There isn't one.
And with that, this post, and blog have found their natural end.
thanks for the criticism. best luck to all
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Time
I'm betting that some of the wealthiest people in the world agree...time is the most precious resource that any person has. Money, possessions, power...all can be humanly controlled - time cannot.
Time cannot be created, regardless of how many times people use the phrase "make some time". Hey kids, let's make some time tonight - let's see, 2 parts...
Time is the one thing that no one can steal from you (although you may wish you just had the last 2 minutes back). Taking time from a person is regarded as a much higher degree of punishment than financial punishment. Jail is all about taking time away or rather forcing time's passing without an individual's choice.
Time passes quickly. Yes, expected lifespan continues to creep up, and in a very short period of the 21st century, the population profile fattens tremendously at the older end. However, time goes by so quickly, and so much so that we lose sight of how quickly it moves until we get near to the end of our own time. The second hand doesn't stop. Life is short. Carpe Diem.
And with that, I'll end this post and acknowledge it at once.
Time cannot be created, regardless of how many times people use the phrase "make some time". Hey kids, let's make some time tonight - let's see, 2 parts...
Time is the one thing that no one can steal from you (although you may wish you just had the last 2 minutes back). Taking time from a person is regarded as a much higher degree of punishment than financial punishment. Jail is all about taking time away or rather forcing time's passing without an individual's choice.
Time passes quickly. Yes, expected lifespan continues to creep up, and in a very short period of the 21st century, the population profile fattens tremendously at the older end. However, time goes by so quickly, and so much so that we lose sight of how quickly it moves until we get near to the end of our own time. The second hand doesn't stop. Life is short. Carpe Diem.
And with that, I'll end this post and acknowledge it at once.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Unintentional Sinning
I recently listened intently to a member of the clergy speak at length on forgiveness for our human failings in the eyes of God. The phrase that specifically caught my ear was a repentance "for all of our transgressions, both intentional and non-intentional". The homily/message/sermon (no hints for your guesses at denomination) was very well constructed, and I appreciated the overall message, but this idea that someone could sin unintentionally had the few cells in my cranium fluttering.
Humans, more so than any other animal, have spectacular brains, which allow for reasoning, which leads to judgements and decisions. Of course, not all humans are created equal - some don't have a full complement of mental ability. Still others choose to lead a life that leads to less than normal mental capacity. However, I'm guessing that the Pastor/Priest/Minister wasn't targeting these folks with the non-intentional sinners context.
So, exactly what is the difference between: a) Intending to sin, and b) Not intending to sin but thereafter realizing one has? How is it that normally functioning humans wouldn't know the difference? Of course I'm onto another huge assumption - that the list of sins is known generally, as a societal norm. I could take the blog down the branch of the innate understanding of good and evil here, but let's just stick to learned appreciation of what is generally accepted as sin and not. There IS a short list of right and wrong, that crosses nearly every belief system.
You've likely guessed I have no theological training whatsoever, and I'd be happy to learn what it is that allows for these two contexts for need of forgiveness. Perhaps it's just a denominational/creed difference between some belief sets. I must admit that it's the first I've heard of this non-intentional sin bit, but then I've only recently began attendance at churches again. My parent-mandated regular attendance in church services growing up was more about drawing sports cars on the bulletin and making fart noises than truly listening to the stodger up front. Especially if I began to hear words like 'transgression'.
As I pondered this unintended sin question, I was reminded of a similar statement I've been kinda callous toward- "I/He/She meant well". I'd propose that this is a step away from the non-intentional sin class, but it's still one of those statements that basically communicates "I screwed the pooch, but I feel bad about it, so I'm going to invoke the 'meant well clause' to alleviate some guilt." Society's definitely down on personal responsibility lately, and this is just another sign of that. What's surprising is my finding the 'meant well clause' in church, where many things are often black or white. How could we really think an omniscient God was being duped into thinking we didn't really recognize we were sinning from the get-go?
