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