance and go to the mountains to the north...the Deep Creeks. Back in the late 80's we went up the only Granite Creek Canyon. It is the only one with a trail that goes all the way up. We parked at about 5800 feet up. We'll see what Grusche can do.
I've had my Jeep just four days and it has forced me to do a lot introspection. Obviously my back-country capabilities took a massive leap forward. The question then becomes, "what am I do to with my Jeep". Before answering that question, I should mention that my Jeep has a name now. My car's name was "Great Protector". But it has gone to that endless highway in the sky. The name of my new pony is "Grusche"
The name I have given her is a particularly apt moniker. She will carry me and protect me like her namesake in "Die Kaukasiche Kreidekreiz". I also think Bretolt Brecht would have driven a Jeep. Hell, everyone should!
So the answer to the question "what am I to do with Grusche" is not something I can answer directly nor quickly. Perhaps I can sum up my plans, as well as my belief that Muir would have driven a Jeep, by discussing Mount Moriah.
Mount Moriah is the middle mountain range that forms the western edge of the Snake Valley. It is a 12,000 footer and is only peak. Many times I have viewed it afar with wonder. To date, I have driven close to it (within 5 miles) only twice. That changes now. You need to go on 30 miles of dirt road just to get to the turn off towards the mountain. My car could take me no further. Grusche can get me to the mountain. She can also carry me part of the way up.When the existing road ends, Grusche shall go no further. I will then dismount, load my gear onto my back, and reverently proceed on foot.
Wilderness should not be penetrated by machine. It should only be had by physical exertion. I also have a personal code of conduct when in wilderness also. It's almost bushidoesque.
Mount Moriah is rarely climbed due to it's remoteness, difficult access, and a 6000 foot vertical climb that rivals Grand Teton in total elevation gain. It's like climbing Timpanogos...from the front! I may not make it to the top, but just entering the wilderness of Mt. Moriah will be a lifelong dream.
And when I get done, I'm going to grab my brother Vance and go to the mountains to the north...the Deep Creeks. Back in the late 80's we went up the only Granite Creek Canyon. It is the only one with a trail that goes all the way up. We parked at about 5800 feet up. We'll see what Grusche can do.
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Functionality and IRS shenanigans
I got a new Jeep...at least it's new to me. I already took it someplace where my car could never have gone. It will also take me to places where I have already been, but should have left my car home. I have always valued functionality over style. As I get older, I am getting more pronounced in this view. So is my wife. She went out to get seat covers today. Some might say, "the seats are leather, why do you want to cover them?". Many of the places I go, I tend to get dirty, smelly, and damp. Seat covers can be cleaned where leather is much more difficult. Anyway, when she was buying the seat covers she was asked what color she wanted. Her answer? "It doesn't matter". There is a console between the front seats with a little lid on top that covers a storage compartment. I told her to forget about replacing the lid because it hold my water jug perfectly.
My Jeep is not going to win any prizes for acceleration, nor will I be taking it above 70 mph. So if you see an old green Jeep ahead of you, and it's driving too slow for your taste, you'd better think twice about flipping it off while you pass. It might be me.
I also figured out how to make the radio work. I happened upon Sean, or is it Shaun, or maybe it's Shawn, who cares....that Hannitty guy on the radio. Let me tell you something that I hate about talk radio. It tends to be extreme voices on both sides. While the conservatives tend to have me yelling back at the radio, the liberals make me fall asleep at the wheel. This Hannitty guy REALLY hates Obama. It's all he talks about. I've never heard him once agree with something the president has said or done. Obame could say that puppies are cute and the sun is going to rise in the east tomorrow and Hannitty would disagree. What was his latest bitch? The IRS giving a bunch of crap to 'Tea Party' groups and the notion that Obama is behind it all.
Did the IRS target these groups. Yes. Was it a right thing to do? I'm going to give a qualified 'yes' as an answer. I think anybody, regardless of political bent, who is going for tax-exempt status should face a challenge. The question that was advanced being, is Obama behind it all. While it is certainly possible, it is hardly the first time this has happened. What let say what I think happened by using allegory. Some of the people I work with, and a few patients also, say I have a knack for using simple examples to understand more complex issues.
Let's assume that there was a group of people that wanted to abolish pharmacists and pharmacies (and the proverbial 'Big Pharma" that the tin-foul hat wearers rail against) because we are all just a bunch of crooks who take money from people and do nothing that helps. If one of these bozos shows up at my Pharmacy, I will still get them their medications, at the proper price, at the same speed as everyone else, and I'll make sure to tell them what they need to know. In short...I will still do my job. I will not be friendly, or terribly empathetic however. It's not because my boss, or his boss, or his boss ordered me to do it. It's because they think I am a stupid crook that should be put out of business. I'd bet a week's that if these 'tea-party' groups would ratchet back the anti-IRS rhetoric that things will smooth over for them. Just because the IRS agents are government employees doesn't mean they are Obama toadies. The military being a classic example. It's a safe bet that a majority of people in the Armed Services voted for Romney, but they still do their job. For that I am grateful.
My Jeep is not going to win any prizes for acceleration, nor will I be taking it above 70 mph. So if you see an old green Jeep ahead of you, and it's driving too slow for your taste, you'd better think twice about flipping it off while you pass. It might be me.
