In case any of you were planning to write about every one of your colleagues, exactly what you do at work, or your multiple sexual partners, keep this in mind. I'm not saying you shouldn't do it. Just be prepared to pose in Playboy, get a book deal, and be the talk of the town.
Thursday, August 19, 2004
Ancient Olympia and a chilled out scene
So NBC showed quite a bit of the shotput competition last night. Interesting because I had seen the prelims the night before on late night MSNBC and could now watch the medal round during a normal hour. Again, I'm a junkie and will watch prelims to these random sports just for the heck of it even if it's 2am.
Anyways, the coolest thing about the shotput was that the competition was being held in Olympia at the site of the ancient games. I'm sure this is the only reason NBC showed it during primetime because I can imagine Dick Ebersol or Bob Costas thinking it's an interesting sport.
The environment at this ancient stadium was more like an intramural football game, not a professionally planned, extra-slick production. And that's a refreshing change from the usual things which occur in huge stadiums where the fans are so far away from the actual athletes. This relaxed atmosphere is interesting since the audience is really only ones chillin out. The athletes are obviously intensely focused.
I recall watching the Winter Olympics on CBS and the feel of the games is so different than the Summer games. Of course there are fewer sports and athletes, but it's much more of a small town feel which is enjoyable. The only time we get that sort of feel at the Summer games is when the sports are small and have a small audience. Having a small venue helps even more.
Apparently, there's talk of bringing the Summer games to more small-ish cities like Athens and that would certainly cool if it helps to bring a closer-knit, more chilled out feel to the games. If that's the case, then San Francisco would be perfect!
Anyways, the coolest thing about the shotput was that the competition was being held in Olympia at the site of the ancient games. I'm sure this is the only reason NBC showed it during primetime because I can imagine Dick Ebersol or Bob Costas thinking it's an interesting sport.
The environment at this ancient stadium was more like an intramural football game, not a professionally planned, extra-slick production. And that's a refreshing change from the usual things which occur in huge stadiums where the fans are so far away from the actual athletes. This relaxed atmosphere is interesting since the audience is really only ones chillin out. The athletes are obviously intensely focused.
I recall watching the Winter Olympics on CBS and the feel of the games is so different than the Summer games. Of course there are fewer sports and athletes, but it's much more of a small town feel which is enjoyable. The only time we get that sort of feel at the Summer games is when the sports are small and have a small audience. Having a small venue helps even more.
Apparently, there's talk of bringing the Summer games to more small-ish cities like Athens and that would certainly cool if it helps to bring a closer-knit, more chilled out feel to the games. If that's the case, then San Francisco would be perfect!
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
Olympics Coverage - incremental progress
Not surprisingly, the Olympics are NOT the hot topic of conversation around the office. During the Sydney games there always seemed to be a bit of a buzz about it. All in all, I think I'm the only Olympics junkie left. Yes, I admit it, I'm an olympi-holic.
These games will be the end of me. Every night I'm up till 3am watching the most random competitions. I don't care who wins. It's just the spectacle of it all. Some people like to slow down and stare at car crashes on the side of the road. I like to watch fencing, weight-lifting, kayaking, etc, etc.
So considering I'm addicted to this stuff, I think I can comment on the coverage a bit.
As usual, the coverage on NBC primetime sucks. It's all swimming and gymnastics all the time. Oh, I forgot about Bob Costas and his evil smirk. Can someone please hop on a plane and kick his ass? One of these days I'm just going to throw my dinner plate at the TV and ruin a perfectly good TV and dinner.
The better coverage is on the cable networks. That's not to say that the announcers or hosts are any better. The sports covered on those networks are more interesting and generally, get more complete coverage than on NBC.
Prime example is sabre (which is different than fencing). It's funny because Slate.com calls NBC to task for the same thing I was intending to write about. So assuming you're not the junkie that I am, let me take you through the whole deal.
Bravo (a cable channel owned by NBC) has Olympic coverage during what can easily be referred to as happy hour. It's not live coverage, but it's fairly complete and it's on right after you leave work. You actually get to watch entire matches rather than cut and pasted coverage. So sabre was on and I was watching intently as some American woman won the bronze medal. I thought it interesting since this woman is the world champion, but she had stumbled a bit during the Olympics so she was stuck competing for the bronze medal. The announcers mentioned that another American would be competing for gold later that night. This woman was only 19 and barely made it to Athens because Nigeria decided not to send a female fencer.
So even though this woman wasn't that great, she had put together some great swordplay in the last few days so that she could compete for gold. What better storyline to cover? NBC loves to play up these under-dog type stories, especially if it's a young athlete making an Olympic debut and showing up the elder, more experienced teammate.
So lo and behold, NBC shows the women's sabre gold medal match later that night, but I almost missed it. Why? Because they only showed it for 30 seconds! They just skipped through the entire match showing only 4 or 5 points. It was faster than most highlights during the nightly news. And this for a match in which an American won gold for the time in 100 years! Not only an American, but an underdog American who barely made it to Athens. Now, if you've got this great storyline, why not play it up even more? We all know that NBC is a storyline-whore so what happened here?
Even better, later in the evening they spent a good 10 minutes on some story about the road between Athens and Olympia. Really, did we need that crap? Isn't that was video streaming of the web is for? And of course, they spent the rest of the night showing swimming and gymnastics. Of course those sports bring in the ratings, but seriously, would it have been difficult to find 10 minutes of air time to show the sabre?
I'm sure I sound like another complainer who can never be satisfied. Well, I'm definitely not satisfied. What annoys me the most is that NBC didn't even have to make shit up about the uniqueness of the sabre final. It was all right there for them! They're so used to playing shit up they couldn't see the need to just show this without fucking with it.
Anyways, there are a bunch of other annoyances I have with the coverage of these games, but overall, I definitely enjoy having the ability to watch hour after hour of wierdo sports. Too bad NBC has to actually cover it. Their cable partners have much better coverage and they should stick to showing the good stuff. NBC may as well just show highlights in 30 minutes increments especially since they take the viewing public as ADD afflicted losers who can't understand anything beyond the pool and the gymnastics arena (both of which are devoid of crowds).
