To bite what I can chew, and to chew what I've bit.
With sooo many things I want to do, and such an A.D.D. personality, my actions must be reigned in if I'm ever going to get what I want done. They say patience is a virtue, and I really need to heed that snippet of wisdom. Focus is what I lack at this point of life; if I can focus, then I can move on to the next things in line. Here's a quick list of my goals, short and long term and in chronological order:
Get a job (semi-done);
Finish ds411 web project (asap);
Help Dad with his websites;
Finish my novel (took the back burner);
Reconnect with many of my out of touch friends (I miss them all);
Volunteer (too many prospects to delve into here);
Resume reading where I left on (too many prospects here too);
Re-learn Spanish (for the third time);
Re-enter the sciences through education (I miss the more purely mathematical aspects of life);
Investigate my life;
The last being my way of quickly ending a list that would take ridiculously long to construct accurately. I can't specify much because I have to work, but can you see my dilemma?
Many nights DTC
Addison.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
Homosexuality in the military...
Given that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is under pressure, I figured I'd get to thinking on the matter. The L.A. Times article is right here: http://tinyurl.com/ydjl4e5.
Due to all of the nuances that surround this matter (and the fact that I'm at work), I'm going to keep this short, , and just make a comparison.
I find it odd, that when a man goes to prison, a common cultural activity he can expect to be a part of is rape, a homosexual act. However, it is also known that most men in prison do not consider themselves gay.
Okay, now transpose the scenario to our military. I know it's a contrast here and some would rather burn me for putting criminals next to soldiers, but I'm relying on rational minds to make a point.
You find a strongly similar gender distribution, that is to say many men among men/women among women that you find in our overall prison system, and few acts of any sexuality, homo or hetero sexual, yet people can't find it reasonable to allow gays to serve openly.
If a mind has a hard time following my point, what it is in a nutshell is that the act isn't necessarily a direct correlation to the population committing it. In other words, if you can have a bunch of straight men fucking each other in prison, then it's not necessary that a mass orgy would result from a gay-tolerant military.
So my question is what's the fear here? Efficiency? Well that's a whole other topic in and of itself, which I have no time for.
Due to all of the nuances that surround this matter (and the fact that I'm at work), I'm going to keep this short, , and just make a comparison.
I find it odd, that when a man goes to prison, a common cultural activity he can expect to be a part of is rape, a homosexual act. However, it is also known that most men in prison do not consider themselves gay.
Okay, now transpose the scenario to our military. I know it's a contrast here and some would rather burn me for putting criminals next to soldiers, but I'm relying on rational minds to make a point.
You find a strongly similar gender distribution, that is to say many men among men/women among women that you find in our overall prison system, and few acts of any sexuality, homo or hetero sexual, yet people can't find it reasonable to allow gays to serve openly.
If a mind has a hard time following my point, what it is in a nutshell is that the act isn't necessarily a direct correlation to the population committing it. In other words, if you can have a bunch of straight men fucking each other in prison, then it's not necessary that a mass orgy would result from a gay-tolerant military.
So my question is what's the fear here? Efficiency? Well that's a whole other topic in and of itself, which I have no time for.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Toyota in pain: a lesson to the little man?
Toyota's current legal woes got me to thinking about something.
One of the questions begged is whether or not Toyota has been ignoring consumer complaints for many years prior to the recent upheavals. Apparently complaints to both Toyota and the government have gone largely neglected for as much as the last 10 years.
Having been the owner of a Highlander, I remember a time when we were having brake issues as well, and also remember how annoyed I was when my worries were shrugged off as "just an SUV/Truck thing." Uh huh.
Well look now at who's benefiting from Toyota's down slide into abysmal legality: all the other car manufacturers, and particularly American ones (in America of course). What am I getting at? Well it's in the best interest of Toyota's competitors that the lead company hit such a HUGE wall, no pun intended. What does this mean? Well, with respect to nuances not covered by my analysis, people should consider complaining more to competing companies for a sympathetic ear when such things occur, rather than the government, or the company in question (especially, the company in question); and companies as a whole should open up their public relations to such possibilities.
Just another of my many wandering thoughts.
Many nights DTC
Addison.
One of the questions begged is whether or not Toyota has been ignoring consumer complaints for many years prior to the recent upheavals. Apparently complaints to both Toyota and the government have gone largely neglected for as much as the last 10 years.
Having been the owner of a Highlander, I remember a time when we were having brake issues as well, and also remember how annoyed I was when my worries were shrugged off as "just an SUV/Truck thing." Uh huh.
Well look now at who's benefiting from Toyota's down slide into abysmal legality: all the other car manufacturers, and particularly American ones (in America of course). What am I getting at? Well it's in the best interest of Toyota's competitors that the lead company hit such a HUGE wall, no pun intended. What does this mean? Well, with respect to nuances not covered by my analysis, people should consider complaining more to competing companies for a sympathetic ear when such things occur, rather than the government, or the company in question (especially, the company in question); and companies as a whole should open up their public relations to such possibilities.
Just another of my many wandering thoughts.
