June 01, 2009 - GM: Survival of the Weakest

First off, let me clarify that I do not stand with those of general outrage at the Government bailing out a private sector corporation. I don't stand with those angry creditors and investors of GM who are effectively getting the shortest end of the stick. I don't even stand with those that rally against Government regulation, in fact, I'm generally in support of it.

I'm against the chainsaw for brain surgery approach that the Obama administration is taking to try to bolster out economy once again.

When Bush stole the $300 for everyone idea from Futurama to try and stimulate the economy, (See Futurama Ep 70, "Three Hundred Big Boys" and Bush Stimulus Plan, aka "WASTEDCASH",) I was among many to applaud the idea in theory (and in the form of a sweet tax rebate) and reject it in general practice. It seems that many moves are merely political in action, without taking the time to sit down and generate a detailed and thorough solution to the economic crisis.

GM is responsible for hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout its corporate structure and trickle-down links within the automotive industry, from dealerships to part manufacturers and so on. Its centralized focus is the mid-west, a vast realm of political support for the right wing; an area desperately courted by the Democratic party, often with the same results of taking your Prom date to White Castle.

Many cite the Chrysler deal as a representative of the possible success that GM could see post-bankruptcy. All it would take is for another incredibly unsuccessful company (Fiat) to make an amazing turnaround in sales to garner enough funds to buy out the broken company (Chrysler), leading to a practical marriage of universal need by two partners who could barely stand on their own. So who would marry GM? Step up ladies, as the perfect groom is here, a company run by greedy, self-wounding executives who learned the ultimate lesson that failure leads to success...at least for them, and not the hundreds of thousands out of work.

Excuse me for the digression. When you live in a state that represents, even at its worst, 10% of the nation's entire economy, it is tough to see our social services and education systems being left in the cold by the Federal Government, while a private corporation is given a sensual massage by the president himself.

So forgive my coldness to the matter. Oh, and a quick message to the bondholders who invested in GM and are crying sour because their money is gone. Congratulations, that's what happens when you invest in a company that fails. Move along. (Even worse is that the government is bailing out the "secured creditors", once again, we are paying as a people for others' foolish mistakes.)

Back to the matter previously mentioned, Obama's choice to bail out GM in hopes to stimulate the economy, rescue jobs in the long-term and support the "American Ideal" that GM is a company that represents the strength of American workers, is utter foolishness. The automotive industry represents approximately 2.5% of our national economy, with GM a sliver of that. The potential for success after bankruptcy for companies like GM and Chrysler are extremely slim, even with the European bail-out of Chrysler.

As for the "American Ideal", GM no longer represents the strength and integrity of American workers. All it represents now is that the incompetence of greedy executives comes with little consequence and that failure is rewarded and success punished.

If we want the economy to thrive, we need to encourage the growth of healthy business practices, reward those companies that succeed or else risk never evolving in a world economy eager to leave us behind. Survival of the weakest doesn't work in the wild, and it certainly won't work in the world of business.

One Story, One Draft - Preface

Since I never seem to actually write anything on this blog, or rather, I do in such sparse and infrequent ways, I want to try a writing exercise.

One story, one draft, unedited, just written and posted. Not sure where it's going or what exactly the story will be, but perhaps this is a great way to encourage even further writing. Writing that's random enough to spark a brainstorm, but hopefully good enough to be posted publicly.

Where it starts, here, where it goes, who knows?

Wish me luck.

October 21, 2008 - Gift Wrap

Socialist.

A word that rings with negativity. Designed to invoke negative imagery when spoken, and stuck like an ugly red bow onto the name "Barack Obama" by the McCain political campaign. The advantage of attaching a bow onto something is that you don't need to know what the present actually holds inside. Facts, content, the truth about someone, is completely irrelevant, as we decide between which gift to open November 4. Will it be the box, a little battered by time, perhaps looking a bit like it's been sitting in the closet too long, but wrapped in amazing Red, White & Blue gaudy patriotic colors? Or will it be the shiny new box, the one that seems like it actually has something new inside?

Perhaps it's the holidays that causes me to utilize the "present" metaphor, but it doesn't change that ugly words are being used to try and denigrate Obama's campaign.

Terrorist.

A dark black stain splashed onto Obama's record. However, the stain didn't seem to exist prior to the campaign...a complex chain of events and misdirections have allowed McCain's attack dogs to slander their opponent even further. But truth doesn't matter. Sound bites do.

How many read the headline without reading the article? How many will see the quick note on a news website, without checking the facts? Sitting around the clichéd water cooler, it's easy to posit "Obama's a ____________" without having to explain the history behind the statement.

Muslim.

