The provincial Liberals' complete disarray following the Progressive Conservative landslide victory is highlighting an important political point in Newfoundland and Labrador: we have a very powerful government on our hands.
While voters have overwhelmingly approved of the Williams Administration, the plain truth of the matter is that our current government has an increased ability to pursue its agenda whether we like it or not.
The government's successful and popular first term notwithstanding, there is absolutely no guarantee that Danny Williams will lead us in a direction that is best for the province. And although this administration has set precedence in several areas of accountability, it remains a glaring fact that there is little official opposition in the House of Assembly. This is a threatening reality.
Williams has decided, perhaps intelligently, not to call the House to session until next year, making the most recent session the shortest on record. The argument given is that it will give the new members of cabinet, and all MHAs for that matter, a chance to get used to their new jobs and co-workers. And although it is good practice to give newcomers time to adapt, we are presented with an extended period of relative silence in the political arena. Who knows what our representatives will be up to between now and Spring?
The hope is, of course, that the media will be our eyes, ears, and mouths in the realm of public policy during this time. Indeed, the media is in many ways our new 'official opposition.' They are the people on the ground who gather intelligence and report back to the public. They also, in theory, offer citizens the opportunity to voice their opinions. And as our economy grows and citizens become more savvy to the ever-growing encroachment of digital TV and Internet access, more people have louder voices and more views can be expressed.
But who are the people who run the media? We have our publication editors, at least one of whom appears to have targeted the small market niche of Williams-skeptics. Then, of course, we have our television and radio news coverage with intermittent commentary, as well as those mysterious bloggers - of which anyone can become.
All of these people have their own motives and values, and have the potential to influence the views and opinions of large numbers of people. But there are only so many of them to go around. They can only represent so many views, and well all know that mistakes can be made by even the most well-meaning folk.
What, then, are we lowly voters to do? We have taken on the heavy responsibility of holding to task both a government that has done well by us and media outlets that love to harass and question the powers-that-be. The government has a leader that gets into spats with these local news reporters and it can't be denied that this sells papers (and is thus potentially desirable). The real question is How do we mediate these two sides?
Well, what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are faced with right now is a good government with little official opposition and a good set of media who need money to stay afloat. Neither of these parties can be fully trusted to represent effectively the views of the people by themselves, nor together. Our responsibility, then, is to be good citizens and demand that these two opposing forces are influenced equally by our thoughts and desires.
Every grievance should have its place in the pages of a local newspaper. Open line shows should always be jammed with callers. While some opinions may be misguided and others extreme in their approach, they all contribute to the overall mood and zeitgeist of this place. The media's task is to compile these views into an overall picture of what the general population wants our province to achieve. The government must then pay attention and act on what it sees and hears.
Our job as the general population is to be honest with ourselves and with others. We must not be afraid to speak our minds. We should take others' opinions in stride and set an example for our government and media by listening to our fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We are all in this together and there has never been a better opportunity to make a difference.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
driving to the grocery store with reusable bags
My roommate and I went to the grocery store the other day. We chose this particular store because it is new, has a lot of selection, and (as far as I'm concerned) has a greener approach to business. When we got to the checkout and informed the cashier we had our own bags, the otherwise friendly woman gave us a hard time for seemingly thinking that avoiding the use of five plastic bags makes a difference in the grander scheme of things.
The truth is we could have walked to the store, but decided to drive. And a lot of our groceries had a lot of packaging. Not to mention we were endorsing a large grocery chain and purchasing goods which require lots of energy to import. The irony was not lost on us.
Despite the cashier's admitted grim outlook on the fate of world, and our own realization that saving a few thin bags from the landfill means exceedingly little to the environment, I still feel compelled to defend our decision to bring our 99-cent recycled bags to the store.
I find it interesting that so many people not only disregard small actions as negligible in terms of the global effort to revert our terrible destruction of the environment, they also decide that this is reason enough to avoid making the small decisions. I suspect that former has to do with the difficulty most people have in seeing the big picture in terms of incremental change. The latter probably is a result of an assumption that any change in lifestyle will add to the duress of daily life.
And while it is true that five less shopping bags in the landfill can easily be negated by a small boat owner accidentally spilling some gasoline into the water as he fills his engine, my small action is part of a larger plan.
Consider the number of grocery bags my roommate and I will not use over the course of my life if we ignore our cynical cashier and continue with our reusable bag mission. Some quick math pegs this at 5 bags every 2 weeks, which is twice for each 12 months of the year, times our expected 50 years remaining on this Earth. That's 6000 bags. Minimum.
Add that to the many, many other things we do in our household: minimize our water usage; take measures to insulate the house; use compact fluorescent bulbs; and turn off electronics when not in use, etc. We walk or ride our bikes most places we go, and this is possible because we live in a part of the city which is densely populated and thus we are surrounded by amenities.
As well, we endorse the organics movement by purchasing organic versions of whatever we can. These products are just as delicious as their counterparts, and for the extra few cents in cost (which will eventually be eliminated), we are also supporting ethical treatment of works and the environment while resting assured that the food is safe and healthy.
These are easy choices to make and don't require much, if any, change in lifestyle. And while it may be unconvincing to say "yes, but if everybody used reusable grocery bags" (the simple retort being that "you can't make anybody do anything"), one can be certain that nothing can change if nobody does anything.
The truth is we could have walked to the store, but decided to drive. And a lot of our groceries had a lot of packaging. Not to mention we were endorsing a large grocery chain and purchasing goods which require lots of energy to import. The irony was not lost on us.
Despite the cashier's admitted grim outlook on the fate of world, and our own realization that saving a few thin bags from the landfill means exceedingly little to the environment, I still feel compelled to defend our decision to bring our 99-cent recycled bags to the store.
I find it interesting that so many people not only disregard small actions as negligible in terms of the global effort to revert our terrible destruction of the environment, they also decide that this is reason enough to avoid making the small decisions. I suspect that former has to do with the difficulty most people have in seeing the big picture in terms of incremental change. The latter probably is a result of an assumption that any change in lifestyle will add to the duress of daily life.
And while it is true that five less shopping bags in the landfill can easily be negated by a small boat owner accidentally spilling some gasoline into the water as he fills his engine, my small action is part of a larger plan.
Consider the number of grocery bags my roommate and I will not use over the course of my life if we ignore our cynical cashier and continue with our reusable bag mission. Some quick math pegs this at 5 bags every 2 weeks, which is twice for each 12 months of the year, times our expected 50 years remaining on this Earth. That's 6000 bags. Minimum.
