I shall begin with a simple statement: I don't believe in participating in the argument between Mac and Pc users over which system is better. Each system has its ups and downs, thus it is up to the individual user to decide what their preference is.
I thought this mentality was simple enough to understand, but it appears I was wrong (as always). I really hate it when Mac and Pc users alike bash the other side due to their own 'horrific' experiences and/or lack of understand of the rival platform.
It seems that people fail to grasp that this one and only truth: All computers, regardless of its maker and the software installed on it, will at some point in its life time malfunction. The degree of the malfunction varies, but the statement stands true. Trust me. After seven years of repairing computers and a summer working at a repair shop, I've seen the hellish side of it. That pretty little Macbook Pro you've got there - most likely gonna be the bane of your existence. And to make things worst, you're probably going to be the reason for it flipping out on you.
There are so many elements that both sides like to nitpick at each other for - be it price, customization, power, whatever. The list can go on forever. The machine costs more than you would like? Don't buy it. You want more control over your machine parts? Go somewhere else and don't complain. Want a nice design? They pony up the money for it.
My own personal preference is the Mac. And that is perfectly alright. But I'm not one of those people who go around as if they're in a missionary in Africa and try to convert as many innocent looking folks as possible. Like what you like people - just don't impose and use that tone of not so repressed disgust when you encounter others who don't agree with your tastes.
If you do, well then, I pray your machine will blow up in your face one day.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
A War For Your Soul
Thank you Google Reader and this site for bringing this to my attention. And its just perfect considering my previous post from earlier today. Anyways, hopefully this will drive my point home -- If it doesn't, then I don't know what will.
A War For Your Soul-regular version from Erisai Films on Vimeo.
On the N-word
This past Monday, my cousin and I were having a discussion on this particular word. I normally fall into the camp that believes that word shouldn't never be uttered. Let alone by the African American youths, and in come cases grown ass adults, that have made the word such a popular statute within our culture. However, my cousin made a rather compelling argument.
Me: What have I told you about using that word?
Cousin: Yes, I know. However, there are some black people that deserve to be called N*ggers.
Me: What?!
Cousin: Think about it. People who live around here - *waves hand indicating the rest of the block* - N*ggers. People who go to The Club - N*ggers. There are just some people who play the part, so they deserve the title. You're not a N*gger. I'm not a N*gger. But they are.
Took me awhile to get over that bit of the conversation, but when I thought more and more about it, I saw his point. There are those who just simply fall into the stereotypical atmosphere that the word creates.
Is this by any means right? No, but it is what it is. It is far more realistic to deal with the nature of the word than to just hopefully wish it away.
So then, seeing as how people are black folks are going to use the word from now to kingdom come, what does this mean for racial interactions? How can I say anything about perceived racism towards my race when I use a word that has historically been used to degrade my very people?
I couldn't, shouldn't and can't say a damned thing. I would be doing a lot more damage to my own cause than any little overzealous cop who, let's say, gets his kicks by pulling over as much black males as he can in a day. I would be perpetuating the very set of social norms that I say helps to confine me to - abstractly speaking - the hood.
I will now step off my soapbox - the point has been made. Before crying racial fowl - which DOES still exist - please look at your own habits and find where you are slipping up. Finally, here are reasons why not to be a n*gger. Especially a self-proclaimed one. Oh how I hate those...
Update: Click here for an additional video that drives the message right on home even more.
Me: What have I told you about using that word?
Cousin: Yes, I know. However, there are some black people that deserve to be called N*ggers.
Me: What?!
Cousin: Think about it. People who live around here - *waves hand indicating the rest of the block* - N*ggers. People who go to The Club - N*ggers. There are just some people who play the part, so they deserve the title. You're not a N*gger. I'm not a N*gger. But they are.
Took me awhile to get over that bit of the conversation, but when I thought more and more about it, I saw his point. There are those who just simply fall into the stereotypical atmosphere that the word creates.
Is this by any means right? No, but it is what it is. It is far more realistic to deal with the nature of the word than to just hopefully wish it away.
So then, seeing as how people are black folks are going to use the word from now to kingdom come, what does this mean for racial interactions? How can I say anything about perceived racism towards my race when I use a word that has historically been used to degrade my very people?
I couldn't, shouldn't and can't say a damned thing. I would be doing a lot more damage to my own cause than any little overzealous cop who, let's say, gets his kicks by pulling over as much black males as he can in a day. I would be perpetuating the very set of social norms that I say helps to confine me to - abstractly speaking - the hood.
I will now step off my soapbox - the point has been made. Before crying racial fowl - which DOES still exist - please look at your own habits and find where you are slipping up. Finally, here are reasons why not to be a n*gger. Especially a self-proclaimed one. Oh how I hate those...