I also figured out how to make the radio work. I happened upon Sean, or is it Shaun, or maybe it's Shawn, who cares....that Hannitty guy on the radio. Let me tell you something that I hate about talk radio. It tends to be extreme voices on both sides. While the conservatives tend to have me yelling back at the radio, the liberals make me fall asleep at the wheel. This Hannitty guy REALLY hates Obama. It's all he talks about. I've never heard him once agree with something the president has said or done. Obame could say that puppies are cute and the sun is going to rise in the east tomorrow and Hannitty would disagree. What was his latest bitch? The IRS giving a bunch of crap to 'Tea Party' groups and the notion that Obama is behind it all.
Did the IRS target these groups. Yes. Was it a right thing to do? I'm going to give a qualified 'yes' as an answer. I think anybody, regardless of political bent, who is going for tax-exempt status should face a challenge. The question that was advanced being, is Obama behind it all. While it is certainly possible, it is hardly the first time this has happened. What let say what I think happened by using allegory. Some of the people I work with, and a few patients also, say I have a knack for using simple examples to understand more complex issues.
Let's assume that there was a group of people that wanted to abolish pharmacists and pharmacies (and the proverbial 'Big Pharma" that the tin-foul hat wearers rail against) because we are all just a bunch of crooks who take money from people and do nothing that helps. If one of these bozos shows up at my Pharmacy, I will still get them their medications, at the proper price, at the same speed as everyone else, and I'll make sure to tell them what they need to know. In short...I will still do my job. I will not be friendly, or terribly empathetic however. It's not because my boss, or his boss, or his boss ordered me to do it. It's because they think I am a stupid crook that should be put out of business. I'd bet a week's that if these 'tea-party' groups would ratchet back the anti-IRS rhetoric that things will smooth over for them. Just because the IRS agents are government employees doesn't mean they are Obama toadies. The military being a classic example. It's a safe bet that a majority of people in the Armed Services voted for Romney, but they still do their job. For that I am grateful.
Saturday, June 1, 2013
Sea urchins and the Boy Scouts of America
Have you ever wondered who ate the first sea urchin? I doubt it was a Boy Scout. If it were...he would have to be Chinese. As near as I know the only part of the creature that is edible is the roe. I've eaten it but only once. Were I in a survival situation, I suppose I could eat more. It is not a flavor I enjoy. I am also perplexed by people that enjoy sea urchin roe. They obviously see something that is simply not there.
The BSA has been in the news a lot lately with their new policy about 'allowing' gay scouts. There has been a lot of commentary and speculation, especially among those of the predominant local religion. I refrain from saying the LDS church. They have made their position on the matter clear. Unfortunately, some of those wacky 'Mormons' are spouting off. I am going to wade into the fray, but I will deal with the gay component last.
First I want to reiterate an opinion that I have held for a long time. Scouting, as it is currently constituted is a waste of time. My father-in-law Brent was no doubt turning in his grave as I type that last sentence. Allow me to explain. The noble platitudes and goals that are associated with scouting are all well and good. There is something wrong with the Boy Scout oath, law, creed,...ah hell I forgot...about being trustworthy, loyal, etc. Many of the people that are appalled by gays being allowed are point to the phrase 'morally straight' so I suppose that is still in there somewhere. I suppose I should look up the list next time, but I suspect there is nothing in the list that is a bad thing to be.
But at it's heart, scouting was formed to make better soldiers. Specifically better British soldiers. I watched an episode of 'Downton Abbey' and would have to concur that the quality of the British fighting man left much to be desired during WWI. Wait a minute, my wife just told me that the boy scouts were founded in 1908. Uhhh, forgot what I just said. Clearly the British officer in that episode was not 'prepared' when he was having sex with Ethel 'cuz she got knocked up. I guess neither one of them was morally straight either.
Scouting is all about making better soldiers. That is not exactly all-inclusive now is it. Soldiers do all sorts of unsavory stuff like wearing the same clothes for days or weeks on end, or crapping in holes and burying it...or not. They also do it all outdoors. Did I mention that they kill people too? Anyway, I would like to see a return to the original purposes of scouting. The emphasis being on academic achievement, physical development, terrain appreciation, survival techniques, infiltration and exfiltration etc. And of course they must also be a 'gentlemen' when they are not in the field. Which means not discussing the sheep they butchered and ate, atomic sit-ups, and the hole that they took a crap in, when women are around. Of course, all of this is fair game around the fellas. Most guys adore, or at the very least appreciate, this type of behavior. And that includes gays. Don't believe me? There's a honey badger video you should watch!
Skills need to be learned, but need to be measured by in the field results. Take cooking for example. What would be better? A shiny belt loop or not having to eat cold, inedible slop on the last 50 miler? What is more useful? A patch on a cloth sash (wait a minute...don't the GIRL scouts do the same thing?) recognizing my citizenship or learning how to maintain team cohesion on the aforementioned 50 miler? Team cohesion is what it is all about after all. Can it be maintained with gay members? The answer is of course maybe...but it has nothing to do with their being gay. Let me suggest a little exercise. Take any statement you see that opposes gays being allowed into scouting. Substitute the word 'nigger' 'spic' 'chink' jew-boy' or any other derogatory or patently offensive term and read it again.
Let me try it out. Lemme see? "If scouting is going to start allowing niggers to participate, then I will pull out my kids and longer support them financially".
Wow that was good! Let me try another. "It's one thing to allowing spics to participate in a classroom setting with lots of adult around, but I don't want some spic alone with my son in a tent because he might ... well I can only imagine what might happen".
