Christmas 2011

It's not often that I get time off anymore unless I run away. That being said, being able to get out the house this Christmas allowed a lot of time of relaxation and reflection, without the rest. I spent the time with my uncle, aunt and their 3 kids and each one of them taught me a little something about myself surprisingly enough.

 

From my uncle: Love is rooted in resilience and humility. Often during the trip, I know a lesser man would have yelled and screamed at his kids or put down the hammer, but he was really cool about things. Being a workhorse for the people you love is admirable.

 

From my aunt: Sometimes you'll have to look like the bad guy to get things done. It's not that she was mean or anything, but from a comparative perspective, she was the bad cop in the Good Cop, Bad Cop scenario. It's not what looks nice, but what is right that matters.

 

From my 1st cousin: Patience is a virtue, and sometimes the ones you love will hurt you, knowingly or not.

 

From my 2nd cousin: Innocence and sympathy are not to be taken lightly in a world that's oppressive and constantly moving.

 

From my 3rd cousin: Empathy needs to be natural and not stilted or rehearsed, and also that the wonder in the world still exists, even if it starts on a small scale.

 

 

For myself, I'm learning lessons about how to be single and how to treat spouses and children. It was refreshing that none of this burden falls on my shoulders, but that in time, it comes as a second nature. Maybe next Christmas the story can change.

Posted via email from Bloodscope Economics

thoughts on Occupy Boston

Guess I should have written this post earlier before the tent came down.

Having seen some of the aftermath of Occupy Boston, I had come to many realizations as to why it failed (at least in the short-term):

-A lack of leadership

-A lack of a final goal

-A solidified measure of success

-Lack of cohesiveness among the people

-Internal disputes

-Their depiction in the media

Those are only a small subset of reasons. For me, I had believed in at least some of the message, but disagreed in their execution of their plan. Perhaps in the future, these issues would be addressed. Above all though, the movement has to realize that they need to be about the people, and if they're really about the people, then they need to actually represent what the people want and to represent the people who are truly oppressed.

It brings me to my uncle, who is actually considered one of the 1%, but he acts like a 99%. Right now, I don't believe that the fight isn't merely about money or equality, but rather a change in behavior. More money doesn't cause problems per se, but rather the mishandling of resources is what we're protesting.

We act as if we can levy some sort of behavior on people who are much unlike us, and that they ought to understand our plight. In truth though, it's tough for anyone to be sympathetic to anything if you vilify them right off the bat. Sure, people are people and we do go through the same things, but remember; people are people - they have feelings too.

The fight isn't over for anyone - perhaps the attention is drawn away to other causes, but there's been a sour taste left in the mouths of the people.

Posted via email from Bloodscope Economics

small group reflection 11/29/11

Another day, another time of reflection, hunger, and boredom.

 

I kinda zoned out of the sermon this Sunday, also talking to a friend about their high-school reunion and whatnot. We ended up discussing Acts and the characteristics of missionaries and the call behind missions. It's a sensitive topic in that we often feel compelled to do so but really don't know how, and can't really do it ourselves. As one person mentioned, it becomes somewhat of a impulsive cultural phenomenon. If anyone went to Urbana, they would understand; after hearing such inspirational tales of struggle, growth, hardship and understanding, one feels called to go out and do such a thing. However, it may not be the case that everyone, though called to do missions, is suited to do missions.

 

A thing we had talked about for the church in Antioch is how they were fasting and praying for their people. Fasting isn't something we too often do, other than perhaps saving space for a bigger meal, or using it as a time of reflection. More or less, I think about the physical effects and the reality behind it - giving up something consciously so that we refocus and sharpen our relationship with God. It works because in giving up one of our most precious needs, we seek to fill it, and when we start relying on God for that one need, we might be inclined to call on Him for other ones too. The question is though - do we necessarily need to give up food in order to get closer to God? Or rather is it that we give up something of utmost importance to us, so that we allow that dependance to grow? I doubt we're all gonna live lives like Job, having everything being taken away from us, and yet still praising God for who he is, but I do believe that we start stripping away the layers that bound us to humanity more and more, we start to see ourselves less and less within the presence of greatness. It's one of those feelings that leave you awestruck.

 

Another thought had confronted my mind in terms of how we on the base level are in touch with our missionaries. On the whole, I gather that unless we have a personal relationship or a close connection with a missionary directly, we find it difficult to understand and to know who our missionaries are and how they are. Realistically, it makes sense because while they're away in one location, living out a separate life and a separate calling, we are pursuing our own direction. We realize and understand that the call to missions is an important thing, but we've compartmentalized it in our minds so it's just another thing that occurs in our own little world. We seek and strive to be in touch with one another as a church family, but at the same time, we find it difficult when these barriers are put between us. Even more so on a practical level for our church, I felt compelled to enter the Cantonese Fellowship. Even though my language skills aren't great, and even though I'm of a different culture, it pains me to not know what the other side of the church is going through. We are part of the same "family", yet we don't even know each other - we don't interact and mingle unless we're put together the very few times of the year. In the same way, I think that's what happens to us - we get caught up, and we see the idealism in the act, but confront and resolve ourselves to the realities we set upon ourselves.

