Been reading lately about how there's a fairly strong chance a third-party candidate will win the next presidential election.
A lot of people will be cheering if we get our first third-party president.
I foresee a lot of shouts of "End the partisan corruption!" and such.
Sad thing is, no matter who gets elected or what party they're from, chances are very high that nothing will change for the better, and several things will most likely change for the worse.
When Obama first got elected, I wasn't jumping up and down in celebration, but at the very least I thought "Well, it's somebody new, so maybe we'll see a few things done differently."
...turns out the stuff I wanted to see done differently (i.e., finally end the illegal wars we've been constantly involved in for most of my lifetime a la Oceania vs. Eurasia) didn't change, and got worse (Libya).
Thus I, and looking at the statistics most of my generation, are probably more cynical about the federal government than any generation before.
We know it's screwing us over on taxes and college costs and entitlement programs while our parents (the Baby Boomers) are starting to settle into their billion-dollar retirement communities.
But we've been taught by our parents and by the presidents we've actually had the chance to vote for that voting is MEANINGLESS.
No matter who is elected, about half the country will spend his/her entire first term complaining about every little thing he/she does, and fervently hoping that he/she is ousted immediately after.
No one who wants the office is morally qualified to have it (except maybe Ron Paul).
Those who seek power are least worthy of it, and those who are most worthy of it don't seek it.
The whole "election" fiasco is one big advertising campaign to give us the illusion of making a choice.
Choosing between getting a bullet in the left eye and getting a bullet in the right eye is no choice at all.
Even assuming an honest person who honestly didn't give two craps about lobbyists or special interest groups, and genuinely wanted to make this country a better place, he/she would be shackled by "the party", i.e. the corporate bigwigs and their political slaves who only seek to tighten their control of this country in the name of "laissez-faire".
The question on that is, WHOSE HANDS ARE STAYING OFF?
The answer? Us. The you's and me's of this world.
We who WEREN'T born into wealth, actually have to WORK to have basic necessities, and who by our labors KEEP THIS COUNTRY GOING.
But in order to keep the financial fascism under cover, they have to wrap the ball of dog crap in pretty golden wrapping paper called "Democracy."
What separates financial fascistic rule by a wealthy elite and communistic rule by the working-class masses?
The middle class.
A unique American invention which provides the opportunity for social mobility.
The entire American Dream was that if you worked hard and long enough, got a college degree, and continually persevered, you could provide a better life for your family.
But the financial fascists have been working for decades to dissolve the middle class, to continually widen the gap between rich and poor, all the while keeping everyone occupied by playing us off against each other in "politics."
If we could set aside our differing opinions on abortion, homosexuality, gun control, and a thousand other ultimately-insignificant issues, we could come together as a nation and demand the ousting of every last corporate puppet from our government, revamp the laws regarding "campaign contributions" (AKA bribes), and ensure that only those individuals willing to act in our best interests, especially regarding compromise, are put in power above us.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Idiocracy
This film is based off the scarily realistic premise that at some point, stupid people will outbreed smart people.
The result is depicted as a man who is mathematically deemed "the most average man in the world" in the present time accidentally traveling 500 years in the future, where the above concept results in his being the smartest man on the planet.
Recent decades have left me quite cynical regarding mankind's future development, and I've only been around for 26 years.
Especially in the United States.
We have yet to extricate ourselves from the Lay-Z-Boys of surplus and entitlement, even after a decade of economic recession.
We drive our gas-guzzling SUVs, we slam down high-calorie energy drinks and fat-dripping foods, we buy houses we can't afford in sizes we don't need, we pollute our environment, we expect our employers to take care of us for life...
And we treat all of the above as our inalienable right.
Then we complain that the government isn't doing enough, or is doing too much.
No increase in gas prices, no increase in the unemployment rate, no increase in cost of living, no drop in life expectancy can change the American mindset that YOU (the universe) OWE ME BECAUSE I'M AN AMERICAN, DAMMIT.
