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

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