One more, one more, "I can only imagine what might happen when they let chinks become scouts. When everybody is eating cold stew with under-cooked potatoes, they might take a hatchet and break open a sea urchin...".
Dear me, them homos have already won!
So when (not if, but when) we get the first gay scout, there will be some kid that will be bullied by his parents into refusing to associate with a homosexual. Who then has to go? Think about this carefully. Who is more disturbing to team cohesion, the person who is different or the person who refuses to deal with it?
When I have been out in the sticks for a few days and been hiking around, I tend to get a little ripe. When I am sweaty, smelly, bug-headed, dirty, and feel as if my butt-crack looks like a baboons ass, I am in no mood for lovin'. It wouldn't matter if Salma Hayek wandered into the camp stark naked and pleading, "Take me now". Now, if she were clutching a fresh tray on chicken enchiladas I'd at least let her hang around while I ate and laughed at the other fellas desperately searching for some warm water, soap, and toothpaste.
The BSA has been in the news a lot lately with their new policy about 'allowing' gay scouts. There has been a lot of commentary and speculation, especially among those of the predominant local religion. I refrain from saying the LDS church. They have made their position on the matter clear. Unfortunately, some of those wacky 'Mormons' are spouting off. I am going to wade into the fray, but I will deal with the gay component last.
First I want to reiterate an opinion that I have held for a long time. Scouting, as it is currently constituted is a waste of time. My father-in-law Brent was no doubt turning in his grave as I type that last sentence. Allow me to explain. The noble platitudes and goals that are associated with scouting are all well and good. There is something wrong with the Boy Scout oath, law, creed,...ah hell I forgot...about being trustworthy, loyal, etc. Many of the people that are appalled by gays being allowed are point to the phrase 'morally straight' so I suppose that is still in there somewhere. I suppose I should look up the list next time, but I suspect there is nothing in the list that is a bad thing to be.
But at it's heart, scouting was formed to make better soldiers. Specifically better British soldiers. I watched an episode of 'Downton Abbey' and would have to concur that the quality of the British fighting man left much to be desired during WWI. Wait a minute, my wife just told me that the boy scouts were founded in 1908. Uhhh, forgot what I just said. Clearly the British officer in that episode was not 'prepared' when he was having sex with Ethel 'cuz she got knocked up. I guess neither one of them was morally straight either.
Scouting is all about making better soldiers. That is not exactly all-inclusive now is it. Soldiers do all sorts of unsavory stuff like wearing the same clothes for days or weeks on end, or crapping in holes and burying it...or not. They also do it all outdoors. Did I mention that they kill people too? Anyway, I would like to see a return to the original purposes of scouting. The emphasis being on academic achievement, physical development, terrain appreciation, survival techniques, infiltration and exfiltration etc. And of course they must also be a 'gentlemen' when they are not in the field. Which means not discussing the sheep they butchered and ate, atomic sit-ups, and the hole that they took a crap in, when women are around. Of course, all of this is fair game around the fellas. Most guys adore, or at the very least appreciate, this type of behavior. And that includes gays. Don't believe me? There's a honey badger video you should watch!
Skills need to be learned, but need to be measured by in the field results. Take cooking for example. What would be better? A shiny belt loop or not having to eat cold, inedible slop on the last 50 miler? What is more useful? A patch on a cloth sash (wait a minute...don't the GIRL scouts do the same thing?) recognizing my citizenship or learning how to maintain team cohesion on the aforementioned 50 miler? Team cohesion is what it is all about after all. Can it be maintained with gay members? The answer is of course maybe...but it has nothing to do with their being gay. Let me suggest a little exercise. Take any statement you see that opposes gays being allowed into scouting. Substitute the word 'nigger' 'spic' 'chink' jew-boy' or any other derogatory or patently offensive term and read it again.
Let me try it out. Lemme see? "If scouting is going to start allowing niggers to participate, then I will pull out my kids and longer support them financially".
Wow that was good! Let me try another. "It's one thing to allowing spics to participate in a classroom setting with lots of adult around, but I don't want some spic alone with my son in a tent because he might ... well I can only imagine what might happen".
One more, one more, "I can only imagine what might happen when they let chinks become scouts. When everybody is eating cold stew with under-cooked potatoes, they might take a hatchet and break open a sea urchin...".
Dear me, them homos have already won!
So when (not if, but when) we get the first gay scout, there will be some kid that will be bullied by his parents into refusing to associate with a homosexual. Who then has to go? Think about this carefully. Who is more disturbing to team cohesion, the person who is different or the person who refuses to deal with it?
When I have been out in the sticks for a few days and been hiking around, I tend to get a little ripe. When I am sweaty, smelly, bug-headed, dirty, and feel as if my butt-crack looks like a baboons ass, I am in no mood for lovin'. It wouldn't matter if Salma Hayek wandered into the camp stark naked and pleading, "Take me now". Now, if she were clutching a fresh tray on chicken enchiladas I'd at least let her hang around while I ate and laughed at the other fellas desperately searching for some warm water, soap, and toothpaste.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Singers
Turandot is coming to the Utah Opera company. It's not my favorite opera, but it has a famous aria called, "Porquoi me reveiller"...or something like that. It sounds so French that it probably needs liberating. I do like opera myself, though the cost is difficult to justify. I much prefer the type of opera called 'singspiel'. I'm not going to get into the finer points of singspiel beyond saying I hate opera (or musicals) where they sing EVERYTHING.