 

That night, I thought about how we have to start seeing missions as a way of life and not merely a process. Whether or not we cross the ocean or cross the street, we are missionaries in our own right. It shouldn't be a standardized process where the steps are laid out before you. Back then, it was fluid, organic. People saw and confronted the needs of the people on the spot and they lived like the locals. They didn't come in with a "we're better than you and we need to give you aid because we're better off" sort of mentality. They didn't have a cushy world to go back to because the missions call was their life - at the end of the missions trip, they didn't come back to comfort necessarily.

 

It makes me think about where my place is too. Not simply on a missions scale but how I fit into this overall plan. Maybe I'm meant for destruction and someone was meant to stop me. 

Posted via email from Bloodscope Economics

sermon reflection

I wanted to gather my thoughts right now, but a lot of short term things have been on my mind, mainly the toilet not working at base.

Within this week, I'm confronted by the future - both for my career path and for my life. I've settled into a routine that is both mind numbing and relaxing at the same time. I wanted to spend time with family on both sides, and I did, but not in the super cool grandson secret agent style that I thought I could pull off.

My life's desires are still the same; in fact, after mulling over the sermon today, I feel even more entrenched in my way of thinking in that the world is still going to be an enemy to the cause of good. It's never going to allow people to take breaks, slow down, and enjoy the simple things in life, mainly because every amenity, every pleasure, every basic freedom now has a price tag on it.

I want to say that this world could be a better place if we all worked together to achieve the same goal and that if we pooled together our resources, we could achieve anything. But the people aren't ready for that. They're afraid of change and what true power they can actually have if they can accomplish what's on their hearts and minds. That is why a mass of people are threatening - it's not their number, it's their potential.

Yet, we've squandered our potential for too long. We've kept to our own devices, and we've let people and other priorities slip through the cracks. It's why we hurt, it's why we ponder, it's why we feel guilty and ashamed of ourselves.

I want it to end tonight and every night. My hope isn't for a fallen world. It's not for total redemption either though.

Posted via email from Bloodscope Economics

reflections from small group

am wondering if i'm dropping the ball at work and if i'll have a slow but abrupt demise.

Though I didn't show up for the first half of the sermon on Sunday, I arrived in time fer the main point in how we're opting for community with each other and God, whether we know it or not, and that our relationship with God alone cannot suffice for our lives.

Questions were asked today, ranging from the "what if" to psychoanalysis of Adam to the imposed characteristics of animals, so on and so forth. I had wondered for a bit whether this was a sermon that implicitly made sense the connection between man and woman and that it was to be some sort of eternal destiny. That question was never really answered, though the vibe of the talk and the feel of the room made it so, but I couldn't tell.

Community - the issue of what it is, and why it is so special. Why is it that we can't live alone, living with the animals? We can't, it seems because they can't fully know us and love us, nor we can do that to them. Humans supposedly can, and it's also the only way we know how. However, the community seems to imply the mix of people, versus an entire body of sameness. Not saying here that an Adam and Steve would make it work, nor implying that "love is the answer to everything" scenario, but I guess it's the entire image of God composed by those two types of being - man and woman. Both created without sin, one from another, but to represent the same Sovereign Creator.

We also talked about the idea of vulnerability and shame. When I think vulnerability, I think of a suit of armor. Vulnerability means that a part is not at its peak shape and that it is susceptible to attack. Most people don't look to be vulnerable, and most vulnerability is hidden. Some is feigned too - people invite others in, but to ensnare. However, in this vulnerability, there is progress, because there is development. This development only comes if someone wants to actually create something and not destroy. Too often people can look, find and capitalize on someone's vulnerability for their own gain. In a sense, by sharing vulnerability with another, one could also gain from that too, if they aren't genuine in their intent (At this point, I believe people have heard that cliche saying already). 

Shame and judgment are inseparable. People feel ashamed because they feel insufficient, or because they have not lived up to a standard imposed to them by someone else or themselves. Regardless of party, there is judgment there, but there is also the reaction. There can be disregard for the judgment and there can be repentance.

On top of that, there was the practical application of how to foster such an environment where brothers and sisters are loving and known to each other. One option was for people to be bold but discerning in sharing. The other is to create a safe environment of love. As I write this, I believe both can be sought in an ideal, but either scenario fully accomplished (at least with the presence of sin) would be destructive.

