Addiction

"Parents were worried in the '60s about their kids being addicted to television; now they're worried about their kids being addicted to their computer screens," Miller says. "We don't need a new term in order to describe behavior that's been around for thousands of years -- the choices we make between pleasure and responsibility. We all have to struggle with putting aside things that are gratifying, but aren't satisfying over the long term."

 

My hero(s)

I've been troubled by this for a while. I don't know why I am, but I am. You know they ask kids who is your hero. When was the last time that you asked yourself that question? I have been pondering this question for a couple of months now. I haven't been able to think of who my hero is. Hell I didn't even know where to start.

I first had to find out what the word meant. It felt like when you know how to use a word in a sentence, but when someone asks you, what does that word mean. You usually end up at a loss for words. (If you say it hasn't happened to you, you're just not being honest with yourself)

Main Entry: he·ro
Pronunciation: 'hir-(")O
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural heroes
Etymology: Latin heros, from Greek hErOs
1 a : a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability b : an illustrious warrior c : a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities d : one that shows great courage
2 a : the principal male character in a literary or dramatic work b : the central figure in an event, period, or movement
3 plural usually heros : SUBMARINE 2
4 : an object of extreme admiration and devotion : IDOL

Source: http://webster.com/dictionary/hero

After looking at this definition, I wondered what the new age internet dictionary, Wikipedia.org would say.

For other uses, see Hero (disambiguation).

"Heroine" redirects here. For the drug, see heroin.

Sir Galahad, a hero of Arthurian legend, detail of a painting by George Frederic Watts

From the Greek ἥρως (demi-god), in mythology and folklore, heroes were originally the offpsring of mortals and gods.^[1] Later, hero (male) and heroine (female) came to refer to characters that, in the face of danger and adversity or from a position of weakness, display courage and the will for self-sacrifice, that is, heroism, for some greater good, originally of martial courage or excellence but extended to more general moral excellence.

Stories of heroism may serve as moral examples, impressing a culture's ethical code, especially for the young.^{[citation needed]} In classical antiquity, hero cults, veneration of deified heroes such as Heracles, Perseus, or Achilles, played an important role in Ancient Greek religion. Later emperors employed hero worship for their own apotheosis, that is, cult of personality.

Source: http://webster.com/dictionary/illustrious

The Wiki definition seemed to spell it out for me a little better. It answered my question directly in the context that I was looking for. But if you look at both sources, they both say the same thing. One just says it without provoking a thought in me. (How's that for new age)

c : a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities d : one that shows great courage

I say this with a deep regret. Trying to find someone that fit this for me was a difficult task. Yea sure it would be easy to name a family member or prominent public figure, maybe a celebrity. The celebrity being the person you think you know, when in reality you only the persona that they portray, that makes them money. It is after all they're job to do this. It is us, the public, that wants more and more of this, fakeness, to be lied to. Then there are those prominent public figures that even the celebrities won't, at least the respectful ones, say a derogatory word about. There are very few of those people. The prominent public figures are the ones that seem the most real and human to me, the ones that seem to measure up to the word, hero. Here I am just listing the people, real people, that I have come up with, that in my eyes have the qualities of a hero, and my reasons. While still retaining they're humanity and vulnerability. People I admire, and, that help to inspire me to become a better person.

Carly Fiorina – One of the most successful women in business. She and one of my other heroes have a lot in common. She is a true leader. She came into an "all American" company that was on the decline and guided it through the rough seas. Through determination and persistence, she oversaw the merger with Compaq, and made it work. It was a tough and trying time for all involved. That is why there is supposed to be one leader of a company. She showed grace and poise when it came to her duties and stuck by her convictions when it didn't work out exactly the way it was planned. In the end it cost her job. HP would and the computer industry as a whole would not be where it is today if not for her achievements and noble qualities.

