|
|
Thursday, August 27th, 2009
| |
10:54 pm - ¡Qué relief!
|
So, despite my mishaps, I did, in fact, get in! Really, big ball of tension melting away. Thanks for the well-wishes, well-wishers! :)
For anyone in the Houston area who is interested, here's the concert schedule:
( Concert schedule for anyone interested )
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| |
9:50 am - Audition report
|
So, last night, I had my first audition in almost exactly 15 years (scary how time files), for the Doctor's Orchestra of Houston. I wish I could say it went swimmingly...but it didn't. ( sordid details of my musical woes... ) Next time, a stiff drink first....
current mood:  frustrated
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, June 16th, 2009
| |
10:10 pm
|
I read Jadyn "The Giving Tree" earlier tonight, during the eat-some-read-some procrastination game we play as she puts off bath-time. It was one of the gifts she received at her birthday party this weekend. The first time I read it to her, Sunday, I could barely get the words out, at a whisper, as I struggled through the last few pages of the book. She doesn't know it yet (and she graciously refrained from asking daddy what was wrong), but it's profoundly sad. The reading tonight went better, but it still left me wistful. I generally spend a lot of time distracting myself from thinking about the sorts of topics the book so poignantly addresses. Charity and Jadyn went to see "Up" recently, and on coming home, Charity repeatedly said about the movie that "life is so short". I fully believe that it's an excellent film which I will some day enjoy, but I have to admit that I felt a bit wary of it hearing her say that. Life *is* short, so short, and I'm not keen to think too deeply on the subject. My favorite book of the Bible has long been Ecclesiastes, not for its inspiration, but for its truth. More than any other message, the cry of The Preacher that "All is vanity" rings so true. In my more foolish youth, I used to think it was a fine thing, laudable, to really push oneself in plumbing the depths of one's soul. I like to fancy that I was rather good at doing that, but it came at a cost...to me, to those close to me. I finally broke off from that damaging pursuit, accepting first unconsciously, and later more directly that perhaps it was simply better to live a life less-well-examined. Since at least my mid-20s I think I've grown increasingly uncomfortable with mortality and aging, not just my own, but everyone's. It's hard enough that life must end, crueler still that getting there involves the slow, inevitable decline in capabilities. And though I've barely seen death touch my life, those I have lost--my brother, my favorite teacher--it's hard to convince myself that their memories and legacies in the lives of others are sufficient memorial to them. They brought a richness to the world that can't be captured in memory, memories which afford a pale shadow of what once was. Railing against it though, dwelling on it, is of course also vanity. It's true, the cold Truth of Nature, and it can not be changed. And because I don't believe in the foolish pursuit of my youth, I set it all aside, and I turn to my own personal panem et circenses. And maybe, tomorrow night, we can read "Fox In Socks" instead.
current mood:  contemplative
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, October 7th, 2008
| |
11:29 pm - pres debate #2
|
so...another debate come and gone. first, my snarky comment: McCain: "President Reagan, my hero", and later "my hero is a guy named Teddy Roosevelt". Fair enough, you're allowed to have two heroes, no more. :) Just struck me when he said it the second time, it seemed a bit funny given he had said the other one so shortly before.
Okay, got that out of my system. The problem they BOTH had, I felt, was too much time trying to bang on each other. And, of course, as EVERYone has noted, the debate could have pretty easily been pre-recorded with soundbites taken from their many campaign speeches over the past...however long. I like the idea of the man-on-the-street questions as used in the town-hall debate format, but it, and the Lincoln-Douglass style debate both suffer because the debate format (and ultimately the public) don't require the candidates to actually answer the damn question. I felt...Obama had a slight edge in making motions to answer the question asked, but it was a slight edge--both candidates were very quick to move to their talking points and away from thinking about and answering the question being asked. Obama suffered from doing it, and McCain did as well. To be fair, giving a nuanced answer can be fatal if your opponent is going to give a canned response--you are much more likely to give a response that gives the opponent ammunition. So...you need to make sure that both candidates are playing on a level field, otherwise we end up with what we've got.