Ok, this is getting boring, especially if you didn't turn to this awesome blog to alleviate some boredom in the first place. Perhaps you're stuck in a boring church sermon reading this on a mobile phone...if so, please stop and listen up - you may not be giving it a fair shake. Regardless, stick around after the closing and get some logical answers for me from the theologically trained. Just click on "comments", and feel free to write whatever you wish - I'll assume you meant well regardless. :)
ps. Please don't misinterpret this post...I'm not making a statement about religion or church or sermons, etc.
Humans, more so than any other animal, have spectacular brains, which allow for reasoning, which leads to judgements and decisions. Of course, not all humans are created equal - some don't have a full complement of mental ability. Still others choose to lead a life that leads to less than normal mental capacity. However, I'm guessing that the Pastor/Priest/Minister wasn't targeting these folks with the non-intentional sinners context.
So, exactly what is the difference between: a) Intending to sin, and b) Not intending to sin but thereafter realizing one has? How is it that normally functioning humans wouldn't know the difference? Of course I'm onto another huge assumption - that the list of sins is known generally, as a societal norm. I could take the blog down the branch of the innate understanding of good and evil here, but let's just stick to learned appreciation of what is generally accepted as sin and not. There IS a short list of right and wrong, that crosses nearly every belief system.
You've likely guessed I have no theological training whatsoever, and I'd be happy to learn what it is that allows for these two contexts for need of forgiveness. Perhaps it's just a denominational/creed difference between some belief sets. I must admit that it's the first I've heard of this non-intentional sin bit, but then I've only recently began attendance at churches again. My parent-mandated regular attendance in church services growing up was more about drawing sports cars on the bulletin and making fart noises than truly listening to the stodger up front. Especially if I began to hear words like 'transgression'.
As I pondered this unintended sin question, I was reminded of a similar statement I've been kinda callous toward- "I/He/She meant well". I'd propose that this is a step away from the non-intentional sin class, but it's still one of those statements that basically communicates "I screwed the pooch, but I feel bad about it, so I'm going to invoke the 'meant well clause' to alleviate some guilt." Society's definitely down on personal responsibility lately, and this is just another sign of that. What's surprising is my finding the 'meant well clause' in church, where many things are often black or white. How could we really think an omniscient God was being duped into thinking we didn't really recognize we were sinning from the get-go?
Ok, this is getting boring, especially if you didn't turn to this awesome blog to alleviate some boredom in the first place. Perhaps you're stuck in a boring church sermon reading this on a mobile phone...if so, please stop and listen up - you may not be giving it a fair shake. Regardless, stick around after the closing and get some logical answers for me from the theologically trained. Just click on "comments", and feel free to write whatever you wish - I'll assume you meant well regardless. :)
ps. Please don't misinterpret this post...I'm not making a statement about religion or church or sermons, etc.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Give Your Compliments to the Chef
When was the last time you heard the phrase "Give my compliments to the chef"? It's been a while since I've heard it, and I think it's time that we all showed some more appreciation to those preparing the food out there. America's very much an eat-out culture, so it's in our best interest to help those that prepare our meals to refine their art through simple feedback. Sure, some cooks out there are barely 'artists' (sorry french fry guy), but these folks would nonetheless appreciate some positive feedback. Plates emptied and repeat orders help the league of chefs to understand what's been liked, but some direct feedback would take it beyond the guess that it was eaten because it was there on the plate...you've no doubt heard - America has a weight problem.
Tips are great, but realize that tips are generally pooled when given to the kitchen staff, if at all, and therefore association of the tip to a certain dish, cooking technique, presentation, etc is lost. Why not let your server/waitstaff know what you really thought, and ask that some direct positive comments are passed to the kitchen?
If you're into food at all, you've likely watched some food TV lately. Name a food focused TV show that doesn't put the judgement of the chef's preparation as its climactic scene--chefs especially, are into the profession to please.
Coincidentally, while recently discussing this topic, my waiter in a famous San Diego seafood restaurant asked "anything I can pass along to the chef?" Of course I obliged. Hopefully that comment and my tip made its way to the kitchen, and made some chef/sous chef/cook/assistant's day.