And there are some marks that in no way should be regarded as pejorative. Soldiers. Doctors. Lawyers. Workers. Americans. All share the Muslim faith. While Obama is not a Muslim, to associate him with that faith is being regarded by many Americans as a horrific taint, a smear.

Why use ten words when you can use one? Why describe millions of people, when one simple word will define them all? Let's make the sounds gentle and easy on the soft ears of American voters. We don't want them to have to listen to more than three seconds of definition, let's just give them one word at a time.

I'm not asking voters to pick a side, I'm asking voters to give their candidates a few second more of their time. Those people that only read the labels and grab for the package that looks nicest on the outside may realize that they may not get what they want.

Personally this year I'm hoping for a brand new clean suit shirt...as opposed to say, a pair of old itchy socks. I got that the last few years, and frankly, I've had enough.

September 28, 2008 - Motivation.

Life and what we accomplish can be defined by three simple questions and three very common answers.

1. What do we want?

Answer: Something.

2. When do we want it?

Answer: Now.

3. How are we going to get it?

Answer: Not my concern, but if you'd be so kind as to leave it on the doorstep, I'm sure after I've had my coffee I'll go right out and drag it inside.

Dreams and desires exist in every single person; the ranges of which vary from the wealth of kings to an extra sugar packet. A simple dream for one may be the lifelong goal for another. And of course, desires always make for good conversation. At least, we always think so when telling the neighbor, "Oh yes, I've got big plans for **goal/accomplishment/large electronic device** and as soon as **slight obstacle** pays off/is paid off, then me and the **wife/dog/iPhone** will be completely **set/happy/drunk**."

It's a horizon, and we often stare off, hoping it will come closer to us, hoping that for once, the sun will listen to our protests, and hold off on setting on another day no closer to our aspirations. Most of us will curse the sun, curse the horizon and probably curse me for pointing these things out.

At the end of the day, we are the ones who must take the step forward.

How we push ourselves is our choice, but finding that motivation is the key to crossing the finish line. Is it a spark of competition? Is it the fear of disappointing all those watching us? Is it the desire burning so strong we must proceed?

The struggle with discovering one's motivation to continue after failure, or even to press forward in times of stress is difficult...and personally I think...pointless.

Wait, hear me out before running for your **antidepressants/alcohol/more humorous website**.

Some people get caught up in the search for motivation, the search for "why". Deep down, we all know what we want. Deep down, there is something we desire that for whatever reason we have pushed aside, ignored, or boarded up and locked away, because simply thinking about what we cannot have is too painful to bear.

The search for why is pointless because we are given opportunity, we are given resources, we are given love and support, and we are given time. We have hands, we have minds, we have an entire world. So don't ask yourself "Why?" Don't even ask yourself "Why not?"

Ask yourself "How?"

All of a sudden, you may find you have created the motivation you've been looking for all this time, simply by asking the right question, and hopefully, finding the right answer.

---

P.S. Forgive the rant, I've cluttered up an entire page with sentences that could simply have been spelled out by saying, "I can get what I want simply by focusing on how to get it as opposed to pondering over where I'll find the motivation to get it." I know this is the 10,000 piece puzzle, simple on the outside of the box, but a complicated mess if you get into it, but I hope that I've at least put forward one good idea. At the very least, I'm motivated to do so.

September 26, 2008 - The Presidential Debate

Who won the debate?

In a match where some punches were pulled, others were glancing uppercuts, but none seemed to be the knockout blow. Even debate helmsman Jim Lehrer urged the competitors on, insisting they direct their responses to one another as opposed to the blind cameras. Not to say some blows weren't landed; Obama sharply criticized McCain's tired politics and a faithfulness to the Bush Administration Johnny M couldn't seem to distance himself away from enough, while John McCain seemed to stress that Obama's plans would merely result in emptying the pockets of America.

Points, arguments, attacks, the only true way to measure the debate is by content. What did each potential candidate bring to the table fresh that wasn't repeated a mere 15 seconds earlier? Some answers became tired, repetitive...and were there a drinking game tied to the number of mentions of "cutting spending" by McCain, I would be far beyond the ability to write out this blog, or even a coherent sentence.

You cannot fault either candidate for mispronouncing a name, or forgetting a word here and there. What you can fault them for, are blatant lies, and lining up a pathway that will send our country into utter turmoil. There is only one candidate tonight who outlined a road that is different than the one we have been traveling. Both purported change, one represented it.

It's our tax money, where do we want it to go...into programs that reduce the cost of health care and gasoline, or into the pockets of the wealthy.

