This evening's blog will be about the creative people, present and past, who inspire me. My problem with not writing as much as I should have over the past several years is not lack of talent. It is lack of drive and confidence in what I have to say. When I really get into the writing, I'm good. I'm damn good and when I really try, it gets noticed.
So why don't I try more? Distractions in the form of job stress, fatigue caused by the job, family activities, and again that gnawing feeling that it is not worth a crap. There lies the contradiction. Two sentences earlier I said I am good. Then I say I feel like I am not good. So the answer is BIC time. For non-writers that is Butt-In-Chair time. Just plant the rear in the chair for a set amount of time and don't allow it to come out of the chair until that time is up. This method has been proven successful again and again and again.
And many of these creative people knew this or know this. Though they had a passion for their art, they would not have been successful if the distractions of life got in the way.
Syd Barrett; Benny Andersson ; Bjorn Ulvaeus; Ansel Adams; John Lennon; Gene Roddenberry; Charles Dickens; the writer of the Christmas commercial for Salvation Army bell-ringers; and of course many many many more.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Want to Be More Productive Today
Beginning day two—okay so really this is day three. I began showing cold symptoms yesterday and when it came time to blog, my heart was up to it but my runny nose told me to go to bed. But I told my nose that it would not allow me to skip a day; I would have to blog twice tomorrow, which is now today.
I felt somewhat productive yesterday. I worked on the character conversation more. I say 'somewhat' because that did not add any words at all to the book itself. However, it's possible that it did add words—the stuff I worked on yesterday could end up in the book. More to be done today, but I want to only congratulate myself if I make actual progress on the book.
Another voice inside my head tells me that what I am doing here is actually progress. That voice reminds me that many days and weeks go by during which time absolutely nothing is written. A writer is supposed to write, right? And I am writing. The voice needs to remind me that many writers out there write only blogs and many of them are successful.
Hey, if I could add something to the book and begin work on the freelance stuff at the same time, then I would really feel productive.
I felt somewhat productive yesterday. I worked on the character conversation more. I say 'somewhat' because that did not add any words at all to the book itself. However, it's possible that it did add words—the stuff I worked on yesterday could end up in the book. More to be done today, but I want to only congratulate myself if I make actual progress on the book.
Another voice inside my head tells me that what I am doing here is actually progress. That voice reminds me that many days and weeks go by during which time absolutely nothing is written. A writer is supposed to write, right? And I am writing. The voice needs to remind me that many writers out there write only blogs and many of them are successful.
Hey, if I could add something to the book and begin work on the freelance stuff at the same time, then I would really feel productive.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Vacation Begins
I officially begin my vacation tomorrow. I have been off for the past three days, but one was a holiday and the other two were Saturday and Sunday. In some ways, I think this vacation will be too short. I relish the opportunity to not have to think about work and its problems until January 6. Yet that seems remarkably too soon. There are other events that need to be in our planning for January, but I don’t like thinking about that time, because then the vacation will be over.
However, I have learned recently to not dwell on the negatives as much. This was difficult for me as recently as a year or so ago. But either I am finally figuring out what many know, (and what many never figure out) that dwelling on negative thoughts does not do me any good. And worrying about the future totally screws up the present. So I will endeavor to live for the moment or at least try to. It’s hard to change a psyche that has been developed for 40+ years, but I feel I am closer to achieving that goal than ever before.
However, I have learned recently to not dwell on the negatives as much. This was difficult for me as recently as a year or so ago. But either I am finally figuring out what many know, (and what many never figure out) that dwelling on negative thoughts does not do me any good. And worrying about the future totally screws up the present. So I will endeavor to live for the moment or at least try to. It’s hard to change a psyche that has been developed for 40+ years, but I feel I am closer to achieving that goal than ever before.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
White House Vs. Fox
Was it stupid, cunning, bold, silly or an abomination for the White House to publicly take on Fox "news?"
This is one of those times when it’s perplexing to be a progressive. When the good guys (our president, not like the previous resident) takes on the bad guys (the conservative, lying bull-horn of Fox "news") it is tempting to just say, “Yeah! It’s about time we put them in their place.”
The problem is that I do not want the president himself spending one second of the precious little time he has in his day on these hate mongers. The obvious reason is that the administration just added a whole lotta fuel to the fire.
The bigger reason is that it is not worth the time.
