Guns & Fast Food

Angry customer blasts McDonald's drive-through
Man fired sawed-off into window after being told menu was breakfast-only.
The Salt Lake Tribune

"A McDonald's drive-through was shot up early Sunday after a customer was angered that the restaurant had shifted from the lunch menu to the breakfast menu, police said. The driver of a white Dodge Intrepid pulled into the drive-through at about 2 a.m. at McDonald's at 210 W. 500 South in Salt Lake City and ordered food from the lunch and dinner menu, police said.
When a clerk told her the restaurant was serving only items from the breakfast menu, the woman drove to the second window, police said. Two men got out of the car, and one pulled a sawed-off shotgun out of the trunk, police said. He fired once or twice into the drive-though window before the two men and the woman left on 500 South and turned north on 300 West, police said..."

What is it with fast food and guns? Just a few weeks ago a guy with a concealed permit stopped a robbery at a Burger King, killing the robber in a shootout... and then there's the young reactionary who "accidently" destroyed a toilet (and was injured by dangerous toilet shrapnel) while zipping up his pants at Carl's Jr.

The most important question: WHO on this planet prefers the so-called lunch/dinner menu at McDonald's over their breakfast? Big Macs over the delicious bacon egg and cheese biscuit? Really?
Perhaps Obama has inadvertently caused an increase in fast-food gunplay, in addition to free NRA memberships.

Different culture, or just barbaric?

A mother in so-called "progressive" Northern Iraq, on the practice of castrating young females:

"This is the practice of the Kurdish people for as long as anyone can remember. We don't know why we do it, but we will never stop because Islam and our elders require it."

Note how the article refers to the practice as "female circumcision." Now there's a euphemism! Let's call it like it is. [Insert slam on liberal newspaper here].

Apparently up to 60% of Kurdish people in the area have had this horrific practice visited upon them by their mothers. I don't blame them, they are caught up in a vicious cycle, and the mother's quote above spells that out.

Where do we draw the line with our own beliefs? At what point do we say, enough is enough? That is up for everyone to decide for themselves, but like my father said recently, if the prophet commands us to slaughter another wagon train from Arkansas, I'm out!

What kinds of faith-related things have been difficult in your life? Obviously "faith" is not really knowing, but where would you draw the line? If there has already been something too much in your life or religion, what made you say "okay, this is too much"?

B. Hussein Obama as a scary man, and other observations

Friend's Facebook Update: "****** is MOVING OUT OF THE COUNTRY because of B. Hussein Obama!"

Me: "I wanted to move 8 years ago, but the world didn't end like I thought it would. Regardless of how we feel about the new President, life will go on."

Friend: "You are right, life will go on but I don't want to live in a socialistic country! He is a very scary evil man who has fooled a lot of people!"

Me (trying really hard to be kind): "Wow, you have really strong feelings about it! It is interesting how we have all switched. I thought and still think that W. was scary and evil (well, mostly some people on his staff). So I guess the universe balances itself out. My condolences that you have that view of our new president. That is not a fun place to be. It was pretty rough on the other side of things for the past 8 years, so in a strange way I can understand how you are feeling."

---

The reactions to my gay marriage stance have been mixed (although many people were kind and understanding, even if they disagreed, so thank you). Here's one:

Friend #2: "Adam, you are KIDDING ON PROP 8 RIGHT?"

Me: "Did you read my blog?" (I had referred him here a few days ealier.)

Friend #2: "No, did you read the letter from the First Presidency?"

Me (once again trying to be kind): "Please read my blog."

After some discussion I was given these questions: "Do you think the prophet is just a guy with some good ideas?" and "Do you believe God is Your God or do you believe that God is God of the whole world?"

I played with those a little but it is not fun to be manipulated. Why do we ask those types of questions to each other? I know I have, especially online. Why do many of us listen to manipulate rather than understand?

