Fans of Joseph Conrad will immediately recognise this famous quote from his novella masterpiece Heart of Darkness. They will also realise i have written it in modern Internet English, substituting a new word that has entered the English language directly from Italian usage.

Originally intended to mean "Internet Service Provider and Domain Name Register" (www.aruba.it) Aruba has now come to symbolise dread, darkness and terror as well as a wicked habit of time wasting. As thousands of dissatisfied customers of Aruba Domain & Web Hosting Company will attest, the very mention of the word "Aruba" signifies horror to even the profoundest heart of darkness.

Many of them, including myself and my colleagues, have experienced excruciating weeks, months and in some cases years in vain attempts at registering and transferring domain names. In our case, our unhappy experience was with the domain name vietri.it, which took more than a year to transfer from old old (more expensive) provider to Aruba.

We will spare the reader the fine detail of the months of agonising correspondence, faxing, phone calling, photocopying, hair pulling, swearing and the involvement of a small army of secretaries in the attempt to successfully transfer the domain name, and simply recount the final griping moments of the last conversation we had with Aruba before victory was finally won.

"Hello, is that Angela?" i said, after waiting 17 minutes for the call to be answered.

"Yes, i am me. Is you is Mr Blake, Mr Blake?" answered Angela in very good English.

But I was disappointed. After more than a year she still insisted on calling me Mr Blake. Very professional nonetheless I admit.

"We've faxed the final photocopies of my new passport; a copy of my British National Insurance number certificate; and a signed picture of Her Majesty twice already this morning, and three times this afternoon " I informed her.

We had taken these extra precautions of additional faxes because a fax from Salerno in the south, to Pisa in the north, often doesn't arrive. But I have since worked out the reason why. It is because the fax has to travel up hill, and therefore we now always take the precaution of faxing more than once and at least 4 or 5 times. (We've also noticed that there is a difference whether it is summer or winter). Incidentally, the reason for this last fax to Aruba was because during the final month of the transfer "procedure" my passport had expired, necessitating a new flurry of photocopying and faxing.

"Oh yes, Mr Blake-ez. We have receive it yesterday!"

I hesitated, wondering whether i should query how she could have received it yesterday, and decided instead to let it go... just in case.

"Well, that's splendid" I said, choking back tears. "Is it...I mean has...", i hesitated. "Does that mean www.vietri.it has been successfully transferred?" I spluttered.

Yes! It is beautiful day no?!"

I and my colleagues wept (I, because i was so happy. They, because they were out of a job). After 14 months and 12 days, hundreds of faxes, phone calls and several brief holidays in which to recover and gather our strength, we had finally succeeded in doing something that would have taken less than a day in the UK. I couldn't believe it and worried that something had been over looked and that something terrible would happen.

Just to make sure I (very politely) offered to send a photocopy of my paternal uncles' elbow if it would help make sure of the transfer, but the assistant declined (also politely), though not after a slight pause during which i almost believed that she might accept.

"Oh no Mr Blake-ez. We are very quiet fine. No photocopies more. The good has been done and my happy for you!"

I closed the phone feeling a little silly that I had even, at one point during the process, considered becoming religious if it might have helped. I silently castigated myself for being so weak and of little faith. But nonetheless, as a final task I asked my small tribe of secretaries (now sadly unemployed) to make a note that next time we would take the train directly to Pisa and do it in person.

Word of Mouth Marketing by Andy Sernovitz explains how to spread ideas, while Once You're Lucky, Twice You're Good by Sarah Lacy tells the fall/rise of Web 1.0 and 2.0 through eyes of those entrepreneurs.

But Chip and Dan Heath's book, Made to Stick, is the foundation of it all: how to successfully express your ideas in a way that's memorable and inspires others to act. Their main framework (which like most communicators/marketers comes in a kitschy acronym) is SUCCESs.

.

Simple: Your audience isn't going to remember 10 take-aways, but they will remember one that's simple enough to recall and to survive repetition. The trick is to find the 'right' one, and it's not as 'simple' as you may think. Idea creation goes back to your core message. Problem? The 'Curse of Knowledge.' It's the inability to think from the recipient's POV, if you already know what information you're trying to convey.

Unexpected: Your message needs to surprise, provide more information or otherwise break the audience's established paradigms. Most Web 2.0 savvy participants have seen dozens of logos/buttons with rounded corners, beveled 3D shape and a nice, shiny reflection. So making yet another rounded corner, beveled 3D box and nice, shiny reflection won't get your logo noticed. See how much faster you read through the description the second time? Go back. I changed a few words, but I'm guessing most of you didn't notice/care.