I went and saw Les Miserables around Christmas. I read the book when I was young and it changed my life. My daughter read it also. I am very proud of her Anyway, the movie sucked We had "Wolverine", "Gladiator", and that chick from 'Mean Girls' with fetal alcohol syndrome. They sang everything....and sang....and sang....and damn, isn't that "Catwoman" turning tricks?
Arggghh....back on topic. I love opera. The combination of acting, live orchestral music, and voice can be sublime. The same thing can happen with a good musical, which is just opera with easier songs to sing.
I took my wife and daughter to see "The Magic Flute" a few months back. The overture and one aria are the most known elements of it. It is one of my favorites because of the themes it covers. True love (even for the goofier people like myself), loyalty, selflessness, and redemption. It also helped that the 'Queen of the Night' in the production was smokin' hot!
My favorite opera might come as a surprise to many except my wife. It is "Three-penny Opera". (My favorite play is also by Bertolt Brecht). The opening song (not the overture, but opening song) is known to all. See it, and there will be many songs that you will sing afterwards.
What precipitated today's rant was a list I read earlier today. It was the top ten male vocalists. This particular list had David Archuleta on it. Yup, 'Gaspy' is apparently one of the ten best male vocalists alive. Of course, all this proves is that anybody can put a top ten list on the internet.
Now what makes a great vocalist? A number of things actually. Quality, range, timbre, uniqueness, and our personal bias towards certain musical genres. I am going to forgo a list, rather I am going to tell you who the best male vocalist I have ever heard and likely ever will. Luciano Pavarotti. He was bombastic, egotistical, repulsively obese (that means anybody fatter than me), and Italian. Nonetheless, when he opened his mouth....perfection.
.
I went and saw Les Miserables around Christmas. I read the book when I was young and it changed my life. My daughter read it also. I am very proud of her Anyway, the movie sucked We had "Wolverine", "Gladiator", and that chick from 'Mean Girls' with fetal alcohol syndrome. They sang everything....and sang....and sang....and damn, isn't that "Catwoman" turning tricks?
Arggghh....back on topic. I love opera. The combination of acting, live orchestral music, and voice can be sublime. The same thing can happen with a good musical, which is just opera with easier songs to sing.
I took my wife and daughter to see "The Magic Flute" a few months back. The overture and one aria are the most known elements of it. It is one of my favorites because of the themes it covers. True love (even for the goofier people like myself), loyalty, selflessness, and redemption. It also helped that the 'Queen of the Night' in the production was smokin' hot!
My favorite opera might come as a surprise to many except my wife. It is "Three-penny Opera". (My favorite play is also by Bertolt Brecht). The opening song (not the overture, but opening song) is known to all. See it, and there will be many songs that you will sing afterwards.
What precipitated today's rant was a list I read earlier today. It was the top ten male vocalists. This particular list had David Archuleta on it. Yup, 'Gaspy' is apparently one of the ten best male vocalists alive. Of course, all this proves is that anybody can put a top ten list on the internet.
Now what makes a great vocalist? A number of things actually. Quality, range, timbre, uniqueness, and our personal bias towards certain musical genres. I am going to forgo a list, rather I am going to tell you who the best male vocalist I have ever heard and likely ever will. Luciano Pavarotti. He was bombastic, egotistical, repulsively obese (that means anybody fatter than me), and Italian. Nonetheless, when he opened his mouth....perfection.
.
Monday, December 17, 2012
Gun Control
This is always an inflammatory topic, and it has taken the forefront of the national debate (I refuse to say dialog since that would imply a sense of rationality and civilty) given the evil acts against the students and staff of Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut.
I spent much of the day trying to sort it out. I will not rehash the arguments of the pro and anti-gun positions. There is already an enormous amount of shouting back and forth between the two sides....... and that's just the arguing inside my own head. The harsh reality is that both sides are correct. Both sides are also wrong.
First of all, I own guns. Some I bought in my own name, others I purchased from others. Some are merely keepsakes and mementos. Others are kept around for killing. Yes folks, killing. That is what guns are for. Target shooting, hunting, and the like are recreation for many. Even the most shrill of the anti-gun movement would get a kick out of emptying a clip through an AK-47. SO they are fun, but the purpose of guns remains killing.
Let me give you a run-down on my 'recreational' weapons. I've a 30-06, a 30-30, a 10/22, and a 12 ga. shotgun. The first two are designed to hunt large game, especially deer. The 30-06 also has a decent scope on board. Combine that with some 'accelerator' ammo that I may or may not still have and you have a weapon system that is untraceable. I permanently gave up hunting years ago. I keep the 30-30 because it is fun to shoot. Why then do I keep the 30-06? The 10/22 is waiting for any family member that expresses any interest in taking it. Technically none of these guns are mine. The 30-06 was my father's. The 30-30 came from my brother George.....I think. I didn't buy it. The 10/22 was a gift from either my mom or dad, so who knows who owns that one. That leaves the shotgun. I had a buddy of mine get that for me almost 30 years back. He was about 18 at the time and working for ZCMI. They stopped selling guns, so he bought a bunch of them at a smoking deal.