Now if the President himself did not actually exert any energy at all on this except to possibly use 20 seconds or less to review the situation and approve it, then I guess I don’t have a problem with this. If his staff fit this into their schedule (still rather them spend time on something that actually helps the common person) then it does not bother me as much.
Regarding any questions of censorship, that’s a load of crap and any journalist who has worked with powerful figures knows it. No one is required to make themselves available to the press (exceptions to people who work for some organization that has this rule, such as professional athletes.) Though the balance between politicians and the press is delicate, if the politician decides not to give an interview, it’s not censorship—it’s the nature of the game.
This is one of those times when it’s perplexing to be a progressive. When the good guys (our president, not like the previous resident) takes on the bad guys (the conservative, lying bull-horn of Fox "news") it is tempting to just say, “Yeah! It’s about time we put them in their place.”
The problem is that I do not want the president himself spending one second of the precious little time he has in his day on these hate mongers. The obvious reason is that the administration just added a whole lotta fuel to the fire.
The bigger reason is that it is not worth the time.
Now if the President himself did not actually exert any energy at all on this except to possibly use 20 seconds or less to review the situation and approve it, then I guess I don’t have a problem with this. If his staff fit this into their schedule (still rather them spend time on something that actually helps the common person) then it does not bother me as much.
Regarding any questions of censorship, that’s a load of crap and any journalist who has worked with powerful figures knows it. No one is required to make themselves available to the press (exceptions to people who work for some organization that has this rule, such as professional athletes.) Though the balance between politicians and the press is delicate, if the politician decides not to give an interview, it’s not censorship—it’s the nature of the game.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Stating the obvious
Once in awhile, I read about someone stating what is so painfully obvious to me, that I have to say, "yeah, I agree completely." Such was the case at a town hall meeting with Barney Frank. Said to those who continue to yell and boo when he tried to answer:
"Disruption never helps your cause," he said more than once. "It just looks like you're afraid to have rational discussion."
See a few more gems here:
Barney Frank goes toe to toe
"Disruption never helps your cause," he said more than once. "It just looks like you're afraid to have rational discussion."
See a few more gems here:
Barney Frank goes toe to toe
Monday, August 17, 2009
Latest Rant
I thought that I would find less to be outraged about during an Obama administration. And for the most part, I am not even unhappy, let alone outraged about the administration. No the source of my consternation is the usual--extreme conservatives and right-wing hate mongers who wish to scare the largely uninformed, ignorant public into their narrow viewpoints. Silly me for thinking that the conservative attack machine would stop once the people spoke to elect a progressive, Democratic President and put a solid Democratic majority in the Senate.
True silliness indeed.
Nope the attack machine is alive and well. And it's taking people down with it.
In the insane health care debate, I watch the tape of people yelling at each other. I watch the liberal pundits playing it over and over and over again (hey--it's not easy to fill 24 hours of news.) The liberals say it is caused by large corporations who have hired meeting organizing
companies to purposely disrupt the meetings. If I get morbidly curious, I may watch the conservatives (very briefly--I do not have a strong stomach) and see them say the yelling is simply everyday people voicing their concern over a government that is becoming too much like Europe.
But my chagrin is complicated. I'm upset that the media would rather play the yelling tapes continuously (and interview more pundits who agree with them) instead of interviewing the lawmakers and asking to have the versions of the health care bills explained.
Oh, now and again they will get a sound byte from a Democratic legislator who will give a 20 second summary of what their version of the bill is or is not. Then before the lawmaker (you know, the people who can actually pass or defeat the bill) can say more, they say, let's take another look at another town hall.
And of course the viewing audience loves it. It satisfies their desire to see a commotion, to watch the pain of other people. It's an escape. But even there I exaggerate--because most Americans are not watching even the 24 hour news channels regularly. They're watching whatever reality crap the networks are feeding them. Heaven forbid they would go to bed wondering if Jon and Kate actually blew up at each other (like the entertainment reporters predicted they would.) Now that's real drama.
Unless, of course, it isn't. It's more controlled than the corporate-sponsored shouting at the town-hall meetings.
I'm upset at the childish, insecure, right-wing power freaks who would rather scare the idiotic masses into many more decades of financial ruin on a broken health care system than actually do the job they were elected to do, which is to provide security and the promise of prosperity for all Americans.