I fear for my nieces and nephews, who are every day from a million different directions being fed the lie that they are owed something by the world, no matter how hard their parents work to undo the damage.
One of many reasons my wife and I are hesitant to procreate.
Bang-for-the-buck, the bottom line, the best deal, etc. are the only motivators that matter in America nowadays.
That applies to choice of college, choice of degree, choice of car, choice of neighborhood, choice of church, choice of employer, choice of employee, choice of supermarket, choice of Internet provider, choice of spouse.......and anything and everything between.
The result is depicted as a man who is mathematically deemed "the most average man in the world" in the present time accidentally traveling 500 years in the future, where the above concept results in his being the smartest man on the planet.
Recent decades have left me quite cynical regarding mankind's future development, and I've only been around for 26 years.
Especially in the United States.
We have yet to extricate ourselves from the Lay-Z-Boys of surplus and entitlement, even after a decade of economic recession.
We drive our gas-guzzling SUVs, we slam down high-calorie energy drinks and fat-dripping foods, we buy houses we can't afford in sizes we don't need, we pollute our environment, we expect our employers to take care of us for life...
And we treat all of the above as our inalienable right.
Then we complain that the government isn't doing enough, or is doing too much.
No increase in gas prices, no increase in the unemployment rate, no increase in cost of living, no drop in life expectancy can change the American mindset that YOU (the universe) OWE ME BECAUSE I'M AN AMERICAN, DAMMIT.
I fear for my nieces and nephews, who are every day from a million different directions being fed the lie that they are owed something by the world, no matter how hard their parents work to undo the damage.
One of many reasons my wife and I are hesitant to procreate.
Bang-for-the-buck, the bottom line, the best deal, etc. are the only motivators that matter in America nowadays.
That applies to choice of college, choice of degree, choice of car, choice of neighborhood, choice of church, choice of employer, choice of employee, choice of supermarket, choice of Internet provider, choice of spouse.......and anything and everything between.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
"Immoral" Films
Any time morality is brought up regarding a movie, I just sit back and watch the circus commence, because ANYTHING in the entire cinematic production process could be used to justify calling a film "immoral."
The star is a drug addict.
The director cheated on his wife in 1978.
The film shows a woman not wearing a veil.
The soundtrack was composed by a Jew.
"God" is said too many/not enough times in the dialogue.
The editor doesn't clip his fingernails often enough.
The producer was bi-curious in college.
The wardrobe lady has a mustache.
The movie posters used PhotoShop.
The man selling tickets at the theater hit on my daughter.
Yeah. ANYTHING.
Individuals can interpret visuals, sounds, music, and dialogue in any number of ways.
A great example of this is The Passion of the Christ.
Most non-Christians I've spoken with (and several Christians) view it as nothing more than glorifying the horrific torture and death of a man, and the sadistic mindset of his tormentors.
Almost to the point of being torture-porn, given that they perceive the movie as having NO POINT other than to show a gruesome death.
But a lot of Christians watching the same movie treat it as "beautiful," in that it is a realistic representation of Christ's death (as opposed to the previous theatrical representations which dumbed it down and cleaned it up), and thus believe it teaches greater appreciation of His sacrifice.
(...to the point that they'll take their kids to see it. Blech.)
Neither interpretation is objectively "moral" or "immoral."
Film is art, art is interpreted by each individual, and no single interpretation is the "right" interpretation.
The star is a drug addict.
The director cheated on his wife in 1978.
The film shows a woman not wearing a veil.
The soundtrack was composed by a Jew.
"God" is said too many/not enough times in the dialogue.
The editor doesn't clip his fingernails often enough.
The producer was bi-curious in college.
The wardrobe lady has a mustache.
The movie posters used PhotoShop.
The man selling tickets at the theater hit on my daughter.
Yeah. ANYTHING.
Individuals can interpret visuals, sounds, music, and dialogue in any number of ways.
A great example of this is The Passion of the Christ.
