Saturday, May 14, 2005
Chilifest Cancelled
There will not be a 23rd annual Cincinnati Chilifest this year, but it seems the organizers will try and bring it back this year. Last years event left the organizers 90K in debt. The event occurs in September which is a hard month to contend in. College Football fans are pulled away, baseball, and Oktoberfest eats up people's attention.
More Conversations
Well, I thought I would have one last conversation post after my week of what some called weed induced rantings or reasons #112 that I need to get laid. Well, since I don't smoke anything, let alone weed, and since well the other issue is just nunabiz, I will take it that my conversation went over like a lead balloon.
You stay the same and people complain, you try something new and people complain. You call bigots, bigots, and people complain. I have learned one thing from my experience, people complain, and like to complain. I think I also learned that people don't like my rantings all that much.
Well, you have not read the last of them! I am going to try and broaden my mind a bit more than I have been. I will try and interject a little more culture into the blog than I have been doing. I don't know how or what, but when I am not posting on current events and you see photos, then you will know.
Keeping things fresh has to be something even I try and do. That is saying a lot, for me.
You stay the same and people complain, you try something new and people complain. You call bigots, bigots, and people complain. I have learned one thing from my experience, people complain, and like to complain. I think I also learned that people don't like my rantings all that much.
Well, you have not read the last of them! I am going to try and broaden my mind a bit more than I have been. I will try and interject a little more culture into the blog than I have been doing. I don't know how or what, but when I am not posting on current events and you see photos, then you will know.
Keeping things fresh has to be something even I try and do. That is saying a lot, for me.
Friday, May 13, 2005
Congrats Wes!!!
A big congratulations go out to Wes Flinn on his new job starting this fall. We all shall miss you.
The Social Leagues
Something I do all the time is constantly consider if women are in or "out of my league." It is almost an instinctive response to meeting someone new. Admitting I am at least partially shallow is not going to be a popular opinion, especially to women. I think my understanding that I myself am nothing to drool over gives me a little cover coupled with my honestly. Since I have come out and spilled the beans on the leagues, I have to ask, are these leagues all in my head, or do they have something of a non-formal and certainly flexible definition that none-the-less holds true?
Now, when I say "out of my league" most people are likely going to focus on appearance. I consider that a significant portion of what I mean, but most certainly not all the factors. Is that fair? Well, from my point of view it is not so much fair, it is something of a reality. Usually it is not what I think of others, it is what I assume they would think of me. That is the interesting part, does our opinion of others really only depend on how we judge ourselves?
No matter how much people want to avoid it, appearance matters. That sucks. It is horrible, but it is reality. It is a human reaction that is not going to change. In my own biased opinion of myself, I rank kinda-sorta average, maybe a little below on some factors and little above a couple of others. What is funny, I think, is that if polled, 2/3rds of people would view themself as average, whether they are or not. If polled secretly they may have a completely different view. Appearance is very subjective and often based on comparison and sample size. Just because it varies though, does not mean it is not valued.
Beyond appearance there are other factors to consider which are really what in the end matters: intelligence, wealth or class, maturity, age, personality, interests, cultural background, and temperament. There are other categories and other variations, but these are what come to my mind most often. Does anyone ever think that people are out of their league when it comes to personality or interests? Sometimes people might say that a smart person is out of their league, but not necessarily in the sense that they are better, just different. Difference is not always valued, unless it creates an identity people can relate to.
Beyond the normal comparison of supermodels and movie stars, are there really people out of your league? Do you walk down the street and say people who might share your same interests, intelligence, temperament are beneath you in social status?
What makes up social status? How much of it is based on appearance and how much is based on other factors? Is appearance ever not a factor?
What I think plays into this is the mystery surrounding what causes two people to be attracted to one another. There are common factors and conventional wisdom that seem to hold true, but then you see a couple together and can’t fathom how they are in anyway compatible. That seems not to matter much when you notice how happy they are together. As a single guy, I can't seem to fathom that kind of happiness.
What I will laugh at now is anyone who claims to be happy, but can't put into words that which makes him/her happy.
Now, when I say "out of my league" most people are likely going to focus on appearance. I consider that a significant portion of what I mean, but most certainly not all the factors. Is that fair? Well, from my point of view it is not so much fair, it is something of a reality. Usually it is not what I think of others, it is what I assume they would think of me. That is the interesting part, does our opinion of others really only depend on how we judge ourselves?
No matter how much people want to avoid it, appearance matters. That sucks. It is horrible, but it is reality. It is a human reaction that is not going to change. In my own biased opinion of myself, I rank kinda-sorta average, maybe a little below on some factors and little above a couple of others. What is funny, I think, is that if polled, 2/3rds of people would view themself as average, whether they are or not. If polled secretly they may have a completely different view. Appearance is very subjective and often based on comparison and sample size. Just because it varies though, does not mean it is not valued.
Beyond appearance there are other factors to consider which are really what in the end matters: intelligence, wealth or class, maturity, age, personality, interests, cultural background, and temperament. There are other categories and other variations, but these are what come to my mind most often. Does anyone ever think that people are out of their league when it comes to personality or interests? Sometimes people might say that a smart person is out of their league, but not necessarily in the sense that they are better, just different. Difference is not always valued, unless it creates an identity people can relate to.