Tips are great, but realize that tips are generally pooled when given to the kitchen staff, if at all, and therefore association of the tip to a certain dish, cooking technique, presentation, etc is lost. Why not let your server/waitstaff know what you really thought, and ask that some direct positive comments are passed to the kitchen?
If you're into food at all, you've likely watched some food TV lately. Name a food focused TV show that doesn't put the judgement of the chef's preparation as its climactic scene--chefs especially, are into the profession to please.
Coincidentally, while recently discussing this topic, my waiter in a famous San Diego seafood restaurant asked "anything I can pass along to the chef?" Of course I obliged. Hopefully that comment and my tip made its way to the kitchen, and made some chef/sous chef/cook/assistant's day.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Problems of a Presidency
America's got a wealth of issues today. It's certainly debatable as to when it was in American history that its issues were most grave, deeply rooted, or numerous. Regardless there are many problematic areas today in 2008 needing resolution, and fast. Here's the list I can think of in 20 seconds or less:
1. Economic might/foundation - US place in the global economy
2. Consumer debt / Housing
3. Environmental and Resource abuse
4. Overpopulation
5. Religious differences
6. Racism
7. Health care
8. Legal system abuses
9. Corporate influence in government
10. Foreign policy
I'm certain every reader of this Blog has already come up with at least 5 more issues in their mind, and I'd likely agree to those as well. However, this post isn't about pointing out the negatives, (the media and candidates cover that extensively) it's about the best way to solve them.
Do me the favor of considering the running of America as a business for a minute. Think of it strictly in terms of the basic buckets of business: Finance, Accounting, Human Resources, Marketing, Sales, and Management. Isn't it true that many of the issues list above can be dropped into one of those buckets?
The economic issues are gimme's (finance), but even something like racism could be dealt a much bigger blow if someone in the government took a more common sense type approach to fighting it - the type of common sense of approach that drives many high level management decisions in business, while mixing in the HR or social/human side. Instead of tapdancing around the issue and aiming for a plan that addresses, but not resolves, we simply perpetuate or mutate the issue, deferring any real progress. Taking a more aggressive and resolute approach might just push this closer to being an issue of the past. This is the type of "tough call" but "business is business" move that we often need but don't admit to.
So then, why then isn't this type of experience seen as more appropriate when picking the leadership for this country? As the next presidential election approaches, my hope is that Americans will place a emphasis on problem solving abilities among qualifications when evaluating candidates. We can turn this American business around quickly with the right leadership and problem solving abilities.
1. Economic might/foundation - US place in the global economy
2. Consumer debt / Housing
3. Environmental and Resource abuse
4. Overpopulation
5. Religious differences
6. Racism
7. Health care
8. Legal system abuses
9. Corporate influence in government
10. Foreign policy
I'm certain every reader of this Blog has already come up with at least 5 more issues in their mind, and I'd likely agree to those as well. However, this post isn't about pointing out the negatives, (the media and candidates cover that extensively) it's about the best way to solve them.
Do me the favor of considering the running of America as a business for a minute. Think of it strictly in terms of the basic buckets of business: Finance, Accounting, Human Resources, Marketing, Sales, and Management. Isn't it true that many of the issues list above can be dropped into one of those buckets?
The economic issues are gimme's (finance), but even something like racism could be dealt a much bigger blow if someone in the government took a more common sense type approach to fighting it - the type of common sense of approach that drives many high level management decisions in business, while mixing in the HR or social/human side. Instead of tapdancing around the issue and aiming for a plan that addresses, but not resolves, we simply perpetuate or mutate the issue, deferring any real progress. Taking a more aggressive and resolute approach might just push this closer to being an issue of the past. This is the type of "tough call" but "business is business" move that we often need but don't admit to.
So then, why then isn't this type of experience seen as more appropriate when picking the leadership for this country? As the next presidential election approaches, my hope is that Americans will place a emphasis on problem solving abilities among qualifications when evaluating candidates. We can turn this American business around quickly with the right leadership and problem solving abilities.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Correction - the RIGHT lane is for passing.