Boldness is only bold and most effective when others aren't. When you have a setting where that is the majority, it becomes the norm. Suddenly, boldness isn't normal and isn't striking. Within the context of sin, if it doesn't hit hard, people let it slide. The same would go in a safe environment, where nothing can crack the shell. We may rebuke, but if the people feel no repentance, then people may feel that it's only a place to be freely absolved, and that actually isn't the case without the context of sin.

Reactions are also out of our control in general, especially if we are vulnerable and not ready for it. Right now, I'm striking a delicate balance between saying I can't judge anyone for anything because only God can rightly do so, versus scrutiny of the actions. Both extremes are bad. The toughest problem out of all of this is realization. Realization of facts, reality and actualities - that we are alone, that we are sinful, that we struggle, that not every star shines, and not every night is peaceful. How do we reconcile and live our lives differently? How do we live them better, and how do we live them right?

In the beginning and in the end, the movements of life start with one man.

Posted via email from Bloodscope Economics

first week of work

So a lot of people heard that I was pretty anxious about going to work this week, anticipating the best or at least being motivated to do so. After the first week, I am finding it quite difficult to be there.

What we do is important, but as many of others in that position or similar roles, we don't get a lot of appreciation or perks. Trying to do things for the greater good is hard when people aren't treated like people. We are not machines, yet we're expected to act as perfectly as they do. We get no repairmen, we get no excuses, we are what you want to do, but not what you want us to be.

Who we are is not where we want to be. This is the basis, the fundamental reason why we grumble and take things hardly. This is why we reject your notions, this is why we rebel, this is why we occupy streets and other locations of high business density.

Tonight isn't the beginning of the war, and neither is it the end, but we're ready to fight it to the bitter end. It's bitter, cause it leaves a bad taste in our mouths and the tears, though salty, are also acrid by the skies you pollute.

Posted via email from Bloodscope Economics

Lost my phone

I started out Columbus Day weekend by losing my cell phone again. This time though I wasn't able to retrieve it from the MBTA. Instead, one of my friends told me that the person was from Roxbury and they wanted a reward. I thought about it for 2 days, having lived life off the grid but at the same time a bit worried that someone might have been called. On Monday, I decided to go get a new phone and not deal with this person.

Factors leading up to the decision:

1) I called my phone at least 10 times during the 2 day period at various times of the day, figuring I'd reach the person. No answers whatsoever, which was particularly odd because this person wanted a reward. How are you gonna get one if the owner can't contact you?

2) After getting a random text from someone, I returned a phone call and found out that random texts were being sent from my phone at the time. Why am I going to reward you for wasting my money without my permission?

3) This person's location, without much details and having some prior insight, dissuaded me from going there without having a backup plan.

As much as I wanted my classic crappy phone back with its numbers, I figure it wasn't worth the hassle to make up resources to get it back.

The whole ordeal got me thinking about understanding people from both ends, and our society as a whole today. Nowadays, where income is scarce, opportunity is rare, and anonymity is high, this would have been a prime time for said person. My wish is that this person would have gone through more noble means rather that through coercion - even if they were actually in need, they would have done better off by helping someone in the long term rather than satisfy their own temporal desires. People are short-sighted when there seems to be no end to a dream.

I realize that I desire items of nostalgia too much, and put too much faith in the hope that humanity can be redeemed. I also see that I am adventurous but at the same time a risk-taker, and that I need to be kept in check. Yet I still need someone to understand why I do the things I do. Above it all, my life now is spent trying to live outside of time, trying to encapsulate past, present and future into one movement.

Posted via email from Bloodscope Economics

reflections from Faneuil Hall

I took a stroll through Faneuil Hall after a job interview. I haven't done that for fun in a while, and it was the perfect time to do so, having went through a long week of disappointment. I remember an article on CNN about women, particularly teens, who were agonizing about their body size, trying to reach that magical number - size 0. Not actually knowing what a size 0 was or even looked like, I stopped by some of the retail stores in the area.

I first went to Ann Taylor, looking for something to compare to. They had it, but they also had an even smaller size called size 0 Petite, which is apparently for shorter women. It was on the second floor, so I decided to take a look. The size difference isn't that much greater, but what threw me for a loop was the mannequins. They say that petite is for shorter women, but the mannequins they used were for taller women.

I then stopped by Victoria's Secret and learned more about the fashions and functions of brassieres. What was weird was when I looked around the store - no woman's body shape looked even slightly similar to what the models presented on the window poster. I know that the fashion industry adopts an elitist standard, and that we shouldn't assume that what they advertise is the norm, but even still, most women and girls don't look like that unless they are naturally skinny, or even malnourished. 