These games will be the end of me. Every night I'm up till 3am watching the most random competitions. I don't care who wins. It's just the spectacle of it all. Some people like to slow down and stare at car crashes on the side of the road. I like to watch fencing, weight-lifting, kayaking, etc, etc.
So considering I'm addicted to this stuff, I think I can comment on the coverage a bit.
As usual, the coverage on NBC primetime sucks. It's all swimming and gymnastics all the time. Oh, I forgot about Bob Costas and his evil smirk. Can someone please hop on a plane and kick his ass? One of these days I'm just going to throw my dinner plate at the TV and ruin a perfectly good TV and dinner.
The better coverage is on the cable networks. That's not to say that the announcers or hosts are any better. The sports covered on those networks are more interesting and generally, get more complete coverage than on NBC.
Prime example is sabre (which is different than fencing). It's funny because Slate.com calls NBC to task for the same thing I was intending to write about. So assuming you're not the junkie that I am, let me take you through the whole deal.
Bravo (a cable channel owned by NBC) has Olympic coverage during what can easily be referred to as happy hour. It's not live coverage, but it's fairly complete and it's on right after you leave work. You actually get to watch entire matches rather than cut and pasted coverage. So sabre was on and I was watching intently as some American woman won the bronze medal. I thought it interesting since this woman is the world champion, but she had stumbled a bit during the Olympics so she was stuck competing for the bronze medal. The announcers mentioned that another American would be competing for gold later that night. This woman was only 19 and barely made it to Athens because Nigeria decided not to send a female fencer.
So even though this woman wasn't that great, she had put together some great swordplay in the last few days so that she could compete for gold. What better storyline to cover? NBC loves to play up these under-dog type stories, especially if it's a young athlete making an Olympic debut and showing up the elder, more experienced teammate.
So lo and behold, NBC shows the women's sabre gold medal match later that night, but I almost missed it. Why? Because they only showed it for 30 seconds! They just skipped through the entire match showing only 4 or 5 points. It was faster than most highlights during the nightly news. And this for a match in which an American won gold for the time in 100 years! Not only an American, but an underdog American who barely made it to Athens. Now, if you've got this great storyline, why not play it up even more? We all know that NBC is a storyline-whore so what happened here?
Even better, later in the evening they spent a good 10 minutes on some story about the road between Athens and Olympia. Really, did we need that crap? Isn't that was video streaming of the web is for? And of course, they spent the rest of the night showing swimming and gymnastics. Of course those sports bring in the ratings, but seriously, would it have been difficult to find 10 minutes of air time to show the sabre?
I'm sure I sound like another complainer who can never be satisfied. Well, I'm definitely not satisfied. What annoys me the most is that NBC didn't even have to make shit up about the uniqueness of the sabre final. It was all right there for them! They're so used to playing shit up they couldn't see the need to just show this without fucking with it.
Anyways, there are a bunch of other annoyances I have with the coverage of these games, but overall, I definitely enjoy having the ability to watch hour after hour of wierdo sports. Too bad NBC has to actually cover it. Their cable partners have much better coverage and they should stick to showing the good stuff. NBC may as well just show highlights in 30 minutes increments especially since they take the viewing public as ADD afflicted losers who can't understand anything beyond the pool and the gymnastics arena (both of which are devoid of crowds).
Friday, August 13, 2004
And now for something completely different
Ok, so let's forget about the source of all my recent hits. I've actually been getting an increasing number of visitors because my posts about everyone's favorite multi-level marketing scheme. Amazing how much info there is out there on the company. In any case, I got 87 visits yesterday!
Ok, so now for something much more interesting than commentary about my blog: The Olympics!
I'm definitely not looking forward to these Games like I was looking forward to the Sydney Games. But I'm getting more excited about them. Of course, the web has a lot of random articles about the Olympics. There have been the more serious ones analyzing the athletes and their chances of winning. Of course, the focus is usually on American athletes. In this day and age, you'd figure I would read more non-American sites, huh?
Well, whatever the case, here are a couple of really random articles:
Ever wonder about how many medals a country might win? Well, we all know there are powerhouses who spend lots of money on their programs thus they win lots of medals (US, China, Russia, Germany), but wouldn't it be nice to have a little more analytical approach to this? Well, our friends at PriceWaterhouseCoopers have answered your pleas! I'm just wondering how much analysis went into this.
Back in 2000 ESPN.com had this pick-em game where you could pick countries and score points based on the number of medals they won and the multiplier for that country. So a medal for the US would garner 1 point, while a medal for Thailand would garner 10 points. Or something like that. The less likely a country is to win a medal, the more points you'd get. Anyways, I'm sure this PwC research would have helped my score back in 2000. I sucked. My friend was smart and picked small countries which have good athletes in specific sports. Like Turkey is good at weightlifting (a la, the "Pocket Rocket")
Anyways, enough about that, on to the babes!
As usual, the media outlets like to draw in people either through controversy or sex. Since I'm not going to focus on the controversy of multi-level marketing, let's talk about sex! Several American female athletes have been posing in their skivvies for magazines like FHM and Maxim. Some, like Amy Acuff, are even posing for Playboy. Now, this may be old news in Australia where it seems like a bunch of female athletes have posed for years, it's pretty new to the US. Everyone including the New York Times and MSNBC are covering this.
Anyways, I'll try to report back on the most random stuff I find during the Olympics. I'm sure we'll all be watching them to some extent, so if you've got some interesting stuff you want to relate, leave a comment!
Ok, so now for something much more interesting than commentary about my blog: The Olympics!
I'm definitely not looking forward to these Games like I was looking forward to the Sydney Games. But I'm getting more excited about them. Of course, the web has a lot of random articles about the Olympics. There have been the more serious ones analyzing the athletes and their chances of winning. Of course, the focus is usually on American athletes. In this day and age, you'd figure I would read more non-American sites, huh?