Add that to the many, many other things we do in our household: minimize our water usage; take measures to insulate the house; use compact fluorescent bulbs; and turn off electronics when not in use, etc. We walk or ride our bikes most places we go, and this is possible because we live in a part of the city which is densely populated and thus we are surrounded by amenities.
As well, we endorse the organics movement by purchasing organic versions of whatever we can. These products are just as delicious as their counterparts, and for the extra few cents in cost (which will eventually be eliminated), we are also supporting ethical treatment of works and the environment while resting assured that the food is safe and healthy.
These are easy choices to make and don't require much, if any, change in lifestyle. And while it may be unconvincing to say "yes, but if everybody used reusable grocery bags" (the simple retort being that "you can't make anybody do anything"), one can be certain that nothing can change if nobody does anything.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
buffered by oil
The Economist is reporting that the global economy has been holding up despite various perils like "investor panic and a credit crunch." However, this stability is tenuous and readers are advised to remain cautious, no matter where they live in the world.
As a conscientious media monitor, I am moved to consider what affect a potential recession would have on my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador (NL).
The search for an answer starts with Canada, of which NL is a province. Canada's economy is historically influenced greatly by that of it's southern neighbour, the United States. Some major causes of panic on the market originated in the US, and as such their economy will likely show clear effects. Thus, Canada is poised to feel them as well.
However, Canada has been slowly wrenching itself free of America's economic grip and as such has become an attractive destination for foreign investors. Our economy is more secure as Canadians are traditionally less likely to take major risks. And an influx of production of our abundant natural resources is pumping dollars into our government coffers and potentially shielding us from (or hiding) various economic perils.
Along with the protection given to us as citizens of a wealthy nation, our provincial economy has been improving as well. Just in terms of revenue stream, our government has recently signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with a consortium of oil companies. Once finalized, this project (Hebron-Ben Nevis) will pump about $16 billion into the province over 25 years.
This massive number ignores the other economic benefits, many of which are near-immediate, that the project will bring to the province. The number of jobs alone will surely increase the population and inject further millions into regional economies. Not to mention the family members who will be looking for and making their own work.
One expects that premier Danny Williams intends to avoid the types of problems that are still being faced in Alberta thanks to a booming oil and gas industry. Shortages in all areas of social services and infrastructure plague the province despite record budget surpluses and salaries.
The proof that Williams is planning for a major economic boom in our province can be found in the many initiatives his government has undertaken in the four years of his first term as premier.
Millions of dollars have been invested in infrastructure and education. Mandates to reduce poverty, violence, and crime have been reinforced by action plans and policy amendments. Immigration policy has become a priority for the current government. And within government itself major overhauls are occurring with respect to health care, governance, and bureaucracy (though stimulated by scandal).
So as the world goes through its rapid transformation into a truly global village, our province is preparing itself. And while the global economy takes a natural stumble, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will begin to enjoy a new era of prosperity.
As a conscientious media monitor, I am moved to consider what affect a potential recession would have on my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador (NL).
The search for an answer starts with Canada, of which NL is a province. Canada's economy is historically influenced greatly by that of it's southern neighbour, the United States. Some major causes of panic on the market originated in the US, and as such their economy will likely show clear effects. Thus, Canada is poised to feel them as well.
However, Canada has been slowly wrenching itself free of America's economic grip and as such has become an attractive destination for foreign investors. Our economy is more secure as Canadians are traditionally less likely to take major risks. And an influx of production of our abundant natural resources is pumping dollars into our government coffers and potentially shielding us from (or hiding) various economic perils.
Along with the protection given to us as citizens of a wealthy nation, our provincial economy has been improving as well. Just in terms of revenue stream, our government has recently signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with a consortium of oil companies. Once finalized, this project (Hebron-Ben Nevis) will pump about $16 billion into the province over 25 years.
This massive number ignores the other economic benefits, many of which are near-immediate, that the project will bring to the province. The number of jobs alone will surely increase the population and inject further millions into regional economies. Not to mention the family members who will be looking for and making their own work.
One expects that premier Danny Williams intends to avoid the types of problems that are still being faced in Alberta thanks to a booming oil and gas industry. Shortages in all areas of social services and infrastructure plague the province despite record budget surpluses and salaries.
The proof that Williams is planning for a major economic boom in our province can be found in the many initiatives his government has undertaken in the four years of his first term as premier.
Millions of dollars have been invested in infrastructure and education. Mandates to reduce poverty, violence, and crime have been reinforced by action plans and policy amendments. Immigration policy has become a priority for the current government. And within government itself major overhauls are occurring with respect to health care, governance, and bureaucracy (though stimulated by scandal).
So as the world goes through its rapid transformation into a truly global village, our province is preparing itself. And while the global economy takes a natural stumble, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will begin to enjoy a new era of prosperity.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
criminal offensive
I read an article today about the rising rate of armed robberies in our city. This concerns me, as I would suspect it does most people.
In the article, they interviewed a corner store owner who said that the courts need to take a hard look at the problem, and in essence make the laws tougher.
I have a problem with this as an exclusive stance towards how to solve the problem.
People must ask themselves "who is committing these crimes?" Most likely the offenders are folks who are struggling intensely with their current situation and are so desperate that they are willing to terrify innocent cashiers to make some quick cash.
The second question people must ask themselves are "Are the lawful consequences of armed robbery more or less harsh today than in the past?" Most people probably don't know the answer to this question. And why should they - most people have never committed an armed robbery.
What, then, will stricter laws do to prevent would-be robbers from picking up a knife and threatening someone in a convenience store? Are criminals more 'in the know' regarding courtroom procedures and the justice system?
Of course not. Many, if not most armed robbers are either under the influence of a mind-altering substance (or worse, experiencing extreme withdrawal), and are unconcerned with the long-term consequences of their actions. So stricter laws do nothing but make their lives even more unbearable than they already are, sending them further into depression and making them even more prone to commit crimes.
It is time that, when we call for action to reduce crime, we demand that these crimes be prevented as opposed to punished more severely. We must call for more inclusive education systems, more robust poverty reduction plans, and a child care system that ensures a high standard of socialization for every single child.
People that are taught from an early age to respect and accept instead of reject and isolate one another will be more likely to detect the early signs of a troubled individual and work to integrate them into a safe society.
Yes, punishment that fits the crime will still help to prevent repeat offenses, but it will not bring back the sense of trust that exists in our towns and cities. We must prevent violations by fostering a community spirit.
In the article, they interviewed a corner store owner who said that the courts need to take a hard look at the problem, and in essence make the laws tougher.
I have a problem with this as an exclusive stance towards how to solve the problem.