Most non-Christians I've spoken with (and several Christians) view it as nothing more than glorifying the horrific torture and death of a man, and the sadistic mindset of his tormentors.
Almost to the point of being torture-porn, given that they perceive the movie as having NO POINT other than to show a gruesome death.
But a lot of Christians watching the same movie treat it as "beautiful," in that it is a realistic representation of Christ's death (as opposed to the previous theatrical representations which dumbed it down and cleaned it up), and thus believe it teaches greater appreciation of His sacrifice.
(...to the point that they'll take their kids to see it. Blech.)
Neither interpretation is objectively "moral" or "immoral."
Film is art, art is interpreted by each individual, and no single interpretation is the "right" interpretation.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Arrogant Americans
Just about every nation tries in some way to venerate its glorious past, whether that manifests as Shakespeare's historical plays, the Roman myths of Romulus and Remus (tying back to the Trojan War), Homer's Illiad (same thing), the Shinto myths tying the Japanese royal line back to the goddess Amaterasu, etc.
Americans also do this in our tall tales, even while recognizing that they are factually false.
We treat them as symbolic of attributes we value and thus attribute to ourselves.
The legendary status given the "Founding Fathers" demonstrates the universal good-ol'-days mentality, to the point that the group as a whole (and the actual membership varies depending on whom you ask) is treated as a think tank of divinely inspired hypergeniuses.
Where Americans differ from the rest of the world, which has mostly come to regard its glorious past as either a product of art or a product of arrogance, is in the fact that a large part of our population BELIEVES THE MYTH.
Since most Americans are conditioned from day one to believe the legend, it naturally follows that we hold ourselves in high regard as the heirs to its glorious legacy, that being the United States itself.
Treating free education, high-paying jobs, nice homes and possessions, and early and easy retirement as our right is simply the natural outgrowth of such a mentality.
As a result we are seen as arrogant/greedy and stupid by much of the rest of the world.
We essentially believe our own hype.
Americans also do this in our tall tales, even while recognizing that they are factually false.
We treat them as symbolic of attributes we value and thus attribute to ourselves.
The legendary status given the "Founding Fathers" demonstrates the universal good-ol'-days mentality, to the point that the group as a whole (and the actual membership varies depending on whom you ask) is treated as a think tank of divinely inspired hypergeniuses.
Where Americans differ from the rest of the world, which has mostly come to regard its glorious past as either a product of art or a product of arrogance, is in the fact that a large part of our population BELIEVES THE MYTH.
Since most Americans are conditioned from day one to believe the legend, it naturally follows that we hold ourselves in high regard as the heirs to its glorious legacy, that being the United States itself.
Treating free education, high-paying jobs, nice homes and possessions, and early and easy retirement as our right is simply the natural outgrowth of such a mentality.
As a result we are seen as arrogant/greedy and stupid by much of the rest of the world.
We essentially believe our own hype.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Some Wisdom for career seekers...
"There are stories -- legends, really -- of the 'steady job.' Old-timers gather graduates around the flickering light of a computer monitor and tell stories of how the company used to be, back when a job was for life, not just for the business cycle. In those days, there were dinners for employees who racked up twenty-five years -- don't laugh, you, yes, twenty-five years!-- of service. In those days, a man didn't change jobs every five minutes. When you walked down the corridors, you recognized everyone you met; hell, you knew the names of their kids.
The graduates snicker. A steady job! They've never heard of such a thing. What they know is the flexible job. It's what they were raised on in business school; it's what they experienced, too, as they drove a cash register or stacked shelves between classes. Flexibility is where it's at, not dull, rigid, monotonous steadiness. Flexible jobs allow employees to share in the company's ups and downs; well, no so much the ups. But when times get tough, it's the flexible company that thrives. By comparison, a company with steady jobs hobbles along with a ball and chain. The graduates have read the management textbooks and they know the true: long-term employees are so last century.
