Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Anger, hurt, frustration
I work for 2 companies. One of which is part time at best, usually 2 - 4 hours a week sporadically. The last week or two I have had to take a couple calls while on shift at my other 'regular' job. The total amount of time is quite limited, maybe half an hour to an hour of time spent, taken away from my regular job. I keep close track of the time and make it up in the morning or at night if it is there. If anything is of immediate concern with my regular job, it always takes priority. However some of my coworkers seem to think I don't work 'for the company' anymore. I have had some absences that I have not clearly defined for them (multiple doctors appt's for my wife, a recurring psychiatrist appointment for myself, a root canal etc) that I have not wanted to share. It appears I will have to. ugh. I hate having to defend myself when I have proven myself over and over to be a reliable employee with one exception: communicating what is going on with me to those who have no business caring about it since they don't report to me and I don't report to them.
Monday, March 1, 2010
"Dangerous Exercise in Democracy"
oh really??
Why do they let this little tart open her mouth? She is literally as vile as her father, and even less intelligent.
To whit, she speaks of this issue of voting for health care reform on reconciliation as if it were something unique to those 'dirty liberals'. However I beg to differ:
Historical use (from wikipedia)
Congress has used the procedure to enact far-reaching omnibus budget bills, first in 1981. Since 1980, 17 of 23 reconciliation bills have been signed into law by Republican presidents (a Republican has been president for 20 of the last 29 years). Since 1980, reconciliation has been used nine times when Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate, six times when Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate, one time when the Democrats controlled the Senate and the Republicans the House, and seven times when the Republicans controlled the Senate and the Democrats controlled the House. Reconciliation has been used at least once nominally for a non-budgetary purpose (for example, see the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, when a Republican was president and the Democrats controlled Congress). The 1986 Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) contained some health care provisions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is also worth noting that there has never in the history of America been a more partisan and obstructionist Senate. The conservatives have not broken ranks on even one thing, not one bill. They have towed the party line completely irregardless of all of their constituency. They claim that the public is against the public option (not true) that it is against health care reform (again, blatantly false, though there is a lot of opposition to the CURRENT bill). And yet they still stab their constituents in the back. Now that is not to say that there are not many many corrupt politicians on both sides. For instance I would love to kick little miss Blanche Lincoln squarely in the teeth, but it looks likely that she is going to be replaced in the primary by the current Arkansas Lt. Governer (Halter I think). There are others (and Pelosi isn't exactly my first choice) but thankfully MY state is represented accurately for me by Jeff Merkeley one of the most progressive voices in Congress. Wyden not so much but we do have a strong conservative movement here too, so that makes some sense (not to mention Nike is one of his biggest contributors).
Why do they let this little tart open her mouth? She is literally as vile as her father, and even less intelligent.
To whit, she speaks of this issue of voting for health care reform on reconciliation as if it were something unique to those 'dirty liberals'. However I beg to differ:
Historical use (from wikipedia)
Congress has used the procedure to enact far-reaching omnibus budget bills, first in 1981. Since 1980, 17 of 23 reconciliation bills have been signed into law by Republican presidents (a Republican has been president for 20 of the last 29 years). Since 1980, reconciliation has been used nine times when Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate, six times when Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate, one time when the Democrats controlled the Senate and the Republicans the House, and seven times when the Republicans controlled the Senate and the Democrats controlled the House. Reconciliation has been used at least once nominally for a non-budgetary purpose (for example, see the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, when a Republican was president and the Democrats controlled Congress). The 1986 Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) contained some health care provisions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is also worth noting that there has never in the history of America been a more partisan and obstructionist Senate. The conservatives have not broken ranks on even one thing, not one bill. They have towed the party line completely irregardless of all of their constituency. They claim that the public is against the public option (not true) that it is against health care reform (again, blatantly false, though there is a lot of opposition to the CURRENT bill). And yet they still stab their constituents in the back. Now that is not to say that there are not many many corrupt politicians on both sides. For instance I would love to kick little miss Blanche Lincoln squarely in the teeth, but it looks likely that she is going to be replaced in the primary by the current Arkansas Lt. Governer (Halter I think). There are others (and Pelosi isn't exactly my first choice) but thankfully MY state is represented accurately for me by Jeff Merkeley one of the most progressive voices in Congress. Wyden not so much but we do have a strong conservative movement here too, so that makes some sense (not to mention Nike is one of his biggest contributors).
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Muse, (the band)
For those of you who don't know I am a huge fan of Muse. This is a relatively recent thing (within the last 3 years) so I have gone and listened to most of their back catalogue as well the new stuff. Part of what I like is their variation, and their skill. Not to mention that I love Queen as well (and there are definite parallels).
So there is a contest here at our local radio station
As a result I submitted an ad based tightly on the Affiche Rouge poster from WWII. I will post my version after the contest (not sure if I am allowed otherwise).