People must ask themselves "who is committing these crimes?" Most likely the offenders are folks who are struggling intensely with their current situation and are so desperate that they are willing to terrify innocent cashiers to make some quick cash.
The second question people must ask themselves are "Are the lawful consequences of armed robbery more or less harsh today than in the past?" Most people probably don't know the answer to this question. And why should they - most people have never committed an armed robbery.
What, then, will stricter laws do to prevent would-be robbers from picking up a knife and threatening someone in a convenience store? Are criminals more 'in the know' regarding courtroom procedures and the justice system?
Of course not. Many, if not most armed robbers are either under the influence of a mind-altering substance (or worse, experiencing extreme withdrawal), and are unconcerned with the long-term consequences of their actions. So stricter laws do nothing but make their lives even more unbearable than they already are, sending them further into depression and making them even more prone to commit crimes.
It is time that, when we call for action to reduce crime, we demand that these crimes be prevented as opposed to punished more severely. We must call for more inclusive education systems, more robust poverty reduction plans, and a child care system that ensures a high standard of socialization for every single child.
People that are taught from an early age to respect and accept instead of reject and isolate one another will be more likely to detect the early signs of a troubled individual and work to integrate them into a safe society.
Yes, punishment that fits the crime will still help to prevent repeat offenses, but it will not bring back the sense of trust that exists in our towns and cities. We must prevent violations by fostering a community spirit.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
the bright future frightens me
I've gone through several 'phases' thus far in my life. The one I remember most was the phase of learning about evolution. It marked the beginning of challenging some of the beliefs that I didn't even know I had.
My current phase (and this one comes and goes, like the rest) is futurism. I've been paying a whole lot of attention to where the world is headed. I've been listening to brilliant people discuss their findings from years of research into global trends. I've been watching the progress of the Internet and new technologies. I've been reading about the genome project, space exploration, political shifts, economic flux, and the redistribution of wealth.
Right now I'm about to turn 25 years old and have had some amazing experiences thus far. I've traveled, I've met incredible people, I've been exposed to human and other forces, and I've been developing insight into how this planet works.
But I'm sedentary. I still live in the same city during a time in my life when travel is deemed most effective and affective. I don't have a job, which inhibits my ability to grow outwardly. It inhibits my ability to experience the world we live in; a world that costs money to be a fully functioning member of. So I sit at home and absorb predictions on how the world will change over the next 20 to 100 years.
Having such a comprehensive vision of what the world will be when I'm older, while still maintaining the great uncertainty that comes with predicting the future, is worrisome. That's because I feel like the world will always be ahead of me. I'm listening to people I admire tell me that soon we'll all be a part of some big network of minds that work together to tackle bigger problems that don't include near as much human suffering.
This future world excites me but leaves me worried for selfish reasons.
This will sound pretentious, but fuck it. I have confidence in myself. Not just that I will succeed in life, but that my success will be in changing the world by affecting a large number of people's lives. I have a great deal of strengths that all point in the direction of 'leader.' Empathy, confidence, an ability to articulate my opinions, reasoned approach, vision... But the number of leaders is growing and a new one (me) won't be special.
My current frustration is that I feel my strengths can't be put to effective use unless I cross some threshold. This threshold seems to be 'entering the workforce.' Sounds stupid, I know. I am pretty arrogant to believe that I'm the only one who doesn't want to work. I am one of the millions of kids from my generation who feels entitled to a life of wealth and happiness. Logically I know I should be working to attain my goals, but so far I haven't had to.
I'm sitting here, lamenting my current state of affairs to try and get these thoughts out of my head. A diary won't do so I stick them online for 2 random people to start reading and stop after two paragraphs. There is no discourse here except with myself. So, self: GET OFF YOUR GODDAMN ASS.
Nope, didn't work.
My current phase (and this one comes and goes, like the rest) is futurism. I've been paying a whole lot of attention to where the world is headed. I've been listening to brilliant people discuss their findings from years of research into global trends. I've been watching the progress of the Internet and new technologies. I've been reading about the genome project, space exploration, political shifts, economic flux, and the redistribution of wealth.
Right now I'm about to turn 25 years old and have had some amazing experiences thus far. I've traveled, I've met incredible people, I've been exposed to human and other forces, and I've been developing insight into how this planet works.
But I'm sedentary. I still live in the same city during a time in my life when travel is deemed most effective and affective. I don't have a job, which inhibits my ability to grow outwardly. It inhibits my ability to experience the world we live in; a world that costs money to be a fully functioning member of. So I sit at home and absorb predictions on how the world will change over the next 20 to 100 years.
Having such a comprehensive vision of what the world will be when I'm older, while still maintaining the great uncertainty that comes with predicting the future, is worrisome. That's because I feel like the world will always be ahead of me. I'm listening to people I admire tell me that soon we'll all be a part of some big network of minds that work together to tackle bigger problems that don't include near as much human suffering.
This future world excites me but leaves me worried for selfish reasons.
This will sound pretentious, but fuck it. I have confidence in myself. Not just that I will succeed in life, but that my success will be in changing the world by affecting a large number of people's lives. I have a great deal of strengths that all point in the direction of 'leader.' Empathy, confidence, an ability to articulate my opinions, reasoned approach, vision... But the number of leaders is growing and a new one (me) won't be special.
* * *
My current frustration is that I feel my strengths can't be put to effective use unless I cross some threshold. This threshold seems to be 'entering the workforce.' Sounds stupid, I know. I am pretty arrogant to believe that I'm the only one who doesn't want to work. I am one of the millions of kids from my generation who feels entitled to a life of wealth and happiness. Logically I know I should be working to attain my goals, but so far I haven't had to.
I'm sitting here, lamenting my current state of affairs to try and get these thoughts out of my head. A diary won't do so I stick them online for 2 random people to start reading and stop after two paragraphs. There is no discourse here except with myself. So, self: GET OFF YOUR GODDAMN ASS.
Nope, didn't work.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
computerz
I don't have a job, currently. I could arguably be considered someone wasting his and others time. But I do so with a pleasant demeanour, so I can get away with it. Though, these delightful days are probably coming to an end.
I have little structure to my life at the moment. No major medium-term goals. I generally sit at my laptop and read, read, read. Well, more like read, listen, watch. I am soaking up information like an insatiable info-sponge. And while a portion of this time should really, really be spent making money, there is still value to what I'm doing with my time.
I am broadening my understanding of the world on many levels. The Internet is allowing me to monitor world events and to research a plethora of genres including physics, politics, genetics, technology, sociology, anthropology, nutrition, astronomy, global health, statistics, economics, etc, etc, etc. And while me and my parents can still effectively interact in the same world, it is probably quite true that my view is much broader and forward-looking than theirs.