As I sat down on a bench, eating my chicken salad sandwich, I look around and see people have given up on their lives. Perhaps not in the suicidal sense, but letting themselves go, physically and mentally. The same fashions, the same physiques, people falling into archetypes way too frequently.

I don't wonder anymore if money is the root of evil, nor its want even, but just people...

Posted via email from Bloodscope Economics

Funerals

First off, I'd like to thank Pastor Raymond Yeung. I went to his funeral today, not remembering who exactly he was until I saw his picture again. Because of him, my family is Christian. Without him, I might have became a Buddhist (and hooked up with someone) or practiced ancestor veneration (and hooked up with someone). I suppose that within the infinite wisdom and grace of God that things have happened the way they do. Also, if anyone knows the short version of my name, it'd just be weird if I weren't anyways.

As I went through the procession, I couldn't help but think why funerals hit the family so hard. I think it's because when you're at the cemetery and see the coffin right before it goes into the ground, that the realization hits. It is the realization that you'll actually see this person in your life for the last time. It's an odd feeling, but it comes from knowing that your life runs relatively stable, in the fact that the people you know age and work at the same pace as you. Even though you're 30-40-50, your friends and stuff will still feel like the same things grew up with, but never really left.

It's also hard on the family because there will be a physical emptiness, a void left to be filled. The dinner table chair, the barcalounger at home, the one less voice you hear - all reminders that indeed life is gone. It's funny how we mourn and are joyful at the same time, having believed that though the person is physically gone, the spirit has gone to a better place, one without pain, persecution, strife and struggle, and in that the next life lies infinitely greater pleasure. Still, it doesn't erase the feeling of pain, especially when we focus on the real aspects of the loss versus the big picture.

Two people take care of my brother's gravestone. Both question who does the work while the other is absent. I try not to answer the question, because it would only create a tension that distracts from the real issue. It's sad that it's come to a point where both parties think they're speaking for the best of the deceased, when in actuality he doesn't have a voice, per se in how his own memorial ought to be treated. The greater issue is whether or not people can still work together.

Posted via email from Bloodscope Economics

Who says hello anymore? I do.

To that girl who ignored me this week, it's alright. People got things to do, places to go, people to see. I know I did - that's why I had a Choco Taco for free.

It's been a while since I last blogged. It's not that I haven't found the motivation, or a lack of content to write about. Quite the contrary, a lot has been on my mind for the past couple of months. Work, relationships, money, future, and the past have all played a factor as to what I've been doing today. However, a little birdie brought me to write this particular post, one about keeping things in perspective.

Blogging is my haven. It's my venting ground, my announcement board, my soap box, my diary. It's entertainment, philosophy, comedy, sadness. It's unedited, non-sequential and from the heart. It's me and myself. Nowadays, blogging has become more of a business, rather than a method of personal expression. Businesses have blogs, movements have blogs,  even imaginary characters have them. Why must you not be yourself in order to sell something? Why must you go out of your way, to be unnatural, to set up an adventure, to advertise an activity, to push your next product?

Putting up the facade over the internet is easy. Sure we've found ways to cyber-stalk, and generally find out more information about others, but on the whole, people can still remain anonymous. Internet chat rooms of debauchery and hatred, Xbox Live where absurdity blossoms, and yes, Nigerians can still scam your dollars away.

We can advertise all the good things in our life, in order to be a bastion of hope or a boat of boastfulness. We can push all the sadness into the light as a cry for help, a suicide call, an attempt to cure human loneliness.

I wonder now if I had no face - could someone go through life without a physical identity? Even the lack of identity now can be considered one, but with the lines blurring where life imitates are and vice-versa, is it really possible?

Nevertheless, it's important to be yourself, in whatever capacity that means to you. The sheer overwhelming number of societal elements doesn't mean you need them to function - why must you iPhone it? Why must you identify with this major group?

My life goal of fading away into legendary obscurity is slowly happening.

Posted via email from Bloodscope Economics

I'm saving lives by using Microsoft Excel and the internet.

So ends the first week of work. It's been a huge transition, from when before, i had mad time to read and get in shape, to now when I'm scrambling to read articles and wash the dishes before a proper bedtime. It's not the life I envisioned at this point-figured I'd be dead by now, having done some stupid motorcycle stunt. Thanks Pops, your current life has saved mine.

Having read the job description, I came in with high hopes about a proactive position, where I'd be running around, everything fast-paced, people-oriented, meeting with the big wigs. Expectations are a funny thing if you have none, or the improper ones.