My suggestion, which I don't by any means think is the only solution, is to take advantage of our penchant for reality tv style voting, and give the candidates instant feedback, through the course of the debate. Certainly the debate voters would need to be selected carefully (whether balanced by party, or experts, or something) so that it isn't just a popularity contest...but the subject of their vote needs to be selected as well. The question they vote on should NOT be, "Do you like that answer?", but, "Did the candidate answer that question?" I would love to see, after both candidates have answered, the moderator say to each candidate, "XX% [of the voters] felt you did not address or answer the question being asked." Now, this wouldn't force them to actually answer the damn question, but I think it would apply a definite pressure to them to answer the questions and avoid retreating to talking points.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Thursday, October 2nd, 2008
| |
9:11 pm - debate thoughts
|
|
palin is out of her element. i think biden is doing an excellent job debating mccain's policies. palin is spending too much time trying to debate biden's voting record instead of obama's policies. i'm really not sure how she comes across though, in this debate. i think...if you're an opponent, you find tons of things to get frustrated with palin about. like, wft is with all the "we're going to do what is best" answers!?!?!? like, seriously, tell me what you think "best" is, b/c obviously it's not a foregone conclusion.... otoh, if you're a supporter, she's hitting all her talking points, so far as i can tell. biden...well, i think he's been doing a good job, and i'm pretty pleased with how he's comported himself. but i don't know how he's being perceived by the people who aren't already voting for him....
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Monday, September 29th, 2008
| |
9:13 pm - I'm worried
|
that the class and ideological divides in this country will prevent us from saving ourselves. I was reading quite a bit about the debate over the bill to save the economy, and I thought this guy's comment on a news story summed up the populist position really well:
"The truth is the banks have been irresponsible. Politicians appear themselves to be worried about their own savings.Perhaps raising the fdic guarantees could calm the most panicked people in the country who just happen to be wealthy politicians. I refuse to send my good money after bad. We dont need 700 billion tomorrow we need banks to be open and responsible.We also need politicians to listen to constituents and stop trying to save their personal multimillion dollar accounts at Goldman Sachs or Morgan or whoever." - Michael G Riley
I have no idea if he is liberal or conservative, the truth is that this populism crosses ideological lines, from Newt Gingrich to Michael Moore, so talk of liberal or conservative is besides the point (to be fair to Newt, he realized today that the bailout is necessary). While I understand the populist frustration, I think the pitfalls of letting that frustration guide us are well summarized by a RedState blogger (Blackhedd): "the commercial paper market may freeze up, the company where you work may not be able to operate, and your paycheck might bounce", and also by the Motley Fool: "If the crisis persists, we could be in for a consumer depression, which would hurt us all far more than it would cost us to prevent it today. We do not say this with any pleasure: The choice is between taxpayers taking on the responsibility for this crisis in an orderly fashion or a non-orderly one. Either way, we're on the hook to clean up the mess." The Motley Fool also has an excellent informational page on the mess.
Blackhedd assumed the opposition to the bailout would come from Republicans, and said that "If there’s no deal, there’s no upside for Republicans. (Other than being able to cry in their beer that they fought the good fight.)". He was wrong about the opposition, 95 Democrats also voted against the rescue plan, but he's right about one thing: there is no upside to failing to rescue our economy. People can thumb their noses at Wall Street bankers who made bets they couldn't cover, but you know what? Those guys aren't going to suffer like the average American will if the financial system collapses.
And that's the crux of the problem. We have a real class divide in this country, and, like most divides, I don't think the people on either side really understand what life is like in the other man's shoes. The rich people, many of them really don't understand the struggle that many most people go through every day. And the non-rich (middle and lower class), they don't understand how these problems impact them far more than they will ever impact the rich. I don't think people are aware how much of the economy runs on credit. We do not live in a cash economy, and if the credit stops, business stops. It's not all about people being irresponsible, it's about keeping the system moving. It's about small businesses that have to make payroll, and know a customer is paying $X dollars 1 week from now, but need to pay their employees today; it's about big businesses who are building new plants, new headquarters...they aren't doing these things with briefcases of cash, they're using credit from commercial banks and investment banks. Some might argue it's not the way the economy should work, and while that might make for an interesting essay, it's beside the point: the economy DOES work that way, and if you bring it to a full stop, severe pain ensues.
