Monday, February 25, 2008
Thursday, February 21, 2008
A Small Measure of Enlightenment
It used to really rile me up that people like Bill O'Reilly and John Gibson had jobs. Not only jobs, but well-paying, high-profile jobs that could help them coerce women to sexually fondle them with loofahs (remember that Bill?). It was a mixture of anger at how they would boldly lie, bully, take out of context, and deliberately spread propaganda on behalf of the neo-con right wing of the Republican party and their masters Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes. I couldn't stand how they could be so wrong, and how so many people could listen to them and assume what they said had any bearing on reality. Most of all, I was panicked that the people who did listen to these idiots and those like them would go out and vote and perhaps breed to create more people to vote like them. This scared me to no end as I saw the country descend into a murky abyss where we'd spend more time debating gay marriage and saying 'Merry Christmas' than on important things like the national deficit, global politics, and of course Congressional hearings on steroids in MLB.
But recently things changed. I attribute this newfound enlightenment to a number of possible factors. Perhaps I realized that life is short and my time is too valuable to waste being angry about these things I cannot change. I just go about assuming that 50% of all the things Bill O'Reilly says are flat out wrong, and the other 50% is not worth knowing. Or at least, not worth knowing from him. I can't change the fact that someone chose to give him a show to vent his vitrol, but I can control whether I pay him any attention. I would make some analogy to a wound that would heal if you stopped paying attention to it, but really, most cuts on the roof of my mouth have 10 times more impact on my day to day than Bill O'Reilly. He can't make me angry if I don't watch him or pay attention to the things he says. And there's no reason for me to pay attention to the things he says. In light of this, why bother?
Maybe some of the ability to push people like Papa Bear out of my mind comes from the fact that I understand why he is the way he is and why he makes me angry. Part of it may come from the man that calls O'Reilly by that mocking pet name, Stephen Colbert. When the Colbert Report launched, it cemented in my mind the fact that the O'Reilly Factor and shows of that ilk are designed to make me angry. They are based on the cult of personality. The show sells to people who see the character as a caricature of their own beliefs and feelings, someone who is the larger than life embodiment of your personal opinions. The problem is the only way he can maintain his personality is to be belligerent, provoking an emotional response. If people like him engaged you on an intellectual or rational level, he'd no longer be a personality. Therefore he has to engage you on a baser instinct. In order to do that, he has to get more and more absurd, more and more outrageous. There is not limit to how insane you can sound. There is a limit to when the majority of rational people stop listening to you. (This is part of my 20-60-20 idea, but that is for another time, another post.) As people tuned him out, he's had to become more controversial to try and keep his current fans and try and attract new ones. But one day, he'll have tuned out enough rational Americans that he'll have no angry, stammering, callers who call in and try and make a counter-point, and with no one to shout at, his nonsense is awfully silent. Normally I would pity a fool on an errand of diminishing returns, but it would take a lot for me to pity Bill O'Reilly.
As for the Fox News faithful, the legions of the unwashed uninformed, I don't mind it so much. If a reasonably literate person here in the United States, with the access we have to knowledge and information, still decides to get their news from talking heads, then there's not enough reason inside that person's head for it to be worthwhile to debate them. They just do not have the frame of reference needed to do anything except make you angry; you can't debate the size of the equator if your opponent does not agree that the earth is flat. What is accomplished by trying to persuade or argue with a person that believes this stuff? More importantly, as the talking heads have gotten more out of hand, the fewer people are already listening to them. As per this, http://mediamatters.org/columns/200801290001, albeit Media Matters is a very left-leaning blog, a lot of their reasons make sense. Even the Democratic party has gotten wise to the fact that there is no point in debating on Fox News. They won't listen and they won't let you speak, so how can you change their minds?
So, in light of all this, let old Bill O off the hook. It's ok, he knows he's wrong, but it's too late now. If he starts being reasonable, his whole world would collapse.
