Let's call it a guilty pleasure. Well, no, not a "pleasure" per se, really more of a vice? Hmm, words are failing me.
Either way, I really can't help but scroll through comment sections following online articles. To the point where I find myself skimming the article itself just to get to the angry, vitriolic, spiteful opinions people spew toward just about anything and everything: refugees, guns, Islam, the minimum wage, Planned Parenthood, guns, the presidency, guns, Catholicism, guns...
It's just astounding. The level to which people seem to hold themselves higher, that they, in fact, know exactly what's best for everyone else and what everyone else deserves. I often myself at a loss for words. The internet more and more is becoming simply nothing more than a platform for people to laud themselves and create this delusional and egotistical idea of self-importance. Moving beyond simply comment sections, look through any form of social media. Facebook alone seems to have predominately only served as a forum for people to carefully craft the person they want other people to see.
(I touched on this once upon a time: http://mielkewaylearning.blogspot.com/2015/02/generational-gaps.html)
And for a bit more background, here's a fun study: http://phys.org/news/2015-11-happier-life-facebook.html. After just one week without Facebook, people reported greater levels of happiness and lower levels of self-dissatisfaction.
It's not the real world.
We get to hide behind the safety of our screens, slowly encasing ourselves in the safety of self-segregation, reading only that which we agree with, "defriending" people that don't, and building these virtual walls around ourselves to avoid any and all thoughts, ideas, or perspectives that in any way challenge our beliefs. And, I believe an outcome of that, then, is that these beliefs become more and more cherished and embodied, becoming not just something we believe, but a foundation on which we build our identity. There is no critical thought, no open-minded dialogue. All conversations become a debate, at a time when "debates" are yelling matches, and the end goal no longer becomes a search for greater understanding, but an attempt to make someone else see it our way. Schoolyard tactics - yelling, taunting, name-calling, bullying, and racing to embarrass the other person into submission - is the now the norm among adults. And how do we suppose this affects our kids, as their old strategies are being annexed more and more by their supposed role-models.
It's frustrating to see. In 1960, around 5% of parents polled indicated that they would be displeased with their son or daughter marrying someone of a different political party. In 2010, it jumped to around 40%. (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/really-would-you-let-your-daughter-marry-a-democrat/262959/)
So what happens next? I have no idea. But I can't say I'm particularly optimistic about it.
Sunday, December 20, 2015
Saturday, November 28, 2015
An interesting quote
We
tend to judge others by their behaviors and ourselves by our intentions.
-Albert Schlieder
Saturday, October 31, 2015
Learned Apathy
So I'm thinking that apathy is learned.
I think apathy becomes learned, bred, and eventually ingrained through any number (or combination) of unaddressed, unchanged circumstances. Through the continued, consistent factors that eventually wears us down to the point of checking out. And I believe this extends across all walks of life and environments, from work to school to the home. While I'm sure there are vastly more factors, the biggest ones I've seen so far include
I do believe that people want to do well and be proud of their work and the results they can affect. But somewhere, at some point in our lives, we learn to just phone it in. The question then becomes, how can we reverse the trend?
I think apathy becomes learned, bred, and eventually ingrained through any number (or combination) of unaddressed, unchanged circumstances. Through the continued, consistent factors that eventually wears us down to the point of checking out. And I believe this extends across all walks of life and environments, from work to school to the home. While I'm sure there are vastly more factors, the biggest ones I've seen so far include
- Those around you - co-workers, peers - just don't care anymore. Apathy becomes contagious. Consider any moment, in work, in school, in life, when someone else was checked out. (An aside here may be the levels of employee engagement, from engaged - those who invest themselves in their work, to disengaged - those who show up, punch the clock, and head out, to the actively disengaged - who actively work against the company). Imagine those in either of the latter two categories you consider co-workers: you're doing the same job, the same pay, day after day. And even though you're invested - personally, financially - in the job, nothing changes. Why keep trying when so-and-so isn't? Why should I keep showing up on time when this other guy is consistently late and no negative repercussions seem to happen? (Although, rereading this, arguably the root of the issue doesn't sound like it's on your co-worker...)
- Those above you - parents, teachers, managers - don't care either. Now apathy isn't just learned, but almost taught. We model those we look up to. And it's the same as above. But let's look at schools now. For those of you unfamiliar with Calvin and Hobbes, Calvin's teacher is a perfect of example of someone who's checked out and just counting the days until retirement. And in schools we also have to think about the impact of parents. If parent's don't care about their child's performance or actions, why would the child?
- Changing/shifting guidelines and expectations - when what you're told or what's expected of you is changed more frequently than not. The same goes for which things are priority: if everything is the most important thing, nothing is (Monday it's this thing, tomorrow it's this, Wednesday a third thing "just has to get done!", Thursday jumps back to Monday's priority, and by Friday directions just sound like parents in a Charlie Brown cartoon).
- Being treated as inferior or the expectation of poor performance - I feel this one is rather self-explanatory. I do believe we rise to the level expected of us, for better or worse. Of course, the caveat is that the person has the knowledge, tools, resources, and support to rise to the expectations set for them. So I suppose an addendum would be that the combination of high expectations and low support, ability, and authority to actually do anything is, in essence, setting someone up to fail. And what would be a logical conclusion from there...? For more information, check out the results of Robert Rosenthal's 1964 experiment, as well as the Pygmalion Effect.
I do believe that people want to do well and be proud of their work and the results they can affect. But somewhere, at some point in our lives, we learn to just phone it in. The question then becomes, how can we reverse the trend?
Sunday, October 11, 2015
The Necessity of Captialsim
Thought experiment time:
Suppose everyone in the country woke up tomorrow with an extra $10,000 in the bank (or in a shoebox under the mattress). What would happen? Well, everyone would probably go out and buy stuff, pay off loans, and generally flood the market with cash. Once flooded, supply and demand kicks in as the supply of goods and materials can't keep pace with the demand for them, everything becomes more rare (because it's all gone) and prices sky-rocket as demand soars. It's the simple reason the government can't just print more money to pay off our federal debt. Now everything's more expensive because we all have more money, and now we have to spend the same relative amount of cash to attain the same good as we did yesterday. Now take that same situation and spread it out over a year. What would happen if every single person made $50,000 a year? Same end.
