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

cheerios, ibuprofin, milk tea

day 2 of being sick only makes me wonder what happens if i actually caught the flu this year.

a relatively short day begins with a review for Hong Kong Eatery (check my Yelp), the middle with false news, and the end with a hope for a better day. as i type this, i think "damn, the year's almost over. where am i gonna be on new year's eve, and who do i wanna spend it with?" thoughts in my mind about the weather, the festivities, and most importantly the future. nothing's planned, nor set in stone, even though there's a nagging in the back of my mind that it's already been and being taken care of for decades on.

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

in this ho-hum day, i posted a couple of statuses on the facebook. one random update turned out to be either coincidental or providential.

i had posted "if there's one thing neone should do before they die, they shoud definitely confess to killin Biggie or Tupac." after listening to the radio and my itunes. the update is a play on the whole bucket list of recommendations for what people would or should do before they die. these things are as mundane as travelling to Europe, to as wild as wrestling in a tub of jello with swedish swimsuit models. 

but anyways, 5 minutes after i had posted that, on the news feed, another friend posted a link to a youtube clip saying that Tupac's murderer was arrested today. link to one of many posted videos about the coverage is 

it turns out that this was actually a hoax. i looked at the clip to entertain the thought, and during the clip, one can see on the news channel's scrolling bar that the date was may 20, 2010 or something like that. there are also a couple of slip ups regarding the date and time-frame of certain events as well.

regardless, whether or not the clip had been real, (though it would have been great if it were), the focus of thought i have right now upon said clip is the why. bleh, let me start again-word salad. { i would have been happy if the clip were true. it was not. nevertheless, it got me thinking why the clip was made. }

there were many comments on the youtube. among them are the standard spammers, the classiness of cuss words towards certain peoples and "representing your block of LA". in looking for more coherent responses, i had found two. one was that this clip was an attempt to promote the Tupac assassination dvd. the other is that suge knight is responsible.

i don't know of or know about the tupac dvd. i don't know suge knight. i can't say if he is directly or indirectly responsible. all i know, and i say this without implicating anybody, but this was my comment about it, that most murders are usually committed by a close party or had some intimate contact with the deceased. usually killings are not done by strangers to others (this is what i remember from my forensics class)

if either of those responses are true, that could spell out different implications, but again, i'm not sure. what i see in front of me though are that both of those responses are both media-related and media influenced.

the tupac dvd was produced by mill creek entertainment, a business started in the early 2000s and distributes dvds or box sets. i don't know much about the company itself, but i wouldn't be surprised if a company would engage in this in order to profit. after all, when bruce lee died, there were a string of movies released by dozens of studios that sought to capitalize on the fame of that legendary person. these films were labelled as "bruceploitation", a play off the blaxploitation films of the 70s.  

suge knight was the current ceo of death row records. at the time, the whole east coast and west coast hip-hop rivalry was at its peak, with all the big names involved.  during the latter point of Tupac's life, death row records was falling into decline not only due to the rivalry, but also because of internal struggles within the record label, mainly due to the increasingly thug apperance of the organization. prominent artists such as dr. dre, snoop dogg, and warren g had left to record and produce their own records. tupac had also talked about starting his own label, makavelli record, and also signing new talent. one could possible conjecture that suge did this either in retribution for leaving, or because due to his popularity, tupac could have been a major threat financially to death row records. again i don't know.

what i also know is that the responses to blame the media and these media figures are, oddly enough, being reasoned to us and conferred to us by the media. the same outlet that we blame for these behaviors is also our dominant source material in our logic. it's kinda like that catch 22 where you need to have experience to get a job, but you need a job to get experience.

the important thing to realize though is that we're being distracted. yes, people can blame the media for X kind of people, or Y type of behavior, but the thing is that, like technology, the media is inherently good. it has started as its base word-medium. given, there have been many changes ever since advances in technology, but essentially, it has always remained as a channel of mediums to convey information. it is the conduit, the wire, the messenger, the container which holds a substance.

it is actually the substance to focus upon. the dominant themes within this whole conversation, elements of greed, power, thuggery and  pride, are transmitted to us through the media and perhaps even driven to us as well. however, these people and parties whom are involved live outside of media too. in fact we all do. what i'm saying is that those issues existed long before media-those problems and shortcomings of people in society. people need to change those attitudes and individuals first before blaming the channel that provides it. it becomes all too easy subvert our brothers and sisters and even our own humanity when there's a readily available and prevalent scapegoat.