But recently things changed. I attribute this newfound enlightenment to a number of possible factors. Perhaps I realized that life is short and my time is too valuable to waste being angry about these things I cannot change. I just go about assuming that 50% of all the things Bill O'Reilly says are flat out wrong, and the other 50% is not worth knowing. Or at least, not worth knowing from him. I can't change the fact that someone chose to give him a show to vent his vitrol, but I can control whether I pay him any attention. I would make some analogy to a wound that would heal if you stopped paying attention to it, but really, most cuts on the roof of my mouth have 10 times more impact on my day to day than Bill O'Reilly. He can't make me angry if I don't watch him or pay attention to the things he says. And there's no reason for me to pay attention to the things he says. In light of this, why bother?
Maybe some of the ability to push people like Papa Bear out of my mind comes from the fact that I understand why he is the way he is and why he makes me angry. Part of it may come from the man that calls O'Reilly by that mocking pet name, Stephen Colbert. When the Colbert Report launched, it cemented in my mind the fact that the O'Reilly Factor and shows of that ilk are designed to make me angry. They are based on the cult of personality. The show sells to people who see the character as a caricature of their own beliefs and feelings, someone who is the larger than life embodiment of your personal opinions. The problem is the only way he can maintain his personality is to be belligerent, provoking an emotional response. If people like him engaged you on an intellectual or rational level, he'd no longer be a personality. Therefore he has to engage you on a baser instinct. In order to do that, he has to get more and more absurd, more and more outrageous. There is not limit to how insane you can sound. There is a limit to when the majority of rational people stop listening to you. (This is part of my 20-60-20 idea, but that is for another time, another post.) As people tuned him out, he's had to become more controversial to try and keep his current fans and try and attract new ones. But one day, he'll have tuned out enough rational Americans that he'll have no angry, stammering, callers who call in and try and make a counter-point, and with no one to shout at, his nonsense is awfully silent. Normally I would pity a fool on an errand of diminishing returns, but it would take a lot for me to pity Bill O'Reilly.
As for the Fox News faithful, the legions of the unwashed uninformed, I don't mind it so much. If a reasonably literate person here in the United States, with the access we have to knowledge and information, still decides to get their news from talking heads, then there's not enough reason inside that person's head for it to be worthwhile to debate them. They just do not have the frame of reference needed to do anything except make you angry; you can't debate the size of the equator if your opponent does not agree that the earth is flat. What is accomplished by trying to persuade or argue with a person that believes this stuff? More importantly, as the talking heads have gotten more out of hand, the fewer people are already listening to them. As per this, http://mediamatters.org/columns/200801290001, albeit Media Matters is a very left-leaning blog, a lot of their reasons make sense. Even the Democratic party has gotten wise to the fact that there is no point in debating on Fox News. They won't listen and they won't let you speak, so how can you change their minds?
So, in light of all this, let old Bill O off the hook. It's ok, he knows he's wrong, but it's too late now. If he starts being reasonable, his whole world would collapse.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Grad School Status
I thought I would create a list of the schools I applied to for graduate school and keep you guys updated on the status. In rough order of preference:
Berkeley - Denied
CMU - Accepted <----- Going Here
Michigan - Accepted
Indiana - Accepted
Texas - Accepted
Georgia Tech - Accepted
San Jose St - Accepted
Thanks to all of you guys who helped me out with my applications. I'll update here as I receive more responses.
Berkeley - Denied
CMU - Accepted <----- Going Here
Michigan - Accepted
Indiana - Accepted
Texas - Accepted
Georgia Tech - Accepted
San Jose St - Accepted
Thanks to all of you guys who helped me out with my applications. I'll update here as I receive more responses.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Reactions to politics
In reaction to the discussion about the W state of the union address, which by all my understanding, was basically foolish. Bush in effect, tried to legitimate his presidential legacy (in a positive way) - which I didn't think was possible, to put a spin on the last 8 years in a positive light. This totally ignores the fact, that he misused the STATE OF THE UNION address to forward his political standing. This is severe lack of ethics by itself.
But we are straying from the point. I am realizing early in my business career that there is a significant difference, and value, between strategic decision making and the communication of those decisions. I am realizing, that while a president is a lonely man/woman at the top of a great government, he constantly has advisors influence and manipulate his stance and actions, so in effect he/she does not necessarily create or effect change, but communicates change to the public, foreign and domestic alike. The president is the ultimate figurehead.