Well, whatever the case, here are a couple of really random articles:
Ever wonder about how many medals a country might win? Well, we all know there are powerhouses who spend lots of money on their programs thus they win lots of medals (US, China, Russia, Germany), but wouldn't it be nice to have a little more analytical approach to this? Well, our friends at PriceWaterhouseCoopers have answered your pleas! I'm just wondering how much analysis went into this.
Back in 2000 ESPN.com had this pick-em game where you could pick countries and score points based on the number of medals they won and the multiplier for that country. So a medal for the US would garner 1 point, while a medal for Thailand would garner 10 points. Or something like that. The less likely a country is to win a medal, the more points you'd get. Anyways, I'm sure this PwC research would have helped my score back in 2000. I sucked. My friend was smart and picked small countries which have good athletes in specific sports. Like Turkey is good at weightlifting (a la, the "Pocket Rocket")
Anyways, enough about that, on to the babes!
As usual, the media outlets like to draw in people either through controversy or sex. Since I'm not going to focus on the controversy of multi-level marketing, let's talk about sex! Several American female athletes have been posing in their skivvies for magazines like FHM and Maxim. Some, like Amy Acuff, are even posing for Playboy. Now, this may be old news in Australia where it seems like a bunch of female athletes have posed for years, it's pretty new to the US. Everyone including the New York Times and MSNBC are covering this.
Anyways, I'll try to report back on the most random stuff I find during the Olympics. I'm sure we'll all be watching them to some extent, so if you've got some interesting stuff you want to relate, leave a comment!
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Non-Issue - outsourcing
You know, it's rather annoying that the topic of job outsourcing is being brought up by the Kerry campaign. It's an easy topic to use and rouse up your supporters, but really, it's a serious non-issue. I understand why Kerry is using it - he's wants to put the focus on how bad the economy is right now, but why focus on outsourcing? It doesn't help to make people think the economy is being torn apart by jobs going to India, China, or wherever. There's so much information on this that I'm not going to link to much.
The basic numbers are this: Forrester Research claims that by 2015 (11 yrs from now) a TOTAL of 3.3 million American jobs will be lost to outsourcing. The Economist estimates that the regular American job market (regardless of outsourcing) churns through 7-8 million jobs every quarter. What that means is that the economy is robust enough to recycle 7-8 million jobs every quarter anyways, not that the economy will lose or gain 7-8mm jobs. That means 308-352 million jobs will be churned through in the same period as Forrester Research. Over the next 11 yrs, the estimates show that outsourcing accounts for only about 1% of the jobs out there. That's nothing!
Plus, the estimates are that only about 2-5% of total jobs lost are due to outsourcing. Again, that's nothing!
Okay, I'll admit that when you look at specific segments of the job market, the percentages are higher, but even then,
So c'mon Kerry, pick on the economy in more constructive ways than singling out outsourcing. Ya those jobs may seem huge when you talk to someone who's "lost" his job to outsourcing. But really, there are more important things to concentrate on relative to the weak job market. Saying you will encourage companies to keep jobs here means one of two things (maybe both): A) You don't want companies choosing the most efficient way to run their businesses, especially if it means hiring people outside of the US, or B) You will subsidize companies to hire people here even though is costs more.
Don't we already have a problem subsidizing people who don't need it (eg, corporate agriculture)?
So one more thing, I don't believe Bush has done much good for our economy, but he's certainly not the one forcing companies to push jobs overseas. Let's focus on things which actually can actually improve our economy. If Kerry wants to pick on Bush about the economy, he should focus on the fact that the recent (enormous) tax cuts haven't really put much money into the hands of the average consumer. If we all agree that this is a consumer driven economy, and that companies will hire and grow their business if consumers are there to buy their goods, then governmental stimulii should focus on that consumer! There's an issue to talk about if you want to get the masses on your side.
Now, I know I'm leaving a lot of holes in my argument. I should really fill in those gaps, but I'm too lazy to do so right now. Obviously this is a more nuanced than just saying it's not an issue at all, but I think everyone should see that outsouring is not an issue which should be at the top of an economic agenda.
The basic numbers are this: Forrester Research claims that by 2015 (11 yrs from now) a TOTAL of 3.3 million American jobs will be lost to outsourcing. The Economist estimates that the regular American job market (regardless of outsourcing) churns through 7-8 million jobs every quarter. What that means is that the economy is robust enough to recycle 7-8 million jobs every quarter anyways, not that the economy will lose or gain 7-8mm jobs. That means 308-352 million jobs will be churned through in the same period as Forrester Research. Over the next 11 yrs, the estimates show that outsourcing accounts for only about 1% of the jobs out there. That's nothing!
Plus, the estimates are that only about 2-5% of total jobs lost are due to outsourcing. Again, that's nothing!
Okay, I'll admit that when you look at specific segments of the job market, the percentages are higher, but even then,
So c'mon Kerry, pick on the economy in more constructive ways than singling out outsourcing. Ya those jobs may seem huge when you talk to someone who's "lost" his job to outsourcing. But really, there are more important things to concentrate on relative to the weak job market. Saying you will encourage companies to keep jobs here means one of two things (maybe both): A) You don't want companies choosing the most efficient way to run their businesses, especially if it means hiring people outside of the US, or B) You will subsidize companies to hire people here even though is costs more.
Don't we already have a problem subsidizing people who don't need it (eg, corporate agriculture)?
So one more thing, I don't believe Bush has done much good for our economy, but he's certainly not the one forcing companies to push jobs overseas. Let's focus on things which actually can actually improve our economy. If Kerry wants to pick on Bush about the economy, he should focus on the fact that the recent (enormous) tax cuts haven't really put much money into the hands of the average consumer. If we all agree that this is a consumer driven economy, and that companies will hire and grow their business if consumers are there to buy their goods, then governmental stimulii should focus on that consumer! There's an issue to talk about if you want to get the masses on your side.
Now, I know I'm leaving a lot of holes in my argument. I should really fill in those gaps, but I'm too lazy to do so right now. Obviously this is a more nuanced than just saying it's not an issue at all, but I think everyone should see that outsouring is not an issue which should be at the top of an economic agenda.