Work right now is pretty slow. The typical day involves staring at a computer, cracking jokes, and taking long lunches. Every once in a hour, I'll ask about my assignment or take long walks down the corridor to my private sanctuary with the white throne. With the sun being out now, there's even more of an incentive to escape the solitary cube.

I'm not sure how I feel about this place. Though it's only temporary, the comforts are there. The long-term of the position as a possibility has me wondering which direction this would lead me in the next five years. I suppose it falls into my general goal of wanting to help people, but it hasn't solidified itself in a specific action or working.

Why, I don't know. All too often, I wish to remain unattached, no allegiances to anything, having allies in all departments, being a jack of all trades instead of a one trade shovel. Professional development never really crossed my mind, and if it ever did, I never found it all that important. Life will find a way (provided people understand the human nature of the work, rather than the mere acts of finishing assignments.)

At the end, I know I'm not going to be rich. It'd be nice, but I wouldn't want it to be mine. I'm going to still continue to work hard though so that others are going to enjoy this life instead. Having really no other motivation but to "do it for the people", I dredge forth, knowing that I'm a part of something bigger.

Knowing that I won't understand the grander picture yet, only hoping now to blur myself into the lines. 

Posted via email from Bloodscope Economics

i have nothing to say

i'm not a hero, but i'll come to your aid.

i'm not a villain, but i can make you afraid.

i'm not a lion, but i got strength in my heart.

i'm not a mouse, but i sneak in the dark.

i'm not a leader, but i can guide you the way.

i'm not a follower, but i'll hear what you say.

i'm not a genius, but i'm deep into thought.

i'm not a dummy, but i'm always being taught.

at the end of the day, we're all thankful that we're not something, and grateful that we are something else. 

Posted via email from Bloodscope Economics

A non-private enemy says the number 911 is something to laugh at.

Quoted from a facebook post:

"Question for fb...do you believe the police have too much power? Like even cross-guards carry guns on them, which I find entirely unnecessary...I could see why SOME carry guns, but should all officers be able to hold the ability to take a life in their side holster?"

My exposure to the police and crime has been limited. Personally I have not been written a citation for anything, been arrested or anything of the sort. Nor do I know  police officers personally or have been in their line of work. All I know (and this is from a bystander perspective) is that the branches of law takes a lot of heat for many of the misconducts in society. The beating of Rodney King is perhaps the most infamous police incident of the 90s. There have also been countless stories of wrongful deaths, corrupt officials, evidence tampering, etc. that put them in a negative light. Nevertheless, there are still prominent issues.

-Validity of police presence: During my last couple of years in school, there were isolated incidents in other schools that garnered national attention. Two of them that come to mind were Columbine and Virginia Tech. I also can't remember the last time i went Black Friday shopping without policemen stationed in front of the stores. With the presence of law enforcement, peoples' mindsets change: if there is none, people may feel safe because there isn't a perceived need for them; if there is law enforcement, people may feel insecure because they are here. However, the reverse can be true, depending upon whether or not people put their trust in the police.

-Validity of lethality: Guns kill people, people kill people: we've all heard that statement or something similar to that effect before. I'm not sure which is true or perhaps more correct. However, I know that in weaponized warfare, the most lethal or most covert weapon usually wins by doing the most damage. Fists will do less damage than a handgun. If the element of lethality is taken away, there is less of a chance overall that someone will die. Of course, that always raises the possibility that a criminal may have a weapon too. That would be the reason police have guns, as preventative measures. However how often and how close to the line must it be before they are used, and even more so, where is the middle ground between handgun and hands?

-Individual control: When it boils down, police officers are people and as people are subject to the same weaknesses and challenges everyone else faces. Added to their list of stresses is an unstable environment, the need for a vigilant eye, danger, tedium, fatigue, and health issues. Everyone can cave and blow up given the wrong situation or a loss of control. That doesn't mean that removing weapons for police officers is a safeguard or a necessity for that matter. What I'm saying is that a certain level of intelligence, mental perseverance and vigor is expected for someone in such a position. Maintaining it consistently however is a different matter.

-Assessment of situation: Relating to the matter of individual control is being able to accurately assess a situation for the purposes of maintaining the peace. Taking appropriate measures in the face of adversity is a challenge in all professions, and even more so in ones where lives are at stake. There have been a plethora of stories in the past where a crowd or officers use excessive force, resulting in injury or death. In many of these cases, the determining factor is instinct. A rigid following of police procedures and regulations works well when situations are standard. However, what happens when they are not? How effective is the officer in question in dealing with a curve ball?

-What is a gun? : Without going too much into a philosophical diatribe, a gun is a weapon and a tool. Its prime usage is to harm individuals or to be used as a self-defense mechanism. It makes no independent judgment, and does not exert morals. Only the one who uses it conveys its purpose. Again, the abuse of guns by individuals... the stories are numerous, but those have been case situations.