Update: Click here for an additional video that drives the message right on home even more.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Saturday, July 18, 2009
What Does It Mean To Be Educated? - Allegory Of The Cave
Every year, Susquehanna has an university theme that their summer common reading is centered around. The theme that I've been so lucky to come into school with is "What does it mean to be educated". At Orientation, we were all handed an anthology that promised to explore "how we learn from formal and informal educational experiences".
One chapter of the book is Plato's Allegory of the Cave. It is a dialog between Socrates and Glaucon in which they discuss the duties one who has escaped the cave has to his fellow brothers still in chains. Take this quote in which Socrates tells of what should be the State's goal with those who pursue an education:
In short, Plato through Socrates is saying that yes, our leaders should and must encourage those that are after an education. That is needed. However, once they reach a certain point, they must then be made to serve the greater populous - those that remain in the cave, instead of completely leaving them behind.
There we have our first question: Those that become educated -whatever that may be-, should they be forced to partake in something that benefits everyone? Or should they be left to do as they wish?
I believe that more often than not, those that are clearly educated have a way of flocking to positions that have varying degrees of 'public service'-ness in the job description. Senators, presidents, judges, doctors, cancer researchers, teachers etc - of all of these, the best of the best have been awarded an education and it is their job to do what they can for the embitterment of everyone.
Of course, that is the general aim of such positions and I'm speaking in rather ambiguous terms here, but bear with me. Just looking at the words 'presidents' and 'senators' in that sentence above makes me laugh, but remember its more often than not. Hopefully.
Anyways, back on tract. I can't completely agree with Plato when he says that they have to be forced into such roles, but I believe that especially with a liberal arts education, most people have the Mensch, do gooder attitude instilled into them. I can't force people to give up their own happiness for the happiness of others - I feel like such a thing would cause resentment in some hearts that would then grow and jeopardize their performance.
Does this mean that I would allow for people to put their own happiness above the well being of others? Does that mean that those with the opportunity to gain seats of 'power' should be allowed to exploit that power at the cost of their people, much like we've seen throughout history.
Plato has something to say to this. A page or two later he writes:
He writes that those who have no interest in ruling will be the best suited for the job, and will provide order. Those that have an interest in ruling will only cause disorder because they want to jobs to serve their own goals and ambitions.
If I don't have an interest in something, no matter how much I know it is important, I'm likely to just not put effort into it and only do what is needed. I wouldn't go above and beyond for the people.
However, he does have a point about the others. I simply need to look at our own government to see what happens with officials are fueled by their own self-interests. Take the progressive hell that plagued the Albany the past month or so, take the retarded actions of the republicans during the 2008 election trail up to this very day. Order has gone out the window and progress is the true victim here.
So what would be the best solution? I'd be willing to wager that the answer lies in having a balance between duty and self-interest. You're own wants and needs shouldn't overcome your duty to your people, nor should you become a slave to them. This is also wherein lies the concept of wisdom - of knowing how to deal with both screaming fools at the same time.
And for what it's worth - Plato seems to be implying that only certain people should be taken and nurtured to fill positions of the such; of picking out those who you want to place into a special track of sorts. This goes against what everyone says America is all about - its the land where anyone can work their way up. And while this may be true, there is still the existence of that special track for *certain* people. It is possible for those not on that path to find their way to it, but its only makes things harder. Thank you life chances.
I'll conclude with one last question: Should our elective officials be wise? Keep in mind the hell Ms. Sotomayor has gotten in the past week for calling herself a 'wise latina woman'. I'll give you a minute to answer that question.
Tick, tock.
You done? Good. You should have answered with a resounding 'Hell to the yes!' or something of the sort. If you didn't, well, I'll let you ponder your own silliness. Now go sit in the corner till I'm done.
Of course I want my officials to be wise. I'm trusting them to make deicisons that impact all of our lives and while wisdom is a attribute gained through one's life experiences (unlike what some would want you to believe otherwise) wisdom is still wisdom. Wisdom is knowing where to come to a compromise that actually gets something done. If you can't do that, if you won't be willing to hear other ideas and take them into account, if you will say 'no' as if its your magic wand for getting what you want, then sir/madam I want you off the stage. Just leave. I've lost all my patience with such people. Granted, doesn't that (in someway) make me as narrow minded as they are? Yes, I do believe that argument can be made, but at the same time, I don't care. What I care about (and what others should care about as well) is finding how we can make life better for all.
After all, shouldn't that be an end goal of education? Making life better?
And if I banished you earlier, you may come back now from your timeout in order to discuss this with the rest of us. Just remember to behave yourself. Or else...
One chapter of the book is Plato's Allegory of the Cave. It is a dialog between Socrates and Glaucon in which they discuss the duties one who has escaped the cave has to his fellow brothers still in chains. Take this quote in which Socrates tells of what should be the State's goal with those who pursue an education:
Then, I said, the business of us who are the founders of the State will be to compel the best minds to attain that knowledge which we have already shown to be the greatest of all - they must continue to ascend until they arrive at the good;but when they have ascended and seen enough we must not allow them do to as they do now.