But what I am really angry about is that we are being manipulated by powerful people. These people have very little concern for the average person.
I do not feel that way about all elected officials. I have hope for the President and many progressive members of Congress. However, we are in need of an extremely strong, powerful leadership to stand in the face of a wall of adversity and rise above the shouting to guide the masses into something that is actually good for all. I hope we discover that person is in office and is up to the task. I am not positive he or she is there yet.
True silliness indeed.
Nope the attack machine is alive and well. And it's taking people down with it.
In the insane health care debate, I watch the tape of people yelling at each other. I watch the liberal pundits playing it over and over and over again (hey--it's not easy to fill 24 hours of news.) The liberals say it is caused by large corporations who have hired meeting organizing
companies to purposely disrupt the meetings. If I get morbidly curious, I may watch the conservatives (very briefly--I do not have a strong stomach) and see them say the yelling is simply everyday people voicing their concern over a government that is becoming too much like Europe.
But my chagrin is complicated. I'm upset that the media would rather play the yelling tapes continuously (and interview more pundits who agree with them) instead of interviewing the lawmakers and asking to have the versions of the health care bills explained.
Oh, now and again they will get a sound byte from a Democratic legislator who will give a 20 second summary of what their version of the bill is or is not. Then before the lawmaker (you know, the people who can actually pass or defeat the bill) can say more, they say, let's take another look at another town hall.
And of course the viewing audience loves it. It satisfies their desire to see a commotion, to watch the pain of other people. It's an escape. But even there I exaggerate--because most Americans are not watching even the 24 hour news channels regularly. They're watching whatever reality crap the networks are feeding them. Heaven forbid they would go to bed wondering if Jon and Kate actually blew up at each other (like the entertainment reporters predicted they would.) Now that's real drama.
Unless, of course, it isn't. It's more controlled than the corporate-sponsored shouting at the town-hall meetings.
I'm upset at the childish, insecure, right-wing power freaks who would rather scare the idiotic masses into many more decades of financial ruin on a broken health care system than actually do the job they were elected to do, which is to provide security and the promise of prosperity for all Americans.
But what I am really angry about is that we are being manipulated by powerful people. These people have very little concern for the average person.
I do not feel that way about all elected officials. I have hope for the President and many progressive members of Congress. However, we are in need of an extremely strong, powerful leadership to stand in the face of a wall of adversity and rise above the shouting to guide the masses into something that is actually good for all. I hope we discover that person is in office and is up to the task. I am not positive he or she is there yet.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Political Games--Part 1
Being a news junkie, I get my news from several sources. The majority of the news is political. We are “privileged” to have so much information about our government and the people we have “elected” to serve us.
If I could use some image using mere words and fonts to express dripping sarcasm, I would have done so for the previous two words in quotes.
The particular information that I get from the constant barrage of news has shown me what a game our government has become.
That’s right. Our elected representatives, with few exceptions, are playing a game with our lives, our towns, our money.
And this is perfectly okay with all of us. Fact is, we’re so used to hearing about the maneuvering that takes place in Washington that we don’t think it strange.
We should not blindly accept the current processes in government just because that is how things are done.
For example, when the president nominates an individual to fill a cabinet post, that person has to receive a certain number of votes from both houses of Congress to be confirmed in that position. This is part of the checks and balances in our government.
However, notice that the person many times must face rigorous questioning from Congress. Still all good. Still a part of the checks and balances. But pay close attention to the news media coverage and to the final vote. The news usually will report on the likelihood of whether the person will be confirmed and they do this from speaking with people in the know—people within the circles of Congress. This reporting takes place either before or during the questioning. So, unless the media is getting false information from those insiders, then most of the representatives have already made a decision about their confirmation vote. This makes me ask, why bother spending taxpayer money on the questioning process? Why not go straight for the vote? If the outcome has already been decided, what is gained from the questioning?
This makes me think that either the representatives really want to get good information to the public about the nominee or it’s a bunch of political posturing and political theatre. The members of Congress want to appear tough to each other and to their constituents. And what part of governing does ‘appearing tough’ serve?
It does not serve any part of governing—it serves the political interests of the representative.
Of course, we are not totally defenseless against this part of the game. The news media may not report this, but the voting record of all representatives is public information. If we want to take back the government, or at least give it to someone whom we think won’t play games, then we have that opportunity at the voting booth. Even before the next election, we have the right to contact the office of the representative and ask why she or he voted a certain way on any vote.
