Let me precede this blog by saying it actually has much less to do with "global warming" per se as it does "the globe.
I've been meaning to write on this matter for a few days now, but I lacked the proper motivation for some reason. Alas, the subject as resurfaced and thus given me the spark I was looking for. The Los Angeles Times Article is here.
I'm not even going to bother arguing my view on Global Warming because it would be a waste for me, and this blog, in so many different ways. Instead I'm just going to spew forth my thoughts on the nature of this debate's existence.
What it all boils down to is money. Now that's a notion I never get tired of hearing, but it's true. In a reality where enough "world" still remains to provide a habitable existence, the only reason this "debate" still exists is because of the economic repercussions of a decision that's made in either direction. It's hard to say all of what I mean in the few sentences I've managed so far, so let me elaborate.
Those folks who try to pretend nothing is happening, or that we have no impact on our environment really reflect something deeper than a stubbornness for ignoring long-term scientific evidence; it also really shows is an inability to find ways of making money that don't involve processing raw natural resources, whether we're referring to the Amazon Rain Forest's trees, any amount of undeveloped land, crude oil deep within our Momma's surface, or even the animal's we "share" the Earth with. It's a terribly bad habit, really. One, I reckon, that will eventually sign Humanity's death warrant if greed/laziness continues to thrive unchecked.
Now, I said laziness because we already possess all the technology required to live a more harmonious existence with our planet, yet there are fat cats out there who still want their stake in a pie, and so will pillage every last resource as long as it will make them the buck. Because they can. Maybe more importantly because they are too lazy to find a better way to make money. Who cares about passing on a ravaged planet to younger generations?
Maybe the flaw here is that we never think about anything further down the line than the immediately tangible generations (selves, kids, and grand kids), and what's more important to the "tangible" generations than money?
I sympathize with all the people who depend on such industries for employment, recalling an anecdote about a Logger who said something to the extent of, "I know cutting down trees is bad, but I have a family to feed." But herein lies another possible problem: people are having because they know in the back of their minds that there will always be a tree to cut down to support said family member's mouths; and as long as a population keeps growing, there'll always be more need to expand because expansion is just another form of economic growth. You see the shame isn't that we're having kids, or even cutting down trees; the shame is partially in the fact that we do both of these things unchecked, and unmindful of the consequences, and partially in the fact the doing either, encourages the other. It all reminds me of the ol' snake with its tail in its mouth.
To avoid from sounding like a selfish, unsympathetic hypocrite, let it be known that these points, and my commitment to the ideal that is their solution has led me to very seriously look at whether or not I would ever have a kid of my own. The options on my table are adopting, or only one kid (since it would still contribute to a population decrease); at the moment my favor lies with adoption. Obviously though, at 23 and barely working, that's just an abstract pondering. Anyway...
OKay, it's time to wind this article back to its point. We live in a crazy world when an entire political party thrives on any shred of evidence that capitalizes on the short sightedness of their constituents in order to enact short-term economic practices that will invariably hurt even themselves in the end. Although I guess my fault is in expecting too much from a party that is aware of its uglier necessities.
Many Nights DTC.
Addison.
P.S. One more Link on the issue.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Entrepreneurship Innate?
I heard this article on the NPR today covering a study on whether or not an inclination for Entrepreneurship could be found in the genes. Let me just start off by saying, I'm already opposed to the idea that one notion, either nature or nurture, plays a bigger role than the other in who we become; I think the impact of each is equal.
In addition to my stance on the matter, the fact that they were using really vague terms and phrases in their conclusions (at least some, cannot be guarunteed, may account for up to one third of, etc.) gives me all the reason I need to chuck the entire study up to a fat waste of money for the University granting it. To the researchers engaged in the study I have only one question: have you no dignity?
Okay, I have to confess I also harbor a little personal anger here too, if you haven't noticed. I mean, the very existence of the study is an insult to those whose parents aren't entrepreneurs and who themselves want to be one. Why? Because what the study tries to prove, is that they are likely to fail. Studies like this serve one purpose, and that's to formulate an outcome predictor for investors to buy into--and maybe to make the jerk who tries to prove it famous.
There's no end to the number of ridiculous interpretations such a study will lend itself to. What it is, is an insult to the human spirit, and I say, "Fuck it. Take your inconclusive postulations and shove them up your statistically insignificant asses." If any of those researchers ever read this, I'd owe them an apology, because I don't really mean to turn this into a personal attack on them; luckily there's no fear of that since no one really reads this anyway.
Anyway, Many Nights DTC
Addison.
In addition to my stance on the matter, the fact that they were using really vague terms and phrases in their conclusions (at least some, cannot be guarunteed, may account for up to one third of, etc.) gives me all the reason I need to chuck the entire study up to a fat waste of money for the University granting it. To the researchers engaged in the study I have only one question: have you no dignity?
Okay, I have to confess I also harbor a little personal anger here too, if you haven't noticed. I mean, the very existence of the study is an insult to those whose parents aren't entrepreneurs and who themselves want to be one. Why? Because what the study tries to prove, is that they are likely to fail. Studies like this serve one purpose, and that's to formulate an outcome predictor for investors to buy into--and maybe to make the jerk who tries to prove it famous.
There's no end to the number of ridiculous interpretations such a study will lend itself to. What it is, is an insult to the human spirit, and I say, "Fuck it. Take your inconclusive postulations and shove them up your statistically insignificant asses." If any of those researchers ever read this, I'd owe them an apology, because I don't really mean to turn this into a personal attack on them; luckily there's no fear of that since no one really reads this anyway.
Anyway, Many Nights DTC
Addison.
Reality Reminds Me
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