See, one of the main concepts of capitalism is that some people need to be poor in order for it to work. If everyone had job security, no one would worry about losing their jobs (duh). Sounds common sense, but, alas, it really isn't. With 100% employment, there's no real worry about getting canned because, number one, there's no one to fill your position, and number two, you could just walk next door and get a job. No one wants that. If everyone made $50,000 (a low amount to many, I realize), new cars and houses would no longer be status symbols. And we all know how much people love their status symbols (read: egos).
This post admittedly was inspired by an article I just read, as 2014 marks the 50-year anniversary of LBJ's war on poverty in which he aimed at raising all impoverished American's into the working middle class. But, again, it really isn't that easy, is it? Consider, if you will, the ramifications of all American's getting a college degree (I say "getting" because it's fairly clear many are rubber stamped...I mean, the Seahawks cornerback, now famous for his tirade after the win over the 49er's in the team's eventual Superbowl-winning season - who, by the way, I'm sure is unfairly maligned and probably truly does good in his community - holds a degree from Stanford. Yes, Stanford.). Anyway, back to the point. If everyone, every single person in the country held a degree, what happens next? We're all told to go to college to get a good job and make a decent living. But if everyone does that exact thing, suddenly graduate degrees become the new bachelors. Which is more or less already happening anyway. Go figure.
So again, we have the necessity of inequality. After all, the basic tenet of capitalism is to turn a profit. If the business owner(s) recognize a greater profit can be realized by closing a factory, they have the total power to do so. If they find that a greater profit can be had by paying employees as little as possible for as few hours as possible, then by all means. So I believe the real question, then, comes down to: can the government impose job creation? I would say not a chance. Obviously we've been trying for quite some time, and can certainly see the vast difference it makes. So it comes, again, to those with the financial sway. And I doubt that will change anything anywhere any time soon.
Suppose everyone in the country woke up tomorrow with an extra $10,000 in the bank (or in a shoebox under the mattress). What would happen? Well, everyone would probably go out and buy stuff, pay off loans, and generally flood the market with cash. Once flooded, supply and demand kicks in as the supply of goods and materials can't keep pace with the demand for them, everything becomes more rare (because it's all gone) and prices sky-rocket as demand soars. It's the simple reason the government can't just print more money to pay off our federal debt. Now everything's more expensive because we all have more money, and now we have to spend the same relative amount of cash to attain the same good as we did yesterday. Now take that same situation and spread it out over a year. What would happen if every single person made $50,000 a year? Same end.
See, one of the main concepts of capitalism is that some people need to be poor in order for it to work. If everyone had job security, no one would worry about losing their jobs (duh). Sounds common sense, but, alas, it really isn't. With 100% employment, there's no real worry about getting canned because, number one, there's no one to fill your position, and number two, you could just walk next door and get a job. No one wants that. If everyone made $50,000 (a low amount to many, I realize), new cars and houses would no longer be status symbols. And we all know how much people love their status symbols (read: egos).
This post admittedly was inspired by an article I just read, as 2014 marks the 50-year anniversary of LBJ's war on poverty in which he aimed at raising all impoverished American's into the working middle class. But, again, it really isn't that easy, is it? Consider, if you will, the ramifications of all American's getting a college degree (I say "getting" because it's fairly clear many are rubber stamped...I mean, the Seahawks cornerback, now famous for his tirade after the win over the 49er's in the team's eventual Superbowl-winning season - who, by the way, I'm sure is unfairly maligned and probably truly does good in his community - holds a degree from Stanford. Yes, Stanford.). Anyway, back to the point. If everyone, every single person in the country held a degree, what happens next? We're all told to go to college to get a good job and make a decent living. But if everyone does that exact thing, suddenly graduate degrees become the new bachelors. Which is more or less already happening anyway. Go figure.
So again, we have the necessity of inequality. After all, the basic tenet of capitalism is to turn a profit. If the business owner(s) recognize a greater profit can be realized by closing a factory, they have the total power to do so. If they find that a greater profit can be had by paying employees as little as possible for as few hours as possible, then by all means. So I believe the real question, then, comes down to: can the government impose job creation? I would say not a chance. Obviously we've been trying for quite some time, and can certainly see the vast difference it makes. So it comes, again, to those with the financial sway. And I doubt that will change anything anywhere any time soon.
Sunday, September 27, 2015
Violence and Sexuality in Society
So here's a post originally written 6/21/13. Dated? Sure. Relevant? I'm fairly confident.
_________
If I may begin with a story:
On a recent date night, I sat quietly in the movie theater waiting for the film to start. We conversed in hushed tones through the pre-show music, lights still only half-dimmed as we slowly realized that seated in front of us was family of four, mother, father, and two children including a pajama-clad daughter of no more than eight. We shared a brief, confused look, accompanied with a shrug that parents would bring their children to a nine o'clock showing of an R-rated film, whose previews themselves were rife with violence. Of course, it wasn't our family, these weren't our children, and to each his own we mutually concluded. As the theater darkened and the movie began, we enjoyed our popcorn while the action-for-actions-sake entertained us. Now, perhaps the gratuitous violence, very detailed and graphic dismemberment and death of fairy-tale-land dwelling people and creatures, and pervasive language only stood out because of the peripheral awareness of a third-ish-grader in our midst. After all, we've been desensitized to violence throughout our short lives already, from video games to TV, from to movies to the news, so what difference would this additional depiction make? But I think the violence itself wasn't the primary issue: after the on-screen deaths of more than a dozen protagonists and antagonists alike, one of our heroes is confronted with a woman shedding her cloak and seductively entering the healing waters at the base of a waterfall - revealing to the audience a side glance of her breast*. Throughout the film, throughout the gruesome decapitations, throughout the killing, throughout the indiscriminate, wanton acts of violence against both combatants and civilians, throughout more than few instances demonstrating the diversity of swearing in the English language, the father sitting in front of us barely even looked at his daughter. Until the pond scene of course. Sensing that such a view may corrupt his daughter's frail and blossoming worldview, he reached over and covered her eyes from the evils of nudity, removing it only after he was sure the scene was over and returned to his apathetic movie-viewing shortly thereafter for the remainder of the film.