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

2 more days and phase 1 is complete.

Posted via email from Bloodscope Economics

pizzeria regina, milk tea, aloe drink, cough syrup

it's good to be back on the blogosphere again.

day 1 of being sick is no fun. woke up and had that bad feeling in my throat, which i thought it was because i swallowed my pillow again. it was about 11 am when i got a phone call asking if i was available for lunch. deciding that the outside world, as cold as it were, was more fruitful than lying in bed aching and depressed. went out, met them up, had a nice catching up, and then hung around the area to meet up another friend. got bored, so decided to play some games instead at the prudential food court. after that last "crucial game", i was happy in knowing that i still play it pretty good.

came back to base, and was bored the rest of the night. played some more games, took care of emails, chatted with folks and stuck around to see the sunrise again for the 10th time this month. really needing to go to sleep at a status quo time.

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

the lunch was good because i don't usually get to talk with said friend or catch up all too often. usually it's on the gchat where communication begins and ends, so it was a refreshing change of pace. also at the same time, i was looking for information as to see how philadelphia was doing. am planning a trip back there in february to relax, catch up, and maybe be an idiot tourist for the first time in a long while.

what was interesting though was something that popped up during our conversation. we started talking about ministries and how the current state of affairs for our own were going. this one idea that was mentioned, titles as it were, got me thinking.

titles scare us, or rather provoke us to respond, usually in a negative or defensive manner. within the context of our conversation, it refers to us being leaders or head participants in our respective ministries. within the church, it comes up more commonly as our roles within the church, whether we are serving or not, and to what capacity.

most, if not all, times when positions and responsibilities are given, there enters the power struggle, or rather the possibility of pride (and incidentally prejudice-no pun intended). no one intended to lord over their positions among others, unless they only took the job for that title (doctor, professor, officer, president, etc.)

however when those differences occur, there inevitably is a whiplash. how many of us look down upon authority figures of any type, whether corporate ceos to officers of the law or within our own lives, maybe parents or elders? is it because we dislike their behaviors? perhaps we fundamentally despise an authority that looks over us. perhaps we fear that they may threaten our ways of life because we cannot keep them in check...

titles are receiving all too much emphasis in today's world. everyone's looking to become something greater in their occupations. who doesn't want to be senior vp, or regional manager, or knighted even? it doesn't have to be as extreme as in the caste system, but people love having those prefixes and suffixes. after all, no one wants to hand someone a one word business card.

yet at the same time, we hold people with titles in great disdain, even more so when those titles start to overcrowd and simply become superfluous words, devoid of meaning and necessity. we can look at the lead corporate finance officer of a large company as simply "Fred".

as they say though, there's something that's in a name. our Christmas service-Christ was given 3 titles: Savior, Jesus, and Lord.

the other thought that tied into the subject of titles is our response. whenever there is a leading or dominant authority within a group of people, there is always a minority who will be self-spurred to respond. they are the different ones, who could be good or bad, valid or heretical in their thought. this group of individuals may not have even communicated with one another at all, but with the introduction of a power structure, these people have mobilized, now becoming allies to each other and seen as the rebels to the authority. it is within the development and unfolding of events whether or not the change they want to see becomes the majority rule, and again if the cycle restarts when they or another body comes to rule. 

confused i am as to how life operates. 

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

realized that fear only exists if you're afraid to lose something.