Thus, in my opinion valuable traits of a president are, that he be charismatic, able to articulate and formulate responses and adapt to unique situations (read intelligent) and above all a good public speaker. Said candidate must also surround him/herself (and want to) with more intelligent people, that assist in developing strategy and making decisions. It is too much, to ask someone to be all these things at once, and honestly, if we were to find that presidential candidate, we should quickly abolish term limits. As I clarify the role I want my president to play in the future of this country, I am inspired by the recent caucusing of Barak Obama. Granted, I have been in his court since the whisperings of him running in this race began in 04, he embodies all of the things I have just touched upon. Let him do his job, and let other people do theirs. I agree his platform matters, and I think it is strong. But I really cannot understand what confidence Hilary Clinton inspires in the voting public. Please regale me with your opinions to the contrary (+1 SAT words here). She is mechanical and comes across as cold hearted to combat the preconception that a woman in power will be too emotional.
In any event, this will be an interesting week, with my PATS playing for an undefeated season and the primary elections being all but finalized on Tuesday.
But we are straying from the point. I am realizing early in my business career that there is a significant difference, and value, between strategic decision making and the communication of those decisions. I am realizing, that while a president is a lonely man/woman at the top of a great government, he constantly has advisors influence and manipulate his stance and actions, so in effect he/she does not necessarily create or effect change, but communicates change to the public, foreign and domestic alike. The president is the ultimate figurehead.
Thus, in my opinion valuable traits of a president are, that he be charismatic, able to articulate and formulate responses and adapt to unique situations (read intelligent) and above all a good public speaker. Said candidate must also surround him/herself (and want to) with more intelligent people, that assist in developing strategy and making decisions. It is too much, to ask someone to be all these things at once, and honestly, if we were to find that presidential candidate, we should quickly abolish term limits. As I clarify the role I want my president to play in the future of this country, I am inspired by the recent caucusing of Barak Obama. Granted, I have been in his court since the whisperings of him running in this race began in 04, he embodies all of the things I have just touched upon. Let him do his job, and let other people do theirs. I agree his platform matters, and I think it is strong. But I really cannot understand what confidence Hilary Clinton inspires in the voting public. Please regale me with your opinions to the contrary (+1 SAT words here). She is mechanical and comes across as cold hearted to combat the preconception that a woman in power will be too emotional.
In any event, this will be an interesting week, with my PATS playing for an undefeated season and the primary elections being all but finalized on Tuesday.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
W
So I was watching the State of the Union and had to turn it off because I couldn't stand the speaker. Because I wanted to make myself more angry, I decided to try and recall all the things that made me feel that way.
- An unprovoked military action (not a war, wars are declared) which has cost the lives of 4000 US Servicemen and women and $1 Trillion. These two numbers continue to increase
- Said military action being completely unjustified having since all the proof dis-credited
- The cost of said military action, in addition to cost of things like tax cuts, have been funded by large amounts of deficit spending, which leave much of the debt of the nation in the hands of the Chinese and on the shoulders of our children. Perhaps even our childrens' children.
- NSA Wiretapping
- Justice Department firings
- Enron
- Violating civil liberties domestically (torture, suspension of habeas corpus)
- Violating human dignity abroad
- Katrina
- Jack Abramoff
Yep, that's it. My head is about to explode. Can you guys think of any more?
Basically, in a single statement: After the most tragic event in US history, this President had a singular moment in time ask us to sacrifice for the greater good, ask the world to band together, and ask us all to move towards a world without fear, violence, and want. Instead, we spend, we alienate, and we manufacture fear, violence, and want.
And we re-elected him too.
- An unprovoked military action (not a war, wars are declared) which has cost the lives of 4000 US Servicemen and women and $1 Trillion. These two numbers continue to increase
- Said military action being completely unjustified having since all the proof dis-credited
- The cost of said military action, in addition to cost of things like tax cuts, have been funded by large amounts of deficit spending, which leave much of the debt of the nation in the hands of the Chinese and on the shoulders of our children. Perhaps even our childrens' children.