So where does this disconnect come from? Why is it that violence has become so commonplace in our society that its representation isn't granted a second thought? "Violence is everywhere, kids see it all the time so it's not an issue," as one person argued when I initially brought this up. But that doesn't actually answer the question, does it? If we allowed nudity to be as prevalent as violence, wouldn't that make it less of an issue as well? Arguing that something is everywhere because it's everywhere isn't quite what I would call a logical justification.
And I'm not pretending to know what's best for kids. I hold no advanced degree in childhood development, psychology, or even have any kids of my own. I'm neither in a position to nor trying to tell people how to raise their kids. I'm simply posing one opinion in the hopes that it generates some thinking.
Anyway, disclaimer out of the way, an inspiration for this avenue of thinking was a piece from actor William H. Macy:
*A quick note: Just in writing the word "breast", I felt mildly uncomfortable, even though "graphic dismemberment" held barely a fleeting second thought...
_________
If I may begin with a story:
On a recent date night, I sat quietly in the movie theater waiting for the film to start. We conversed in hushed tones through the pre-show music, lights still only half-dimmed as we slowly realized that seated in front of us was family of four, mother, father, and two children including a pajama-clad daughter of no more than eight. We shared a brief, confused look, accompanied with a shrug that parents would bring their children to a nine o'clock showing of an R-rated film, whose previews themselves were rife with violence. Of course, it wasn't our family, these weren't our children, and to each his own we mutually concluded. As the theater darkened and the movie began, we enjoyed our popcorn while the action-for-actions-sake entertained us. Now, perhaps the gratuitous violence, very detailed and graphic dismemberment and death of fairy-tale-land dwelling people and creatures, and pervasive language only stood out because of the peripheral awareness of a third-ish-grader in our midst. After all, we've been desensitized to violence throughout our short lives already, from video games to TV, from to movies to the news, so what difference would this additional depiction make? But I think the violence itself wasn't the primary issue: after the on-screen deaths of more than a dozen protagonists and antagonists alike, one of our heroes is confronted with a woman shedding her cloak and seductively entering the healing waters at the base of a waterfall - revealing to the audience a side glance of her breast*. Throughout the film, throughout the gruesome decapitations, throughout the killing, throughout the indiscriminate, wanton acts of violence against both combatants and civilians, throughout more than few instances demonstrating the diversity of swearing in the English language, the father sitting in front of us barely even looked at his daughter. Until the pond scene of course. Sensing that such a view may corrupt his daughter's frail and blossoming worldview, he reached over and covered her eyes from the evils of nudity, removing it only after he was sure the scene was over and returned to his apathetic movie-viewing shortly thereafter for the remainder of the film.
So where does this disconnect come from? Why is it that violence has become so commonplace in our society that its representation isn't granted a second thought? "Violence is everywhere, kids see it all the time so it's not an issue," as one person argued when I initially brought this up. But that doesn't actually answer the question, does it? If we allowed nudity to be as prevalent as violence, wouldn't that make it less of an issue as well? Arguing that something is everywhere because it's everywhere isn't quite what I would call a logical justification.
And I'm not pretending to know what's best for kids. I hold no advanced degree in childhood development, psychology, or even have any kids of my own. I'm neither in a position to nor trying to tell people how to raise their kids. I'm simply posing one opinion in the hopes that it generates some thinking.
Anyway, disclaimer out of the way, an inspiration for this avenue of thinking was a piece from actor William H. Macy:
"The actor finds it absurd that movies filled with gunshots, gore, and murder can be classified as PG, while films featuring sex and nudity are quarantined behind R ratings. 'We're so accepting of violence - ugly, ugly, ugly violence - and we let our children watch it...and yet we're allergic to sex. I don't known much but I know this: Violence is bad and sex is good. Even the bad sex I've had was pretty good. Violence is always bad - there are no exceptions.' Yet...violence is accepted or even celebrated, while sex is often treated as something shameful. 'They say that young kids, especially boys, are thinking about it every four seconds...Our normal ways of suppressing it does not work. You have priests molesting children. You've got husbands and wives torturing each other because we can't talk about anything [to do with sex]...with the amount of crap we've all had laid on our shoulders about our sexuality, it's a wonder we can function at all.'"Are these distorted values we inundate our kids with in fact twisting our very societal values? I am not a proponent of the belief that violent video games and movies have caused people to lash out violently, as some blame-avoiding lobbyists would have us believe, but I do think that this culture of violence is a factor when looking systemically at society itself.
Quoted from The Week, vol. 8(603), February 8, 2013; pg. 10
*A quick note: Just in writing the word "breast", I felt mildly uncomfortable, even though "graphic dismemberment" held barely a fleeting second thought...
Saturday, September 19, 2015
Another question about policy
To follow up my last post A question about policy, this one was inspired by a comment made from an article on the internet (oof, don't even get me started...), regarding the 14th Amendment. The 14th, among other things, grants citizenship to all people born on United States soil. And this is being "abused" by immigrants, who cross the border only long enough to have their "anchor baby", and capitalize on the policy of allowing undocumented parents to remain with their citizen-child.
Now, validity aside, I just want to be clear: so because an Amendment is being followed according to the letter, via a literal reading of the words, it's being "abused" and it's "not following the intent of the authors" and should therefore be repealed. Okay, but who says the author's intentions? Isn't that going to be immediately and incredibly subjective?
One may argue that it wasn't the "intent" of the Framer's for the First Amendment to protect the Westboro Baptist Church, KKK rallies, violent, threatening online posts (these were tossed out), or any number of other examples. One could probably argue that the Second Amendment wasn't "intending" to allow for some paranoid doomsday-sayer to stockpile thousands of guns and ammunition for the someday apocalypse. It's fun. Our "right" to be able to walk around in broad daylight with a fully automatic rifle and 50-round clip is boisterously defended. But don't you dare think for a second you can have a baby here! It's a matter of national security!
It's always amused me, when the "intent" is used as a defense. We seem to be awful quick to assume we know what other people were thinking when we can't seem to even be able to do it for ourselves.