Overall, I am not sure how to proceed. I recognize the fact that safety is an important priority. Oftentimes we raise it upon a pedestal to the point where paradoxically we will cause violence to secure peace. There is a scene from Iron Man, where Tony Stark tests out the Jericho Missile. The moral in that showing is that in an excessive use of force, further bloodshed can be prevented. Being able to threaten someone is often as good, if not more effective in safeguarding people. However,  In the very end, it is up to the individual wielding the gun to recognize whether or not he or she should carry a sidearm with them. It takes the recognition of a clear mind, being able to asses the problems correctly and accurately, responding appropriately and while being a golem in the face of negative stimuli. How many of our law enforcement individuals fall into this category? Some, but not all.

Perhaps the greater goal we should strive for is changing the hearts and minds of those who'd want to oppress other human beings, curing the disease instead of allaying the symptoms.

Posted via email from Bloodscope Economics

Airheads are quite delicious, although I don't know if I'd want to hang out with them.

I reflect that I don't go to church as often as I did before as a youth. Something doesn't feel right as I become more of an outsider, one who's fading away, like the people I think of in my past. Familiar faces I see and talk to every now and then on the internet or in the area, but it's definitely not the same when the role of cultural ambassador doesn't stick with you.

On that note, I heard a thought-provoking question on Sunday that probably didn't intended to stimulate true conversation, but rather more of an info grab: it's like asking a tourist booth where you can get some food, and they tell you all the possible places. Nothing deep, nothing cosmopolitan about the answer, very straightforward and direct.

The question was "what would you have to do to get excommunicated from the church?" It fell within the context of a friend of mine being baptized this week. Various answers were given, falling within the range of committing heresy to not following certain commandments while on staff. There was also an anecdote of a friend who jokingly wondered how right before their graduation if they could do something to not receive their diploma. I'm sure there's always something you can do within the confines of human societal structures that could lead to such consequences. No need to put your creative thinking hat on though...

At any rate, I wondered about the nature of the question. Perhaps not so much about the direct action of excommunication, banishment if you will, but the motivation and implication behind asking such a thing.

Could it have been testing the limits? All too often, we find ourselves wanting to live on the edge. From our youth into school, things such as fooling around on the monkey bars, to how many chicken wings can you eat, to how many questions can you get wrong on this test and still pass for the semester. That exhilarating feeling of coming so close to failure or death, yet coming back from the brink of destruction to triumph....has its own allure. People often don't aim for this low as a goal, but rather as a point of assurance, knowing that we are safe up to a certain point.

Or maybe it's because we're unsure of ourselves. The matter of certainty vs. assurance is a concern here. To make the distinction, certainty is defined as an occurrence that is bound to happen, whereas assurance, albeit similar, is more of a promise based on the asserter's abilities. (funny, because I thought the definitions were actually the other way around). In any case, the difference would be more of a probability value: 100% vs X% where X > Y, if X  =Y, then failure. For Christianity, it is told that if you realize and confess your sins to God and believe in Christ, that he was sent to die for you, then you gain salvation. It sounds so simple to do, yet it is always the case that countless folks are in doubt about their own destiny. Perhaps it's because of the inherent difficulty or lack thereof of that prerequisite: we attribute easy or simple actions with small or insignificant payoffs, and vice versa. If we had to do a lot more, then perhaps we will feel comfortable, if not at least more comfortable with ourselves.

But again, I'm not sure. It's a paradox that will plague: the simple complexity... 

Posted via email from Bloodscope Economics

Haven't been to a mall in a while

So I was supposed to have dinner with my mentee in Watertown at the Old Country Buffet. His friend though couldn't come, and we decided to call it off. Nevertheless, I went to the buffet with someone, figuring I didn't want to waste my "buy 1, get 1 free" dinner coupon, and also I skipped lunch today. The food selection was limited and I think I ate more oil than actual food. Unlimited ICEEs made it worthwhile I suppose, but no one comes to a buffet to get brain freeze.

Anyways, I was walking through the mall after and got to play some games. There were working kiosks of some version of Guitar Hero, the new Donkey Kong for the Wii and Marvel vs. Capcom 3. After getting pounded on by a child button masher, I walked around some more looking for my ride back. In the middle of the mall, there's a couple of stands selling all types of fashion services and accessories. The one that probably garners the most attention is the "natural enhancement product for women", or what they call a girdle. They had some video playing along with it and I noted one line that seemed to perplex/stick out: "most women consider a girdle to be a social necessity"

I wonder what social necessity a girdle will accomplish.