The problem with employees, you see, is everything. You have to pay to hire them and pay to fire them, and, in between, you have to pay them. They need business cards. They need computers. They need ID tags and security clearances and phones and air-conditioning and somewhere to sit. You have to ferry them to off-site team meetings. You have to ferry them home again. They get pregnant. They injure themselves. They steal. They join religions with firm views on when it's permissible to work. When they read their e-mail they open every attachment they get, and when they write it they expose the company to enormous legal liabilities. They arrive with no useful skills, and once you've trained them, they leave. And don't expect gratitude! If they're not taking sick days, they're requesting compassionate leave. If they're not gossiping with co-workers, they're complaining about them. They consider it their inalienable right to wear body ornamentation that scares customers. They talk about (dear God) unionizing. They want raises. They want management to notice when they do a good job. They want to know what's going to happen in the next corporate reorginization. And lawsuits! The lawsuits! They sue for sexual harassment, for an unsafe workplace, for discrimination in thirty-two different flavors. For --get this-- wrongful termination. Wrongful termination! These people are only here because you brought them into the corporate world! Suddenly you're responsible for them for life?
The truly flexible company -- and the textbooks don't come right out and say it, but the graduates can tell that they want to -- doesn't employ people at all. This is the siren song of outsourcing. The seductiveness of the sub-contract. Just try out the words: no employees. Feels good, doesn't it? Strong. Healthy. Supple. Oh yes, a company without employees would be a wondrous thing. Let the workers suck up a little competitive pressure. Let them get a taste of the free market.
The old-timers' stories are fairy tales, dreams of a world that no longer exists. They rest on the bizarre assumption that people somehow deserve a job. The graduates know better they've been taught they don't."
-from Company by Max Barry
The graduates snicker. A steady job! They've never heard of such a thing. What they know is the flexible job. It's what they were raised on in business school; it's what they experienced, too, as they drove a cash register or stacked shelves between classes. Flexibility is where it's at, not dull, rigid, monotonous steadiness. Flexible jobs allow employees to share in the company's ups and downs; well, no so much the ups. But when times get tough, it's the flexible company that thrives. By comparison, a company with steady jobs hobbles along with a ball and chain. The graduates have read the management textbooks and they know the true: long-term employees are so last century.
The problem with employees, you see, is everything. You have to pay to hire them and pay to fire them, and, in between, you have to pay them. They need business cards. They need computers. They need ID tags and security clearances and phones and air-conditioning and somewhere to sit. You have to ferry them to off-site team meetings. You have to ferry them home again. They get pregnant. They injure themselves. They steal. They join religions with firm views on when it's permissible to work. When they read their e-mail they open every attachment they get, and when they write it they expose the company to enormous legal liabilities. They arrive with no useful skills, and once you've trained them, they leave. And don't expect gratitude! If they're not taking sick days, they're requesting compassionate leave. If they're not gossiping with co-workers, they're complaining about them. They consider it their inalienable right to wear body ornamentation that scares customers. They talk about (dear God) unionizing. They want raises. They want management to notice when they do a good job. They want to know what's going to happen in the next corporate reorginization. And lawsuits! The lawsuits! They sue for sexual harassment, for an unsafe workplace, for discrimination in thirty-two different flavors. For --get this-- wrongful termination. Wrongful termination! These people are only here because you brought them into the corporate world! Suddenly you're responsible for them for life?
The truly flexible company -- and the textbooks don't come right out and say it, but the graduates can tell that they want to -- doesn't employ people at all. This is the siren song of outsourcing. The seductiveness of the sub-contract. Just try out the words: no employees. Feels good, doesn't it? Strong. Healthy. Supple. Oh yes, a company without employees would be a wondrous thing. Let the workers suck up a little competitive pressure. Let them get a taste of the free market.
The old-timers' stories are fairy tales, dreams of a world that no longer exists. They rest on the bizarre assumption that people somehow deserve a job. The graduates know better they've been taught they don't."
-from Company by Max Barry
Thursday, May 19, 2011
So apparently, I'm not "career-oriented."