And perhaps that's part of the problem here. While I read and learn and grow, I often feel that my development has direction. I feel as though I'm preparing for the future. Preparing for the time when I'll be making important decisions that affect more than just a couple of people. Preparing for a time when I will have a purchasing power and extended influence on opinions that will allow me to make substantial changes to the world around me.
Now, while I feel I can justify my addiction to information, there is still the sticky issue of sustaining myself without mooching off of others. I mooch a whole lot right now (I've been called a 'stray cat'). I'm 'allowing' the world to sustain me by doing the minimal amount of work. But my ability to live like this is diminishing as I deplete my reserves of cash (or access to cash, rather). So I'm waiting for that crucial moment of hitting bottom.
Do I require bottoming out in order to make a change? I know the choices that have to be made. I know a lot of the moves I could make which would have positive impact on my life. But for some reason I'm not making them. I feel there are two reasons for this.
One is that, as I said, I am able to continue living (quite comfortably!) in this fashion. There are pressures from creditors, family, society, friends, my own image of my future self. But these pressures are nominal. I can deal with them. They are annoyances, nothing more.
The other is that it appears that patience pays off. I have longer timelines for achieving my goals and as such the paths to them provide less resistance. Obstacles simply peter out or opportunities show themselves eventually. Historically speaking I have not had to put in major short-term effort to attain my goals because I have allowed for very long-term approaches and put up with extended periods of waiting.
Right now I'm 'waiting' on a job that is so close I can taste it. The time line leading to this follows, and you will see that not much effort has been put into getting to this point.
I graduated high school and decided to pursue a business and computer science joint-degree program. Through the business component I was required to complete three work-terms. Two of these work terms were with a company that put me in charge of launching their dormant new website. It was my only real task and as such was able to follow closely our provincial election most of the time and still launch the site with time to spare. I interacted and developed a relationship with the company that built the website. Since then they have considered me a candidate for potential employment and have maintained a relationship with me beyond graduation. I mostly have just been following their lead.
Recently they contacted me to discuss a potential job that would assign me to a contract that they have with the provincial government and as such they require government approval to hire me. So we're both waiting on the government to make a move. Waiting.
Summer is passing quickly with some interesting events and experiences, but I am so limited in funds that I'm not doing all that I could be doing. Not that I could do more with a job (less free time), but somehow I feel a job would be a good node around which my life could be structured.
The fear, however, is that a) I will not get the job and so the time spent waiting was actually wasted, and b) I will be equally as unproductive but just get paid for it until they discover this.
It seems to be an easy dilemma to solve: just start being productive. And you know, I probably will do so once I have some clear direction. But historically speaking, I feel like I've never gone long periods without slacking off at a ridiculous level. What's to say I will have the incentive to change this about myself? "Where there's a want there's a will," they say. But doesn't the 'want' need to be defined? What the hell do I want?
Here's what I want: I want to be motivated. I want to be healthy. I want to influence wide-spread change. I want to be rich. I want to see the world. I want to love the world. I want the world to kinda love me back. I want to achieve great things. I demand satisfaction!
I am confident I will achieve all of this. But I don't understand why I feel this way given that I am a sloth. Am I the product of a society of entitlement? Do I simply feel I deserve what I desire?
Maybe so! However I also see evidence that that's all I need to attain it. Only time will tell.
I have little structure to my life at the moment. No major medium-term goals. I generally sit at my laptop and read, read, read. Well, more like read, listen, watch. I am soaking up information like an insatiable info-sponge. And while a portion of this time should really, really be spent making money, there is still value to what I'm doing with my time.
I am broadening my understanding of the world on many levels. The Internet is allowing me to monitor world events and to research a plethora of genres including physics, politics, genetics, technology, sociology, anthropology, nutrition, astronomy, global health, statistics, economics, etc, etc, etc. And while me and my parents can still effectively interact in the same world, it is probably quite true that my view is much broader and forward-looking than theirs.
And perhaps that's part of the problem here. While I read and learn and grow, I often feel that my development has direction. I feel as though I'm preparing for the future. Preparing for the time when I'll be making important decisions that affect more than just a couple of people. Preparing for a time when I will have a purchasing power and extended influence on opinions that will allow me to make substantial changes to the world around me.
Now, while I feel I can justify my addiction to information, there is still the sticky issue of sustaining myself without mooching off of others. I mooch a whole lot right now (I've been called a 'stray cat'). I'm 'allowing' the world to sustain me by doing the minimal amount of work. But my ability to live like this is diminishing as I deplete my reserves of cash (or access to cash, rather). So I'm waiting for that crucial moment of hitting bottom.
Do I require bottoming out in order to make a change? I know the choices that have to be made. I know a lot of the moves I could make which would have positive impact on my life. But for some reason I'm not making them. I feel there are two reasons for this.
One is that, as I said, I am able to continue living (quite comfortably!) in this fashion. There are pressures from creditors, family, society, friends, my own image of my future self. But these pressures are nominal. I can deal with them. They are annoyances, nothing more.
The other is that it appears that patience pays off. I have longer timelines for achieving my goals and as such the paths to them provide less resistance. Obstacles simply peter out or opportunities show themselves eventually. Historically speaking I have not had to put in major short-term effort to attain my goals because I have allowed for very long-term approaches and put up with extended periods of waiting.
Right now I'm 'waiting' on a job that is so close I can taste it. The time line leading to this follows, and you will see that not much effort has been put into getting to this point.
I graduated high school and decided to pursue a business and computer science joint-degree program. Through the business component I was required to complete three work-terms. Two of these work terms were with a company that put me in charge of launching their dormant new website. It was my only real task and as such was able to follow closely our provincial election most of the time and still launch the site with time to spare. I interacted and developed a relationship with the company that built the website. Since then they have considered me a candidate for potential employment and have maintained a relationship with me beyond graduation. I mostly have just been following their lead.
Recently they contacted me to discuss a potential job that would assign me to a contract that they have with the provincial government and as such they require government approval to hire me. So we're both waiting on the government to make a move. Waiting.
Summer is passing quickly with some interesting events and experiences, but I am so limited in funds that I'm not doing all that I could be doing. Not that I could do more with a job (less free time), but somehow I feel a job would be a good node around which my life could be structured.
The fear, however, is that a) I will not get the job and so the time spent waiting was actually wasted, and b) I will be equally as unproductive but just get paid for it until they discover this.
It seems to be an easy dilemma to solve: just start being productive. And you know, I probably will do so once I have some clear direction. But historically speaking, I feel like I've never gone long periods without slacking off at a ridiculous level. What's to say I will have the incentive to change this about myself? "Where there's a want there's a will," they say. But doesn't the 'want' need to be defined? What the hell do I want?
