I have a relationship with my piano that fluctuates between indifference on my part to downright needy. Reminds me of my (a href="http://m.ookee.com/commentary/balance.edit">balance post. Granted, my living room has recently become a lot less cluttered so, that's partially an excuse, but it's amazing how therapeutic playing can be.
I have literally not played in a year. The last time I played was when someone I thought I would never see again came back into my life ... life has a strange way of making a point...never mind.
I'm just glad I haven't forgotten how to play. My voice is a bit rattled, but give me some time, I'll be fine. Thank god my music is still alive.
I watched Death Race last night. Initially, I didn't make it to the theater because it was only out for a couple of weeks and I figured that meant it sucked. This movie did not suck.
Was it thought provoking? No.
Did it make me want to talk about it afterward? No.
Did it change my life? No.
Did it entertain the crap out of me for 2 hours? Absolutely.
I avoided this movie for the longest time because I thought it was going to be horrid and just a bad remake. Outside of a couple of references, it was nothing like Death Race 2000. So, if you want to be mindlessly entertained for a couple hours, check it out.
The Supreme Court recently ruled on whether or not schools can strip search teenagers (in this case, a middle school student). I can't say I disagree with them in this particular ruling, because according to the article the only source of information school officials had was the word of another student.
I'd like to know what else the school officials knew about the girl (was she generally suspected of selling prescription drugs, for example). The article doesn't talk about any past history with this student, which is huge. It also doesn't say anything about whether or not the prescription was hers, which is another huge consideration. Schools are different than everywhere else because students are REQUIRED to be there. As a result, rights get defined differently (whether you agree with that or not can be debated later).
The part about this article that rubs me the wrong way is the following statement,
Justices Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens would have allowed the claims against individual school officials to go forward. “This is, in essence, a case in which clearly established law meets clearly outrageous conduct,” Justice Stevens wrote.
School officials are given a charge to ensure the safety of ALL students, quite frequently that means protecting them from their peers, many of which know exactly what the law is and what school officials can do. Did the assistant principal in this case overreact? Yes, but not so much that they should become personally liable. If a school official had to worry about violating rights and having such a violation cost them their job, I guarantee they wouldn't be very effective administrators. This would lead to more lax rules, and effectively those that know how to skirt them would get around them, and it would affect the entire climate. Private vs. Public education starts to come to mind.
Bottom line is exactly what should have happened is what happened. Kudos to the court for making the right call, but a big middle finger to Ginsburg and Stevens for thinking this was such a gross violation of rights that someone should be personally liable.
"Balance is key. Balance good, everything good. Balance bad, better pack up, go home."I'm not sure why it's taken so long to get back on, maybe it's because I've spent so much time trying to put this post together (and here I am winging it), maybe I haven't felt I had time, or maybe it's just a bunch of bad excuses coupled with no readership (which would be my own fault). Ultimately, it doesn't matter.Mr. Miyagi, The Karate Kid
I struggle with this issue of balance. I am very good with obsessive and complacent, and balance, where I would like to be, resides right smack in the middle of the two. It doesn't matter what it is. Balance is essential. If one does anything in excess, it is bad. Even something as simple as water ... drink too much, you could die, and water is a staple of life.
Recently I started applying for new jobs. Not because I'm dissatisfied with my current job, but rather because I'm just looking to move forward in my career. I became obsessed with making sure I was ready for my interviews. I completely ignored everything except my own quest for something I probably wasn't going to achieve (at least not now). Part of that cost me a piece of my life I will never forgive myself for losing (it wasn't the only thing, but it was a big part of it).
So where is the balance in life? in this blog? where is my balance and why can't I find it? I can do some pretty amazing things, but can't seem to balance what's important, despite every desire to do so.
Life is life, but I need to find my center, the balance. I've lost some of the most important things because I couldn't find it in time. In the crunch, I know I'll be fine, I just wish I could stabilize everything at the same time. Career, friends, family ... all in sync, all at once. But Mr. Miyagi is right, balance is key, and despite sometimes my balance being off, I'm not packing up and going home.
I hate paying taxes, and would prefer to have the money to spend on myself. I understand however, there is a need for taxes for the general functioning of government. Wouldn’t it be nice if one could fund programs as they saw fit and refuse to fund programs they didn’t support? Not a reference to choosing whether or not to pay taxes, as Thoreau would advocate and be arrested for, but rather a system where one could distribute their money among programs they chose.
It may be as simple as a ballot one submitted with their taxes.
Take this example: I make $50,000/year (gross). I am taxed $10,000. With my tax statement I submit a voter-generated ballot-like form (call it a “tax ballot”), and 90% of my money goes to the programs I want to fund (more on why only 90% momentarily). I want a portion of my dollars to go to national defense, some to welfare, some to some project in my community. I have not only paid my taxes, but I have exercised my political voice. Does this give the rich more power? Sure, from a funding standpoint. But it doesn’t give them any more votes in the legislature. If the masses want certain things unfunded, they lobby to have those things taken off the “tax ballot.” The rich may not have the option to spend money on the things they want if the “masses” choose to take such things off the ballot entirely.