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Anger, secondary emotion
I recently had it pointed out to me that anger is not quite how I thought of it before. Anger is in fact a secondary emotion, and not a primary one.
My first reaction was one of minor incredulity; it seems so basic and primal that I had assumed it was a 'primary' emotion. Part of this probably dovetails into my poor handling/understanding/comprehension of anger in general throughout my life.
See this link for reference: Anger As a Secondary Emotion
With that in mind it changes my relationship to anger quite a bit. Part of my issue with anger has to do with my relationship to my mother, and her lack of control around it. She was uncontrollably angry throughout so much of her life, and I have seen it destroy so many things in her life. It has done terrible levels of damage to her personal relationships, she has lost jobs because of it, and gained a reputation as difficult to work with in many parts of her life. Because of that I vowed to myself when I was a small child to 'never be angry'. While this was not necessarily a healthy thing, my goal I think was admirable; so as a result I am changing that vow to be something healthier: 'I will not let anger rule me or those I care about'
That of course has many ramifications, but essentially what it means is that if someone is angry I will work to find out what is hurting them, as anger is almost universally about some kind of hurt, physical or emotional. What it means is that I will always strive to communicate deeper with people about what is hurting them. This goes for me as well; communicating my own hurt has never been something I have been very good at, but my eyes have been opened by my child. I will need to communicate these things far more clearly with her in my life.
My first reaction was one of minor incredulity; it seems so basic and primal that I had assumed it was a 'primary' emotion. Part of this probably dovetails into my poor handling/understanding/comprehension of anger in general throughout my life.
See this link for reference: Anger As a Secondary Emotion
With that in mind it changes my relationship to anger quite a bit. Part of my issue with anger has to do with my relationship to my mother, and her lack of control around it. She was uncontrollably angry throughout so much of her life, and I have seen it destroy so many things in her life. It has done terrible levels of damage to her personal relationships, she has lost jobs because of it, and gained a reputation as difficult to work with in many parts of her life. Because of that I vowed to myself when I was a small child to 'never be angry'. While this was not necessarily a healthy thing, my goal I think was admirable; so as a result I am changing that vow to be something healthier: 'I will not let anger rule me or those I care about'
That of course has many ramifications, but essentially what it means is that if someone is angry I will work to find out what is hurting them, as anger is almost universally about some kind of hurt, physical or emotional. What it means is that I will always strive to communicate deeper with people about what is hurting them. This goes for me as well; communicating my own hurt has never been something I have been very good at, but my eyes have been opened by my child. I will need to communicate these things far more clearly with her in my life.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
On public opinion
It is interesting, but I drew an odd parallel between myself and those entities known as corporations. I find that so many of the decisions of management hinge at least marginally on egotism, much like those of the common man. Unfortunately CEO's, COO's, CTO and to a lesser extent, CFO's are an incredibly egotistical bunch, bordering on narcissism.
As I discovered recently in a therapy session, my own ego is so bereft of actual faith in myself, that my ego has inflated to mammoth proportions. I can also assume that this is probably the case for these people I am so willing to judge so readily.
The post came up in reference to an article I read on Gizmodo, regarding an email on how Microsoft essentially failed with regards to iTunes and they knew it. The email was from 2003, indicating that they just weren't able to cut deals with the music industry like Apple was.
I argued that it was because Microsoft (particularly at the time) was being assaulted on all sides regarding anti-competitive/monopolistic practices, and that the cases were incredibly public, thus souring people on business deals with them. In other words their aggression towards the DoJ and other governments, as well as Sun, and others, had colored them as someone not to do business with. In other words, a matter of PR and perception (right or wrong).
It's funny how perception can play out both in business and in your personal life.
Gizmodo - Itunes-Microsoft-fail
So I guess the big question is, if I am in therapy, why isn't corporate america?
As I discovered recently in a therapy session, my own ego is so bereft of actual faith in myself, that my ego has inflated to mammoth proportions. I can also assume that this is probably the case for these people I am so willing to judge so readily.
The post came up in reference to an article I read on Gizmodo, regarding an email on how Microsoft essentially failed with regards to iTunes and they knew it. The email was from 2003, indicating that they just weren't able to cut deals with the music industry like Apple was.
I argued that it was because Microsoft (particularly at the time) was being assaulted on all sides regarding anti-competitive/monopolistic practices, and that the cases were incredibly public, thus souring people on business deals with them. In other words their aggression towards the DoJ and other governments, as well as Sun, and others, had colored them as someone not to do business with. In other words, a matter of PR and perception (right or wrong).
It's funny how perception can play out both in business and in your personal life.
Gizmodo - Itunes-Microsoft-fail
So I guess the big question is, if I am in therapy, why isn't corporate america?
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Individuality vs. Contentment?
So I am always such a conflicted person where spirit, soul and calm meet the modern world. I know that I am most certainly not the only one.