Here's what I want: I want to be motivated. I want to be healthy. I want to influence wide-spread change. I want to be rich. I want to see the world. I want to love the world. I want the world to kinda love me back. I want to achieve great things. I demand satisfaction!
I am confident I will achieve all of this. But I don't understand why I feel this way given that I am a sloth. Am I the product of a society of entitlement? Do I simply feel I deserve what I desire?
Maybe so! However I also see evidence that that's all I need to attain it. Only time will tell.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
competitive arts and culture
I've been trying to figure out what Prime Minister Stephen Harper's vision is for Canada. It's hard to tell with this guy.
My theory is that Harper is not so much concerned with governing the people of Canada, but rather with operating Canada on the world stage. It would appear that Harper wants to be in the big leagues with world leaders.
Our Prime Minister is diverting attention and social funding to explicit economic initiatives and, most importantly, to the army. In my opinion, his approach to bolstering the economy is severely flawed, but that is not the point. Harper is probably trying to strengthen our economy and army in an attempt to gain clout among the leaders of the developed world.
If this is indeed the case, then he's doing it all wrong. First of all, it would appear that the Harper government is adopting American-style policies. There is a lot of evidence that the Bush administration's approach to governing is not working very well at all.
More importantly, however, is the PM's low regard for social and cultural funding. Among many other programs cut by the Conservative government were ones that fund literacy programs and international promotion of Canadian culture.
An illiterate population is easier to control, so one can see why Harper would want to chop that. However even the slowest of us realize that an educated populace is more productive. And as for promoting Canadian culture abroad, cutting this program works against Harper's possible plan to gain clout among the other leaders of the world.
Harper seems to ignore that leaders in other parts of the world are influenced by their citizens (at least somewhat). Briefly put, a populace that knows and understands and likes Canada is more likely to have a leader that feels the same way.
Harper may be a good strategist, but as he enters the world stage his narrow-minded approach is becoming apparent.
My theory is that Harper is not so much concerned with governing the people of Canada, but rather with operating Canada on the world stage. It would appear that Harper wants to be in the big leagues with world leaders.
Our Prime Minister is diverting attention and social funding to explicit economic initiatives and, most importantly, to the army. In my opinion, his approach to bolstering the economy is severely flawed, but that is not the point. Harper is probably trying to strengthen our economy and army in an attempt to gain clout among the leaders of the developed world.
If this is indeed the case, then he's doing it all wrong. First of all, it would appear that the Harper government is adopting American-style policies. There is a lot of evidence that the Bush administration's approach to governing is not working very well at all.
More importantly, however, is the PM's low regard for social and cultural funding. Among many other programs cut by the Conservative government were ones that fund literacy programs and international promotion of Canadian culture.
An illiterate population is easier to control, so one can see why Harper would want to chop that. However even the slowest of us realize that an educated populace is more productive. And as for promoting Canadian culture abroad, cutting this program works against Harper's possible plan to gain clout among the other leaders of the world.
Harper seems to ignore that leaders in other parts of the world are influenced by their citizens (at least somewhat). Briefly put, a populace that knows and understands and likes Canada is more likely to have a leader that feels the same way.
Harper may be a good strategist, but as he enters the world stage his narrow-minded approach is becoming apparent.
Monday, July 2, 2007
politics and religion
Figured I'd use this post to kind of summarize a couple of my views. This can be used to give an idea of where my ideologies are and will hopefully provide some insight into my view of the world.
Broadly speaking, I try to take an objective approach to issues. I generally don't form opinions of much strength until I've at the very least had an opportunity to hear what the opposing arguments are. For example, I have absolutely no idea who I think is right in the Israeli / Palestinian conflict, despite the fact that it is a commonly discussed global issue here in North America. I just haven't paid attention to it yet.
In contrast, I do maintain a strong opinion with respect to the Atlantic Accord issue, as I demonstrated in my last post. However, I try to remain as objective as possible and have done my best to digest opposing views. Unfortunately a lot of the commentary surrounding this particular issue comes from people who seem to miss / misreport facts and are not aware of the history. Or at least, that's the way it seems.
So. What are the views I hold today? Let's start with the doozies: Politics and Religion.
Politics
I am liberal-leaning. I base my choice in governing party at any level on how 'well-rounded' their approach to governance is. I am a strong believer that a healthy and happy society requires a solid foundation in many areas, and that these components are all inter-connected in some way. It is frustrating when a political party puts its primary focus on one major theme like social welfare or economic prosperity. Money does not breed happiness, but I'll tell ya, bein' poor sucks.
Right now I am a huge supporter of my current provincial Progressive Conservatives under Danny Williams, and have decided I will vote for Stephane Dion's Liberals in the next federal election. Williams has proven himself to be a convincing leader who can be trusted, and Dion is showing signs that he could do very good things for the country.
I do not support Stephen Harper's Conservatives, and while I am surely biased thanks to Danny Williams' vocal opposition to Harper, I have several other reasons to wish him out of power. First, Harper has shown strong indications that he functions only to win; his moves are clearly strategic and he is extremely vague with respect to his vision for Canada.
Second, he has blatently broken several high-profile election promises, has contradicted himself openly many times, and maintains tight control over the information that leaves the PMO. He simply cannot be trusted and has demonstrated this very, very clearly.
Vote Liberal!
Religion
This one is touchy. Not for me, but for many, many others. Religious views are so important to individuals, and I suppose part of the reason for this is that religion is such a strong identifier. For many people it is a source of moral and emotional guidance, and having their views challenged can be threatening.
I went to a Roman Catholic church and school in my formative years. However, my community is largely secular, and many, if not most of my friends either don't believe in God or have serious doubts. Most of these same people are extremely kind and intelligent and are highly involved in the community. Now, does this mean that you don't need religion to be moral? I personally believe this is true, however most of the people I know are still involved in the church in one way or another. Perhaps, then, religion is still an important communicator of moral values. This has yet to be seen.
So what do I believe? I have sometimes considered myself an agnostic, which basically means I "don't know" if there's a God or not. But I'm re-evaluating that position. It is definitely true that I don't know if there's a god or gods, however based on the evidence I think it's highly unlikely that there is some supreme ruler of the universe.
One might say 'Ah ha! So you admit there could be a God!' And they'd be right. But that does not mean it's equally likely that there is a god as no god. I think the odds are stacked heavily against the God hypothesis.