After pointing out that prophets can sometimes be wrong, e.g. that "Brigham Young was racist,"  he said, "Everyone was racist." While I regretted bringing that up and continuing this type of discussion, I could not help but smile at the deep irony of his comment. "Everyone was racist." Now once again, I don't know what will happen 150 years in the future, but perhaps we as a people and a church will look back on today and excuse our current ideas with, "well, everyone was heterosexist."

---

Finally, for Utahns, how in the holy name of Buddha did Chris Buttars get reelected? Who were the 18,000 people in South Jordan that voted him in again? Do they not like black babies either?

One-Sided Mormon History

Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer

My review

Rating: 2 of 5 stars
I like my history at least striving for accuracy and balance, and this book almost completely failed in that category. While the sensational style kept it very interesting, I think the author did a great disservice in leaving out all the relevant historical details that don't confirm his view. (Which is what many decidedly pro-LDS books suffer from.) In no way could this be considered a scholarly work. Two stars for being entertaining, and for the interesting thoughts about whether people who claim to receive revelation should be declared mentally incompetent in a trial. Has anyone else read this book? Any thoughts?

Nature of The Person

New post of mine on mormon matters.

We are all addicts

“There is dissatisfaction and frustration. Often nothing seems to go right. There really is a wound. But it is not necessary to scratch it. Working with addictions is about not just impulsively grabbing for something to stop the itching, not just grabbing for something to fill up the space, not giving in to this impulse to feel okay and just to get comfortable as soon as possible.

When we scratch the wound and give into our addictions we do not allow the wound to heal. But when we instead experience the raw quality of the itch or pain of the wound and do not scratch it, we actually allow the wound to heal. So not giving in to our addictions is about healing at a very basic level.”

~Pema Chödrön

We are all addicts, if not to drugs, gambling, pornography, or video games, then to the way we interact with each other. We often respond in predictable ways to getting cut off on the freeway, being defensive when we are criticized, or escalating conflict. It is an addiction, a habit that we can let go of. We can only know the extent of our habits if we have tried to stop. 

If you don't think you have any addictions, I challenge you to observe the times when you habitually respond in a negative way to something or someone. You may have to ask a loved one for a few examples. I'm sure they'd be willing! Once you know what it is, go ahead and try to stop it next time you feel the urge. It is NOT an easy thing to do, because our brains have been wired over the course of our lives to respond in certain ways. 

Also note that the term "addiction" is not in the DSM. "Addiction" is not necessarily the same thing as dependence, tolerance, or withdrawal as related to substances.

We can change, but it will require us to "allow ourselves to heal" and to not "scratch the itch" so to speak. It's not easy to rewire our brains--it may take years of practice. 

For the record, some of my addictions include air conditioning, taking things personally, and needing my clients to like me. I also get defensive when N complains that I haven't cleaned the bathroom since we've been married. Granted those are not huge problems (well, you better ask her first) but thinking about this is a little disturbing to me. I don't want to be ruled by my habits or impulses, especially in my relationships. It's also something I like about being a counselor--helping others train themselves to let go of their habits and interact in positive ways.

Thankfully most of us are more in control than the couple in this video, but sometimes I feel like I have very little say in how I respond. This is something I am working on.

What are some of your habitual responses in relationships? What has your spouse been complaining about for years? Okay, so you might not respond to a complaint with "You're a liar!" but we all have room for improvement.

plural identities

An editorial in the U. newspaper yesterday was written about a speech by Amartya Sen. He talked about the importance of embracing all of our identities. Exclusion and hostility result when we see ourselves (and others) only as red or blue, gay or straight, member or non-member, etc. Obviously we all have differences, even among close relationships. We don't need to eliminate our identities, but we do need to recognize that we and others are more than a single label, and if we thought about it for a few minutes, we'd probably find significant things in common with almost everybody. I guess I'll try this out next time someone cuts me off on the freeway by thinking, "hey, maybe we both like pizza." That sounds sarcastic I guess but my point is that we can all do better to relate in positive ways to each other. With so many identity/aggression fueled problems in the world, we have a responsibility to practice peace on an individual level.