This isn't an intelligence issue, it's an education issue. I think people of all classes are capable of understanding that if their company can't pay them any more, that it would be a problem. But they aren't being told what's at stake here. Instead, leaders are using this as an opportunity to score political points, to take advantage of the inequality people see between their lives and the fabulous sums of money they read about the rich getting even as they fail. People need to be told, they need to understand that their lives won't get better if the financial companies which made bad decisions simply fail, that their lives will probably get worse. People need to understand that this is cutting off their noses to spite their faces. We can allow politics and class warfare to push our economy over the precipice, and maybe there would be karma in that, after we've allowed our country to be so mired in divisive, bitter, partisan politics for so long, but I don't want to see where that road goes.
ADDENDUM: In the interests of disclosure, I do, in fact, work for a financial services company--though I am hardly likely to ever get a golden parachute if it fails (which is highly unlikely...it'd be soup kitchens for us all if things really got that bad). My profession, though, is software engineering, not finance, so while I don't want to have to find a new job, I know I'd be okay in the end and that my family wouldn't suffer the way many people around the world would if our economy completely tanks. My time in the financial industry has maybe given me some skin in the game, but more than that it has given me a lot more understanding of how the markets and the economy work.
current mood:  worried
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Thursday, July 24th, 2008
| |
2:01 pm - I'm so out of touch
|
With a lot of things, with so many people. I haven't talked to anyone from high school in a long time. If I had, I might have learned that my favorite teacher and one of the biggest influences in my life, Joyce Briscoe, died horrifically two years ago. Apparently the Albuquerque Tribune website is on its way into that good night, so, I'm putting the content here, for my own reference later.
It's odd that someone I haven't corresponded with in too many years would still mean so much to me, but she does. I can't really describe just how upset and sad this makes me.
current mood: stunned
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, June 11th, 2008
| |
1:24 pm
|
Today while waiting in line at Quizno's, I was reading a poster at the printing shop next door. It was the common little poem, you've probably seen it, about one's perception of one's father over one's lifetime. I suppose it might resonate more, now, as a dad, but while I do love my dad, the prominent emotion it evoked in me was not that love, but lament for mortality, regret that my life isn't what i'd like, maybe even a sense of futility and smallness. I don't feel I've lived up to any sort of potential, I don't really know what to do with myself, and I don't know that it really matters much anyway. I feel like I'm running on empty and don't have anywhere to go.
.
.
.
It's very unsatisfying being good at self-analysis. After writing the above, I sat and reflected for a bit, and the honest truth is that I think I feel stifled for lack of recognition. Work hasn't been as rewarding as I think it should have been in that regard, and the truth is (as the people who have known me best can readily attest) that I always thrived on plaudits. So, here I sit, sad because I'm not getting the recognition I feel I deserve, nostalgic for times I did, and without much else to charge my battery. Inspiring, huh.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, January 9th, 2008
| |
12:19 am - guilty pleasure
|
so one of the good things about having a daughter in the potty training set is the television. i always loved curious george and clifford when i was a kid, and i confess, i like getting to watch them now. there's some downsides (there's this new INCREDIBLY annoying show called "super why") but she's not at the age where she harasses us to watch those things.
but the best thing is vintage sesame street. if you go to sesameworkshop.org, they have all sorts of stuff for sale. but the best thing, imho, is the volume 1 and volume 2 vintage sesame street. it covers sesame street from 1969-1979, and it's solid gold. did you know oscar the grouch was orange the first season? i didn't. but there's a lot of stuff i do remember, and it's just a pleasure to watch. am i a loser? undoubtedly, but old sesame street *rocks*. and i make no apologies. amusingly, they include disclaimers with the videos, stating that the old episodes "may not meet the needs of today's preschooler". <cough>bullshit</cough>. i'm completely comfortable watching these gems with my little one. solid gold.
the way the videos work, it's generally one or two episodes per dvd, plus a lot of highlights from the season. each disk is one or two seasons. so it's only a smattering of episodes, but it's great stuff. the extras...well, a lot of that is either the songs you know and love--rubber ducky, it's not easy being green)--or celebrities--james earl jones doing the alphabet in 1969, the pointer sisters singing the alphabet, arthur ashe doing an "over/under" demonstration, or, the VERY BEST (so far) richard pryor doing the alphabet. that is truly classic television.