UPDATE, 1:22pm: Here's a more nuanced take on this issue from . Now, if Kerry wants to focus on the social ramifications and real solutions to outsourcing (rather than just financially incenting businesses to stay here) this could be a real talking point. But I don't think any political issue brought up in this election season will allow for more nuanced discussions. It's all sound-bites from here on.
Controversial Subjects - where's the juice?
So can I just say that my blog is getting serious hits now? 67 people visited my site yesterday. That may not seem like a lot of hits, but considering I used to get 5 or 6 visits a day, that's a huge increase.
And for what? No, not for my philosophical musings about freedom of thought, loving a dog, or whatever. People seem to be really interested in everyone's favorite semi-pyramid scheme. Yes, Quixtar and BWW are on everyone's minds. People have been leaving a few comments too. Here's an interesting comment by someone from India. It's interesting to read some of the numbers and the types of products available. This sort of validates my thoughts about the possibilities of making real money off the company. People have also been leaving their musings about being approached in stores.
Okay, okay, I'll admit, I have a festering passive-agressive hatred of the company and I do feel sympathy for the people stuck in this. I say SOME because, hey, they can still get out if they want to. Afterall, it's a business, not a cult! As I mentioned before, more honesty about what the company is would do us all some good. When it comes down to it, I'd rather get pitched by a car salesman because A) They're better at it and B) At least I get to drive a new car and dream that I can actually own it.
Anyways, back to the tie in with my post title. What get people interested in things? No, it's not facts. Facts may keep people interested and keep them coming back for more intellectual worth. But what hooks people in is controversy. Now, I wouldn't say Quixtar & BWW are controversial, but everyone seems to have an opinion on these companies. And that gets people here. We're faced with this everyday on TV, on the web, wherever. We tune in to CNN or the late local news to see the latest thing. And if they're showing a stump speech by Kerry or Bush, some people may stay and watch, but more than likely, people will only stay if there's something juicy. Like the Kobe or Peterson trials. People want the juice so they talk about it the next day in the breakroom or when they go out for happy hour.
Is this bad? Well, in the ideal world everyone would be interested and educated about the "issues of the day" And those issues of the day would be more worldly things like AIDS, elections, Darfur, etc, etc. But seriously, we live in the real world. People don't want to be brought down by such serious subjects. Not all the time at least. So I've learned to deal with it. So have the news networks. They usually have some serious tidbits sprinkled in with the juicy topics of the day. So be it. At least people get a little bit of everything. Is this ideal? Maybe, maybe not. That's life. I stay away from CNN and my local news because I don't find value in sitting through the crap. Other people obviously do since the ratings don't lie (or do they?). And that's fine. I'll just start my personal crusade to educate the masses :P
BTW, let me give credit to the person who recently linked to me. Thanks!
And for what? No, not for my philosophical musings about freedom of thought, loving a dog, or whatever. People seem to be really interested in everyone's favorite semi-pyramid scheme. Yes, Quixtar and BWW are on everyone's minds. People have been leaving a few comments too. Here's an interesting comment by someone from India. It's interesting to read some of the numbers and the types of products available. This sort of validates my thoughts about the possibilities of making real money off the company. People have also been leaving their musings about being approached in stores.
Okay, okay, I'll admit, I have a festering passive-agressive hatred of the company and I do feel sympathy for the people stuck in this. I say SOME because, hey, they can still get out if they want to. Afterall, it's a business, not a cult! As I mentioned before, more honesty about what the company is would do us all some good. When it comes down to it, I'd rather get pitched by a car salesman because A) They're better at it and B) At least I get to drive a new car and dream that I can actually own it.
Anyways, back to the tie in with my post title. What get people interested in things? No, it's not facts. Facts may keep people interested and keep them coming back for more intellectual worth. But what hooks people in is controversy. Now, I wouldn't say Quixtar & BWW are controversial, but everyone seems to have an opinion on these companies. And that gets people here. We're faced with this everyday on TV, on the web, wherever. We tune in to CNN or the late local news to see the latest thing. And if they're showing a stump speech by Kerry or Bush, some people may stay and watch, but more than likely, people will only stay if there's something juicy. Like the Kobe or Peterson trials. People want the juice so they talk about it the next day in the breakroom or when they go out for happy hour.
Is this bad? Well, in the ideal world everyone would be interested and educated about the "issues of the day" And those issues of the day would be more worldly things like AIDS, elections, Darfur, etc, etc. But seriously, we live in the real world. People don't want to be brought down by such serious subjects. Not all the time at least. So I've learned to deal with it. So have the news networks. They usually have some serious tidbits sprinkled in with the juicy topics of the day. So be it. At least people get a little bit of everything. Is this ideal? Maybe, maybe not. That's life. I stay away from CNN and my local news because I don't find value in sitting through the crap. Other people obviously do since the ratings don't lie (or do they?). And that's fine. I'll just start my personal crusade to educate the masses :P
BTW, let me give credit to the person who recently linked to me. Thanks!
Monday, August 09, 2004
Free to be who I want
I'm thinking of this song by the Soup Dragons right now because it really fits a conversation I had earlier today (it's called I'm Free)
I was chatting with a friend earlier today about freedom of thought and how it's actually a bit hard to be completely honest about your feelings with everyone. No, I'm not talking about being a liar and withholding factual information, I'm talking about following the crowd because that's what the crowd wants. You could call it groupthink, if you want.
We were specifically talking about gay marriage. I'm pretty ambivalent about the issue. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, it's a non-issue for me. It doesn't affect my everyday life and I don't think it's a big enough issue that people in high places need to make definitive statements regarding it. My friend was pretty ambivalent about it too until recently. We didn't really get into his current opinion, but we did quickly agree that his recent change in opinion was because of the nature of the "left" in San Francisco (more generally, the Bay Area).
Here's where following the crowd comes in. You're expected to be for gay marriage because if you aren't you're a homophobe, a racist, a pig. Whatever you want to call it, you're not cool. And that's actually what my friend was focusing on. He just didn't like the fact that it wasn't cool to disagree with the general opinion on the issue.