Now, validity aside, I just want to be clear: so because an Amendment is being followed according to the letter, via a literal reading of the words, it's being "abused" and it's "not following the intent of the authors" and should therefore be repealed. Okay, but who says the author's intentions? Isn't that going to be immediately and incredibly subjective?
One may argue that it wasn't the "intent" of the Framer's for the First Amendment to protect the Westboro Baptist Church, KKK rallies, violent, threatening online posts (these were tossed out), or any number of other examples. One could probably argue that the Second Amendment wasn't "intending" to allow for some paranoid doomsday-sayer to stockpile thousands of guns and ammunition for the someday apocalypse. It's fun. Our "right" to be able to walk around in broad daylight with a fully automatic rifle and 50-round clip is boisterously defended. But don't you dare think for a second you can have a baby here! It's a matter of national security!
It's always amused me, when the "intent" is used as a defense. We seem to be awful quick to assume we know what other people were thinking when we can't seem to even be able to do it for ourselves.
Saturday, August 22, 2015
A question about policy...
Let's preface with acknowledging that I don't have the answers. And I'm neither endorsing nor condemning (per se...) any of the following. I'm simply trying to look at the current state, compare to the proposed future state, and ask what I think are relatively common sense questions...
So on the one hand, we have some calls for a raise in the federal minimum wage to $15 and hour. Admittedly I'm not an economist, so I'm not an authority on predicting negative outcomes. So let's just go with the loudest detractor: an increase in income will create an uptick in purchasing, which will lower supply (less stuff on the shelves), increase demand (people still want the stuff), and drive up prices. In essence, more money in the economy=higher prices for everything. Fair enough. Right off the bat, I feel compelled to ask why supply and demand never seems to go the other way. Prices always seem to rise, but never really fall. Sure, a couple cents on gas here and there, but I don't think the economic doomsday mentality is worried about pennies...
The other big issue people seem to have with a higher minimum wage is that "minimum wage jobs aren't meant to provide a living wage". As one commentor put it, minimum wage jobs are intended to inspire people to work harder and better their position. (Of course, I feel as though I've been fairly open regarding my perspective on this mentality - A Self-Made Man, Just Get a Job, I think I can I think I can etc.)
Okay, either way, let's just keep that argument in mind, that if some people have more money, everyone has to spend more.
Now, let's change gears. Recent presidential candidates have been (loudly) voicing immigration reform, up to and including deporting everyone. A pinnacle argument they make is that these people, this "other", are taking not only our federal support money (read: welfare and subsidized housing), but "stealing" jobs that would otherwise have "hardworking" Americans.
[Just a quick aside on the "other" that's living off the system: funny that the very crowd these candidates are trying to incite with their rhetoric about the sin of handouts are, well...here's the top five articles that address that idea. Since I'm not sure about copyright and such, they're listed generically: first article, second, third, fourth, fifth]
Beside the point.
Anyway, okay, let's roll with the premise. Now, they also admit that these "undocumented workers" have these jobs because employers can pay them less. Five bucks an hour, twelve hours a day, seven days a week with no overtime or benefits? I hate to say it, but that's just the free market at work. Again, beside the point.
So now we can put American citizens into these jobs.with the full protections afforded them (check out Imposed Regulations if you're wondering my thoughts on true free market capitalism. However, the very idea that the same people are advocating imposing more rules on employers while simultaneously touting the free market is just hilarious to me).
Again, beside the point.
So now these workers make at least minimum wage, OT after 40 hours, benefits, maternity leave, the potential to *gasp* unionize... So, wouldn't, um, this, erm, add money into the consumer's pocket? In effect, wouldn't this do the same thing increasing the minimum wage?
Now again, I'm not an authority on the subject. I don't have any answers, only questions.
So on the one hand, we have some calls for a raise in the federal minimum wage to $15 and hour. Admittedly I'm not an economist, so I'm not an authority on predicting negative outcomes. So let's just go with the loudest detractor: an increase in income will create an uptick in purchasing, which will lower supply (less stuff on the shelves), increase demand (people still want the stuff), and drive up prices. In essence, more money in the economy=higher prices for everything. Fair enough. Right off the bat, I feel compelled to ask why supply and demand never seems to go the other way. Prices always seem to rise, but never really fall. Sure, a couple cents on gas here and there, but I don't think the economic doomsday mentality is worried about pennies...
The other big issue people seem to have with a higher minimum wage is that "minimum wage jobs aren't meant to provide a living wage". As one commentor put it, minimum wage jobs are intended to inspire people to work harder and better their position. (Of course, I feel as though I've been fairly open regarding my perspective on this mentality - A Self-Made Man, Just Get a Job, I think I can I think I can etc.)
Okay, either way, let's just keep that argument in mind, that if some people have more money, everyone has to spend more.
Now, let's change gears. Recent presidential candidates have been (loudly) voicing immigration reform, up to and including deporting everyone. A pinnacle argument they make is that these people, this "other", are taking not only our federal support money (read: welfare and subsidized housing), but "stealing" jobs that would otherwise have "hardworking" Americans.
[Just a quick aside on the "other" that's living off the system: funny that the very crowd these candidates are trying to incite with their rhetoric about the sin of handouts are, well...here's the top five articles that address that idea. Since I'm not sure about copyright and such, they're listed generically: first article, second, third, fourth, fifth]
Beside the point.
Anyway, okay, let's roll with the premise. Now, they also admit that these "undocumented workers" have these jobs because employers can pay them less. Five bucks an hour, twelve hours a day, seven days a week with no overtime or benefits? I hate to say it, but that's just the free market at work. Again, beside the point.
So now we can put American citizens into these jobs.with the full protections afforded them (check out Imposed Regulations if you're wondering my thoughts on true free market capitalism. However, the very idea that the same people are advocating imposing more rules on employers while simultaneously touting the free market is just hilarious to me).
Again, beside the point.
So now these workers make at least minimum wage, OT after 40 hours, benefits, maternity leave, the potential to *gasp* unionize... So, wouldn't, um, this, erm, add money into the consumer's pocket? In effect, wouldn't this do the same thing increasing the minimum wage?
Now again, I'm not an authority on the subject. I don't have any answers, only questions.
Saturday, August 1, 2015
Ahh, summertime!