For all those state Department of Transportation driver's manual writers reading this, please take note:
American society has decided to alter a long standing rule of the road: The left lane is no longer for passing, but rather for:
1. maintaining a slow to average speed
2. stroking one's ego about being part of the "fast lane" clique
3. annoying drivers who actually were are stuck with the notion that the left lane's for passing
4. initiating gridlock, damming any following drivers who refuse to pass on the right for safety reasons
This change will delight insurance agencies, since they will now be able to charge higher rates, as it's definitely less safe to make headway on a highway darting in and out of the right lane to get around the left and center lane blockades.
People complain vehemently about distractions while driving, and laws are enacted to limit these distractions, yet decent road manners are left out there as if they have no impact. Not so, say I, and many others I've talked with recently. For instance, the traffic engineer, who'll tell you that abuse of the left lane can often lead to a minor slow up that carries a domino effect, eventually resulting in the long gridlock backups. Or talk to a commerical truck driver, who'll tell you that the right lane is actually now the fastest. This, even though it's the most unsafe lane to move along fastest due to constant exiting and merging in this lane.
If you've been to some of the countries where the "left lane only for passing" law is part of the societal norm, or effectively enforced, you'll have likely noticed just how much more volume is moving, and at a higher rate of speed down a similarly designed highway to those in the states. I don't know, but I'm guessing that a traffic engineer would tell you that, even including the recent (traffic density increasing) effect of tailgating, the US traffic volume per mile has gone down since the same norm has diminished in the US. It's simply not as easy to fit cars efficiently into the lanes when there's no rhyme or reason to their use. Ants are likely more efficient in movement. Speaking of animals, ever feel like a sheep, or monkey, or something a bit less intelligent than (most) humans, when sitting in gridlock. How is it that we can send a man to the moon, invent a HighDef flatscreen, and still can't get traffic to flow. What a waste of resources.
Hopefully, some group will start lobbying the police to start enforcing the "stay right, pass left" rule/law (in some states) and this epidemic will diminish. I for one, could sure forgo the wasted time, gas, and frustration.
American society has decided to alter a long standing rule of the road: The left lane is no longer for passing, but rather for:
1. maintaining a slow to average speed
2. stroking one's ego about being part of the "fast lane" clique
3. annoying drivers who actually were are stuck with the notion that the left lane's for passing
4. initiating gridlock, damming any following drivers who refuse to pass on the right for safety reasons
This change will delight insurance agencies, since they will now be able to charge higher rates, as it's definitely less safe to make headway on a highway darting in and out of the right lane to get around the left and center lane blockades.
People complain vehemently about distractions while driving, and laws are enacted to limit these distractions, yet decent road manners are left out there as if they have no impact. Not so, say I, and many others I've talked with recently. For instance, the traffic engineer, who'll tell you that abuse of the left lane can often lead to a minor slow up that carries a domino effect, eventually resulting in the long gridlock backups. Or talk to a commerical truck driver, who'll tell you that the right lane is actually now the fastest. This, even though it's the most unsafe lane to move along fastest due to constant exiting and merging in this lane.
If you've been to some of the countries where the "left lane only for passing" law is part of the societal norm, or effectively enforced, you'll have likely noticed just how much more volume is moving, and at a higher rate of speed down a similarly designed highway to those in the states. I don't know, but I'm guessing that a traffic engineer would tell you that, even including the recent (traffic density increasing) effect of tailgating, the US traffic volume per mile has gone down since the same norm has diminished in the US. It's simply not as easy to fit cars efficiently into the lanes when there's no rhyme or reason to their use. Ants are likely more efficient in movement. Speaking of animals, ever feel like a sheep, or monkey, or something a bit less intelligent than (most) humans, when sitting in gridlock. How is it that we can send a man to the moon, invent a HighDef flatscreen, and still can't get traffic to flow. What a waste of resources.
Hopefully, some group will start lobbying the police to start enforcing the "stay right, pass left" rule/law (in some states) and this epidemic will diminish. I for one, could sure forgo the wasted time, gas, and frustration.
Hey world...I'm flatscreened!