Sadly, two huge human obstacles get in the way. One is the fact that regardless of wanting our government to work without political ambition, it has functioned this way for so long, it is a large beast that would be hard to tame. And secondly, though we have the right and ability to question our representatives now and at election time, the general public is too apathetic to do so.
If I could use some image using mere words and fonts to express dripping sarcasm, I would have done so for the previous two words in quotes.
The particular information that I get from the constant barrage of news has shown me what a game our government has become.
That’s right. Our elected representatives, with few exceptions, are playing a game with our lives, our towns, our money.
And this is perfectly okay with all of us. Fact is, we’re so used to hearing about the maneuvering that takes place in Washington that we don’t think it strange.
We should not blindly accept the current processes in government just because that is how things are done.
For example, when the president nominates an individual to fill a cabinet post, that person has to receive a certain number of votes from both houses of Congress to be confirmed in that position. This is part of the checks and balances in our government.
However, notice that the person many times must face rigorous questioning from Congress. Still all good. Still a part of the checks and balances. But pay close attention to the news media coverage and to the final vote. The news usually will report on the likelihood of whether the person will be confirmed and they do this from speaking with people in the know—people within the circles of Congress. This reporting takes place either before or during the questioning. So, unless the media is getting false information from those insiders, then most of the representatives have already made a decision about their confirmation vote. This makes me ask, why bother spending taxpayer money on the questioning process? Why not go straight for the vote? If the outcome has already been decided, what is gained from the questioning?
This makes me think that either the representatives really want to get good information to the public about the nominee or it’s a bunch of political posturing and political theatre. The members of Congress want to appear tough to each other and to their constituents. And what part of governing does ‘appearing tough’ serve?
It does not serve any part of governing—it serves the political interests of the representative.
Of course, we are not totally defenseless against this part of the game. The news media may not report this, but the voting record of all representatives is public information. If we want to take back the government, or at least give it to someone whom we think won’t play games, then we have that opportunity at the voting booth. Even before the next election, we have the right to contact the office of the representative and ask why she or he voted a certain way on any vote.
Sadly, two huge human obstacles get in the way. One is the fact that regardless of wanting our government to work without political ambition, it has functioned this way for so long, it is a large beast that would be hard to tame. And secondly, though we have the right and ability to question our representatives now and at election time, the general public is too apathetic to do so.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Stupid Geeks
Over time, I’ve heard many say, “I’m not really smart, but I have common sense.” I completely agree that ‘book-learnin’ does not necessarily assume good decision-making abilities.
But it amazes me when otherwise smart people do something really stupid, especially when the stupid act is done in their own field of study.
For example, I have known of a nurse who smoked while pregnant. Or I hear in the news of techno geeks (others in my field) who don’t think about security when using digital media or communications.
Recently, an MP3 player bought at a thrift shop had Unites States military data on it. Luckily, it was not data that could threaten the security of the country or our service personnel.
But I know exactly how this could happen. You see, geeks love to try stuff—stuff as in apps they have never seen before. When a new app is released, even if the computer geek has no use for it at the moment, she will get the app and give it a run-through.
When controlled, this mentality is good. It ensures the public gets software and gadgets that work as they are supposed to work.
However stupidity enters the equation when the geek finds an app that is supposed to do something that the geek didn’t know it could do. Then that personality of testing the app kicks in. However the geek needs some real world method to test the app. And let’s say the app is, oh I don’t know, the ability to store raw data such as text on an MP3 player.
So the geek, who happens to be working for a branch of the US government, has a few hundred lines of text of service personnel data lying nearby, and he thinks, “hey this will be a good test. Why don’t I drop this text onto the MP3 player data app just to watch it work and get my ‘technology is cool’ fix for the day?”
But I forgot to mention the other part of the geek mindset that is important. Geeks think they do not make mistakes. Non-geeks live with a certain, healthy amount of fear when they are around computers. Geeks do not have this fear. This is a bad thing.
So our government-paid techno geek drops the confidential military info onto the app, knowing full well that he needs to delete it when he is done playing—sorry, testing and debugging.
However, immediately after he watched the app perform, and made a mental note of how he would have done it slightly differently and of course better, he gets a phone call that someone in accounting needs help understanding the difference between webmail and email downloaded to a local computer. He shuts down all of his systems and heads off to once again save the day with his wizardry and guruness, and of course stops to lecture everyone in accounting about using pet names for their passwords.