I am now in a weekly mediation group, one without religious or spiritual conviction. I find the frank discussions we get into there after the meditations to be very refreshing and insightful, however sometimes (as in this last one) I find some things that disquiet me a bit.
To whit: The concept that enforcing one's individuality, one's sense of self in the universe is, or at least can be, a very contentious and conflicted reality. The extension of that however indicates that allowing oneself to conform, to flow with that around you, makes you happier.
This is one hand obvious to me (the term 'going with the flow' of course is the first thing that springs to mind); but on the other implies that I should simply be like all that around me, something that I recoil from almost on principle. I am a bit at a loss as to how to proceed then, as I most certainly enjoy my sense of individuality my sense of self, but also know that I struggle and would like to make my life more peaceful. So to that end I will focus myself more, and try to let the universe work with me.
As soon as I figure out how I'll let you all know.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Hatful of Holisticism
My lovely nonsensical titles. Ah well I guess it all ties back to the fact that a certain commitment to spirituality is in fact lacking in my life.
I usually say that I am spiritual in that I have a spirit and there are things that I believe inherently; and that all that preachiness of other faiths is simply dogma (which I have a distinctive aversion to). Dogma in my mind is simply pure mental and emotional laziness. It is the giving over of your beliefs, trusting them to someone outside of yourself. It is my personal belief that no spirituality can exist externally from yourself. You are (for lack of a better term) 'of God', and as such by exerting your will and your belief you are acting in the interest of the universe and 'God'.
Ah but this is simply musing, perhaps. Or perhaps it is simply justification for my own actions. Either way I have a feeling I am just missing the point of organized religion. I refuse to be saved (or damned) by anyone but myself. And on that I can think of no harsher judge.
I really get quite over the top on the blog postings.
In other news I applied for a part time blogging job with Lifehacker (one of my personal favorites, as are all of the gawker media sites). Do I think I will get it? who knows? I am not a writer, but I do fit a number of the other criteria. A little extra money sure wouldn't hurt about now.
I really have had an interesting life I must say. Not necessarily movie/book quality but I am not even 40 and I have known some really interesting people, and even done a few mildly interesting things. I have exposure to certain business sectors that most people know nothing about. It's interesting being part of a technology that is so absolutely ubiquitous. I could point out the window and the chances are anyone I pointed at will have, within the last 30 days, come into direct contact with one of the machines I support. Even more interesting than that is that you (whoever you are) , if you are in the United States could probably pick someone and the chances would be exactly the same.
Having grown up as the son of a police officer, and now working in a financial sector, I find that security is always on my mind. I become uncomfortable sometimes thinking about how I can compromise my own systems, wondering if I am becoming a 'villain' or 'criminal' just by thinking about it. But then I realize that that is the only realistic way to keep criminals out of my hardware. I have to look at my handiwork and try to step outside of myself, and break it. In any way I can. There are times when my job is inordinately cool and dorky all at once.
I usually say that I am spiritual in that I have a spirit and there are things that I believe inherently; and that all that preachiness of other faiths is simply dogma (which I have a distinctive aversion to). Dogma in my mind is simply pure mental and emotional laziness. It is the giving over of your beliefs, trusting them to someone outside of yourself. It is my personal belief that no spirituality can exist externally from yourself. You are (for lack of a better term) 'of God', and as such by exerting your will and your belief you are acting in the interest of the universe and 'God'.
Ah but this is simply musing, perhaps. Or perhaps it is simply justification for my own actions. Either way I have a feeling I am just missing the point of organized religion. I refuse to be saved (or damned) by anyone but myself. And on that I can think of no harsher judge.
I really get quite over the top on the blog postings.
In other news I applied for a part time blogging job with Lifehacker (one of my personal favorites, as are all of the gawker media sites). Do I think I will get it? who knows? I am not a writer, but I do fit a number of the other criteria. A little extra money sure wouldn't hurt about now.
I really have had an interesting life I must say. Not necessarily movie/book quality but I am not even 40 and I have known some really interesting people, and even done a few mildly interesting things. I have exposure to certain business sectors that most people know nothing about. It's interesting being part of a technology that is so absolutely ubiquitous. I could point out the window and the chances are anyone I pointed at will have, within the last 30 days, come into direct contact with one of the machines I support. Even more interesting than that is that you (whoever you are) , if you are in the United States could probably pick someone and the chances would be exactly the same.
Having grown up as the son of a police officer, and now working in a financial sector, I find that security is always on my mind. I become uncomfortable sometimes thinking about how I can compromise my own systems, wondering if I am becoming a 'villain' or 'criminal' just by thinking about it. But then I realize that that is the only realistic way to keep criminals out of my hardware. I have to look at my handiwork and try to step outside of myself, and break it. In any way I can. There are times when my job is inordinately cool and dorky all at once.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)