Many nights DTC
Addison.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
A thought on net neutrality...
The internet is where I invest my hope for the brighter future of Humanity.
Let me explain. Our United States government is a largely centralized one, and for this reason the power falls far from the hands of we the people. I say largely, on the other hand, because in our crisis ridden recent years, the government has been using the internet to reach out for more direct involvement from the people. From my home of Los Angeles with Mayor Villaraigosa asking Angelenos to help solve our deficit issues, to the Obama Whitehouse encouraging people to offer ideas on ways to create jobs, it's a trend that's quickly picking up speed. What this means is the power of society is on an outward trend back to the people who live in it, rather than a bunch of folks who are sitting pretty with awesome salaries, topnotch healthcare, and even better retirement plans, i.e. basically 95% of the politicos in Washington.
Ah but there's more. If there's one thing that's great about the internet, is that it costs next to nothing to share great quantities of information with vast numbers of people in extraordinarily small measurements of time. This is huge! What it means, is that our politicians can one day run a campaign on next to no budget (relatively speaking of course). Imagine if our leaders didn't need to sell our wills out to the big drug/bank companies every time they did something because they depend on said company's financial backing in order to win the next election. We might not actually be a society wrongly manipulated by the rich/powerful. Will there still be the class warfare that there is now? Probably, but at least, the odds will be much more balanced.
Now for net neutrality. Much of my deepest hopes, which I keep having to learn the hard way, are dangerous things to hold too tightly to, hinge on the fact that the web remains an equal playing field for all involved entities. Just in the same way that special interests really taint the functioning/efficiency of our government's role to serve the people, if they (special interests) get their paws on the internet, I may as well kiss life as I hoped it would be goodbye.
If there's one thing I take comfort in, with all of this to consider, it's the ingenuity of the people that essentially make the internet run--being one of them my self, that is. =P
That's it for now.
Many nights DTC,
Addison.
Let me explain. Our United States government is a largely centralized one, and for this reason the power falls far from the hands of we the people. I say largely, on the other hand, because in our crisis ridden recent years, the government has been using the internet to reach out for more direct involvement from the people. From my home of Los Angeles with Mayor Villaraigosa asking Angelenos to help solve our deficit issues, to the Obama Whitehouse encouraging people to offer ideas on ways to create jobs, it's a trend that's quickly picking up speed. What this means is the power of society is on an outward trend back to the people who live in it, rather than a bunch of folks who are sitting pretty with awesome salaries, topnotch healthcare, and even better retirement plans, i.e. basically 95% of the politicos in Washington.
Ah but there's more. If there's one thing that's great about the internet, is that it costs next to nothing to share great quantities of information with vast numbers of people in extraordinarily small measurements of time. This is huge! What it means, is that our politicians can one day run a campaign on next to no budget (relatively speaking of course). Imagine if our leaders didn't need to sell our wills out to the big drug/bank companies every time they did something because they depend on said company's financial backing in order to win the next election. We might not actually be a society wrongly manipulated by the rich/powerful. Will there still be the class warfare that there is now? Probably, but at least, the odds will be much more balanced.
Now for net neutrality. Much of my deepest hopes, which I keep having to learn the hard way, are dangerous things to hold too tightly to, hinge on the fact that the web remains an equal playing field for all involved entities. Just in the same way that special interests really taint the functioning/efficiency of our government's role to serve the people, if they (special interests) get their paws on the internet, I may as well kiss life as I hoped it would be goodbye.
If there's one thing I take comfort in, with all of this to consider, it's the ingenuity of the people that essentially make the internet run--being one of them my self, that is. =P
That's it for now.
Many nights DTC,
Addison.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Why do we even try?
He was a scam artist parading narrow-mindedness masked as some sort of potentially debatable quest/expression of truth. But whatever his game was intended to do, it disturbed me so deeply that I was regretting the encounter for days after the fact.
What was it? It was a lesson in the nature of public events--particularly debate: as long as they can find a way to prove you wrong on some level, no matter how insignificant/irrelevant the point is, they are right. As a rule of thumb, this brings me back to a stronger understanding of a scene from a great movie I saw a while back, Thank You for Smoking. It's when Nick is teaching his boy about his job (always being right), and an ice cream debate ensues. In retrospect it's a great scene and unfortunately speaks greater truths than would be ideal. Alas, in a world where truth is aspired to over convenience about as often as you can believe what you see on TV, lamenting the lack of purity in our world is as useful as protesting the existence of plastic surgery...or poverty, I guess.
Well all that being said, I've still not described this off-centering event. Basically some guy in Santa Monica was bashing Atheism and Islam with a nice 2 mic, labtop-to-tv setup . I came in, annoyed with all the idiots who were getting angry at him and started presenting my own ideas. At first he seemed a bit lost for words, but eventually decided to use my apparently inappropriate use of the word "arbitrary" and when I refused to look it up in the dictionary he extended to me, he silenced my mic the same way he did all the wacks who preceded me.