This is something that's thrown back and forth between the Left and Right all the time. Neither side is all too tolerant of opposing ideas. They say college campuses (and the blogging universe) are the foundation of liberalism. They say talk radio is the bastion of conservative thought. If you're in college it's tough to be openly conservative. If you're on talk radio, it's tough to be liberal.
Of course, I've got no point here :) I'm just reminding folks of this fact. If you read this and decide to be more open to other people's thoughts, then great. If on top of that you want to re-but their arguments with solid facts, even better. If you don't wish to pay attention to any of this, you can just wrinkle up your face and blame the media and their sound bites :)
What do I do? Well, I generally let the person talk and give an internal shrug if I don't agree. I tend not to express my opinion back. Why? Because I've found that people are very proud of their opinions and I'm not in any position to challenge their pride. In fact, most of my opinions are not built solid facts so who I am to stop someone and make them re-think? The most I do is let the other person know that there are other opinions out there and try to explain why those people have a valid opinion as well.
Anyways, just food for thought. If nothing else, it's just interesting to recall the times when you've recently been faced with this whole thing. It happens to me less now that I live in San Jose and people are pretty much just concerned with their own suburban lives, but when we lived in San Francisco it was pretty evident every time I walked down the street.
Give it some thought. Then see if you'd change your behavior or not. It's a good self-check.
I was chatting with a friend earlier today about freedom of thought and how it's actually a bit hard to be completely honest about your feelings with everyone. No, I'm not talking about being a liar and withholding factual information, I'm talking about following the crowd because that's what the crowd wants. You could call it groupthink, if you want.
We were specifically talking about gay marriage. I'm pretty ambivalent about the issue. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, it's a non-issue for me. It doesn't affect my everyday life and I don't think it's a big enough issue that people in high places need to make definitive statements regarding it. My friend was pretty ambivalent about it too until recently. We didn't really get into his current opinion, but we did quickly agree that his recent change in opinion was because of the nature of the "left" in San Francisco (more generally, the Bay Area).
Here's where following the crowd comes in. You're expected to be for gay marriage because if you aren't you're a homophobe, a racist, a pig. Whatever you want to call it, you're not cool. And that's actually what my friend was focusing on. He just didn't like the fact that it wasn't cool to disagree with the general opinion on the issue.
This is something that's thrown back and forth between the Left and Right all the time. Neither side is all too tolerant of opposing ideas. They say college campuses (and the blogging universe) are the foundation of liberalism. They say talk radio is the bastion of conservative thought. If you're in college it's tough to be openly conservative. If you're on talk radio, it's tough to be liberal.
Of course, I've got no point here :) I'm just reminding folks of this fact. If you read this and decide to be more open to other people's thoughts, then great. If on top of that you want to re-but their arguments with solid facts, even better. If you don't wish to pay attention to any of this, you can just wrinkle up your face and blame the media and their sound bites :)
What do I do? Well, I generally let the person talk and give an internal shrug if I don't agree. I tend not to express my opinion back. Why? Because I've found that people are very proud of their opinions and I'm not in any position to challenge their pride. In fact, most of my opinions are not built solid facts so who I am to stop someone and make them re-think? The most I do is let the other person know that there are other opinions out there and try to explain why those people have a valid opinion as well.
Anyways, just food for thought. If nothing else, it's just interesting to recall the times when you've recently been faced with this whole thing. It happens to me less now that I live in San Jose and people are pretty much just concerned with their own suburban lives, but when we lived in San Francisco it was pretty evident every time I walked down the street.
Give it some thought. Then see if you'd change your behavior or not. It's a good self-check.
Loving All Creatures
I think there's something in most cultures about the ideal of loving all of God's creatures. It's not something I aim to do in my everyday life. Lately, however, I'm amazed at the amount of love we can show to pets. We're dog-sitting for a friend while she's out of the country on vacation. The dog is a 9 yr old golden retreiver who epitomizes "man's best friend". Even with his age, he always wants to check out where we are going, makes sure that anyone passing by our front window gets barked at, and loves to play any time we're up for it. And surprisingly, I'm hugging and playing and looking after this dog like I never thought I would.
I say suprisingly mainly because while I was growing up we never had any pets in our house. My mother was allergic to pets and for quite a few years we didn't have the space for a dog that would need lots of room to run around. At times I've even wondered what drives people to spend thousands of dollars on their pets. Now I understand.
I don't know if I would spend my life savings to care for a dog, but I do know that I would go out of my way to ensure that my charge is well taken care of and is comfortable. Interestingly, we've been treating this dog like a child (mainly because he loves to act like one). But it has come so naturally that both my wife and I are amazed that we haven't wanted a dog for much longer.
I was talking to a friend the other day about how it's almost a bit odd that Americans love their pets so much. We're both familiar with Indian culture and very few pets are kept in that country. In fact, even though most Hindus claim to look out for all creatures, they show very little care for any of the animals living in the street. The cows roaming the boulevards are simply a nuisance and all anyone does is to make sure they don't hit any of them (hard) with their cars or motorcycles. And the dogs? More like mangy mongrels. They live off the scraps of families and the lack of a quality diet really shows. I venture to say that, on average, the rich folks in India seem to care less for the animals in the streets than the people that are forced to live in shacks in the streets.
And here we are in a rich country with so much disposable income that entire business models are built around people's love for their pets (let's forget about the disaster of pets.com for a moment). So is the amount of love shown tied to the amount of money available to spend? Well, it's certainly a part of it, isn't it? Here in America we have this strange confluence of historical partnership with animals and enough money to continue supporting that partnership. I dare say that applies more generally to the West as well. This may be the case in certain pockets of the East, but from my experience it's more of an anomaly than the norm.
So anyways, enough with the philosophizing. Time to take the dog out :)
I say suprisingly mainly because while I was growing up we never had any pets in our house. My mother was allergic to pets and for quite a few years we didn't have the space for a dog that would need lots of room to run around. At times I've even wondered what drives people to spend thousands of dollars on their pets. Now I understand.