I also have guns that are not for recreation. That means they are expressly for killing folks. I used to have an 'assault rifle'. I returned it to its previous owner. I have a .40 SW and the aforementioned shotgun for defensive purposes. Assault weapons are, by their nature for offensive use. I can't rule out using deadly force, but if I do I won't need to take out a dozen people, just one or two tops. The shotgun is much safer to use in home defense because it lacks penetration. Pistols, especially in the dark and against moving targets, require me to be close enough that I am practically touching the bad guys with it.
I like having guns. They are a comfort to me. There have been times I have drawn them in defense. Fortunately both situations defused without me having to shoot. I have since abandoned guns and now use a staff to defend myself in the back-country. Twice this year I was rushed by dogs with their fangs bared. The last guy didn't even apologize for his dog. I told him I was just going to kick his dog, the staff was for him. I'm thinking of getting a spear tip at the Chinese store in the mall. It will look cool!
Finally I want to make a simple point. The police cannot protect you, at least not immediately. Self-defense is not only a right but something everyone should commit themselves to learn how to do.
That's the gun nut in me. While I have mellowed somewhat over the years, I am still, deep down, a nasty person under certain circumstances.
What about the anti-gun side of me? I am reminded of a story I heard about my nephew. When he was young he wanted to go 'bunny-camping' with his Dad. He thought the purpose was to find rabbits so he could pet them. I laughed at the time, but I have since come to realize that he was right. I have bunnies that I pet every day. While I do not speak out against hunting, I find the practice personally abhorrent now. In fact, the only reason I didn't bludgeon those dogs I mentioned earlier, was because I don't want to have to someday explain to my nephew why I was mean to a dog. Though I suspect he'd give me a pass on the owners.
Guns don't always impart safety. Don't believe me? Then why don't they allow me to pack heat on a plane? Or a courtroom? Let's assume that I am carrying a pistol and trouble breaks out. Even if I don't fire a single round, what happens when the cops show up? They don't know who is the bad guy and who isn't. I might get shot! That kind of defeats the whole damn purpose doesn't it. Besides, pistols often miss and sometimes hit innocents. I do sometimes carry a knife. My lifetime batting average on getting the proper target with it is 1.000. If I am defending my home, then there can be little doubt who the bad guy is. He's the dead guy on the floor. Outside of the home, I feel that firearms simply cannot be justified. My wife still believes otherwise, which means nobody better screw around with me, at least when she's nearby.
People point to Switzerland and correctly assert that every house with a man between 20 and 50 has an assault weapon in it. It's true. Every man (not women incidentally, the Swiss were actually the last European nation that allowed women suffrage) between 20 and 50 has to be in the militia. And guess where they keep their firearm? Locked up at home. The Swiss don't have young thugs gunning each other down in the street. They don't have anybody shooting up schools or shopping malls. Obviously guns aren't the problem. Right?
Partially. The Swiss culture and population are a bit more homogeneous than our own. Like Americans they glorify money, but not violence. There is another crucial difference between us and the Swiss. Every single freaking gun is where it should be, with whom it should be, and stored how it should be. Let me break that down.
Where it should be:
Either in the home or on duty. They don't hunt a lot in Switzerland.
With whom it should be:
In Switzerland know who has what and everything is accounted for. Damn those Swiss are orderly and efficient.
We do criminal background checks on gun sold by dealers. Yet no such standard exists for private saless. I could go outside right now and sell my pistol to some asshole pissing on my mailbox, who is strung out on meth, and has been without his anti-schizophrenia medications for two months. How any rational person can defend this defies reason. All gun ownership must be tracked and background checks must be done. Plain and simple.
Gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. If you have a car it has to be registered, and inspected. You have to have a license to operate it. To keep your license, periodically you have to demonstrate you still know what the hell you are doing. And when you violate the law you lose your license and , often, the car. The same standards should be applied to guns. Like cars, there will still be some that make it into bad guys hands. But we can significantly reduce the amount of guns held by the bad guys. And yes, the law-abiding among us can still get weapons after we established that we don't piss on my mailbox or have a criminal record, restraining order, etc.
How it should be:
In a safe or with a gun lock. That will keep little kids from finding daddy's gun and blowing their brains out with it. But wait! What if I have to 'get at it fast'? Keep the damn thing unloaded. Still not quick enough for you? Load it at night when you are sleeping and unload it and lock it up when you wake up the next day. It's the same reason I don't keep my car gassed up and running in my driveway.
I tend to get confused at night. If I reached for my gun every time something startled me, then my dog Fly would have died a thousand deaths when she bulldozes the bedroom door open. I would have shot all my kids at least once, when they've sought help for ailments in the middle of the night. Even my wife would have been capped multiple times after she has awakened me at night (usually on my birthday or when I have done something especially thoughtful or romantic earlier in the day).
Finally there is my conflicting emotions. I mentioned earlier that having guns around makes me feel safe. It doesn't make me safe, but I do feel safe. And that has value. I am also a Taoist, and as such I simultaneously value and despise weapons of any sort. People often ask, "what would Jesus do". I doubt he'd own a gun. Were he threatened, I suppose he could start throwing lightning bolts or unleash angels with fiery swords. I dunno. Also being a Mormon, the closest thing to Jesus, is what would Thomas S. Monson have me do. Call me crazy, but I'll bet that old boy doesn't have a gun either. If he gets up in conference and instructs LDS faithful to rid themselves of weapons then I will do it. I won't sell them, I'll melt them down. If I had sufficient faith I would have already done it since, according to Lao Tzu, Heaven protects the merciful.