What do you mean?
I meant that they remain in the upper world: but this must not be allowed; they must be made to descend again among the prisoners in the den, and partake of their labours and honours, whether they are worth having or not.
In short, Plato through Socrates is saying that yes, our leaders should and must encourage those that are after an education. That is needed. However, once they reach a certain point, they must then be made to serve the greater populous - those that remain in the cave, instead of completely leaving them behind.
There we have our first question: Those that become educated -whatever that may be-, should they be forced to partake in something that benefits everyone? Or should they be left to do as they wish?
I believe that more often than not, those that are clearly educated have a way of flocking to positions that have varying degrees of 'public service'-ness in the job description. Senators, presidents, judges, doctors, cancer researchers, teachers etc - of all of these, the best of the best have been awarded an education and it is their job to do what they can for the embitterment of everyone.
Of course, that is the general aim of such positions and I'm speaking in rather ambiguous terms here, but bear with me. Just looking at the words 'presidents' and 'senators' in that sentence above makes me laugh, but remember its more often than not. Hopefully.
Anyways, back on tract. I can't completely agree with Plato when he says that they have to be forced into such roles, but I believe that especially with a liberal arts education, most people have the Mensch, do gooder attitude instilled into them. I can't force people to give up their own happiness for the happiness of others - I feel like such a thing would cause resentment in some hearts that would then grow and jeopardize their performance.
Does this mean that I would allow for people to put their own happiness above the well being of others? Does that mean that those with the opportunity to gain seats of 'power' should be allowed to exploit that power at the cost of their people, much like we've seen throughout history.
Plato has something to say to this. A page or two later he writes:
Whereas the truth is that the State in which the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best and quietly governed , and the State in which they are most eager, the worst.
...
You must contrive for your future rulers another and a better life than that of a ruler, and then you may have a well-ordered State... Whereas if they go to the administration of public affairs, poor and hungering after their own private advantage, thinking that hen they are to snatch the chief good, order there can never be; for they will be fighting about office, and the civil and domestic broils which thus arise will be the ruin of the rulers themselves and the whole State.
He writes that those who have no interest in ruling will be the best suited for the job, and will provide order. Those that have an interest in ruling will only cause disorder because they want to jobs to serve their own goals and ambitions.
If I don't have an interest in something, no matter how much I know it is important, I'm likely to just not put effort into it and only do what is needed. I wouldn't go above and beyond for the people.
However, he does have a point about the others. I simply need to look at our own government to see what happens with officials are fueled by their own self-interests. Take the progressive hell that plagued the Albany the past month or so, take the retarded actions of the republicans during the 2008 election trail up to this very day. Order has gone out the window and progress is the true victim here.
So what would be the best solution? I'd be willing to wager that the answer lies in having a balance between duty and self-interest. You're own wants and needs shouldn't overcome your duty to your people, nor should you become a slave to them. This is also wherein lies the concept of wisdom - of knowing how to deal with both screaming fools at the same time.
And for what it's worth - Plato seems to be implying that only certain people should be taken and nurtured to fill positions of the such; of picking out those who you want to place into a special track of sorts. This goes against what everyone says America is all about - its the land where anyone can work their way up. And while this may be true, there is still the existence of that special track for *certain* people. It is possible for those not on that path to find their way to it, but its only makes things harder. Thank you life chances.
I'll conclude with one last question: Should our elective officials be wise? Keep in mind the hell Ms. Sotomayor has gotten in the past week for calling herself a 'wise latina woman'. I'll give you a minute to answer that question.
Tick, tock.
You done? Good. You should have answered with a resounding 'Hell to the yes!' or something of the sort. If you didn't, well, I'll let you ponder your own silliness. Now go sit in the corner till I'm done.
Of course I want my officials to be wise. I'm trusting them to make deicisons that impact all of our lives and while wisdom is a attribute gained through one's life experiences (unlike what some would want you to believe otherwise) wisdom is still wisdom. Wisdom is knowing where to come to a compromise that actually gets something done. If you can't do that, if you won't be willing to hear other ideas and take them into account, if you will say 'no' as if its your magic wand for getting what you want, then sir/madam I want you off the stage. Just leave. I've lost all my patience with such people. Granted, doesn't that (in someway) make me as narrow minded as they are? Yes, I do believe that argument can be made, but at the same time, I don't care. What I care about (and what others should care about as well) is finding how we can make life better for all.
After all, shouldn't that be an end goal of education? Making life better?
And if I banished you earlier, you may come back now from your timeout in order to discuss this with the rest of us. Just remember to behave yourself. Or else...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)