I don't know if I would spend my life savings to care for a dog, but I do know that I would go out of my way to ensure that my charge is well taken care of and is comfortable. Interestingly, we've been treating this dog like a child (mainly because he loves to act like one). But it has come so naturally that both my wife and I are amazed that we haven't wanted a dog for much longer.
I was talking to a friend the other day about how it's almost a bit odd that Americans love their pets so much. We're both familiar with Indian culture and very few pets are kept in that country. In fact, even though most Hindus claim to look out for all creatures, they show very little care for any of the animals living in the street. The cows roaming the boulevards are simply a nuisance and all anyone does is to make sure they don't hit any of them (hard) with their cars or motorcycles. And the dogs? More like mangy mongrels. They live off the scraps of families and the lack of a quality diet really shows. I venture to say that, on average, the rich folks in India seem to care less for the animals in the streets than the people that are forced to live in shacks in the streets.
And here we are in a rich country with so much disposable income that entire business models are built around people's love for their pets (let's forget about the disaster of pets.com for a moment). So is the amount of love shown tied to the amount of money available to spend? Well, it's certainly a part of it, isn't it? Here in America we have this strange confluence of historical partnership with animals and enough money to continue supporting that partnership. I dare say that applies more generally to the West as well. This may be the case in certain pockets of the East, but from my experience it's more of an anomaly than the norm.
So anyways, enough with the philosophizing. Time to take the dog out :)
Thursday, August 05, 2004
Just One Man's Perceptions
My post about Quixtar has been linked from this blog. And no, this is not my way of basking in the light of my newfound Internet fame :) I'll start basking only when people call me the Anti-Quixtar messiah :P
Actually, this person's blog attempts to be a neutral party in providing information about Quixtar and joining. I haven't read enough of the blog to say whether he's truly neutral or not. The few posts I've read seem to put him in the neutral camp. That would be the first person I've met who's neutral on the company.
Anyways, I mentioned in a comment to him that I probably come off as a Quixtar hater. I actually don't know enough about the company to care too much either way. Obviously though, I wouldn't recommend anyone to join up with Quixtar. What I am a hater of is the damned IBOs (Individual Business Owners) who keep coming up to me or who think about coming up to me in stores and see if I'm interested in a personal business.
Come to think of it, I was in Great Mall over the weekend taking a break on a bench. Behind me were 3 desi's sitting down on the adjacent bench. Two of them were talking to the third starting off with small talk. It quickly led to the personal business thing. My wife and I looked at each other, joked in Gujarati about warning the 3rd guy about what he's being pulled into. Actually, I wouldn't stop someone from joining; they can figure it out on their own. If they want to join, that's their business.
So there it is. The solictors need to be smoother with this thing because it's way too easy to predict who they are and why they're talking to you in the first place. And from what I've read today about Quixtar, you can buy a lot of training/personal improvement materials to help your business. Either those materials suck, or Quixtar's gotta hire Tony Robbins to put together a 12-step improvement process.
Ok, that's seriously enough. The company doesn't need any more of my comments. Thanks Eric Janssen for the link, you've sent a lot of hits my way and now I'm seriously on my way to internet fame :) Now I just need to make a billion dollars off this thing.
Actually, this person's blog attempts to be a neutral party in providing information about Quixtar and joining. I haven't read enough of the blog to say whether he's truly neutral or not. The few posts I've read seem to put him in the neutral camp. That would be the first person I've met who's neutral on the company.
Anyways, I mentioned in a comment to him that I probably come off as a Quixtar hater. I actually don't know enough about the company to care too much either way. Obviously though, I wouldn't recommend anyone to join up with Quixtar. What I am a hater of is the damned IBOs (Individual Business Owners) who keep coming up to me or who think about coming up to me in stores and see if I'm interested in a personal business.
Come to think of it, I was in Great Mall over the weekend taking a break on a bench. Behind me were 3 desi's sitting down on the adjacent bench. Two of them were talking to the third starting off with small talk. It quickly led to the personal business thing. My wife and I looked at each other, joked in Gujarati about warning the 3rd guy about what he's being pulled into. Actually, I wouldn't stop someone from joining; they can figure it out on their own. If they want to join, that's their business.
So there it is. The solictors need to be smoother with this thing because it's way too easy to predict who they are and why they're talking to you in the first place. And from what I've read today about Quixtar, you can buy a lot of training/personal improvement materials to help your business. Either those materials suck, or Quixtar's gotta hire Tony Robbins to put together a 12-step improvement process.
Ok, that's seriously enough. The company doesn't need any more of my comments. Thanks Eric Janssen for the link, you've sent a lot of hits my way and now I'm seriously on my way to internet fame :) Now I just need to make a billion dollars off this thing.
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Would things change?
With the Dem. National Convention ending, the presidential campaign is warming up, with the usual slinging back and forth between the major candidates. A lot of talk has been around the major changes which Kerry would make if he becomes president - things like health care, Iraq, etc. Something that was a huge issue last year, but has been forgotten by the media whores (grin) is the legal proceedings involving enemy combatants in Guantanamo Bay. Here's a pretty interesting (if long) article on this topic from slate.com.
The article actually tackles two issues: The actual legal proceedings involving the enemy combatants and the Dept. of Justice as well as the latest about the Abu Ghraib torture. The stories are not well weaved together, but the connections are really around how these issues are being tackled in and out of the judicial system. Also, the author makes some big-ish leaps in connecting things together. Regardless, some things are enlightening.
The most interesting thing about this is the author's connection between these proceedings and the amount of respect America gets in the world. In my opinion, the amount of disdain that America gets in Europe and the rest of the world is not predicated just on how this stuff turns out. It's not just based on how Iraq or the War of Terror turns out either. Regardless of what happens to these torturers, to the enemy combatants, to Iraqis, or to Queda, people will still hate what America is.