Posted via email from Bloodscope Economics

Ode to Winter

you send chills down my spine-my response is modesty.
you're coming soon, bringing a change of light.
your presence is unmistakable-you are unique in time.
others look forward to your arrival, but to me, you're just cold.
i know you mean well-you were made for a purpose which i'll never understand, but we're not ready for you.
you're great-you make children smile, but you leave others feeling isolated and alone.
hope by this time next year i'm ok with you.
life wouldn't be the same if you were gone.

Posted via email from Bloodscope Economics

Marshmallow Pebbles (which is a crappy cereal and I regret having tried it)

This is going to be a short post since I've implicitly learned that anything "controversial or thought-provoking" I write about while looking for a job may keep me from getting hired. It's a shame really, but everyone has their own agenda, whether good or bad. If you've been around me long enough, you'll learn two things: I think very unconventionally, often to the point of counter-culturalism, and that appearances can be deceiving. Also this is a short post since I'm still really pissed off from the dinner tonight at Stockyard. (Read my review on Yelp to find out why.)

So tonight after dinner, we stopped at Dunkin' Donuts to chill. We were talking about all types of issues, which was cool, running the gamut from marriages and businesses, the economy to job outlooks, and how often people socialize with each other. What we ended up coming together about though were various Youtube videos that became popular memes on the internet. You know which ones I'm talking about-some of the more recent ones: 2 Girls, 1 Cup, Double Rainbow, the Best Cry, and rampant use of autotune. Most of these spectacles picked up steam for their shock value, derisiveness, and outlandishness and many have been viewed by millions as well. A friend commented that even CNN had covered stories about these memes. From that comment, I started thinking...

My initial thought was about the state of entertainment right now, especially with so-called reality shows that are more often staged than spontaneous. Youtube is the perfect example-everyone wants a piece of the action by creating a skit, speech, or an act that's going to capture people's attention. Is this life imitating art where folks integrate these memes into the daily grind, or art imitating life where subject matter is created from others' recycled ideas? I can see another purpose for Youtube now. Like a comment on Facebook statuses, some people like having a soapbox to stand on. It feels good, and it's a part of human nature to be noticed, to have praises showered upon oneself, to be regarded as important to the masses. Perhaps some entertainment needs to be concocted and planned out, but more often than not, it is the natural ebb and flow of life that's going to provide the fun times. The elements of life that are unexpected and can't be controlled: it is those that we cherish and long for the most. Anyone can be an internet star by doing something silly, but at the end of the night, you're only a blink of the eye in society's timeline-easily forgotten and ridiculed.

The following thought came afterward, that the internet has fallen from its original purpose. I remember the day where I first logged onto America Online with those CDs that people use as coasters now, cause they were spammed in people's mailboxes. The first site I went onto was Nintendo.com, where I looked for the latest cheat codes for video games I had. Now I use the internet for a whole laundry list of tasks but mostly it's for information. Google can be a time-saver, but Wikipedia can be a time waster. A lot of people use it for different purposes too, noted by e-commerce and personal communication. (Wasn't the original purpose of internet military related?) Anyways, the internet is integrated by people in order to bolster their own lifestyles while expanding into new frontiers. That famous quote where someone says the internet is a series of tubes? Perhaps they weren't that far off: those pneumatic tubes are there for transporting an item from one location to another. This is what were doing now.

I have relatively little insight for the future direction of this world, and certainly much less for the artificial one created on the internet. Many moral and ethical issues also come into play especially for the nature of the internet in how connected this network is and how quickly information is disseminated as well. It is not my job to police people or wage wars against organizations (at least without bigger weapons, both mental and financial). Rather it is to understand how and why these elements are here and figure out how to fix them, or at the very least temper their effects. Why? Above all, the internet is a tool, created by people for people. If we knew how to work well with people, then much of the problems created by the internet affecting people on the internet would be gone. Maybe they'd be done away with in real lives too. 

Posted via email from Bloodscope Economics