- NSA Wiretapping
- Justice Department firings
- Enron
- Violating civil liberties domestically (torture, suspension of habeas corpus)
- Violating human dignity abroad
- Katrina
- Jack Abramoff
Yep, that's it. My head is about to explode. Can you guys think of any more?
Basically, in a single statement: After the most tragic event in US history, this President had a singular moment in time ask us to sacrifice for the greater good, ask the world to band together, and ask us all to move towards a world without fear, violence, and want. Instead, we spend, we alienate, and we manufacture fear, violence, and want.
And we re-elected him too.
Blogging
So I just recently discovered how much I've grown to like this whole blogging thing. I would say it happened when I noticed it was 3AM and I had been perusing my friends' blogs for the last 4 hours. In light of that, I'm going to post more to the blogs I'm involved in, mostly this and that. I know there's probably no one who reads this, but it's strangely cathartic, and man do I love using SAT words.
Juno
I just went to see Juno last weekend. It was hilarious. Definitely worth seeing. Very smart.
Nothing really important about this blog entry. I was gonna do a whole review thing, but I think the movie is worth seeing on it's own merits. You don't need my convoluted ramblings and misinterpretations to spoil it for you.
But one thing I do want to note is regarding the reviews of the movie I have read on user review sites, such as Meta Critic and Rotten Tomatoes. Most people loved it. But there were a significant number of negative reviews. Upon further inspection, I found the negative reviews to be mostly related to the morality and politics of the movie. Generally, the people who didn't like it, didn't like because "...Script paces like a long commercial ad for justifying guiltless, irresponsible and promiscuous sexual ploys. Shamefully, Diablo Cody and Ellen Page will go down in the filmmaking history as model promoters of teen sex and teen unwed mothers." Huh? I liked the movie because it didn't go into justifying the morality of the whole thing. In fact, there is an interesting scene examining the absurdity of the Pro-Life v. Pro-Choice movements. The film is very much set up as 'Juno got pregnant, how does everyone respond to it'. Did they want the movie to be a rant against teenage promiscuity? I for one think that would be much less funny.
My point is, can art no longer be interpreted without moral and political undertones? Can a film not just be a film?
Nothing really important about this blog entry. I was gonna do a whole review thing, but I think the movie is worth seeing on it's own merits. You don't need my convoluted ramblings and misinterpretations to spoil it for you.
But one thing I do want to note is regarding the reviews of the movie I have read on user review sites, such as Meta Critic and Rotten Tomatoes. Most people loved it. But there were a significant number of negative reviews. Upon further inspection, I found the negative reviews to be mostly related to the morality and politics of the movie. Generally, the people who didn't like it, didn't like because "...Script paces like a long commercial ad for justifying guiltless, irresponsible and promiscuous sexual ploys. Shamefully, Diablo Cody and Ellen Page will go down in the filmmaking history as model promoters of teen sex and teen unwed mothers." Huh? I liked the movie because it didn't go into justifying the morality of the whole thing. In fact, there is an interesting scene examining the absurdity of the Pro-Life v. Pro-Choice movements. The film is very much set up as 'Juno got pregnant, how does everyone respond to it'. Did they want the movie to be a rant against teenage promiscuity? I for one think that would be much less funny.
My point is, can art no longer be interpreted without moral and political undertones? Can a film not just be a film?
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
The Miami Cowboys
Most of you are probably not watching this unfold as I am, but it is getting crazy how the Dolphins are becoming the Miami (or South Beach) Cowboys. I know Parcells likes to surround himself with familiar personnel but seriously:
Bill Parcells - former Cowboys head coach, now Dolphins VP of football operations
Jeff Ireland - former Cowboys VP of college and pro scouting, now Dolphins GM
Tony Sparano - former Cowboys offensive line coach / assistant head coach, now Dolphins head coach
Brian Gaine - former Cowboys assistant director of pro scouting, now Dolphins assistant director of player personnel
Todd Bowles - former Cowboys secondary coach, now Dolphins assistant head coach
Paul Pasqualoni - former Cowboys linebackers coach, now Dolphins defensive coordinator
Kacy Rodgers - former Cowboys defensive tackles / defensive line coach, now Dolphins defensive line coach
I say give them 2-3 years with Parcells and Ireland running the draft and the Dolphins will be contenders in what is currently the worst division in the league.