In the past, corsets were used to shape and reshape the body to what resembles the hourglass figure. It also holds parts of the body in place. For women, I assume it's the breasts and the fat surrounding the waist/lower body area. The same can be said for men too who wear girdles.

To that end, it seems to be an alteration of appearance for aesthetic and social gains. It allows people to look fitter, and perhaps even physically attractive. But I question if in fact it is a social necessity for women, and even a necessity of society altogether?

In society, the word woman provokes mental images and word associations instantly. Hearing everything from the fairer sex, to the child bearer to the moody one, to the intuitive feeler, and everything else in between makes it difficult to fully or accurately characterize a woman. How a girdle fits into this profile probably relates to the sexual aspect of a woman and how she plays a role as an individual. That being said, is it the case that it is necessary for a woman to look a certain way in order to function in society, that this bolstering mechanism is vital to her being?

Yes, it's understood as well that there are inequalities and prejudices in society that hamper women and men.

When we're first born, we don't understand or have a purpose in life. We have no restraints other than our physical limits (and later mental limits). It is only as we're being introduced to society do we start to form our opinions and purposes BASED on what society dictates to use or how we respond to society. Can we live our lives without purpose ascribed to us? Can we live our lives without societal influence?

Everywhere I go, someone somewhere will have an iPod touch. It's become more of a status symbol than a mere utility tool. But what about the people without them, who either chose to not use it, or for those who can't afford it? Are they seen as lesser people? Tonight and forevermore, I don't want to teach my grandchildren that they need to be a certain thing, have a certain item, join a certain group in order to live their lives to the fullest. Though the association with said implements of society will lead to success in that area, what is the breaking point that they lose their own individuality and strive for something that they never had intended to be in the first place?

Posted via email from Bloodscope Economics

rice with chinese sausage and preserved shrimp, grape flavored ramune, little debbies cakes

sunday only taught me once more that people are worth the pain.

it was about saturday afternoon when i woke up late to find out i had to meet my grandpa in order to get to my cousin's birthday party. figuring that any type of entertainment and family would be better than lying in bed, coughing my lungs out. so i headed out to waltham to have some fun.

the party was overall pretty boring. when i got there, there were less people than i expected. it could have been mostly due to schedules or the seasonal time, for the last time i came to a party of theirs, the pool was still swimmable. anyways, i ended up talking to my uncles about politics and the direction of the government. they exchanged stories of deaths and unfortunate accidents and we all came to a conclusion that there are certain people who are simply gluttons for punishment, lightning rods for trouble.

my uncle's house is bigger than i thought it was, which is cool. i saw some unlikely things like a second kitchen and an old fireplace, as well as the old school pullstring doors that lead to the attic. i also got to play with my cousins and see what kind of chaos they were stirring up. never again am i playing clue with them though, because they cheat HARD.

came back to base, still tired and recovering from being sick, but looking forward to the next family gathering which should be soon. a whole bunch of dates are clumped together as i soon realized, but no one can be Superman. even heroes need to take a break and be responsible for their lives.

=================================================================================================

a random thought came to me while going to my cousin's house. my grandpa, being the nice guy he is, was suggesting some avenues or a plan of action for my career and job search. the part where he said i can become rich someday was encouraging, if not empty. but as always, inspired by out of the box thinking, i began to meditate.

most, if not all, of the richest cities in the world have some mass transit system. i'm not sure why they have to be in place, other than to facilitate transportation efficiently, efficiently in the economic sense, even though that it's technically a natural monopoly. if not, then everyone would be forced to carpool or buy their own vehicles and that would cause a lot of congestion.

related to that is that the largest cities tend to be situated near a major body of water, such as an ocean or river. this is because civilizations in the past depended on those waterways to transport goods or to travel. also they were major sources of drinking water and also allowed for massive irrigation.

randomly or not, it got me thinking about the U.S. government and its budget deficit. 

	Government Pensions	$1.0 trillion
	Government Health Care	+ $1.2 trillion
	Government Education	+ $1.1 trillion
	National Defense	+ $0.9 trillion
	Government Welfare	+ $0.7 trillion
	All Other Spending	+ $1.8 trillion
	Total Government Spending	= $6.7 trillion
	Federal Deficit	+ $1.3 trillion

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/breakdown

(This is fun-I get to learn more about the government whether right or wrong.)

So I don't know too much about government budgets, nor do I scrutinize the government too much in any particular category. As you can see here there are 6 categories-Pensions, Healthcare, Education, National Defense, Welfare, Other.

(Line of thinking changed as soon as I wrote that last line) I'm not gonna lie. Somewhere in this budget is the key to financial freedom for America. I'm not saying that like a conspiracy theorist where the slightest event or revelation can be blown up to huge proportions, but simply looking at the operation of a big machine like the government, there must be ways to get ourselves out of this funk.