I have many, many reasons why I don't believe in God. I am quite willing to debate someone on the topic. However I'm more interested in focusing my newly energized fascination with the universe on learning more about what we know for sure. Why spend weeks, months, and years worshiping someone who threatens to damn me to eternal suffering if i don't play by His rules, especially if He's probably not even there?
Going Forward
So where am I without God? I'm in the real world. I'm prepared to accept all beliefs as important to our global culture. I'm excited about the rapid progress we're making despite bickering over who's God is real. I see secularism as an important movement in human evolution because it will be those who do not subscribe to a discriminatory religion that will help to bring all of humanity together to tackle very real global threats.
To vote based on religious beliefs is to vote as a naval-gazer.
My next blog post will probably be about animal welfare and global climate change.
Broadly speaking, I try to take an objective approach to issues. I generally don't form opinions of much strength until I've at the very least had an opportunity to hear what the opposing arguments are. For example, I have absolutely no idea who I think is right in the Israeli / Palestinian conflict, despite the fact that it is a commonly discussed global issue here in North America. I just haven't paid attention to it yet.
In contrast, I do maintain a strong opinion with respect to the Atlantic Accord issue, as I demonstrated in my last post. However, I try to remain as objective as possible and have done my best to digest opposing views. Unfortunately a lot of the commentary surrounding this particular issue comes from people who seem to miss / misreport facts and are not aware of the history. Or at least, that's the way it seems.
So. What are the views I hold today? Let's start with the doozies: Politics and Religion.
Politics
I am liberal-leaning. I base my choice in governing party at any level on how 'well-rounded' their approach to governance is. I am a strong believer that a healthy and happy society requires a solid foundation in many areas, and that these components are all inter-connected in some way. It is frustrating when a political party puts its primary focus on one major theme like social welfare or economic prosperity. Money does not breed happiness, but I'll tell ya, bein' poor sucks.
Right now I am a huge supporter of my current provincial Progressive Conservatives under Danny Williams, and have decided I will vote for Stephane Dion's Liberals in the next federal election. Williams has proven himself to be a convincing leader who can be trusted, and Dion is showing signs that he could do very good things for the country.
I do not support Stephen Harper's Conservatives, and while I am surely biased thanks to Danny Williams' vocal opposition to Harper, I have several other reasons to wish him out of power. First, Harper has shown strong indications that he functions only to win; his moves are clearly strategic and he is extremely vague with respect to his vision for Canada.
Second, he has blatently broken several high-profile election promises, has contradicted himself openly many times, and maintains tight control over the information that leaves the PMO. He simply cannot be trusted and has demonstrated this very, very clearly.
Vote Liberal!
Religion
This one is touchy. Not for me, but for many, many others. Religious views are so important to individuals, and I suppose part of the reason for this is that religion is such a strong identifier. For many people it is a source of moral and emotional guidance, and having their views challenged can be threatening.
I went to a Roman Catholic church and school in my formative years. However, my community is largely secular, and many, if not most of my friends either don't believe in God or have serious doubts. Most of these same people are extremely kind and intelligent and are highly involved in the community. Now, does this mean that you don't need religion to be moral? I personally believe this is true, however most of the people I know are still involved in the church in one way or another. Perhaps, then, religion is still an important communicator of moral values. This has yet to be seen.
So what do I believe? I have sometimes considered myself an agnostic, which basically means I "don't know" if there's a God or not. But I'm re-evaluating that position. It is definitely true that I don't know if there's a god or gods, however based on the evidence I think it's highly unlikely that there is some supreme ruler of the universe.
One might say 'Ah ha! So you admit there could be a God!' And they'd be right. But that does not mean it's equally likely that there is a god as no god. I think the odds are stacked heavily against the God hypothesis.
I have many, many reasons why I don't believe in God. I am quite willing to debate someone on the topic. However I'm more interested in focusing my newly energized fascination with the universe on learning more about what we know for sure. Why spend weeks, months, and years worshiping someone who threatens to damn me to eternal suffering if i don't play by His rules, especially if He's probably not even there?
Going Forward
So where am I without God? I'm in the real world. I'm prepared to accept all beliefs as important to our global culture. I'm excited about the rapid progress we're making despite bickering over who's God is real. I see secularism as an important movement in human evolution because it will be those who do not subscribe to a discriminatory religion that will help to bring all of humanity together to tackle very real global threats.
To vote based on religious beliefs is to vote as a naval-gazer.
My next blog post will probably be about animal welfare and global climate change.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
what we know we don't know
I am from the province of Newfoundand and Labrador, Canada. Currently there is a dispute between our premier, Danny Williams, and the Prime Minister, Stephen Harper. Williams has been very vocal about a perceived injustice committed by the PM.
The issue is that Mr. Harper promised, in writing, to uphold an agreement made by his predecessor with the province which states that NL will receive 100% of its offshore revenues regardless of the existing federal equalization formula. (The equalization formula disperses funds throughout the provinces to maintain a national standard of services. It is revised every few years.)
Newfoundland and Labradorians are mostly very supportive of Williams' stance, while much of the rest of Canada has the impression that the premier is whining and asking for more than his fair share. This national view is based on historic impressions of NL as a province of complainers who want handouts and are not willing to work for them. Most Newfoundland and Labradorians, of course, reject this notion.
Many Canadians have, through the national media, condemned Williams' response to Harper's action as irresponsible and child-like. Several commentators and experts alike have expressed the view that Williams' is bad for the provincial economy. It is through these commentaries that the gaps in Canadians' understanding and knowledge of Newfoundland and Labrador become evident.
There is a factual misconception that Newfoundland and Labrador is a drain on the Canadian economy. A major independent study has shown that NL actually contributes billions of dollars to Canada's coffers. As well, it is widely believed that most Newfoundland and Labradorians are dumb or slow-witted. Nothing could be further from the truth, and this can be seen by the high-profile posts held by NLers in government, business, media, and the arts.
This is the root of the problem. But the ignorance behind the headlines today in Canada is with regard to our premier, Danny Williams.
Williams was elected Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador in 2003 in a landslide victory, and his ratings have been at historic levels for most of his tenure. To those outside of the province, this fact coupled with the premier's national image as a 'scrapper,' it must seem as though the citizens of this province are supporting him simply because he is 'standing up for the little guy.'
While this is certainly part of the premier's popularity, what those outside the province don't seem to know is that there is much more behind his high ratings in the polls.
Danny Williams is from St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador's capital city. And while it is the capital city, it has a relatively small population. For this reason, Williams' varied public life is well known, and many (if not most) citizens are likely separated from the premier by no more than three degrees. The strong sense community which defines the province has enabled knowledge of Williams' track record to spread across the province by word of mouth.