I blame this beautiful weather. I've been finding myself outside almost every possible moment these last several weeks (months...), listening to music, silently enjoying the sounds of the farm, doing a crossword, reading (mostly periodicals. I need to get back on the book train), cleaning the garage, so on and so forth. More screen time, I've been noticing, has been taking a backseat to getting out and feeling the sun. The ol' noodle has still been working, and I'm optimistic about things coming down the pipeline.
So thank you for continuing to check in, and I'll try my best to keep even just small blurbs and links rolling in!
So thank you for continuing to check in, and I'll try my best to keep even just small blurbs and links rolling in!
Sunday, June 28, 2015
A Little Poem
I found this while leafing through a notebook from my grad school days. Two thoughts on that: first, I'm always amazed how many aspects of that program I've used throughout my career (the principles themselves as well as the various paths they've led me down); and second, clearly this was a solid "paying attention" sort of day...
Just ridiculous.
Strudel and Tavern
discovered a cavern,
known for its mystical wonder.
They traveled the earth
looking for worth
when both disappeared asunder.
It is there they both learned
of that which they yearned:
To show all the facts pro rata.
Coming home from afar
Renamed Pie and Bar;
visual representations of data.
Just ridiculous.
Saturday, June 20, 2015
The Spirit vs. the Letter
Found this from February 2013:
Which is more important: the spirit or the letter of the law? On one hand, laws and regulations have been created to protect and serve citizens to the greatest extent allowed and based on the knowledge, beliefs, and traditions of the time they were written. On the other hand, and especially regarding laws with significant gray area, as well as those that pose a greater impact on the needs of the few vs. the beliefs of the many, don't we have the responsibility as citizens to uphold mutually-beneficial regulations and disregard those that have become out-dated?
Which is more important: the spirit or the letter of the law? On one hand, laws and regulations have been created to protect and serve citizens to the greatest extent allowed and based on the knowledge, beliefs, and traditions of the time they were written. On the other hand, and especially regarding laws with significant gray area, as well as those that pose a greater impact on the needs of the few vs. the beliefs of the many, don't we have the responsibility as citizens to uphold mutually-beneficial regulations and disregard those that have become out-dated?
With that in mind, one board member opted to write a personal editorial, that in his eyes, the last point was the most important, and voted against the waiver on the grounds that living in the district was the rule, and rules must be followed. Indeed, another letter was written to the paper, expressing her disappointment that more board members didn't vote against the waiver: "I am disappointed that only three School Board members showed commitment, integrity, and knowledge to vote based on the rules in place. This is leadership. These are the kind of people that are truly responsible..."
Personally, I find the views of these editorial-writers to be short-sighted and far too rigid to allow for growth and progress. Neither address the situation of the school, the performance of the teachers or students, of the relationship the administrator has within the community. Their over-emphasis on the letter of law ignores a significant amount of data necessary to make an informed decision.
As we weigh any option prior to making a decision, aren't we almost required to consider all aspects? Don't we have that responsibility, specifically when our decision affects people beyond ourselves, to look at the larger picture? Now, I could rattle off a laundry list of past examples of the letter of the law becoming out of touch, if not downright immoral, but I think this one example is enough to keep our attention on the issue at hand: do we look at what is written or consider if it's right?
I found this quote last week, and I think I'll be using it more and more:
Nothing is more dangerous than an idea when it's the only one you have.
-Emile Chartier
Saturday, June 13, 2015
I know I know I know
It happens far more than I'd like to admit. These lengthy dry spells without a single word written. I've appreciated this blog as an outlet, to sit and type - whatever comes out of it usually ends up surprising me as well as tangent leads to tangent and suddenly I've realized something completely new and different, about myself, about the topic, about anything. It has always amazed me where my stream of consciousness takes me, and I am thankful to have this forum to do so.
It just doesn't work as well when I don't use it. Or, as has been the case over the past few weeks, I start writing something but don't finish it. Or I reconsider it. Or end up rereading it after grabbing another cup of coffee only to realize it's absolutely ridiculous. It happens. But I also have been away from this ol' computer too long lately.
And admittedly even I was getting bored with the Multiple Intelligence video idea. So there's that.
But this absence has helped me realize how much I do enjoy writing and getting out of my head. As though it gives me a sense of purpose, a form of simple enjoyment. I suppose writing is my hobby, just more intermittent than I'd like. I suppose that starts with me though. Carving out the time to sit down and put pen to paper. Not making a big deal of it - I think we all know those times when something we do becomes something we "have" to do, and in the end the prep work we tell ourselves is required becomes more consuming than the actual at itself and inevitably nothing gets done. "I'll do it tomorrow". Heck, I just told myself that not half an hour ago. But why wait? And perhaps I'll end up writing tomorrow as well. But that's tomorrow. I'll worry about that then. How's it go? "Yesterday is history, tomorrow's a mystery, today's a gift. That's why it's called the present." Perhaps paraphrased, and cheesy as heck, but a fair sentiment nonetheless.
So it's time to get back on track!
(Hopefully)
It just doesn't work as well when I don't use it. Or, as has been the case over the past few weeks, I start writing something but don't finish it. Or I reconsider it. Or end up rereading it after grabbing another cup of coffee only to realize it's absolutely ridiculous. It happens. But I also have been away from this ol' computer too long lately.
And admittedly even I was getting bored with the Multiple Intelligence video idea. So there's that.
But this absence has helped me realize how much I do enjoy writing and getting out of my head. As though it gives me a sense of purpose, a form of simple enjoyment. I suppose writing is my hobby, just more intermittent than I'd like. I suppose that starts with me though. Carving out the time to sit down and put pen to paper. Not making a big deal of it - I think we all know those times when something we do becomes something we "have" to do, and in the end the prep work we tell ourselves is required becomes more consuming than the actual at itself and inevitably nothing gets done. "I'll do it tomorrow". Heck, I just told myself that not half an hour ago. But why wait? And perhaps I'll end up writing tomorrow as well. But that's tomorrow. I'll worry about that then. How's it go? "Yesterday is history, tomorrow's a mystery, today's a gift. That's why it's called the present." Perhaps paraphrased, and cheesy as heck, but a fair sentiment nonetheless.