There are two mindsets that the government can operate in-to have concerns about profits (or having their books in the black) or to not be concerned about profits. in either mindset, profits are welcomed, i.e. to have more money is certainly better than less, but in the first mindset, there is a certain emphasis to not have debt, whereas the second one is contentment with having exactly no money left at the end of the day, or is indebted to another entity.

each mindset causes its own problems. my focus will be upon the first one, rather than the second, although i'll talk about the second one now.

if the government is not concerned about profits, then it can continue to offer valuable services to its people such as Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc. it can also spend money in other places as well, such as maintaining schools and offering money to municipalities, foreign spending, maintaining resources at home, subsidies, etc. the main problem with that is that all this spending eventually needs to be paid back or at least be covered. the government in response will probably have to increase the cost of these offerings and other goods as well, or end up printing more money, which only sinks the country deeper into inflationary troubles. as well as that, concerns about the trade balance brings the threat that the United States can be bought and sold, or rather our value is held in the hands of foreign countries and outsiders (no offense to them, nor names taken.)

if the government is concerned about profits, then inevitably it would have to re-evaluate the types of services and offerings provided, to see whether or not some of them are indeed profitable, whether from an accounting standpoint or economic standpoint. if there are services found that are not profitable, they may be cut, even if they are important. if there are services found that are profitable, then there might be business-esque initiatives taken to either maximize revenue or to cut costs, resulting in an inferior offering, or higher costs passed onto the people.

at the same time, there must be consideration of the present budget items. going back to those categories of the budget (Pensions, Healthcare, Education, National Defense, Welfare, Other), one must has to find new ways to create profit. unfortunately, undergoing profitable measures in those categories will most likely retard progress towards profit itself.

for example, there are already problems with finding affordable health care, two of which i know are co-pays and prescription drugs. if co-pays are increased, there would be less access to treatment, resulting in sicker people and a greater dependency on the medical system. the same would go for prescription drugs. offering generics has been a feasible solution, but to what point does quality suffer for such a remedy? in either case, the end result would be a vicious cycle of individuals who are indebted or dependent upon the system.

another example is education. federal funding has allowed for greater access to education and schooling in universities or private organizations through the use of grants and loans as well as subsidies for these educational facilities. the current situation for the people, whether related or not, is that there is 10% unemployment. more graduates are coming out of school, unable to find work. even worse, some are overqualified for certain positions and not earning as much as they can or "entitled" to be. we may have increased our educational capital and educational output, but are those newly and highly educated individuals actually creating output? or rather, have we spent resources into a person who cannot contribute and give back, not only to their surrounding area, but also the world?

even further is military spending. one of the hotly contested issues has been the recent war of terrorism and the invasion of foreign districts. officially it was undertaken to preserve and fight for the freedoms of people who have been oppressed and to spread democracy into an otherwise chaotic land. already there have been problems of perception where the world is seeing the United States as a warmongering country, as well as brutalistic treatment of captives and assailants at Guantanamo Bay. there has been speculation in the public eye however that the war was initiated in order to secure precious resources, the main one being oil. whether or not there is validity in that accusation i do not know. what i do know though is that resources are limited in the world, and that the only two ways to gain resources are to 1) make them, or 2) take them. in the past, the United States was a goods-oriented economy, creating manufactured goods and automobiles. lately, that task has been outsourced to other countries and now the United States is a service-oriented provider. the problem of the United States being dominated by foreign goods providers is apparent.

probably the most fundamental though is welfare services at home. intended for the poor, the government provides services such as subsidies for low-income housing, food, and other resources. one of the problems is that some of these services are also being offered to high and middle class households, whose contribution to the system is much less, monetarily, but can actually afford spending on such services, unlike the poor. the other problem is the lack of empowerment for individuals who are dependent on these services. a household may choose to remain on some sort of welfare program, rather than look for employment or other means to rise up financially.  there may also be a social stigma in receiving such aid, which may end up in self-internalized negative feelings for the individual. in either case, the increase in spending into these services does not necessarily promote empowered individuals or increased contribution to the system that was originally intended to help only the people who absolutely needed it.

but that's "my rant" about the government. i'm sure that people can find examples in their own lives such organizations. they don't have to be necessarily large as the United States government, but even looking at their workplace or their own family household budget, one can find problems in having either a profiteering attitude or a carefree one. what i'm saying is that there's always going to be a struggle about doing the right thing vs. trying to survive as an entity, always a struggle between public perception vs. public necessity, and a struggle between power vs. humbleness. spend your resources wisely is all.

=================================================================================================

the day will come when we won't have to use words to express how we truly feel.

Posted via email from Bloodscope Economics