we just watched episode one tonight, hence the paean. glad it was that instead of the suck which is new hampshire. feh.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Monday, January 7th, 2008
| |
11:53 pm - meme
|
stolen from ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) reinedepique. sorry to say i didn't know a *thing* about mike gravel. now that i do, i'm thinking the quiz is a bit flawed, i don't agree with him on most of his big policy issues.... but i was happy to see obama up at the top, and even happier to see hillary at the bottom. i'm almost surprised she didn't rate lower than she did.
almost all the positions hillary takes to, say, attack obama are issues where i strongly disagree with her. she's probably the one candidate that could see me casting a protest vote for...i don't know, a write-in? gods be good, her campaign will continue to enjoy the same good fortune it's enjoyed thus far.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Thursday, December 27th, 2007
| |
2:13 am
|
went and saw "I Am Legend" earlier this evening. it was...entertaining. good, not great. i think the failing was that it really had an opportunity to say something significant, but it only could muster trite. entertaining, though, because a) will smith and b) manhattan after the apocalypse and c) will smith. (there were some fun action sequences too).
there were also some things which nagged as i watched the film
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, December 18th, 2007
| |
12:47 am - antiquities
|
|
| Friday, December 14th, 2007
| |
12:22 am - shopping for christmas sweaters
|
it's a lousy job. we decided we wanted to get a set of christmas/holiday sweaters for ourselves, and really, ebay seems to be the only place to get them. but oh, what a pain. we were okay going for ugly, but some of them are just to damn ugly to contemplate. and then there's finding the right sizes, and the men's selection is pitiful compared to the women's, and then when you do find one to bid on, you lose it...i think we've lost out on 5+ different sweaters now. did i mention we don't want to spend much money on our ugly sweaters? :)
charity finishes her last exam, the end of class, onward to clinicals, tomorrow. when she starts the rotations, they'll be tough, but for now i'm glad school is out, and especially that exams are done.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Thursday, December 13th, 2007
| |
11:45 pm - the mitchell report
|
|
| Saturday, November 17th, 2007
| |
1:35 am - back on the lj - vigilante justice
|
well, some of you know i've been lurking anyways.
so...there's a news story which prompted this return to posting. i don't know what sort of play it has gotten in the media, but there was recently a man in pasadena, tx (suburb of houston) who shot and killed two burglars (here and here). the catch is that it was mid-afternoon, and they were breaking into his neighbor's house, and he shot them on the way out, after telling the police dispatcher he was going to (very much against the police dispatcher's advice). the 911 call is...interesting, sad....it's linked from both articles, and i recommend listening to it to get a better understanding of what took place.
so what has gotten to me a bit is the reaction to all of this. it's somewhat predictable that he would have both supporters and detractors, i suppose, but reading the comments on the articles...some of them just blow me away.
i guess i just find it disturbing that so many people believe several key things:
1) that if you are committing a crime, you deserve what happens to you, no matter what crime or what consequence.
2) that criminals shouldn't be entitled to any rights, including (apparently) due process
3) that the rule of law is superseded by vigilantism.
4) that belief in due-process is "bleeding-heart liberal crap" and "PC"
5) that crime is only committed by hispanic illegal immigrants or blacks.
it was also mildly amusing how many people didn't seem to know that puerto ricans are us citizens.
in the end, i'll have to wait and see if justice actually does get served, but i'm not terribly optimistic. i just wish there were more local outrage about someone *killing* two people over someone else's property. i simply don't believe any piece of property is worth killing over. absolutely property should be protected by society and by law, but let's not have the death penalty for property crime. i know it's a lot to ask in a state where horse thieves got hung, but....