That being said, I find it really important to recognize that our judicial (both civilian and military) can really help to contribute towards showing that America is a just nation. That we, as Americans, believe in doing the "right" thing. The DoJ is doing everything legally possible to stretch out the plight of the people in Guantanamo Bay. The DoJ is not simply stretching out the timelines, but making it near impossible for these people to defend themselves (either in a court of law or outside of the civilian court system). While that's perfectly legal, wouldn't it be great to see justice in Guantanamo that is just as swift as it apparently is when "high value Queda targets" are captured? Wouldn't it also be nice to see some recognition that torturing prisoners can be the fault of more than just a few nutcases?
So back to my original point (and to the title of this post). Would a President Kerry ensure these things are done? The last paragraph of this article mentions that this would not likely change. And I tend to agree. Partly because the wheels are already in motion on this and it's hard to completely change directions at these lower levels without replacing every individual involved in the prosecution. Partly because Kerry might be too afraid of backlash to ease up on this "justice".
But at the least, there needs to be a clear recognition that if we are to stand proud and say that we are a just nation, we not only need to get our allies to agree with us before going to war, we not only need to convince ourselves of our rightness. We need to do these seemingly little things. We have a reputation in this world. Extremists on both sides will argue that our reputation is good or bad. Pragmatists in this world need to show that regardless of our current reputation, we must do many small things to improve it.
The article actually tackles two issues: The actual legal proceedings involving the enemy combatants and the Dept. of Justice as well as the latest about the Abu Ghraib torture. The stories are not well weaved together, but the connections are really around how these issues are being tackled in and out of the judicial system. Also, the author makes some big-ish leaps in connecting things together. Regardless, some things are enlightening.
The most interesting thing about this is the author's connection between these proceedings and the amount of respect America gets in the world. In my opinion, the amount of disdain that America gets in Europe and the rest of the world is not predicated just on how this stuff turns out. It's not just based on how Iraq or the War of Terror turns out either. Regardless of what happens to these torturers, to the enemy combatants, to Iraqis, or to Queda, people will still hate what America is.
That being said, I find it really important to recognize that our judicial (both civilian and military) can really help to contribute towards showing that America is a just nation. That we, as Americans, believe in doing the "right" thing. The DoJ is doing everything legally possible to stretch out the plight of the people in Guantanamo Bay. The DoJ is not simply stretching out the timelines, but making it near impossible for these people to defend themselves (either in a court of law or outside of the civilian court system). While that's perfectly legal, wouldn't it be great to see justice in Guantanamo that is just as swift as it apparently is when "high value Queda targets" are captured? Wouldn't it also be nice to see some recognition that torturing prisoners can be the fault of more than just a few nutcases?
So back to my original point (and to the title of this post). Would a President Kerry ensure these things are done? The last paragraph of this article mentions that this would not likely change. And I tend to agree. Partly because the wheels are already in motion on this and it's hard to completely change directions at these lower levels without replacing every individual involved in the prosecution. Partly because Kerry might be too afraid of backlash to ease up on this "justice".
But at the least, there needs to be a clear recognition that if we are to stand proud and say that we are a just nation, we not only need to get our allies to agree with us before going to war, we not only need to convince ourselves of our rightness. We need to do these seemingly little things. We have a reputation in this world. Extremists on both sides will argue that our reputation is good or bad. Pragmatists in this world need to show that regardless of our current reputation, we must do many small things to improve it.
Friday, July 30, 2004
Strike a Pose
I don't really have much to say about this stamp, I just happened to find it while surfing the. Those eyes are really creepy, don't ya think?
If you don't know the background, Austria just issued this stamp to honor Arnold. I'm a bit surprised that they call him Governor, even though he doesn't hold any position in Austria. Of course, this could never happen in the US, since people can only be on stamps after they've passed away. Of course, I think too many Americans would have real problems with Arnold on a stamp regardless (including me). He would need to accomplish a lot more to be worthy of a stamp. But in any case, I'd still be opposed because of those eyes!! Yikes!
And yes, I do have thoughts about the recent Democratic National Convention :) I'm just too lazy to post anything serious here. Forgive me! Can I just say that the news "pundits" are way too conclusive about Kerry's speech last night. Seriously, there's no need to make a prediction on the outcome of the election 98 days before people go to the polls. The real campaign starts now and both sides will have a lot to say in the coming weeks and months.
BaghDaddyKane
Ok, a friend of mine sent me this link which is just hilarious. I don't normally pass on random links, but I save the best for posterity's sake.
Kim Jong Il (the illmatic)'s Journal
Kim Jong Il (the illmatic)'s Journal
Thursday, July 29, 2004
Coffee Freak
Another friend of mine just started his own blog. For some reason, even though none of us really updates our blogs too much, the whole blog thing seems to be contagious. In any case, there's not much on his blog just yet since he just started it, but check him out and encourage him to continue posting. If nothing else, we'll all learn more about the randomness that is Toluca, Mexico.
Coffeefreak
Coffeefreak
Marriage Madness
So if you've never known Indian Hindus or seen a Bollywood films, it's hard to comprehend what a big affair Indian Hindu weddings are. Two great friends of our's got married over the weekend. Not only was the day itself fantastic, the weeks leading up to the event were a blast. And yes, we're talking weeks, not days.
I'm sure other cultures have similar craziness when it comes to weddings, but I'm not sure anything can be as extended an affair as a Hindu wedding. Now, I'll mention Hindu several times throughout this, because, Indian Muslim weddings are somewhat different. I've only been to one Indian Muslim wedding and it was a rather more reserved affair. Still lots of joy, just like at any wedding, but the cultural attachments found at Hindu weddings don't seem to exist in much of the Indian Muslim wedding. I may be completely wrong, but that's what I've seen at one wedding. I should really experience a few more Muslim wedding before commenting...
In any case, I've been to quite a few Hindu weddings and I can tell you they're just madness! They're even better when it's close friends or family that are getting married and you're in the wedding party. Of course, there's tons of events, but more importantly, there's tons of bonding with friends and family that you may not have known too well previously. This time, we got to know the wedding families much better, but we also got to know the bride and groom's friends much better. Now, of course, we're all mutual friends, but much of our interaction had been the "night out" kind. That's where you hook up at a noisy venue and spend a few hours talking then head on home not see your friends until next weekend. After this wedding, we've spent a heck of a lot more time together than we would have otherwise.