So it's time to get back on track!
(Hopefully)
Sunday, May 10, 2015
Multiple Intelligences: Interpersonal (4 of 7ish)
Interpersonal intelligence is the ability to work with and relate to other people. These individuals are generally more aware of others' moods, feelings, and motivations, and tend to be better able to cooperate with others in a group setting. The following example is former pickpocket Apollo Robbins which, while perhaps not the most broad example to be found, I feel portrays a very interesting take on understanding how people think. I believe this recognition, how people perceive and react, is fundamental to working with people (ideally less manipulative though!) Enjoy.
Sunday, March 29, 2015
Multiple Intelligences: Kinesthetic (3 of 7ish)
Bodily-kinestheitc intelligence, I hope, is fairly self-explanatory. Personally, I can barely hit a baseball (hence tennis being my spring sport of choice...), and examples are everywhere. People strong in this intelligence are the movers - dancers, athletes, even actors. Check out the video below for a collection of incredible athletic feats and physical awareness that at the very least make me regret that last doughnut and maybe even go for a walk...
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Multiple Intelligences: Visual (2 of 7ish)
This week let's check out what I believe is a great example of Visual-Spatial Intelligence. People strong in this area have a greater ability regarding visual problems, spatial judgement, and navigating the concrete world. These people (not to used categorizing language - this exercise is intended merely as one of awareness, both personally and socially. Coincidentally enough, both of those being different, distinct intelligences... I guess throughout I seem to be creating my own example in the process!) have strengths in seeing with their mind's-eye, angles, facial recognition, navigation, and fine-details in their physical environment. The individual in the following video is able to see and recognize the colors and shapes created by cooking pancake batter, and uses this ability to create some pretty cool pictures. Enjoy!
(By the way, there are a lot of these out there, so if you're interested I'd encourage you to check out others! "Your Week in Pancake Art" is pretty cool, and "Star Wars Pancakes"is one of my favorites.)
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Multiple Intelligences: Musical (1 of 7ish)
Cruising around YouTube the other day, I came to a realization. Not only are people capable of really cool things, but their abilities may also serve as a learning experience. Darndest thing, right? We all remember high school, when favorite subjects were more and more apparent, and seeing some of our peers excel in some areas while others excelled elsewhere - whether it was standout athletes, genius mathletes, or that one friend who could sing like angel. Still not free from controversy (don't worry, as per the MO of this blog I'm sure I'll write a post arguing against the theory someday soon), Howard Gardener posed the theory of multiple intelligences back in 1983, which asserts that everyone not only have different skills and abilities, but the way we learn and retain information is different as well. Now, just a heads up, I won't go into much more detail on the theory (I do encourage you to research it though...a lot of great info out there!); this string of posts are simply examples to showcase these innate abilities.
First up: Musical. These people are more sensitive to pitch, tone, timbre, and meter, and can often sing and/or play (an) instrument(s). Sitting, listening, to monotonous lecture simply won't cut it. Check out the video below for what I think is a fantastic example of musical intelligence, as these guys have found new, creative, and incredible ways to use a single piano...
First up: Musical. These people are more sensitive to pitch, tone, timbre, and meter, and can often sing and/or play (an) instrument(s). Sitting, listening, to monotonous lecture simply won't cut it. Check out the video below for what I think is a fantastic example of musical intelligence, as these guys have found new, creative, and incredible ways to use a single piano...
Sunday, March 1, 2015
Wait wait wait...who's responsible?
As mentioned last month, I've been going through a recently-rediscovered stockpile of old drafts and post ideas and uncovered this gem, first drafted back in March of 2013. While the specific inspiration for the post is long lost on me, I thought it was still relevant when thinking about accountability. Enjoy!
- - - - - - - - - - -
Here's a fun tidbit I've been observing. And bear in mind that there's a good chance that after reading it, your only response will be an eye-roll, a self-acknowledging shrug, and a rhetorical, open-ended "yeah, and...?". Anyway, why is it that it seems that when things are going well for you that you're the one who created that situation, but when things aren't going your way or the cards don't fall in your favor, it tends to be someone else's fault? I mean, when you're doing well enough, it's because you've earned it, right? "I put myself where I am today. I worked and toiled and sweated to get where I am. I earned this." We're entitled to the fruits of our labor; after all, it's not like anyone helped us out, right? It's those poor people, those leeches on welfare that keep taking from my hard-earned cash-cow, right? "I worked hard, and look where I am! Why can't they do the same?!?!"
- - - - - - - - - - -
Here's a fun tidbit I've been observing. And bear in mind that there's a good chance that after reading it, your only response will be an eye-roll, a self-acknowledging shrug, and a rhetorical, open-ended "yeah, and...?". Anyway, why is it that it seems that when things are going well for you that you're the one who created that situation, but when things aren't going your way or the cards don't fall in your favor, it tends to be someone else's fault? I mean, when you're doing well enough, it's because you've earned it, right? "I put myself where I am today. I worked and toiled and sweated to get where I am. I earned this." We're entitled to the fruits of our labor; after all, it's not like anyone helped us out, right? It's those poor people, those leeches on welfare that keep taking from my hard-earned cash-cow, right? "I worked hard, and look where I am! Why can't they do the same?!?!"
But, same coin here folks, why is it that when it comes to things heading downhill, chances are it's someone else's fault? We like to blame our boss, the jerk in the next cubicle, the Democrats or Republicans, the 1% or the 99%, the economy, our kids' teachers...whatever we may not like, for the conflicts and hurdles thrown in our path. I know I'm guilty of the same thinking from time to time (and probably more often than that), vilifying people who have "taken what I've worked for", finding it easier to blame someone, anyone, other than myself. How could it be my fault? I worked to build it up meaning someone else knocked it down.
But at least it's not my fault, right?
But at least it's not my fault, right?
Monday, February 16, 2015
How Thinking Works
A very interesting video about how we think. How many of each animal did Moses actually take on the Ark?
Sunday, February 8, 2015
Generational Gaps
Here is one of those alluded-to posts, written some time ago but never published. This one from the early spring of 2014. Looking back, even though it's not really been that long ago, it's interesting to see the small changes in my writing style on this blog. Happy reading!