Colin Powell – Here is a man that carries himself with integrity, dignity, and grace, well the grace of a military man. I wish this man would run for president, I'd vote for him. He seems to be above partisan politics. He frequently cites his concern of safety for his family as his biggest reason for not running. I admire that. He put himself on the line during his call up to arms in front of the U.N. after 9/11. He admitted that the evidence that he submitted to the U.N. was probably a mistake. It's this kind of honesty and integrity that can't be bought. Politics aside he is true to himself. For this reason, I call this man my hero.

Oprah – Here is a woman that grew up in small town in Mississippi. She was exposed to racism, and the culture that is the south. (All of these proud white people that have too much pride and are too stupid to realize that the civil war has been over for over a 150 years. Stop being so ignorant, you'll only be left farther behind. Move on!) She has made it on sheer determination and will with the grace of God, to the top of the heap, in the media world. A world has for so long been run by men, has built herself an empire, that as gained her an immense amount of wealth and prestige. We've all heard the stories that she is a little racist herself. Nevertheless she is someone that has worked very hard for what she has. I admire her courage and vision.

This list will be amended and updated.

Enviromental Ignorance, our arrogance

This is to Mr. Lawrence and the population of the desert southwest:

 

This is in response to: Startling Water Predictions Spark Huge Response

 

I don’t live in Nevada, I reside in Austin, TX; however I felt a I needed to comment on this, because sooner or later this is going to be declared a federal disaster “zone”, and when that happens, it’s going to be my tax dollars paying for what ever solution that the army corps of engineers has cooked up. For the current and future residents of Las Vegas and the southwest wanting to move to a “desert”, does anyone remember what the word desert means? According to Webster Merriam Online the word desert means:

1 a: arid land with usually sparse vegetation; especially : such land having a very warm climate and receiving less than 25 centimeters (10 inches) of sporadic rainfall annually

3: a desolate or forbidding area

So armed with these definitions, we also know that life needs water to live. We know that you get an average of 10 inches or less, with less being the norm. With the water resources that are currently available to Southern Nevada right now, it is insufficient for the rapid population growth running amok. It is a matter of common sense based on the facts of that Southern Nevada will not be able to secure sustainable water resources needed for future growth. What happens to Arizona, the rest of Nevada, Palm Springs, New Mexico, and Utah, which will eventually run into this issue as well? Some of these states will run into this issue faster than others. However system that is going to relieve the stress on Lake Mead is going to pump ground water to the affected part of the state. I believe this course of action to be short sighted and an ill advised plan similar to levee system of New Orleans. This is putting the needs of developers ahead of the population, which is not the fault of the developers, but the fault of the government, which is there to protect the people, and make the tough responsible decisions for the people in the best interests of people. However the reason that these decisions have to be made now is because someone else didn’t want to make them when the facts first started to present this problem. It is so much more convenient to stick your head in the sand and hope that it will just blow over, and let someone else deal with it, instead of facing the facts. The reason that Las Vegas is here is because of the Great Depression, which gave us the era of massive public works projects, Hoover Dam, so that we could put the unemployed to work. This was a noble and great idea at the time. Times change, I’m not insinuating that anyone could have predicted this. I’m not completely blaming global warming, which I’m sure has something to do with this; it’s more to do with uncontrolled population growth than anything else. This is not a natural city, it is like New Orleans. At least the majority of New Orleans North of I-10, where the marsh lands where drained and the levees placed in there stead with homes built on the marsh lands. It is there at the pleasure of man because man wanted to conquer and feel in control over nature. Our arrogance, in that we can control anything through engineering, technology and money, is so completely misplaced. I believe this to be the result of government, selling us on ideas that are unsustainable.

 

My solution would be to place population control measures in place and/or let the system balance itself out naturally. Which it will naturally, after all it is a desert. Piping the water in will eventual lower the water table for that aquifer, and then what? This is just put a band-aid, to buy some time and not change a damn thing while the government and businesses do a rain dance and pass the buck. As with everything else, the thinking goes, it’s not my problem.

-Mike

Credits troubles

My dad used to tell me if you don't have the money to buy something then don't borrow the money, just save up for the item. America's great love affair with credit has consumed all rational economic sense. (Markets See Red, Europe's central bank injects €95 billion) So can anyone honestly say that they are surprised by this turn of events?