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Thursday, May 10th, 2007
| |
10:44 pm - movies
|
we rented several movies this weekend, and we've been making our way through them. tonight we watched Bobby. charity didn't quite make it all the way through, i think she's a little sleepy.... the movie itself.... i confess, i sobbed. i've written before about my feelings on robert kennedy after watching the pbs documentary on him. the movie, especially at the end, makes liberal use of recordings of him speaking.... there is something something sad, maybe wistful, such a hard to pin down grief that i feel when i hear Truth, see something completely Right. maybe it's a sadness that we can never achieve the purity of vision, that our reality will never be Good and Whole. i don't know. but hearing the speeches, especially the selection they chose for after his assassination, it just washes over me. where is that today? where?
i think, though, that the film is kind of cheating. i don't know that "bobby" was so excellent on its own merits, but it had as its denouement an event of such emotional force that it imbues everything that comes before with its pathos....
we've seen a few others, casino royale (better than most bonds), babel (a very well done, very moving, very true film all its own, i highly recommend), and the departed. the departed is a film that i think i might end up owning, a rare enough event. some of the editing seemed a little abrupt, but it was a very fun film. which requires a good film, but for example, although i might rate babel as a "better" film, i just don't think watching it so many times would be as fun.
i think so many of us are searching for that cause to believe in. it's a shame we can't find it.
current mood: grieved
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Thursday, April 26th, 2007
| |
12:02 am - so funny i nearly died
|
|
| Friday, April 20th, 2007
| |
12:14 am
|
|
btw, nbc? they did the right thing. the material was *entirely* newsworthy. could it cause victims and their families pain? very probably. but the media *should* have an obligation to the public that trumps private grief. if something is newsworthy (and if better insight into one of our most accomplished mass-murderers *isn't* newsworthy, not much that passes for news is...), the media should provide the information to the public. the media's job is absolutely not to make people feel better about [insert event you care about], but to tell you the facts about things. they shouldn't, and didn't, glamorize what he did, but reporting more deeply on his motivations and mindset, especially in his own words? entirely relevant.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Thursday, April 19th, 2007
| |
12:18 am - guns and depression
|
i saw a statement on the local news tonight (god help me, i was just flipping past, i swear), where the reporter made the statement that the reason so many people died was because they wern't allowed to carry guns to campus. and woe-betide-us, texas has a Very Similar Law. now, i expect that there are people out there who believe that this is true. i'm Appalled that a reporter on a nightly news show believes it is okay and is allowed to editorialize to that extent.
( more reaction to that view )
**************
the other thing that has been running through my mind a lot in following this story is how much certain aspects of this kid remind my of my ( brother )
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Friday, March 16th, 2007
| |
9:27 am - dog tired
|
so i read this account on the drudge report yesterday where it excerpted an interview with one of the Marines charged with civilian deaths in Haditha. The article is currently located here, but i know that the drudge articles are not permanent, so I've also included the text ( here. )
A chilling account, certainly. And I think he was wrong in his actions, most certainly. However, in reading it, I am struck not so much by the thought, "what a twisted fellow", than by the thought that this is the result of the sort of training we instill in our soldiers. it can't surprise me very much that something like this would happen. it's the well-worn truism that if you train men to be killers, you shouldn't be surprised when they come out, in fact, killers. and...i guess beyond that, it makes me wonder to what extent we should hold soldiers responsible for acts like these. what is the dividing line between atrocity and mistake and unfortunate consequence to proper military action? certain some things are undeniably atrocities...i guess (having just started several sentences and deleted them) that what I'm trying to say is i wonder to what extent normal morals are compatible with war. i think that you are training people to do terrible things under great pressure, so, i won't be surprised if terrible things ensue. i don't believe our military is statistically significantly less moral than any other nation's would be under similar circumstances. so, for me, the lesson isn't *really* that we need to point an accusatory finger at the military, per se, but that we need to be so much more certain of the need before we choose to unleash them. i think the cost of military action is and will always be terrible, and while it may still be necessary, we need to recognize that more clearly as a nation. i think too many people view the military and its use with far too much detachment. it's not, in the end, the military that i would hold morally culpable for the death and destruction that follow them, but the people, all of us, those who supported their use and those who opposed it. i think, with that in mind, it is our civic duty to make sure that we learn fully about any such incidents, and rather than trying to soften the blow and say, "it's not so bad", recognize that yes, it is *terrible*, and be able to say with heavy hearts, "but this is worth it, worth the price, because ________". i just wish i believed anything that filled in the blank currently....
on an *entirely* unrelated note, today's xkcd is hilarious. if you aren't familiar with xkcd, make sure to mouse over the comic, there's always some added text in the mouse-over...sometimes you'll even find the punchline is there, rather than the comic itself.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
|
|
|
|