_________
One of those headaches with pictures came to me just now…I think you educated folk call them “thoughts” or “ideas”…
_________
One of those headaches with pictures came to me just now…I think you educated folk call them “thoughts” or “ideas”…
I was reading an article about the Millennial Generation, and
how we’re (yes, I am a Millennial, just like everyone else born
between 1982 and 2000) impoverished, underemployed, and generally holding a
bleak outlook that our lives will not
be better off than our parents’. The
article, however, took an optimistic slant, with the author averring that as a
GenXer, he and his peers had been labeled “stoners” and “lazy”. Now, having only relived GenX through Nirvana
music videos and Pepsi promo commercials, I am in no
position to say whether or not this claim is true. What I can say, however, is that I believe
the Millennials have a very different world confronting them than the GenXers
did (and yes, I do fully acknowledge that each subsequent generation faces new
and insurmountable obstacles than those that preceded it…let me make that
arguement before anyone brings it up).
What I’m thinking of, though, is that Millenials aren't
comparing our lives to our parents.
Sure, I often look at where I am, what I’m doing as compared to my
parents at my age, and that is certainly a thought that keeps me up at
night. To me, my parents had so much
more going for them. They had so much
more at their disposal. They were much
more secure.
We, I believe, compare ourselves to our peers more than we do
to our parents or our parents did to their peers. Unfortunately, we have Facebook. We have Twitter. We have all these innocuous
venues for our friends and classmates to fill us in on how wonderful their
lives are. How their new car is
incredible with its heated seats (already outdated, I realize) and fancy computerized everything. How great it is to call this
house “theirs”.
Constantly assaulted by these updates, which, in all
likelihood come from less than 20% of all the people in my age group) hold more
sway than people worse-off than myself…
Parents are no longer the only milestone against which we
judge our success…now we have instant access to everyone else as well.
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
Well I'll be!
I've recently stumbled across a trove (using the term loosely as it refers to treasure...) of as-of-yet unpublished posts, written anytime since the inception of this here blog. Over the course of the next several weeks, in addition to all the new and exciting things that run through my mind, I'll be trying to refine and refinish many of these for your reading pleasure. Most will be outdated as to their references (such as the Wisconsin gubernatorial race), but I believe the message will still be relevant. And if not, well, hopefully they'll be fun to read at the very least. I'll do my best to forewarn ya'll when one of these makes an appearance, so happy reading, and thank you for your continued readership!
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Change and Progress
My inspiration of late, thinking about change and progress. Learn from where you've been, what you've done. Take this knowledge, gained from both successes and failures, and continue to climb.
"The rung of a ladder was never meant to rest upon, but only to hold a man's foot long enough to enable him to put the other one somewhat higher."
-Thomas Huxley
The following is a video about Honda's "Kick Out the Ladder" mentality. Set the goal. Pose the challenge. And start climbing.
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Daily Purpose
A post I've been rolling around in my head for the past several months. I meant to put pen to paper on this topic - reflecting on purpose, identity, and raison d'etre - for months now, though admittedly I'm glad I've procrastinated this long as I've come to a few new insights.
It's interesting to me the generational differences (and industry differences) in relative perspective at work. No longer is "live to work" the reigning paradigm. Us youngsters generally carry more of a "work to live" mentality, where rather than define ourselves by what we do for a living, but what we do with that living. I tried to take this at face value after leaving my old position and beginning at a tool and die shop for the interim. I argued that it wasn't what I was doing in the hours I punched the clock, but what I was doing the other 118 hours of the week that mattered more. And so I continued, grateful simply for a job to pay the bills, a luxury not available to everyone.
So with my safety and security needs met (Maslow; to be continued), I found myself looking for more. Looking back, with the perspective afforded through 20/20 hindsight, I better see the pros and cons of my previous life, chronicled a bit more in my previous post (found here), and I find myself missing that satisfaction that comes with personally meaningful outcomes. And it is only from this detour that I can see that picture more clearly.
Several months ago I was able to sit down with a company's OD personnel, to talk and network, to glean some insights on breaking into the field. One of the biggest things I took away from that meeting was the metaphor she used when explaining how her son did mazes: he would find the dead-ends first and black them out, ruling out false leads and misdirection, until, eventually, only the way through was left. It seems so simple, and yet so poignant. By figuring out what doesn't work, one can better find their path. Of course this isn't a quick fix. And applying it personally has yielded some interesting, albeit at times uncomfortable realizations.
It is with all this (and always so much more that can't possibly be put into words) in mind that I find myself needing to find purpose once again. "Work to live", I believe, has more connotations than just defining yourself by what you do off the clock (and before I forget I should mention that such generalizations are clearly not true for everyone. Just wanted to throw that out there for completion sake). I think it also is a reversal of defining ourselves by our jobs, instead finding meaningful work defined by who we are personally. I think we've shifted away from finding a position and assuming that identity to recognizing our own identity and finding the work that embodies it. I'm thinking this may be a big reason my generation is over-educated and under-employed, because we've been, by and large, searching more for purpose and passion. For better or worse of course. And so I find myself unfortunately lumped into this cliched stereotype.
But we persevere. I am actively searching for this fulfillment, though tempering it with the realization that this is still the real world and such accomplishments as finding such a purpose will be neither easy nor quick. And, an aspect I fear is lost on many, just because I strive to succeed, because I put in the time, because I want it enough - there is no guarantee. That's life. So I continue to work on it. To think and reflect, and, most importantly, get up and do something about it. "Do or do not. There is no try". Thank you Yoda.
It's interesting to me the generational differences (and industry differences) in relative perspective at work. No longer is "live to work" the reigning paradigm. Us youngsters generally carry more of a "work to live" mentality, where rather than define ourselves by what we do for a living, but what we do with that living. I tried to take this at face value after leaving my old position and beginning at a tool and die shop for the interim. I argued that it wasn't what I was doing in the hours I punched the clock, but what I was doing the other 118 hours of the week that mattered more. And so I continued, grateful simply for a job to pay the bills, a luxury not available to everyone.