In other words, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador know Danny Williams well. He is trusted by a people who value keeping one's word, and have a history of viciously voting out politicians who turn their backs on the province. Because Williams has shown time and time again that he has the best interests of the province at heart, his ratings remain high.
And for those who prefer to base their opinions on empirical data rather than subjective intuition, the Williams administration has, in its first four years in office, shown that it can produce meaningful results. A brief look at just a few of the government's achievements since taking power can give some insight into the effectiveness of Williams' leadership.
Newfoundland and Labrador is the second province in Canada to have established a comprehensive poverty reduction plan. The province has pledged to reduce its poverty level from the highest in the country to the lowest by 2015. There are measurable goals in place and action is already being taken through violence awareness programs, a healthy living strategy, increased funding for education on all levels, and job creation initiatives, to name a few.
To spur business investment, the Williams administration has set up an office dedicated to addressing the issues confronting businesses of all sizes. The government is using a proven model from British Columbia to reduce 'red tape' by 50% and has already made considerable changes in this area. As well, the 2007 provincial budget announced that the government has reduced provincial income tax levels from the highest in Atlantic Canada to the lowest.
In light of a devastated fishery -- once the life-blood of the province -- the government is supporting economic diversification. Funding has been increased and is being strategically spent in the arts, aquaculture, and tourism, among many others. Business trade missions sponsored by the government to nearby trading partners as well as countries like Iceland, Ireland, and the Netherlands, are commonplace. And at the top of the premier's priorities is the energy sector.
The province's offshore oil reserves are a major source of revenue, and while talks regarding a fourth major project have been stalled by the premier, there are conservative expectations that new exploration will continue to reveal deposits well into the future. In fact, one might speculate that it is for this reason that Williams' wishes to secure 100% of oil revenues into the future.
Of course, no matter how much oil is lying off of Newfoundland's rugged shores, it will still run out someday. And the premier knows this. The province is therefore posed to release a long-awaited energy plan. The plan will outline the government's stance toward investors in the energy sector, as well as set up an energy corporation that will house the existing crown electricy company as well as other energy initiatives.
The plan appears to be to maximize non-renewable revenues in the short term while investing in newer, renewable sources of energy such as hydro and wind power. The province has decided to take on a major hydro project in Labrador instead of giving the contract to an outside organization. This should allow the province to receive maximum benefits from the project.
It remains important to Williams' and the province, however, that the Atlantic Accord continues to guarantee 100% of offshore revenues. Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest per-capita debt in Canada, and the oil will not be in the ground forever, so the crux of the argument is that this is the province's chance to attain self-sufficiency.
Many in the province feel historically ill-treated by its parent country, Canada. There are several examples of how the province has been denied opportunities to improve its economy. And compounding the problem is an underlying misinterpretation of Newfoundland and Labradorians as unintelligent whiners.
With school children in provinces like Quebec and Ontario growing up taunting each other with calls of "you big Newf," not even knowing its origins, how will the country ever cure its ignorance towards one of the most intriguing provinces in the Federation?
The issue is that Mr. Harper promised, in writing, to uphold an agreement made by his predecessor with the province which states that NL will receive 100% of its offshore revenues regardless of the existing federal equalization formula. (The equalization formula disperses funds throughout the provinces to maintain a national standard of services. It is revised every few years.)
Newfoundland and Labradorians are mostly very supportive of Williams' stance, while much of the rest of Canada has the impression that the premier is whining and asking for more than his fair share. This national view is based on historic impressions of NL as a province of complainers who want handouts and are not willing to work for them. Most Newfoundland and Labradorians, of course, reject this notion.
Many Canadians have, through the national media, condemned Williams' response to Harper's action as irresponsible and child-like. Several commentators and experts alike have expressed the view that Williams' is bad for the provincial economy. It is through these commentaries that the gaps in Canadians' understanding and knowledge of Newfoundland and Labrador become evident.
There is a factual misconception that Newfoundland and Labrador is a drain on the Canadian economy. A major independent study has shown that NL actually contributes billions of dollars to Canada's coffers. As well, it is widely believed that most Newfoundland and Labradorians are dumb or slow-witted. Nothing could be further from the truth, and this can be seen by the high-profile posts held by NLers in government, business, media, and the arts.
This is the root of the problem. But the ignorance behind the headlines today in Canada is with regard to our premier, Danny Williams.
Williams was elected Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador in 2003 in a landslide victory, and his ratings have been at historic levels for most of his tenure. To those outside of the province, this fact coupled with the premier's national image as a 'scrapper,' it must seem as though the citizens of this province are supporting him simply because he is 'standing up for the little guy.'
While this is certainly part of the premier's popularity, what those outside the province don't seem to know is that there is much more behind his high ratings in the polls.
Danny Williams is from St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador's capital city. And while it is the capital city, it has a relatively small population. For this reason, Williams' varied public life is well known, and many (if not most) citizens are likely separated from the premier by no more than three degrees. The strong sense community which defines the province has enabled knowledge of Williams' track record to spread across the province by word of mouth.
In other words, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador know Danny Williams well. He is trusted by a people who value keeping one's word, and have a history of viciously voting out politicians who turn their backs on the province. Because Williams has shown time and time again that he has the best interests of the province at heart, his ratings remain high.
And for those who prefer to base their opinions on empirical data rather than subjective intuition, the Williams administration has, in its first four years in office, shown that it can produce meaningful results. A brief look at just a few of the government's achievements since taking power can give some insight into the effectiveness of Williams' leadership.
Newfoundland and Labrador is the second province in Canada to have established a comprehensive poverty reduction plan. The province has pledged to reduce its poverty level from the highest in the country to the lowest by 2015. There are measurable goals in place and action is already being taken through violence awareness programs, a healthy living strategy, increased funding for education on all levels, and job creation initiatives, to name a few.
To spur business investment, the Williams administration has set up an office dedicated to addressing the issues confronting businesses of all sizes. The government is using a proven model from British Columbia to reduce 'red tape' by 50% and has already made considerable changes in this area. As well, the 2007 provincial budget announced that the government has reduced provincial income tax levels from the highest in Atlantic Canada to the lowest.
In light of a devastated fishery -- once the life-blood of the province -- the government is supporting economic diversification. Funding has been increased and is being strategically spent in the arts, aquaculture, and tourism, among many others. Business trade missions sponsored by the government to nearby trading partners as well as countries like Iceland, Ireland, and the Netherlands, are commonplace. And at the top of the premier's priorities is the energy sector.