Meaning, I'm not going to suck up to management, I'm not going to work double shifts without pay just to go above and beyond, and I'm not going to hinge my self-esteem on the length of time I've been at entry-level.
Ugh. Had my first interviews for a full-time job earlier this week, and the longer they went, the more my attention span wavered (which has NEVER happened mid-conversation before), and the more I asked myself "Do I even want this thing?"
The answer turned out to be NO.
Especially since the whole thing turned out to be one big lie, especially given the amount of offhand compliments they kept throwing at me.
Oh well, 'tis another lesson in my "what kind of job do I want?" education.
I've compiled a list of priorities in my career search:
-Creatively driven
-Uses natural abilities
-No 12-hour workdays
-No clock-watching, before or during
-No company politics (especially masquerading as "loyalty")
-Plenty of wiggle room
-No BS
-No pressure to advance, or demeaning of current position
...and I'm kinda torn.
On one hand, one of the things I've grown to despise about my current job is my lack of decision-making ability, especially regarding problem solving.
If there's a problem, I have to go through "channels" to get it fixed.
...which means it's not getting fixed EVER.
On the other, that kind of decision-making ability requires a crapload of responsibility, especially regarding my performance being judged based on the performance of others...and I hate that kind of setup.
I want to be able to make decisions and resolve issues, and yet be judged solely on MY actions and how well I do MY job.
I wonder if that even exists in reality.
Basically, the issue I'm faced with now is the belief that life isn't lived at work.
Thus, I shouldn't be looking for a job that will fulfill me, but rather something which provides a groove I can get into.
Just get up, go to work, stay in the groove, get off work, and THEN live life.
Scary thing is, that mindset seems to naturally lead to pining for the weekends and holidays and half-days and snow days, which seems like a sorry way to live.
Meaning, I'm not going to suck up to management, I'm not going to work double shifts without pay just to go above and beyond, and I'm not going to hinge my self-esteem on the length of time I've been at entry-level.
Ugh. Had my first interviews for a full-time job earlier this week, and the longer they went, the more my attention span wavered (which has NEVER happened mid-conversation before), and the more I asked myself "Do I even want this thing?"
The answer turned out to be NO.
Especially since the whole thing turned out to be one big lie, especially given the amount of offhand compliments they kept throwing at me.
Oh well, 'tis another lesson in my "what kind of job do I want?" education.
I've compiled a list of priorities in my career search:
-Creatively driven
-Uses natural abilities
-No 12-hour workdays
-No clock-watching, before or during
-No company politics (especially masquerading as "loyalty")
-Plenty of wiggle room
-No BS
-No pressure to advance, or demeaning of current position
...and I'm kinda torn.
On one hand, one of the things I've grown to despise about my current job is my lack of decision-making ability, especially regarding problem solving.
If there's a problem, I have to go through "channels" to get it fixed.
...which means it's not getting fixed EVER.
On the other, that kind of decision-making ability requires a crapload of responsibility, especially regarding my performance being judged based on the performance of others...and I hate that kind of setup.
I want to be able to make decisions and resolve issues, and yet be judged solely on MY actions and how well I do MY job.
I wonder if that even exists in reality.
Basically, the issue I'm faced with now is the belief that life isn't lived at work.
Thus, I shouldn't be looking for a job that will fulfill me, but rather something which provides a groove I can get into.
Just get up, go to work, stay in the groove, get off work, and THEN live life.
Scary thing is, that mindset seems to naturally lead to pining for the weekends and holidays and half-days and snow days, which seems like a sorry way to live.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Job Search
Been making my first effort ever at finding a full-time job.
It's depressing.
Not because there aren't jobs available, but because I just can't seem to get excited at the prospect of any of them.
I know I definitely need to get away from my current job.
Been there almost four years, and I'm about ready to start dropping f-bombs from the moment I start each workday.
I think that's a good sign it's time to LEAVE.
But leave to what?
I'm finally getting benefits, which will probably NEVER happen with any other part-time job.