I spent much of the day trying to sort it out. I will not rehash the arguments of the pro and anti-gun positions. There is already an enormous amount of shouting back and forth between the two sides....... and that's just the arguing inside my own head. The harsh reality is that both sides are correct. Both sides are also wrong.
First of all, I own guns. Some I bought in my own name, others I purchased from others. Some are merely keepsakes and mementos. Others are kept around for killing. Yes folks, killing. That is what guns are for. Target shooting, hunting, and the like are recreation for many. Even the most shrill of the anti-gun movement would get a kick out of emptying a clip through an AK-47. SO they are fun, but the purpose of guns remains killing.
Let me give you a run-down on my 'recreational' weapons. I've a 30-06, a 30-30, a 10/22, and a 12 ga. shotgun. The first two are designed to hunt large game, especially deer. The 30-06 also has a decent scope on board. Combine that with some 'accelerator' ammo that I may or may not still have and you have a weapon system that is untraceable. I permanently gave up hunting years ago. I keep the 30-30 because it is fun to shoot. Why then do I keep the 30-06? The 10/22 is waiting for any family member that expresses any interest in taking it. Technically none of these guns are mine. The 30-06 was my father's. The 30-30 came from my brother George.....I think. I didn't buy it. The 10/22 was a gift from either my mom or dad, so who knows who owns that one. That leaves the shotgun. I had a buddy of mine get that for me almost 30 years back. He was about 18 at the time and working for ZCMI. They stopped selling guns, so he bought a bunch of them at a smoking deal.
I also have guns that are not for recreation. That means they are expressly for killing folks. I used to have an 'assault rifle'. I returned it to its previous owner. I have a .40 SW and the aforementioned shotgun for defensive purposes. Assault weapons are, by their nature for offensive use. I can't rule out using deadly force, but if I do I won't need to take out a dozen people, just one or two tops. The shotgun is much safer to use in home defense because it lacks penetration. Pistols, especially in the dark and against moving targets, require me to be close enough that I am practically touching the bad guys with it.
I like having guns. They are a comfort to me. There have been times I have drawn them in defense. Fortunately both situations defused without me having to shoot. I have since abandoned guns and now use a staff to defend myself in the back-country. Twice this year I was rushed by dogs with their fangs bared. The last guy didn't even apologize for his dog. I told him I was just going to kick his dog, the staff was for him. I'm thinking of getting a spear tip at the Chinese store in the mall. It will look cool!
Finally I want to make a simple point. The police cannot protect you, at least not immediately. Self-defense is not only a right but something everyone should commit themselves to learn how to do.
That's the gun nut in me. While I have mellowed somewhat over the years, I am still, deep down, a nasty person under certain circumstances.
What about the anti-gun side of me? I am reminded of a story I heard about my nephew. When he was young he wanted to go 'bunny-camping' with his Dad. He thought the purpose was to find rabbits so he could pet them. I laughed at the time, but I have since come to realize that he was right. I have bunnies that I pet every day. While I do not speak out against hunting, I find the practice personally abhorrent now. In fact, the only reason I didn't bludgeon those dogs I mentioned earlier, was because I don't want to have to someday explain to my nephew why I was mean to a dog. Though I suspect he'd give me a pass on the owners.
Guns don't always impart safety. Don't believe me? Then why don't they allow me to pack heat on a plane? Or a courtroom? Let's assume that I am carrying a pistol and trouble breaks out. Even if I don't fire a single round, what happens when the cops show up? They don't know who is the bad guy and who isn't. I might get shot! That kind of defeats the whole damn purpose doesn't it. Besides, pistols often miss and sometimes hit innocents. I do sometimes carry a knife. My lifetime batting average on getting the proper target with it is 1.000. If I am defending my home, then there can be little doubt who the bad guy is. He's the dead guy on the floor. Outside of the home, I feel that firearms simply cannot be justified. My wife still believes otherwise, which means nobody better screw around with me, at least when she's nearby.
People point to Switzerland and correctly assert that every house with a man between 20 and 50 has an assault weapon in it. It's true. Every man (not women incidentally, the Swiss were actually the last European nation that allowed women suffrage) between 20 and 50 has to be in the militia. And guess where they keep their firearm? Locked up at home. The Swiss don't have young thugs gunning each other down in the street. They don't have anybody shooting up schools or shopping malls. Obviously guns aren't the problem. Right?
Partially. The Swiss culture and population are a bit more homogeneous than our own. Like Americans they glorify money, but not violence. There is another crucial difference between us and the Swiss. Every single freaking gun is where it should be, with whom it should be, and stored how it should be. Let me break that down.
Where it should be:
Either in the home or on duty. They don't hunt a lot in Switzerland.
With whom it should be:
In Switzerland know who has what and everything is accounted for. Damn those Swiss are orderly and efficient.
We do criminal background checks on gun sold by dealers. Yet no such standard exists for private saless. I could go outside right now and sell my pistol to some asshole pissing on my mailbox, who is strung out on meth, and has been without his anti-schizophrenia medications for two months. How any rational person can defend this defies reason. All gun ownership must be tracked and background checks must be done. Plain and simple.
Gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. If you have a car it has to be registered, and inspected. You have to have a license to operate it. To keep your license, periodically you have to demonstrate you still know what the hell you are doing. And when you violate the law you lose your license and , often, the car. The same standards should be applied to guns. Like cars, there will still be some that make it into bad guys hands. But we can significantly reduce the amount of guns held by the bad guys. And yes, the law-abiding among us can still get weapons after we established that we don't piss on my mailbox or have a criminal record, restraining order, etc.