Concrete: Counterexample-

Ideas need to be concrete enough to understand and digest. The example above probably makes sense to math majors and engineers, but I have no idea how tay^rolf has anything to do with "peanut butter, jelly time." The book has some lovely examples; mine comes from the 3G iPhone launch:

The lines around Apple & AT&T stores last week were bordering on ridiculous. You'd think the main goal was to "quickly and efficiently sell iPhones to everyone who wants one." Nope. Because the two companies had different goals and seemingly no communication during the actual launch, customers complained. There was miscommunication (you can't activate if you're 'flagged' as a business customer but neither customer service staff knew that beforehand), long waits and server outages: both iTunes and AT&T activation. Apple wanted to drive as much demand through their stores are possible, so they had an incredible supply of 3Gs, while most AT&T stores only had a paltry 100 units or so. On the other hand, AT&T wanted everyone to sign up for service (and charge the $200 markup for those not upgrade eligible), so they bottlenecked purchase at the activation phase. If both companies could agree on a set of goals and convey them effectively to staff on both ends, hours of waiting and frustration would have been minimized.

Credible: The source affects if and how viewers accept ideas. You're more likely to believe your comm professor than the Nigerian guy who's emailing you about the millions inherited from some assassinated dead uncle. More intriguing is that 'credible' can change per circumstance. We ask for suggestions from friends but may rebuke endorsements from paid celebrities (are you really going to buy Lindsay Lohan's new tights collection?). Conversely, we still read Perez Hilton to find out what celebrities are wearing, eating, dating and snorting as their drug of choice.

Emotions: By tapping into emotions, you can motivate people to listen and act upon it. How many of you feel a pang of guilt/pity when you see the adorable child on a Christian Children's Fund commercial? How many even blinked when the news anchor told you President Bush attended the G8 summit to discuss poverty in Africa? I'm guessing the first generated more yes responses. Two reasons:

1. One vs. Many

• We can build a stronger bond with a single person than 12 million because we can't quite grasp 12 million people. Is that 20 football stadiums? 200? They're so far away. That one picture of a starving child really 'drives the idea home' and makes poverty/starvation a reality.
• It's hard to imagine our $24/month helping 12 million people, but if it pays for school supplies, food and toys for a 8 year old Filipino child, sign me up (already done it :-) ).

2. Emotions vs. Analytics

• Emotions bring people together by drawing empathy, while analytics cause us to reason and drive debate/argument. It's a lot easier to get people to agree with you through emotion... on average.

Stories: Themes and story telling help engage and give context to characters. Great stories are often unexpected (David vs. Goliath), concrete (problem, solution) and emotional (go green! boo oil companies!).

.

You're probably thinking, why did I just reveal the entire book? I mean, didn't I just write that I wanted to do a proper book review?

Well, I didn't exactly write a review, more an abstract. Two, most of what I just wrote was covered in the 1st chapter! Turns out each concept is not so elementary, and finding an idea that covers all your bases? Even harder.

My goal is that you could just read this blog and walk away with some basic knowledge to start slightly altering how you communicate- emailing, calling, blogging, texting or otherwise. OR you could buy the damn thing and find out a lot more. Be entertained by the case studies (another term for stories) and use the handy outline in the back, when you need to reference something. (God, I sound like a saleswoman.)

Hope I did somewhat of a decent job. :-) Now, it's bedtime and then BlogHer tomorrow!

.

Notes: Thanks to my amazing boss, Parry, who lent the book to me. Uh... it might be a while before I get it back to you, since I already have 2 other people interested in borrowing. :)

Malaysiakini portal has this http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/86407 report that MCA vice-president Ong Tee Keat will go for the President's post during the party elections. On June 28th Ong Ka Ting said that he will not seek re-election in the party elections. MCA was shocked!

This has led also to MCA deputy Chan Kong Choy also announcing that he will not be seeking re-election for his post. Whats the deal ? After the March 8th GE MCA suffered many losses and the people turned their backs on the party. So, this is a move to instill a healthy political culture in MCA which includes grooming leaders as part of its renewal and rejuvenation process.

"Rebranding" is the word but its being used once too often. When your days are numbered its better to go quietly and the respect will still be accorded to you when you return as Past President. Great! Salutations! A lot of courage Ka Ting!