Bill Parcells - former Cowboys head coach, now Dolphins VP of football operations
Jeff Ireland - former Cowboys VP of college and pro scouting, now Dolphins GM
Tony Sparano - former Cowboys offensive line coach / assistant head coach, now Dolphins head coach
Brian Gaine - former Cowboys assistant director of pro scouting, now Dolphins assistant director of player personnel
Todd Bowles - former Cowboys secondary coach, now Dolphins assistant head coach
Paul Pasqualoni - former Cowboys linebackers coach, now Dolphins defensive coordinator
Kacy Rodgers - former Cowboys defensive tackles / defensive line coach, now Dolphins defensive line coach
I say give them 2-3 years with Parcells and Ireland running the draft and the Dolphins will be contenders in what is currently the worst division in the league.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
A Word on the Patriots' Sportsmanship
Courtesy of Touchdown.org
"""
4: We Are Allowed to Score Whenever We Want – You Are Not
The same New England Patriots who go for it on 4th down when they are up by 38 points in the 4th quarter and say "it is the other teams job to stop us" didn’t always sing that tune. In 2002 when the Patriots beat the Pittsburgh Steelers, the Steelers did their best to score in the final seconds of a 30-7 game that they were losing. After the game, Tedy Bruschi said:
“I did have some respect for that team, but after what they pulled on that last drive, it’s totally lost now" Bruschi said. “You’re getting beat….just accept it with class. I know we would have if the tables were turned. But they’re out there calling timeouts, trying to get extra yards, padding their stats”
"""
Tedy Bruschi, always standing up for good sportsmanship and playing till the last whistle.
"""
4: We Are Allowed to Score Whenever We Want – You Are Not
The same New England Patriots who go for it on 4th down when they are up by 38 points in the 4th quarter and say "it is the other teams job to stop us" didn’t always sing that tune. In 2002 when the Patriots beat the Pittsburgh Steelers, the Steelers did their best to score in the final seconds of a 30-7 game that they were losing. After the game, Tedy Bruschi said:
“I did have some respect for that team, but after what they pulled on that last drive, it’s totally lost now" Bruschi said. “You’re getting beat….just accept it with class. I know we would have if the tables were turned. But they’re out there calling timeouts, trying to get extra yards, padding their stats”
"""
Tedy Bruschi, always standing up for good sportsmanship and playing till the last whistle.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Impromptu visit to San Francisco
Yo: I wanted to let you all know I just booked plane tickets to SF the weekend of Feb 22-24th. Ajay will be in town for the weekend for a conference and my flights were only 200 bucks. Anyway I wanted to let everyone know because if you can you should all come out or meet up as applicable. We are gonna eat some good food, and this is the point of the post. I am going to make reservations in the next week, but need to know how many people.
The idea will probably be to eat one night at a pretty nice place around 30-40 dollars per person - (This is probably going to be later on Friday night around 10:00 seating since we get in around 9:00) all said, and the second night (probably saturday) a top 10 type joint, closer to 80-100 bucks per person, but really good.
So let me know. and none of this is solid yet so if you have suggestions, post up.
I am thinking at least preliminarily about
friday - slanted door
saturday - masa's or boulevard.
Alex
The idea will probably be to eat one night at a pretty nice place around 30-40 dollars per person - (This is probably going to be later on Friday night around 10:00 seating since we get in around 9:00) all said, and the second night (probably saturday) a top 10 type joint, closer to 80-100 bucks per person, but really good.
So let me know. and none of this is solid yet so if you have suggestions, post up.
I am thinking at least preliminarily about
friday - slanted door
saturday - masa's or boulevard.
Alex
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)