The acquisition of a flatscreen TV has become a major societal accomplishment. According to the number and content of many big box electronics retailers' adverts, the latest ultimate "must-have" for any guy/family is a flatscreen TV. The moment of purchase is made out to a big event that neighbors enviably notice, the family rejoices in, and basically delivers happiness/assuredness in a box. It's positioned as if it's a "I've arrived" moment in life. Come on, how much different really is life post-flatscreen? It's an electronic device, that's it. Now, I'm not some cynical curmudgeon - I see how it could possibly lead to more social interaction, and for that I say woo-hoo:
> the flatscreen parties, super bowl with the neighbors, etc
> more time as a family unit - even the teens are willing to hang with the fam if a cool flatscreen's involved
In case you're still wondering, I've got nothing against the flatscreen TVs; they can go on a wall, and be used in ways displays haven't previously - they're awesome really from many perspectives. I merely wish marketers would push the american consumer toward making smarter purchases, based on real purpose and life enhancing value...not dumbing it down to "you better have this, or you're not cutting it, champ". It's hurting the overall social buying consciousness of what should be expected in making a large purchase decision. I likely don't need to point out the loose correlation to the consumer debt crisis in the US.
Speaking of the necessity of new equipment, just how many perfectly decent CRT TV's are sitting in a dump right now? Ironically some of these dumped boxes have a higher resolution capability than the flatscreen tv's replacing them. Yeah, that's right...find me some evidence that doesn't say that the best Cathode Ray displays aren't able to get to a higher resolution than even the best plasma/DLP/LCD/"insert latest 3 letter acronym here".
That brings us to the holiest of holy, High Definition. Better sit down...it's time to flatline the flatscreen HD hype. HD is definitely a step up from standard definition, but if some real money's on the line, does it really "look so real I could touch it", "seem like I'm actually there", or make sense that "a picture can't get better than this"? Find a large HD screen...actually find any HD screen, regardless of size, and get up close. Can you now see it's a bit blurry around the edges, and not as clear as 'reality'. No? put your glasses on, chief. Soon there will be HDD or SuperHD or whatever, and then something else in another 4 years, and on and on until the limits of 2D are truly found. That's the day I'll recant this blog. Look forward to April 10, 2029's post for that..provided I'm not busy that day celebrating "SuperUltraMega HHD TV homecoming day" at my house.
> the flatscreen parties, super bowl with the neighbors, etc
> more time as a family unit - even the teens are willing to hang with the fam if a cool flatscreen's involved
In case you're still wondering, I've got nothing against the flatscreen TVs; they can go on a wall, and be used in ways displays haven't previously - they're awesome really from many perspectives. I merely wish marketers would push the american consumer toward making smarter purchases, based on real purpose and life enhancing value...not dumbing it down to "you better have this, or you're not cutting it, champ". It's hurting the overall social buying consciousness of what should be expected in making a large purchase decision. I likely don't need to point out the loose correlation to the consumer debt crisis in the US.
Speaking of the necessity of new equipment, just how many perfectly decent CRT TV's are sitting in a dump right now? Ironically some of these dumped boxes have a higher resolution capability than the flatscreen tv's replacing them. Yeah, that's right...find me some evidence that doesn't say that the best Cathode Ray displays aren't able to get to a higher resolution than even the best plasma/DLP/LCD/"insert latest 3 letter acronym here"
That brings us to the holiest of holy, High Definition. Better sit down...it's time to flatline the flatscreen HD hype. HD is definitely a step up from standard definition, but if some real money's on the line, does it really "look so real I could touch it", "seem like I'm actually there", or make sense that "a picture can't get better than this"? Find a large HD screen...actually find any HD screen, regardless of size, and get up close. Can you now see it's a bit blurry around the edges, and not as clear as 'reality'. No? put your glasses on, chief. Soon there will be HDD or SuperHD or whatever, and then something else in another 4 years, and on and on until the limits of 2D are truly found. That's the day I'll recant this blog. Look forward to April 10, 2029's post for that..provided I'm not busy that day celebrating "SuperUltraMega HHD TV homecoming day" at my house.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)