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