As one of the group said, it's like college when you spend so much time together you go into withdrawal once it's all done. And that's kinda what it feels like. Getting home and having nothing to do but kick back and watch TV is kind of depressing. Of course, we're filling up this "dead time" with other things and finding ways to hang out with the same friends, so don't cry for me :)
In any case, I just have to say that I haven't gotten to know so many people so well since college and it's pretty cool. I've had good friends here in the Bay Area for a while now, but that group has expanded greatly in the past month.
I'm sure other cultures have similar craziness when it comes to weddings, but I'm not sure anything can be as extended an affair as a Hindu wedding. Now, I'll mention Hindu several times throughout this, because, Indian Muslim weddings are somewhat different. I've only been to one Indian Muslim wedding and it was a rather more reserved affair. Still lots of joy, just like at any wedding, but the cultural attachments found at Hindu weddings don't seem to exist in much of the Indian Muslim wedding. I may be completely wrong, but that's what I've seen at one wedding. I should really experience a few more Muslim wedding before commenting...
In any case, I've been to quite a few Hindu weddings and I can tell you they're just madness! They're even better when it's close friends or family that are getting married and you're in the wedding party. Of course, there's tons of events, but more importantly, there's tons of bonding with friends and family that you may not have known too well previously. This time, we got to know the wedding families much better, but we also got to know the bride and groom's friends much better. Now, of course, we're all mutual friends, but much of our interaction had been the "night out" kind. That's where you hook up at a noisy venue and spend a few hours talking then head on home not see your friends until next weekend. After this wedding, we've spent a heck of a lot more time together than we would have otherwise.
As one of the group said, it's like college when you spend so much time together you go into withdrawal once it's all done. And that's kinda what it feels like. Getting home and having nothing to do but kick back and watch TV is kind of depressing. Of course, we're filling up this "dead time" with other things and finding ways to hang out with the same friends, so don't cry for me :)
In any case, I just have to say that I haven't gotten to know so many people so well since college and it's pretty cool. I've had good friends here in the Bay Area for a while now, but that group has expanded greatly in the past month.
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
San Jose Family Shelter
Our CEO wants us to give back to the community since the community has helped support our company for the past 20 years. It's nice to see such a proclamation coming from the CEO of a fairly large company. It's even better when lower levels of mgmt follow through by making sure we can set aside time to do the volunteering. So last Friday I, along with a few others, went to the San Jose Family Shelter.
It's a place where families who have recently lost their homes can stay for 30 days and get help getting back on their feet. The families are assisted with employment, housing, and many other things to help make sure they don't have to go from shelter to shelter. No doubt, a lot of good work goes on there.
We were there to help organize and clean up things with the folks who run the place. My small group was given charge of the food store where tons of canned food, coffee, and other things had been sitting dis-organized. First off, we had to throw away the bad stuff. More interestingly, we threw away the stuff that the shelter just had too much of. Stuff like cranberry jelly, pumkin pie filling, and sweet potatoes. While these canned items could last for years, the head chef just wanted us to throw the stuff away since they would be getting more than enough of it again come November.
Sad, but true...they just had to throw away useable stuff since there was simply no room for it. On the other hand, we kept and re-organized stuff which would come in much better use. Food which could be distributed to families as they leave the shelter was put into another shed. This food would help families start out life again in their new places of residence.
Most interesting of all was the coffee. There were literally 7 garbage bags full of single-pot bags of coffee. Most of it from Starbucks. The whole time while going through these bags we were wondering what the hell the shelter would do with so much coffee. It turns out that coffee is like currency amongst shelters and can be used to trade for other food items. So this shelter had arranged for a local Starbucks owner to donate a box or two of these small bags of coffee for them to use towards other things.
The other thing which shelters need? Meat. Ground meat, Deli meat, you name it, it's what they need most of. While the canned food is great, apparently there isn't enough meat to be used for dinner every night.
So lesson learned: Come Thanksgiving when we all start thinking about donating something to a local shelter, check with them to see if they can use deli meats or anything like that. Coffee also comes in very handy for them. Don't just go out and buy the cheapest cans of food you can find at Costco or Safeway.
It's a place where families who have recently lost their homes can stay for 30 days and get help getting back on their feet. The families are assisted with employment, housing, and many other things to help make sure they don't have to go from shelter to shelter. No doubt, a lot of good work goes on there.
We were there to help organize and clean up things with the folks who run the place. My small group was given charge of the food store where tons of canned food, coffee, and other things had been sitting dis-organized. First off, we had to throw away the bad stuff. More interestingly, we threw away the stuff that the shelter just had too much of. Stuff like cranberry jelly, pumkin pie filling, and sweet potatoes. While these canned items could last for years, the head chef just wanted us to throw the stuff away since they would be getting more than enough of it again come November.
Sad, but true...they just had to throw away useable stuff since there was simply no room for it. On the other hand, we kept and re-organized stuff which would come in much better use. Food which could be distributed to families as they leave the shelter was put into another shed. This food would help families start out life again in their new places of residence.
Most interesting of all was the coffee. There were literally 7 garbage bags full of single-pot bags of coffee. Most of it from Starbucks. The whole time while going through these bags we were wondering what the hell the shelter would do with so much coffee. It turns out that coffee is like currency amongst shelters and can be used to trade for other food items. So this shelter had arranged for a local Starbucks owner to donate a box or two of these small bags of coffee for them to use towards other things.
The other thing which shelters need? Meat. Ground meat, Deli meat, you name it, it's what they need most of. While the canned food is great, apparently there isn't enough meat to be used for dinner every night.
So lesson learned: Come Thanksgiving when we all start thinking about donating something to a local shelter, check with them to see if they can use deli meats or anything like that. Coffee also comes in very handy for them. Don't just go out and buy the cheapest cans of food you can find at Costco or Safeway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)