How it should be:
In a safe or with a gun lock. That will keep little kids from finding daddy's gun and blowing their brains out with it. But wait! What if I have to 'get at it fast'? Keep the damn thing unloaded. Still not quick enough for you? Load it at night when you are sleeping and unload it and lock it up when you wake up the next day. It's the same reason I don't keep my car gassed up and running in my driveway.
I tend to get confused at night. If I reached for my gun every time something startled me, then my dog Fly would have died a thousand deaths when she bulldozes the bedroom door open. I would have shot all my kids at least once, when they've sought help for ailments in the middle of the night. Even my wife would have been capped multiple times after she has awakened me at night (usually on my birthday or when I have done something especially thoughtful or romantic earlier in the day).
Finally there is my conflicting emotions. I mentioned earlier that having guns around makes me feel safe. It doesn't make me safe, but I do feel safe. And that has value. I am also a Taoist, and as such I simultaneously value and despise weapons of any sort. People often ask, "what would Jesus do". I doubt he'd own a gun. Were he threatened, I suppose he could start throwing lightning bolts or unleash angels with fiery swords. I dunno. Also being a Mormon, the closest thing to Jesus, is what would Thomas S. Monson have me do. Call me crazy, but I'll bet that old boy doesn't have a gun either. If he gets up in conference and instructs LDS faithful to rid themselves of weapons then I will do it. I won't sell them, I'll melt them down. If I had sufficient faith I would have already done it since, according to Lao Tzu, Heaven protects the merciful.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
what is wrong with me......and everyone else.
I am a slothful man. There is a difference between lazy and slothful. I am typically lazy. As I type this I am sitting in my filthy La-z-Boy recliner wearing nothing but some nylon running shorts. This particular pair of shorts is one that I found at Diamond Fork Hot Springs about five years back. Somebody had left them hanging at the Kokopelli pools. I noticed they were my size so I threw them in my backpack, took them home, and washed them. Five years later I am wearing an atricle of clothing that I found abandoned in the mountains. I am wearing the sticky remnants of some Pho' broth that spilled on me. I've been up an hour already and have not bathed. That is sloth.
I have also not blogged for about 10 months. That would be clear evidence of calculated indifference. Anyone that knows me realizes that my indifference is not calculated. By definition, calculated indifference would in fact necessitate desire.
One of my favorite books is 'Eat the Rich' by P.J. O'Rourke. While it was written about 20 years ago, it holds up well. The central theme about the book is why do some countries suck and others don't. In it he gives a simple overview of what makes markets, how currency is derived, and examines various economic systems. He visits countries, travels around and talks to regular folks.....and their finance ministers.
Uncle Peej (as I'm fond of calling him) is also a gifted writer that manages to pen statements that are astute and wildly funny. He has written other books that would serve as excellent companions to 'Eat the Rich'. Among these are 'All the Trouble in the World', 'Give War a Chance', and his most famous 'Parliament of Whores'. I feel that 'Eat the Rich' is his magnum opus.
All that stuff that our parents were yelling at us about during high school and college is right. All of the things they told us to do are the same things that nations need to do. Perhaps it is time we need to revisit these virtues. The following list is blatantly lifted from Uncle Peej's book.
1) Hard Work
2) Education
3) Responsibility
4) Property rights
5) Rule of Law
6) Democratic Government
there is only one item that I would add to the list and that is:
7) Being part of something bigger than yourself.
For many that is manifested in adhering to a faith. For others it is an adherence to a particular ethos. Merely existing within such a system doesn't impart wealth. That is reserved for those that truly believe that they are an integrated piece of a larger and greater whole.
Note that culture is not listed. People equate culture with fine arts. Having the Utah Symphony visit equatorial Africa won't lift them out of poverty. Yet clearly there are some cultures where poverty doesn't exist. It is the values espoused by the culture that impart prosperity.
As a child my father taught me some very racist notions. He told me that all races and cultures bring various things to the table and are to be studied and appreciated. There was one that is superior......the Japanese. Think about Japan then read the above list. Now picture a place, a people, a country, or any place that poverty exists. Read the list......it should be pretty obvious what their problem is!
When was the last time you saw a poor person of Japanese ancestry either here of in Japan? How about a Swede? Have you ever seen a prosperous Somali or Bolivian. Even the ones that are either pirating ships or trafficking Coke are perpetually back on their ass the moment the cash flow halts for more than a week.
Russia is a well-educated nation. In Russia, chess is a spectator sport for hells sake! It exports food. It is swimming in oil and gas, rare minerals, diamonds, and any other natural resource you can think of. Why does Russia suck? Look at the list.
China, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, India, and Iran are all the location of ancient and sustained civilizations and cultures. China and India are the only two that are getting better. The others suck and are getting suckier. Look at the list.
Cultures that derive their character from the above list thrive no matter where they exist. The reason that the Swedes and the Japanese are not poor is because they refuse to live anywhere that doesn't adhere to the list.
So back to my unkempt (and progressively smellier) self that is flopped in a recliner that even the filthiest person on earth would hesitate to sit in. How do I stack up personally on this list?