“In view of incumbent Ong Ka Ting’s decision not to seek re-election, I offer myself amid such an unprecedented testing time for the party,” This words by Ong Tee Keat will go along way as this is politically worded and the grassroots need not put  "toothpicks" in their eyes when he talks to them.

The contenders:-

1. Ong Ka Chuan (MCA S-G and Housing and Local Government Minister) 
2. Chua Soi Lek (Former Vice President and Health Minister) 
3. Chua Jui Meng (Former Vice-President and Health Minister) 
4. Liow Tiong Lai( Youth Chief and Health Minister) 

Ong vs Ong could also happen as it is up to who wants the position more. But the more likely scenario would be Ong vs Chua. But do not rule out the darkhorse of Liow joining the fray. Anything is possible in politics and it will be until the results are announced and received by the MCA delegates that we are certain of the President of MCA.

Chua Soi Lek has been paving his way back to the leadership platform eventhough he has been tainted with the sex scandal. The other Chua is expected to join the fray after being nominated for the Sungai Abong Tengah branch chairperson's post by his supporters. Well you should know who Ong Ka Chuan is..?  Some say that the SG's complete lack of graciousness and the quality of statesmanship is not suitable for a higher post in the party’s hierarchy. The leadership tussle is within MCA and we will just have to be curious onlookers.

MCA - the second largest component party in Barisan Nasional - has a total of 191 divisions with keen campaigning expected. The battles hots up for MCA positions eventhough they were caught by surprise when Tan Yee Kew said this," “Political changes in the country have convinced me that MCA is no longer an effective platform to champion the cause of the people and nation." They always say nobody is indispensable and I do agree and MCA has just "got to get on" with what they know bests........do you know?

Someone came to the blog when searching the terms "reasons why i don't love you" (you now know I like to read search terms). I asked myself the question why the persons searched for these terms There are two reasons: the persons want to drop his/her mate or wants to refuse dating someone and wants to get reasons to do this or the persons has been drop by someone and wants to understand, to know why. Then I asked myself that why would a people say I don't love you to someone. Let's see some reasons and try to understand.

The first reason would be physical. We must admit that appearance plays a great role in someone choosing to date someone or not. Even though it is not important to us, just because it is important to everyone else, we will take this in consideration. You say that it isn't the case?! Just remember about the case of one of your friend or people who know who dated a person, love him/her but didn't want to be seen together?! It is important to society, so it is important to us.

The second one should be the place in society. It is less rare to see people of different rank and different ethnicity dating (or even get married) but unfortunately for some people, this is still a reason not to be with someone. If may not be the case or less the case in some country but just figure that where I live, it is so the case and often the family cannot bear it and if sometimes ends badly for the boy or the girl.

I think I'll end this post with a third reason cause it is a sad post this one. I cannot bear that some persons still says I don't love you. You cannot figure how hard it can be. I never got this but I saw that people was affected with this so much even to die. I'm not kidding, some people die of love...

To continue the post, the third reason will be that something has gone wrong in the relationship, something or someone came and took the place of the other one. This apply to people already engaged like married or whatever. This can be a change like a new job, a new car (the man is more interested with the car or maybe the girl also is more interested in the car, this apply to both) or whatever thing that became more important. It can also be someone who can to live with the couple, a change like a baby or mother coming to live with them because she got health problem.

To conclude, I will say that there is no reason to say I don't love you. No true reasons exist. We can get some reason that we ourselves don't believe in it but no true reason exist except of hurting someone...

It is my Saturday sad post... Even though, cheerio...

BOOB TUBE: An activist takes part in a demonstration at the Hotel Indonesia traffic circle in Central Jakarta on Friday, exhorting passersby to turn their TVs off this Sunday. Organizers say they staged the event to warn the public that most local TV programs hold no educational value for children. (JP/J. Adiguna)

(Taken from the Jakarta Post Headline)

This was one of the headline pictures of the Jakarta Post.

I don't get why it is called BOOB TUBE?

I showed it to my sister, she said it made sense, Boob and Tube.

I still don't get it.

Though I'm technically on 'holidays', the last thing I could do right now is to relax. Currently, I'm writing an analysis report on Indonesia, democracy, cultural imperialism and Islam. It's something that I like, but when I have to type thousands of words along with some ridiculously structured sources, it's become tedious and annoying.