October 25, 2007 - Image #0019 - "Parallel Universes, Science Fiction of Fact? (In another universe I wrote a better Headline)"

(image to be posted later)

It has been postulated since 1954, when Hugh Everett III came up with the idea, that multiple universes exist parallel to our own, where our choices and actions have come up different than what we have chosen here, in our universe. Multiple works of science fiction have entertained this idea, from the television show Sliders to Futurama. However, scientists now, like Dr. Michio Kaku, inventor of "string theory" and others believe that parallel universes could be more real than we think.

Think about it. Perhaps, this morning you had eggs for breakfast. Another you could have had ham, or skipped breakfast entirely...the theory claims that for every decision you could possibly make, there is an infinite number of universes created for every single one. Richard Feynman and Stephen Hawking both ascribe to this theory, as do many others.

To break it down, quantum particles, the things everything is made of, split, much like when we decide whether we want French Toast or Microwave Waffles in the morning, it's a decision, but at the subatomic level. So when the particles split, they do so on separate levels, on universes that can never interact with one another. They split when an irreversible decision is made, basically, when something has happened. (For an example, albeit probably more confusing, look of Schrodinger's poor kitty.) Seems easy, right? Well, of course, I have to throw a spanner into the works.

This is solely my opinion, and is open for debunking, but theories are theories, I suppose. Let's say you did decide to eat Microwave Waffles this morning, but you considered every other decision. Well, the issue with that decision were the millions of other decisions that fueled yours. Not just the facts that Cold Waffles were the only thing in the fridge, and you can' t put Maple Syrup on cereal, (well you could, but let's leave that to any other parallel universe.) Think of the fact that those waffles were created by a company that sold them to you at a set price, the store that decided to sell them, the store being built, an inherent desire for something to go with Maple Syrup based on childhood experience perhaps, having a microwave, living in a country where that is available, and so on, and so on. Decisions that travel back to the beginning of time if you go far enough.

So this leaves us with one sole consideration; that if parallel universes exist, they must have solely been created before the birth of time, though if basic logic exists on all planes of existence, then logically, there could only be one possible outcome, the current universe within which we exist. The only variable is the modification of Quantum logic, but even that defies parallel universe theory.

My sincerest apologies to those who were hoping that somewhere out there, a parallel version of yourself is enjoying a fancy well-prepared breakfast of Lobster Omelettes and Crepes, but think of it this way, you can either enjoy life as it is, and has been given to you, and relish in every decision that you make, knowing that it is yours and yours alone....or you can buy a cookbook, and save the Microwave Waffles for someone else.

(Fun Fact[?]!: Based on the laws of the Copenhagen view, observation is necessary for physical existence, but parallel universes can never be observed, therefore denying their possibility within our range of existence! Schrodinger's Cat is Hungry/not hungry.)

Quick Add: Referencing activity in the macroscopic universe, parallel actions are unlikely due to the setup for said actions. Parallel existence is referring to the wavelength collapse of quantum particles, and the possibilities of multiple functions of said particles. I may be unable to "disprove" the existence of a parallel universe, but I am hypothesizing that any parallel universe that operates under the identical logic of our universe cannot exist because it would recreate itself identically to ours.

So there is the possibility that a parallel universe exists, but is completely identical, but because it cannot be observed, under Copenhagen views, keeps a Schrodinger's Cat type balance, where it exists and not exists...so perhaps our universe is always the one that exists.

March 3, 2007 - Image #0018 - "Ce N'est Pas Un Crayon"

Rene Magritte's art stretched the boundaries of our perception, challenging viewers to alter the way they look at the world and reality as we know it. Accepting what we see as real is different from acknowledging what we know to exist and how we perceive it. Magritte's Treachery of Images is a simple painting of a pipe with the statement, "Ce n'est pas une pipe." Simply stating that the image of the pipe is not a pipe itself, but an image of one. This question of perception has inspired thousands of artists and millions of those who are willing to accept an alternate view.

We viewed his works at a special show at the Los Angeles Contemporary Museum of Art, along with the works of other modern artists and surrealists. Inspired by Magritte, artists created pieces that challenge logic and cause you to look at the world with an adjusted viewpoint.

The Ladder of Fire displays three items, a scrap of paper, a chair and an elaborate Horn, all engulfed in flame and shown as such left to right. The complexity and "value" of each item increases from left to right from the paper to the horn, so our brain may give off feelings of concern for the items, although, within the picture, although they are covered in flame, they appear unharmed. This also brings us to the final point, that in the end, it is also not an actual fire, but simply an image of one.

The limitations of our perception stretch beyond an understanding of Modern Art and into every decision we make on a daily basis. Opening your mind to a myriad of possibilities, even unrealistic and illogical ones gives you a wider worldview and a new way of appreciating the world around us.