Hard Work
I work hard.......in a sense, and only at work. My wife can attest that nothing short of the prospect of sexual favors will exact any housework out of me. What I do in the Pharmacy is often fast-paced, requires constant focus, and involves being on one's feet for hours on end. Still it's not a particularly demanding job from a physical sense. I worked a number of jobs that involved getting dirty, being in temperature extremes, and lifting and moving large amounts of heavy shit. These jobs suck. The people that do them are not without dignity or worth. These jobs are quite necessary. Nonetheless these jobs suck. The reason I went to Pharmacy School is to get a job that was clean, indoors, and didn't involve heavy lifting. I had just such a job when I delivered pizza, but being a Pharmacist pays a bit better.
Education
I got through Pharmacy School, and half way through an MBA. The lion's share of my 'education' has been feeding my hobbies. I like to war-game and spend time in the wilderness. If I can either in a natural hot spring, it's even better.
Responsibility
You know what? I should probably cut my losses short by stopping right now. Suffice it to say that the list is correct. We need to adhere to it on a personal level. When this is done, we can do it within our family. When this is done, we can do it within our community. When this is done we can do it within our State. When this is done then we can do it within our country. When this is done, then (and only then) the world will change.
Right now the only changing I am going to do is stand up, shower, and put on some clean clothing in which I can appear in public.
I have also not blogged for about 10 months. That would be clear evidence of calculated indifference. Anyone that knows me realizes that my indifference is not calculated. By definition, calculated indifference would in fact necessitate desire.
One of my favorite books is 'Eat the Rich' by P.J. O'Rourke. While it was written about 20 years ago, it holds up well. The central theme about the book is why do some countries suck and others don't. In it he gives a simple overview of what makes markets, how currency is derived, and examines various economic systems. He visits countries, travels around and talks to regular folks.....and their finance ministers.
Uncle Peej (as I'm fond of calling him) is also a gifted writer that manages to pen statements that are astute and wildly funny. He has written other books that would serve as excellent companions to 'Eat the Rich'. Among these are 'All the Trouble in the World', 'Give War a Chance', and his most famous 'Parliament of Whores'. I feel that 'Eat the Rich' is his magnum opus.
All that stuff that our parents were yelling at us about during high school and college is right. All of the things they told us to do are the same things that nations need to do. Perhaps it is time we need to revisit these virtues. The following list is blatantly lifted from Uncle Peej's book.
1) Hard Work
2) Education
3) Responsibility
4) Property rights
5) Rule of Law
6) Democratic Government
there is only one item that I would add to the list and that is:
7) Being part of something bigger than yourself.
For many that is manifested in adhering to a faith. For others it is an adherence to a particular ethos. Merely existing within such a system doesn't impart wealth. That is reserved for those that truly believe that they are an integrated piece of a larger and greater whole.
Note that culture is not listed. People equate culture with fine arts. Having the Utah Symphony visit equatorial Africa won't lift them out of poverty. Yet clearly there are some cultures where poverty doesn't exist. It is the values espoused by the culture that impart prosperity.
As a child my father taught me some very racist notions. He told me that all races and cultures bring various things to the table and are to be studied and appreciated. There was one that is superior......the Japanese. Think about Japan then read the above list. Now picture a place, a people, a country, or any place that poverty exists. Read the list......it should be pretty obvious what their problem is!
When was the last time you saw a poor person of Japanese ancestry either here of in Japan? How about a Swede? Have you ever seen a prosperous Somali or Bolivian. Even the ones that are either pirating ships or trafficking Coke are perpetually back on their ass the moment the cash flow halts for more than a week.
Russia is a well-educated nation. In Russia, chess is a spectator sport for hells sake! It exports food. It is swimming in oil and gas, rare minerals, diamonds, and any other natural resource you can think of. Why does Russia suck? Look at the list.
China, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, India, and Iran are all the location of ancient and sustained civilizations and cultures. China and India are the only two that are getting better. The others suck and are getting suckier. Look at the list.
Cultures that derive their character from the above list thrive no matter where they exist. The reason that the Swedes and the Japanese are not poor is because they refuse to live anywhere that doesn't adhere to the list.
So back to my unkempt (and progressively smellier) self that is flopped in a recliner that even the filthiest person on earth would hesitate to sit in. How do I stack up personally on this list?
Hard Work
I work hard.......in a sense, and only at work. My wife can attest that nothing short of the prospect of sexual favors will exact any housework out of me. What I do in the Pharmacy is often fast-paced, requires constant focus, and involves being on one's feet for hours on end. Still it's not a particularly demanding job from a physical sense. I worked a number of jobs that involved getting dirty, being in temperature extremes, and lifting and moving large amounts of heavy shit. These jobs suck. The people that do them are not without dignity or worth. These jobs are quite necessary. Nonetheless these jobs suck. The reason I went to Pharmacy School is to get a job that was clean, indoors, and didn't involve heavy lifting. I had just such a job when I delivered pizza, but being a Pharmacist pays a bit better.
Education
I got through Pharmacy School, and half way through an MBA. The lion's share of my 'education' has been feeding my hobbies. I like to war-game and spend time in the wilderness. If I can either in a natural hot spring, it's even better.
Responsibility
You know what? I should probably cut my losses short by stopping right now. Suffice it to say that the list is correct. We need to adhere to it on a personal level. When this is done, we can do it within our family. When this is done, we can do it within our community. When this is done we can do it within our State. When this is done then we can do it within our country. When this is done, then (and only then) the world will change.
Right now the only changing I am going to do is stand up, shower, and put on some clean clothing in which I can appear in public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)