Paid time off, paid holidays...it's nice.
But it's also been a pain, given how easily it can be taken away if you don't keep track.
I need to leave.
I've been an outsider from day 1 at this branch, no matter how much I learned I had in common with several of my coworkers.
Plus since the turnover rate is so high, it's not like at the previous branch where I spent 3 years getting to know everyone because NOBODY EVER LEFT.
..until I did, to be closer to home and school.
The management gets on my nerves, the "policies" are such lack-of-common-sense crap (especially FORCED "friendliness"), and an overall sense of BS permeates nearly all interactions between staff members.
But again, I'm not sure where I'm going.
It's not as if I'm saying, "Okay, time to ditch the crap job and get the one I've always dreamed of!"
Am I weird for never dreaming about having a particular job?
My dreams tended to be DOING THINGS, like winning a Pulitzer or even just seeing my name in the Table of Contents in an anthology.
Well, I've gotten the latter twice, thanks to college publications.
Still, it's not the best thing to keep in mind when roving through monster.com trying to find something that sounds good.
Even career coaching books have nothing for you if you ever answer one of their questions with "I don't know."
Prime example:
"Think of someone you've seen in person or on TV who looked like they were doing something you'd want to do."
1) Including TV in that is total BS, because who doesn't want to be on TV in some capacity?
2) I've NEVER seen someone doing a JOB that made me all giddy inside.
When I say "job", I don't mean "performing artist," "theatrical performer," or "choreography expert."
I.E., singer/instrumentalist, actor, or dancer.
I'm talking about day-to-day, 9-5, pays-the-bills type of job.
Never seen one I pined for.
So I've focused my energies on developing my creative talents instead of trying to grow towards particular employment qualifications.
As a result, I'm automatically handicapped when entering the job safari.
It's depressing.
Not because there aren't jobs available, but because I just can't seem to get excited at the prospect of any of them.
I know I definitely need to get away from my current job.
Been there almost four years, and I'm about ready to start dropping f-bombs from the moment I start each workday.
I think that's a good sign it's time to LEAVE.
But leave to what?
I'm finally getting benefits, which will probably NEVER happen with any other part-time job.
Paid time off, paid holidays...it's nice.
But it's also been a pain, given how easily it can be taken away if you don't keep track.
I need to leave.
I've been an outsider from day 1 at this branch, no matter how much I learned I had in common with several of my coworkers.
Plus since the turnover rate is so high, it's not like at the previous branch where I spent 3 years getting to know everyone because NOBODY EVER LEFT.
..until I did, to be closer to home and school.
The management gets on my nerves, the "policies" are such lack-of-common-sense crap (especially FORCED "friendliness"), and an overall sense of BS permeates nearly all interactions between staff members.
But again, I'm not sure where I'm going.
It's not as if I'm saying, "Okay, time to ditch the crap job and get the one I've always dreamed of!"
Am I weird for never dreaming about having a particular job?
My dreams tended to be DOING THINGS, like winning a Pulitzer or even just seeing my name in the Table of Contents in an anthology.
Well, I've gotten the latter twice, thanks to college publications.
Still, it's not the best thing to keep in mind when roving through monster.com trying to find something that sounds good.
Even career coaching books have nothing for you if you ever answer one of their questions with "I don't know."
Prime example:
"Think of someone you've seen in person or on TV who looked like they were doing something you'd want to do."
1) Including TV in that is total BS, because who doesn't want to be on TV in some capacity?
2) I've NEVER seen someone doing a JOB that made me all giddy inside.
When I say "job", I don't mean "performing artist," "theatrical performer," or "choreography expert."
I.E., singer/instrumentalist, actor, or dancer.
I'm talking about day-to-day, 9-5, pays-the-bills type of job.
Never seen one I pined for.
So I've focused my energies on developing my creative talents instead of trying to grow towards particular employment qualifications.
As a result, I'm automatically handicapped when entering the job safari.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