I guess what hurt the most was that he fooled me into thinking I could have a reasonable, intelligent discussion about something I thought was genuine. What's worse is that my own opinions seemed to stir up a few other wacks who then started yelling at me; but these guys didn't look all right in the head so it made me want out of that situation asap. It's all a lesson learned in keeping your thoughts to yourself unless absolutely necessary, or unless you know they'll be safely accepted/or rejected by those you share them with.
That's still not the whole story, but I feel it's sufficient enough.
Many nights DTC,
Addison.
What was it? It was a lesson in the nature of public events--particularly debate: as long as they can find a way to prove you wrong on some level, no matter how insignificant/irrelevant the point is, they are right. As a rule of thumb, this brings me back to a stronger understanding of a scene from a great movie I saw a while back, Thank You for Smoking. It's when Nick is teaching his boy about his job (always being right), and an ice cream debate ensues. In retrospect it's a great scene and unfortunately speaks greater truths than would be ideal. Alas, in a world where truth is aspired to over convenience about as often as you can believe what you see on TV, lamenting the lack of purity in our world is as useful as protesting the existence of plastic surgery...or poverty, I guess.
Well all that being said, I've still not described this off-centering event. Basically some guy in Santa Monica was bashing Atheism and Islam with a nice 2 mic, labtop-to-tv setup . I came in, annoyed with all the idiots who were getting angry at him and started presenting my own ideas. At first he seemed a bit lost for words, but eventually decided to use my apparently inappropriate use of the word "arbitrary" and when I refused to look it up in the dictionary he extended to me, he silenced my mic the same way he did all the wacks who preceded me.
I guess what hurt the most was that he fooled me into thinking I could have a reasonable, intelligent discussion about something I thought was genuine. What's worse is that my own opinions seemed to stir up a few other wacks who then started yelling at me; but these guys didn't look all right in the head so it made me want out of that situation asap. It's all a lesson learned in keeping your thoughts to yourself unless absolutely necessary, or unless you know they'll be safely accepted/or rejected by those you share them with.
That's still not the whole story, but I feel it's sufficient enough.
Many nights DTC,
Addison.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Los Angeles Times here I come!
I am officially extended an employment offer to work at the Los Angeles Times! What great news to be had so early in the new year. This is the year of tigers and being a tiger, I can only say I look forward to what's to come over the next 11 months.
That's it for now folks. Shortest entry yet.
Many nights DTC.
Addison.
That's it for now folks. Shortest entry yet.
Many nights DTC.
Addison.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
State of a Distant Union
I watched President Obama's State of the Union address tonight and can't help but feel a sense of discouragement. Not cynicism, but fatigue.
What he said was actually fine. In fact, I'm quite impressed as usual with the man's ability to give a speech. My detachment from his cause comes, however, from the response of his colleagues. It's hard to not feel exasperated with the political conditions in our country when you see such a clear division in the house between the two parties; and indeed this was one of the points he briefly covered.
I feel like more vital energy/time is spent on a trench war between left and right than it is on actually fixing the things that are plaguing this country. Half of the things said in opposition of his speech felt like pointless criticism aimed at him merely because the shooters have premeditated motifs for gunning the man down; either these attempts at reputational murder are designed for the less intellectual supporters of a cause, or they are a mere waste of time and brain cells, at best.
However if that approach is taken with the opposition's response, something is left to be said about what they were responding to: it's as if the President was either preaching to the choir, or giving a speech to a group of brick walls.
Alas, all is not lost. My disappointment is the result of my having forgotten an important notion that I've always tried to maintain, but sometimes forget: as Benjamin Franklin himself said, "blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed." I have never been let down by that proverb, unless I have let it down first. That men like President Obama exist gives me hope.
Regardless of the reality we are subsequently provided resulting from the actions of our government, I will try to govern my self to the best of my ability and always remember that good lives can be lived in even the direst of situations. Mind over matter eh?
What he said was actually fine. In fact, I'm quite impressed as usual with the man's ability to give a speech. My detachment from his cause comes, however, from the response of his colleagues. It's hard to not feel exasperated with the political conditions in our country when you see such a clear division in the house between the two parties; and indeed this was one of the points he briefly covered.
I feel like more vital energy/time is spent on a trench war between left and right than it is on actually fixing the things that are plaguing this country. Half of the things said in opposition of his speech felt like pointless criticism aimed at him merely because the shooters have premeditated motifs for gunning the man down; either these attempts at reputational murder are designed for the less intellectual supporters of a cause, or they are a mere waste of time and brain cells, at best.
However if that approach is taken with the opposition's response, something is left to be said about what they were responding to: it's as if the President was either preaching to the choir, or giving a speech to a group of brick walls.
Alas, all is not lost. My disappointment is the result of my having forgotten an important notion that I've always tried to maintain, but sometimes forget: as Benjamin Franklin himself said, "blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed." I have never been let down by that proverb, unless I have let it down first. That men like President Obama exist gives me hope.
Regardless of the reality we are subsequently provided resulting from the actions of our government, I will try to govern my self to the best of my ability and always remember that good lives can be lived in even the direst of situations. Mind over matter eh?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