So with my safety and security needs met (Maslow; to be continued), I found myself looking for more. Looking back, with the perspective afforded through 20/20 hindsight, I better see the pros and cons of my previous life, chronicled a bit more in my previous post (found here), and I find myself missing that satisfaction that comes with personally meaningful outcomes. And it is only from this detour that I can see that picture more clearly.
Several months ago I was able to sit down with a company's OD personnel, to talk and network, to glean some insights on breaking into the field. One of the biggest things I took away from that meeting was the metaphor she used when explaining how her son did mazes: he would find the dead-ends first and black them out, ruling out false leads and misdirection, until, eventually, only the way through was left. It seems so simple, and yet so poignant. By figuring out what doesn't work, one can better find their path. Of course this isn't a quick fix. And applying it personally has yielded some interesting, albeit at times uncomfortable realizations.
It is with all this (and always so much more that can't possibly be put into words) in mind that I find myself needing to find purpose once again. "Work to live", I believe, has more connotations than just defining yourself by what you do off the clock (and before I forget I should mention that such generalizations are clearly not true for everyone. Just wanted to throw that out there for completion sake). I think it also is a reversal of defining ourselves by our jobs, instead finding meaningful work defined by who we are personally. I think we've shifted away from finding a position and assuming that identity to recognizing our own identity and finding the work that embodies it. I'm thinking this may be a big reason my generation is over-educated and under-employed, because we've been, by and large, searching more for purpose and passion. For better or worse of course. And so I find myself unfortunately lumped into this cliched stereotype.
But we persevere. I am actively searching for this fulfillment, though tempering it with the realization that this is still the real world and such accomplishments as finding such a purpose will be neither easy nor quick. And, an aspect I fear is lost on many, just because I strive to succeed, because I put in the time, because I want it enough - there is no guarantee. That's life. So I continue to work on it. To think and reflect, and, most importantly, get up and do something about it. "Do or do not. There is no try". Thank you Yoda.
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Where I am
I apologize that this post is long-overdue, and I feel compelled to share with you the current situation I've found myself in (and possibly offer a sheepish excuse for the wide gaps of time between posts).
Several months ago, I made the decision to leave my job, and the industry entirely, and see what else I could do. Of course, as is frequently the case, personal reasons were in the mix as well, and suddenly I found myself disenchanted with my work (of almost ten years) and living solo for the first time...ever, actually. Oof.
Wide and varied, the predominant cause for this professional change had been, and still is, the sporadic and far-flung nature of my often seasonal-employ. Days, weeks, even months on the road brought me away from home, and while I did appreciate the opportunities afforded me - driving cross-country, working in West Virginia to Ohio to Colorado to California to Montana, and so on. I was able to go out, to see and experience so much. I met and worked with a number of fantastic people along the way, some I still count as friends. Now, I realize I've written about this topic before, only in a much more positive tone, and I feel it to be an accurate reflection of a changing paradigm.
I reached a point where I was more interested in what was at home, what I was leaving behind, than what I thought I would find. The work itself was nothing short of fulfilling. It was, and I'm learning still is, my passion. Working with people, training, teaching, learning...these things that made it well worth my time are still those aspects that inevitably try to draw me back.
Alas, it will not be so. So, while attempting to find a new position, I also realized there are still bills that need to be paid. Go figure, right? So now I find myself working at a tool and die shop as a general shop laborer. It has certainly been an eye-opening experience, and a great learning opportunity to see the manufacturing process so much from the ground up. It has been an opportunity to see and learn a completely different industry, with employees harboring a different backgrounds, different mindsets, different perspectives, than many of those I've previously been privy to in such close quarters. Though it is not my end goal. I continue to search when I can (50+ hour work weeks have been cramping my style, though their benefit has certainly aided that whole "paying bills" thing. And I am grateful for that).
So that's where I am now. For undoubtedly the majority of my readership, you've already been told this story, at least once, and here I hope to use it as a segue. I've been thinking quite about purpose, about identity, about interactions and interaction styles, about change, about solving mazes, about figuring it out. So it is my hope to share more of these observations with you, peppered with any number of the half-written drafts, some of which have been waiting for over a year to see the light of day.
So thank you for checking in, and I will do my best to return the favor.
Several months ago, I made the decision to leave my job, and the industry entirely, and see what else I could do. Of course, as is frequently the case, personal reasons were in the mix as well, and suddenly I found myself disenchanted with my work (of almost ten years) and living solo for the first time...ever, actually. Oof.
Wide and varied, the predominant cause for this professional change had been, and still is, the sporadic and far-flung nature of my often seasonal-employ. Days, weeks, even months on the road brought me away from home, and while I did appreciate the opportunities afforded me - driving cross-country, working in West Virginia to Ohio to Colorado to California to Montana, and so on. I was able to go out, to see and experience so much. I met and worked with a number of fantastic people along the way, some I still count as friends. Now, I realize I've written about this topic before, only in a much more positive tone, and I feel it to be an accurate reflection of a changing paradigm.
I reached a point where I was more interested in what was at home, what I was leaving behind, than what I thought I would find. The work itself was nothing short of fulfilling. It was, and I'm learning still is, my passion. Working with people, training, teaching, learning...these things that made it well worth my time are still those aspects that inevitably try to draw me back.
Alas, it will not be so. So, while attempting to find a new position, I also realized there are still bills that need to be paid. Go figure, right? So now I find myself working at a tool and die shop as a general shop laborer. It has certainly been an eye-opening experience, and a great learning opportunity to see the manufacturing process so much from the ground up. It has been an opportunity to see and learn a completely different industry, with employees harboring a different backgrounds, different mindsets, different perspectives, than many of those I've previously been privy to in such close quarters. Though it is not my end goal. I continue to search when I can (50+ hour work weeks have been cramping my style, though their benefit has certainly aided that whole "paying bills" thing. And I am grateful for that).
So that's where I am now. For undoubtedly the majority of my readership, you've already been told this story, at least once, and here I hope to use it as a segue. I've been thinking quite about purpose, about identity, about interactions and interaction styles, about change, about solving mazes, about figuring it out. So it is my hope to share more of these observations with you, peppered with any number of the half-written drafts, some of which have been waiting for over a year to see the light of day.
So thank you for checking in, and I will do my best to return the favor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)