 

The world's economy run's on borrowed money. The games that are played, at the levels so high and by people you can not even name, or know by sight, is a scary game indeed. Governments don't run this country, business men do. It's getting to the point where they are starting to rule the world. It reminds me of Pinky and Brain, where Pinky asks brain, "What are we going to do tonight?" and the brain replies, "We are going to take over the world!"

 

In the last twenty-five years credit has taken over everybody's life, to some degree. The national savings rate is at the lowest, it's been since the great depression. This economic expansion is happening so quickly that it's difficult to keep control of it. Inflation is rampant. I don't care what the government or what those financial guys in the media say. Nobody wants to hear the truth. There is a fine line between causing a panic and speaking the truth, one that can be argued either way by some very intelligent. The general public doesn't want to hear no, they can't buy this T.V. now; they are going to have to wait until pay day to do it.

 

The public has been successfully brain washed into believing that they need a new iPod every year, they need it now, it must be today, when the new model comes out. Let's not forget that most products that have a shelf life of 6 month to a year have been engineered to fail. Let's continue to use the iPod as an example. After about a year or so of normal use, you will start to notice that it won't hold a charge for your whole commute, through your long run, or perhaps through that long flight that was delayed, like it did when you first bought it. The part that is most likely to fail, is the battery. Well, if you're like me you would just go out and buy a replacement battery for it right? Like with your remote control, or your cell phone. When you go to flip it over to replace the battery, go figure, you can't, and conveniently this problem has fallen outside of your manufactures warranty. This is one of those items that would be beneficial to buy that three or five year "extra" store warranty for.  Not only is this clever marketing, but I think this is unethical. Now you have two choices, and more recently a third was added. You can, if you have a home or car stereo that supports iPod natively you can plug them into them and use it that way. But this defeats the mobility aspect that you bought it for in the first place, which was to have it with you on your commute, run, whatever.  You could replace the battery yourself, with the help of internet guide with diagrams and a new battery. If you are not mechanically inclined you could send it into Apple, for a fee and have them replace it for you. Now comes the obviously most desirable option, at least for Apple, and the impulsive side of your brain, you could buy a brand spanking new shiny one. <Gasp> Now with this there come a host of other problems. First of all there is the price, say you saved and saved for the one last year and you bought the U2 black 80 GB one. That would've put you back at least four hundred smack-er-aoos. After that you realized that you didn't own all of U2's recordings. So you went to iTunes and purchased them. That put you out about two hundred smack-er-aoos. Since iTunes doesn't take cash, you only have the choice of credit. So through the course of the year you stack up quite a bill trying to fill up your iPod. Then your battery fails! Oh no, I don't want to lose all of these songs, so you go out and buy another $400 iPod. When you go to transfer all of these songs over, you have used up one of your tokens out of seven that is built into the copyright protection of the music. That's a topic for another day.

 

So what it all comes down to is that instead living within our means, people will want the newest shiniest product. We have forgotten what it feels like to have delayed gratification, to work toward and save for that something, then to have that swelling of pride at that accomplishment in the end. Instead we have become a society that will acquire "it" in almost through almost any means that is available to them. Including but not limited to, borrowing the money at an interest rate that will more than likely be exorbitantly high.  For a product and service that in the end, will be disposable. I think this reflects a greater problem with society in the fact that, we are losing touch with our human side, with each other, while unnaturally shifting our focus on to materialistic possessions. Thinking these things will bring us instant happiness. We have been brainwashed, very subtly and cleverly, I might add, by companies that spend a lot of money trying to rewire our brains to buy more things. It hasn't all been bad. Our quality of life has gone up, while our obesity rate has also gone up. I know you can't truly compare an iPod with a house, but it's the principle that is what I am trying to get at. If you can't afford it today, then why do you think you will be able to afford it tomorrow?

 

 

You know I think I need a new battery. This darned thing just won't hold….. So continues the vicious cycle.

Battle at Kruger

WOW! This is an amazing video to watch.