The province's offshore oil reserves are a major source of revenue, and while talks regarding a fourth major project have been stalled by the premier, there are conservative expectations that new exploration will continue to reveal deposits well into the future. In fact, one might speculate that it is for this reason that Williams' wishes to secure 100% of oil revenues into the future.
Of course, no matter how much oil is lying off of Newfoundland's rugged shores, it will still run out someday. And the premier knows this. The province is therefore posed to release a long-awaited energy plan. The plan will outline the government's stance toward investors in the energy sector, as well as set up an energy corporation that will house the existing crown electricy company as well as other energy initiatives.
The plan appears to be to maximize non-renewable revenues in the short term while investing in newer, renewable sources of energy such as hydro and wind power. The province has decided to take on a major hydro project in Labrador instead of giving the contract to an outside organization. This should allow the province to receive maximum benefits from the project.
It remains important to Williams' and the province, however, that the Atlantic Accord continues to guarantee 100% of offshore revenues. Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest per-capita debt in Canada, and the oil will not be in the ground forever, so the crux of the argument is that this is the province's chance to attain self-sufficiency.
Many in the province feel historically ill-treated by its parent country, Canada. There are several examples of how the province has been denied opportunities to improve its economy. And compounding the problem is an underlying misinterpretation of Newfoundland and Labradorians as unintelligent whiners.
With school children in provinces like Quebec and Ontario growing up taunting each other with calls of "you big Newf," not even knowing its origins, how will the country ever cure its ignorance towards one of the most intriguing provinces in the Federation?
Saturday, June 2, 2007
never enough
What to write about? I suppose I'll use this post as more of an introduction to this blog than anything.
Why 'Never Enough?' This title represents the amount of background knowledge I have regarding an issue before I write about it. I am constantly aware that points I make can often be easily argued against. But the effort to make an air-tight argument often prevents the argument from ever being made.
That's what this blog will be for, for me. I'm just gonna lay it out there as I see it at this moment given the information and gut feelings I have right now.
I'll talk about municipal, provincial and federal politics, mostly. But I'll also touch on some global issues as well. And of course, my interests also include media in society, music and artistic expression, world religions (in a broad light), and something I'm getting into that I'll refer to as "group dynamics."
The latter is the label I'm putting on the way groups of people interact and react to situations. As a person grows older and begins to form his or her view of the world, the hope is that he or she will notice differences between individuals. Not one person is exactly alike, and one person can differ wildly from the next.
In my personal experience, I'm trying to come to grips with this - not only by recognizing that people approach things from different backgrounds, but by trying to understand what those backgrounds are and how they influence their perception of the world around them.
This may seem like an obvious point. But the challenge is to empathize with these people, or at the very least limit the bias and subjectivity that influences our own understandings of one another. And that requires understanding of oneself.
It is a daunting task, but nevertheless it is a task we take on for our entire lives so we might as well make the best of it. I'll use the blog to help myself articulate my personal views of me, my friends, my community, my province, my nation, and the world we all live in.
Dave
Why 'Never Enough?' This title represents the amount of background knowledge I have regarding an issue before I write about it. I am constantly aware that points I make can often be easily argued against. But the effort to make an air-tight argument often prevents the argument from ever being made.
That's what this blog will be for, for me. I'm just gonna lay it out there as I see it at this moment given the information and gut feelings I have right now.
I'll talk about municipal, provincial and federal politics, mostly. But I'll also touch on some global issues as well. And of course, my interests also include media in society, music and artistic expression, world religions (in a broad light), and something I'm getting into that I'll refer to as "group dynamics."
The latter is the label I'm putting on the way groups of people interact and react to situations. As a person grows older and begins to form his or her view of the world, the hope is that he or she will notice differences between individuals. Not one person is exactly alike, and one person can differ wildly from the next.
In my personal experience, I'm trying to come to grips with this - not only by recognizing that people approach things from different backgrounds, but by trying to understand what those backgrounds are and how they influence their perception of the world around them.
This may seem like an obvious point. But the challenge is to empathize with these people, or at the very least limit the bias and subjectivity that influences our own understandings of one another. And that requires understanding of oneself.
It is a daunting task, but nevertheless it is a task we take on for our entire lives so we might as well make the best of it. I'll use the blog to help myself articulate my personal views of me, my friends, my community, my province, my nation, and the world we all live in.
Dave
Thursday, January 18, 2007
i used to be in a band
yeah. i used to be in a great band. shall i publicly discuss it with you? i guess i shall. briefly.
it makes me sad when i listen to tunes we used to play. they are still together, playing great tunes.
if you ever play in a band, play with your heart. i did, and that makes me happy. but i am so sad that it's over.
dave
it makes me sad when i listen to tunes we used to play. they are still together, playing great tunes.
if you ever play in a band, play with your heart. i did, and that makes me happy. but i am so sad that it's over.
dave
making a scene with a magazine
Hello.
i figure now is the time to set up a generic blog using my generic real name. there are about one million dave lanes in the world, so i feel pretty anonymous. which is good in this context.
so! my first thought is as follows: rational positive thinking is possible and can be considered a chosen approach to life if one trains oneself appropriately.
would you like an example? hmm.
consider observing your pet. it can be argued that any reaction from your pet is merely the result of a limited set of innate conditional responses. like, your cat likes to play because it is built in to his DNA, and this aspect of his personality exists so strongly because over time cats with the desire to play with things have honed their hunting skills and as such are more likely to find food and survive.
So, there are several ways of approaching this new understanding of the pet you love so much. i will examine two. One is to say "well that fucking sucks because it means that he's just responding to me in predictable ways." The other, and this is the one i subscribe to, is to say "wow, this animal, with his charming personality, is a product of years of evolution plus the environment i've raised him in, and there is no other cat exactly like him. and that's AWESOME!"
The end.
i figure now is the time to set up a generic blog using my generic real name. there are about one million dave lanes in the world, so i feel pretty anonymous. which is good in this context.
so! my first thought is as follows: rational positive thinking is possible and can be considered a chosen approach to life if one trains oneself appropriately.
would you like an example? hmm.
consider observing your pet. it can be argued that any reaction from your pet is merely the result of a limited set of innate conditional responses. like, your cat likes to play because it is built in to his DNA, and this aspect of his personality exists so strongly because over time cats with the desire to play with things have honed their hunting skills and as such are more likely to find food and survive.
So, there are several ways of approaching this new understanding of the pet you love so much. i will examine two. One is to say "well that fucking sucks because it means that he's just responding to me in predictable ways." The other, and this is the one i subscribe to, is to say "wow, this animal, with his charming personality, is a product of years of evolution plus the environment i've raised him in, and there is no other cat exactly like him. and that's AWESOME!"
The end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)