Pork barrel projects would be mostly non-existent from an elected official standpoint. If a community needs something badly enough they can advocate for it. They spend their tax dollars on it. If they don’t get the amount that is required, that money goes into a “lay-away” type plan for future use. Once the project is funded, it can be started. Modifications of this would work as well. Perhaps if a community funds 50% of a project it can begin with the stipulation that a certain percentage will continue to come out of individual taxes until the project is completed. If the community can’t fund it because it’s too expensive, perhaps it isn’t necessary. If it is a necessity, the government has 10% of everyone’s taxes set aside to address this.
The 10% percent set aside however, is not only for addressing these types of issues, but also for ensuring projects are appropriately funded should public opinion dramatically change. The most obvious, but not only, example of this would be military spending. If the government entered into a war that the public decided it didn’t want to fund anymore, they could simply stop sending money. To just stop funding troops overseas in a combat situation would have tragic consequences. The government would be forced to come up with a solution to end hostilities however, because they know money is no longer available, and would have a limited pot of money with which they could effectively withdraw American troops.
If the government decided it wanted more money for a specific reason it could still try to pass bond initiatives. Like current bonds, a person could loan money to the government for the bond and get paid interest on that money because they believe in the investment. War bonds have been an effective way to fund wars. If the government tried to pass an initiative allowing them to issue bonds for fighting a war, it would have to be voted on. If public opinion was against it, it wouldn’t pass, the war wouldn’t be funded, and would eventually have to end.
There are other ways the government makes money, but this would control at least a portion of the money. Specifically, the money that is taken directly from the people is distributed how the people want it to be distributed. It attaches strings to every dollar the government gets in tax revenue. It gives them very little discretion with what to do with tax dollars.
Many already spend time doing their taxes. If given the choice of where their money was spent, they may opt for itemizing their tax dollars. Much like itemizing their tax return, the “tax ballot” could be generated to spend some money on this and some on that. Taxpayers could also opt for generic plans that parties outline, much like voting for a specific ticket on the ballot, but they would be given a choice to “itemize” if they would like.
There is no doubt this plan would pose a logistical problem. Considering the resources the government has and the wasteful spending that occurs regularly however, adequate resources to regulate it are available. It would force a certain amount of accountability on the government, which would also be new. There would also have to be checks put into place that would force the government into some sort of budget balancing debate, which has historically been an issue, but it gives much more power to individuals, more fairly distributes the public’s voice, and gives them a clear incentive on why to pay their taxes.
"I don't care what you believe, but believe in something."You have to have faith. Not necessarily the believe in God type faith, but faith in life, faith in yourself, faith that things will work out the way they are supposed to work out. We make choices, we learn lessons. Sometimes the most important lessons are learned after the fact. We hope and pray that we haven't damaged anything to the point where we cannot return, but generally, we have, and we can't.
- Shepherd Book, Serenity
Faith is like hope, but not the double edged sword. Hope can lead us to believe that something we want to happen will, even though it may have no chance. Faith believes that things will happen the way they are supposed to happen, and to have faith allows us to pursue our own happiness. Even if we're unsure that we're on the right path.
So have a little faith. Believe that, as Voltaire said, things happen for a reason, and therefore it must be the very best reason.
Just some random thoughts from today about life in general. I haven't done any studies and I'm just going to ramble about what I think, which isn't really out of the norm.
Every individual is born in a group. If it's just the mother and father, it's still a group. If it's a single mother with no father around, at one point, there still was a group. A child cannot be created without the "group." I remember as a child one of the rituals to becoming a Weeblo was the three sticks (representing the kid and his parents). One cannot stand alone, two cannot stand, but three can be balanced.
We are born into this life and if we're lucky we end up part of a family. We spend the rest of our lives creating new relationships with people we know of as our friends. Some of our friends are brief, some last a lifetime.
Sidenote: I remember Doug writing something about this (reference to types of people in our lives) a while ago, if I can find the link I'll post that.
We all travel this road and make choices. Ultimately, on some level, we are alone, but the whole time we're constantly creating these friendships so we can share this life we've created. Sometimes we become more than friends and have a mutual bond that is friendship, but much deeper. Regardless of the type of relationship, these people create who we are as people.
Here's where I start to get confused. Society (at least from my perspective right now) seems to be turning away from this. The individual is the important piece. Work hard and achieve what you can. You don't need help. I don't mean that society is telling us to abandon others, but there's a perspective that we MUST be independent.
I understand the need to be able to do for oneself, take care of oneself. But is there a problem with leaning? Asking for help? After all, we create friendships specifically for that purpose.
Somewhere along the way we question our existence or our purpose. Everyone wants to hope that at some point in time, after we're gone, we'll be remembered. That in some way we've created something that somebody else will remember. Most of us will never be famous musicians, actors, or authors, so all we can hope for is that those people that we called our friends will remember us and who we were. I find it ironic that we will try to accomplish things independently, but the only way it will have any meaning after we're gone is if somebody else remembers. That someone else are our friends.
...
I may try to clean this up. I just read it (first draft, as always), and I see where it needs some serious editing, but I don't have time right now. Sometimes it's just best to just get the general thought down. I hope it at least made some sense.