Beyond the normal comparison of supermodels and movie stars, are there really people out of your league? Do you walk down the street and say people who might share your same interests, intelligence, temperament are beneath you in social status?
What makes up social status? How much of it is based on appearance and how much is based on other factors? Is appearance ever not a factor?
What I think plays into this is the mystery surrounding what causes two people to be attracted to one another. There are common factors and conventional wisdom that seem to hold true, but then you see a couple together and can’t fathom how they are in anyway compatible. That seems not to matter much when you notice how happy they are together. As a single guy, I can't seem to fathom that kind of happiness.
What I will laugh at now is anyone who claims to be happy, but can't put into words that which makes him/her happy.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Dems Offically Endorse Lynch and Berding
The recommendations were accepted by City Democrats for 6 additional candidates beyond the three incumbents: Jeff Berding, Damon Lynch, Eve Bolton, Samantha Herd, Cecil Thomas and Wendell Young.
Berding is causing grief among some, but to me Lynch is still a disappointment. At this point I would not even consider voting for the man. Could I change my mind? It would take a lot, but it would be possible. If Lynch publicly retracts his past statements on calling police rapists, if he retracts a call for an "afro-centric" curriculum in CPS, and if he says he does not support what was a boycott and declare once and for all that one does not exist. He does that AND his positions are reasonable AND he makes the effort to represent the entire city, then I may vote for him.
I expect some of this is part of his plan and is why the Dems are now supporting him, or at least enough Dems to get a deal to get the endorsement. What I do not expect is Lynch to meet the requirements needed for to vote for him. Because of that I think he is a big mistake to endorse, and gives a lot of fuel to the GOP and by default to Charter. The GOP will just be running against Lynch. Malone against Lynch will I think be how the TV commercials may go, subtly of course. This will pull away liberals like me into the Charter camp. Roxanne Qualls would be a great Charterite right about now, in my book.
Nate as more from the meeting. How much of it is true? Well, that depends on how much Nate spun it. It is worth a read if for nothing else than to see Nate defend Damon Lynch. I though Nate and Lynch were bitter enemies, have they made nice or is Nate just circling the race-based wagons?
Berding is causing grief among some, but to me Lynch is still a disappointment. At this point I would not even consider voting for the man. Could I change my mind? It would take a lot, but it would be possible. If Lynch publicly retracts his past statements on calling police rapists, if he retracts a call for an "afro-centric" curriculum in CPS, and if he says he does not support what was a boycott and declare once and for all that one does not exist. He does that AND his positions are reasonable AND he makes the effort to represent the entire city, then I may vote for him.
I expect some of this is part of his plan and is why the Dems are now supporting him, or at least enough Dems to get a deal to get the endorsement. What I do not expect is Lynch to meet the requirements needed for to vote for him. Because of that I think he is a big mistake to endorse, and gives a lot of fuel to the GOP and by default to Charter. The GOP will just be running against Lynch. Malone against Lynch will I think be how the TV commercials may go, subtly of course. This will pull away liberals like me into the Charter camp. Roxanne Qualls would be a great Charterite right about now, in my book.
Nate as more from the meeting. How much of it is true? Well, that depends on how much Nate spun it. It is worth a read if for nothing else than to see Nate defend Damon Lynch. I though Nate and Lynch were bitter enemies, have they made nice or is Nate just circling the race-based wagons?
Learning
How do you learn something? How long does it take you? Do you have learn by doing or can you translate instruction into action? What about observation?
Back in school I learned little or no information from the classroom, other than what the teacher was going to ask on the test had a direct relationship to the topics he or she covered in class.
I learn best by either following written directions, yes I actually read them when I buy a new bookcase at Target, or I learn by observation and then using imitation along with trial and error.
I do not learn well in teams. I personally don't function at my best in teams on most levels, unless I have no clue what is going on, or when I have people who know how to manage, which is often lacking. When I learn something new with a team it ends up that I get it, and then teach the rest by example or by a step-by-step walk through.
I would hate having someone over my shoulder telling what to type or which button to push. The funny part is that what I do for people all the time in my job.
Can anyone learn to do anything? Could I learn to perform surgery? Are there tasks that people just don't have the ability to grasp? It seems to me that if there are people who are able to document any process correctly, then I should be able to complete that process. It doesn't work that way, but conceptually if we had the directions, could we just make a nuclear bomb?
Back in school I learned little or no information from the classroom, other than what the teacher was going to ask on the test had a direct relationship to the topics he or she covered in class.
I learn best by either following written directions, yes I actually read them when I buy a new bookcase at Target, or I learn by observation and then using imitation along with trial and error.
I do not learn well in teams. I personally don't function at my best in teams on most levels, unless I have no clue what is going on, or when I have people who know how to manage, which is often lacking. When I learn something new with a team it ends up that I get it, and then teach the rest by example or by a step-by-step walk through.
I would hate having someone over my shoulder telling what to type or which button to push. The funny part is that what I do for people all the time in my job.
Can anyone learn to do anything? Could I learn to perform surgery? Are there tasks that people just don't have the ability to grasp? It seems to me that if there are people who are able to document any process correctly, then I should be able to complete that process. It doesn't work that way, but conceptually if we had the directions, could we just make a nuclear bomb?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)