He gets back to his desk, sees his MP3 player there and wonders why he has not sprung for the nicer one and decides to see what he can get for it at the thrift store and then head home to buy the better one online.
Well, you can see how book-learnin’ does not equate with common sense.
But it amazes me when otherwise smart people do something really stupid, especially when the stupid act is done in their own field of study.
For example, I have known of a nurse who smoked while pregnant. Or I hear in the news of techno geeks (others in my field) who don’t think about security when using digital media or communications.
Recently, an MP3 player bought at a thrift shop had Unites States military data on it. Luckily, it was not data that could threaten the security of the country or our service personnel.
But I know exactly how this could happen. You see, geeks love to try stuff—stuff as in apps they have never seen before. When a new app is released, even if the computer geek has no use for it at the moment, she will get the app and give it a run-through.
When controlled, this mentality is good. It ensures the public gets software and gadgets that work as they are supposed to work.
However stupidity enters the equation when the geek finds an app that is supposed to do something that the geek didn’t know it could do. Then that personality of testing the app kicks in. However the geek needs some real world method to test the app. And let’s say the app is, oh I don’t know, the ability to store raw data such as text on an MP3 player.
So the geek, who happens to be working for a branch of the US government, has a few hundred lines of text of service personnel data lying nearby, and he thinks, “hey this will be a good test. Why don’t I drop this text onto the MP3 player data app just to watch it work and get my ‘technology is cool’ fix for the day?”
But I forgot to mention the other part of the geek mindset that is important. Geeks think they do not make mistakes. Non-geeks live with a certain, healthy amount of fear when they are around computers. Geeks do not have this fear. This is a bad thing.
So our government-paid techno geek drops the confidential military info onto the app, knowing full well that he needs to delete it when he is done playing—sorry, testing and debugging.
However, immediately after he watched the app perform, and made a mental note of how he would have done it slightly differently and of course better, he gets a phone call that someone in accounting needs help understanding the difference between webmail and email downloaded to a local computer. He shuts down all of his systems and heads off to once again save the day with his wizardry and guruness, and of course stops to lecture everyone in accounting about using pet names for their passwords.
He gets back to his desk, sees his MP3 player there and wonders why he has not sprung for the nicer one and decides to see what he can get for it at the thrift store and then head home to buy the better one online.
Well, you can see how book-learnin’ does not equate with common sense.
Friday, January 2, 2009
The People vs The Politicians
Please, someone, tell me that someone, anyone has a problem with our elected officials constantly playing politics instead of governing. If you follow the main stream media, notice that the majority of the coverage about politicians and our legislative process focuses on who can make deals with whom and how a certain deal will benefit the party or the politician. And the media seems just fine with this.
Most pundits from the major outlets do not question this thinking. Even bloggers and the so-called underground media say little about this.
The problem is that we have built a sub-culture of politicians. Many of them have re-election as their main goal. Their everyday actions are centered around what they should or should not do in any given instance based on how it will affect their chances for re-election.
It is often reported that a member of Congress voted a particular way on a bill because he or she was making a deal (or making good on a previous promise) with another member. Wait. I thought our elected officials should be voting based on what is best for their constituents.
Of course, if asked, the politician will always tell you that they did consider the people when voting. Well, if that were the case, then political lobbying would not work. It obviously does work, or the corporations would not continue paying lobbyists to influence votes.
In the latest mess in Congress, the Democratic majority has promised to block the appointment of Roland Burris due to the so-called "taint" of the indicted Governor of Illinois. One analyst said the majority fears losing that Senate seat in the next election because the people will not want to vote for the 'tainted' appointee.
So they fear losing the Senate seat to a Republican. This would take one seat away from their majority (and they need every possible seat to maintain the majority.) And so losing the majority means the Republicans will have the power in Congress.
But doesn't all of that assume that they are positive that the 'good' laws come from Democrats and the 'bad' laws from Republicans? And I say this even though I prefer the Democrats usually.
Again--where are the 'people' in all of this? They are not considering the credentials of Roland Burris at all. He could possibly be the best qualified to serve the people of Illinois. But that is not even a consideration.
There are numerous other cases in which our elected officials choose party and politics over what is right.
And I think this is wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)