Things on the news have been the same all over again, with news involving an anus and genital dominating the mass media. It's crazy what politics have become.

Anwar's not that bad, at least he's not with a horse.

I'm probably going to be bombarded by the millions of Anwar supporters for saying this, but I really think that Anwar and Saiful (or his back) did have something 'personal' going on. It's my formulated verdict after reading materials, books about Anwar and the Barisan Nasional.

The latest news also came upon Anwar's refusal to provide DNA, in which he defends he did not want his 'DNA' result, to be manipulated, again.

I'm not a big fan of Barisan Nasional, but I do not think they would actually do that. Sure, call this an amateur logic considering on what they did to Altantuya. But, I do not think Barisan Nasional is stupid enough to venture into this scandal AGAIN, if they have no whatsoever assurance to back it up. I also do no think they would have the nerve to actually manipulate the sample considering the worldwide attention it has gotten.

I am wondering, could it be possible if the case was 'handed' to a foreign country? Thus there is no fear of bias or manipulation in the process.

I mean Pakistan did it with the death of Benazir Bhutto, whereby foreign investigators were called to analyze the case, instead of the untrusted Musharraf regime at the time who were the first to examine the death.

If this happens, Anwar should not refuse to give his DNA sample and Saiful, well, I don't exactly know what they do to him. How do you check if Saiful has been sodomized by Anwar? I have this shameful thought in my mind that I don't think I should share.

So I posted a poll on my blog, relating to the sodomy case and as you can probably see, majority think Anwar is innocent. While the second majority say they think he really did it.

Anwar should really be glad he has the charisma to garner large support. If he hasn't, I don't think he'll still be roaming about free now.

100-year Old Mothers.

Nice cap Grandma, er, I mean, mother.

I have this fascination with bio-technology, cells, clones, genes, and you get the drift. So imagine how fascinated I was when I read the news, infertility can soon be 'cured', which literally means women of any age can still get pregnant.

I don't know am I supposed to feel towards this breakthrough. I mean, it's great that women can bare their fetuses anytime, but seeing how people are becoming in the modern world, I think it's more of a problem than it is a help.

We're going to have more BBA (born by accident) cases in the future, and yes, that include our mothers. How scary is that.

Imagine you're 50, and your mother is 80 and pregnant. 50 years gap to my own sibling? That sounds ridiculous. Besides, what sane old woman would want to have a child when they reach 80 or worse, 100?

As a son, I am not emotionally equipped if my mother was to accidentally conceive a baby when she reaches 80. Can you imagine her coming to me one day and telling me she got knocked up?

The paper says the technology will become a reality in 30 years time.

While curing infertility in women is the main point of this breakthrough, the scientists are also using this technique to create, what I call, 'designer babies'.

This means, you can design how your baby is, this includes their color, hair color, height, and even intelligence. Your baby can even have disease-free genes.

As great as it sounds, I think the whole thing is scary.

People can call this progress, but I think we are seriously messing up the world.

There'll be a new sort of discrimination again. This time it will be between the 'designer humans' and the 'normal humans'.

After reading many history books, one thing I have noticed is that; History is doomed to repeat.

We just keep making the same historic mistake over and over again.

What an anal world.

]]> http://nohostbar.wordpress.com/?p=102 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 05:25:53 +0000 nohostbar http://nohostbar.wordpress.com/?p=102 Allright, so I'll admit - I don't have the liveliest social life in Yakima, WA, let alone the planet.  I've taken to perusing Craig's List on a regular basis, it's much less intrusive than one of those online dating networks; match, eharmony; it's not really OK to look.  I've tried the online dating thing years ago - personally, it was not for me; lots of false advertising. 

So no wonder I can't get a date; here's what the caliber of men out there in my area code are looking for: 'I prefer woman that like stalkings, garger belts, and sexy panties. (I'm sorry but I just want to be up front with what I like so if we get to that point we aren't about to get wild and crazy and then you are wearing mens underware or something like that "turn off").

Stalkings, garger belts and underware...what girl wouldn't want to be interested. And by the way, I happen to love wearing men's jockey's - boxer briefs rock!  Thanks, but I'll stick with my current statistics of ZERO prospects, compared to what's out there in cybersex world.

According to HPA young people accounted for 65 percent of chlamydia cases, 55 percent of genital warts and 50 percent of gonorrhoea infections dealt with by the sexual health clinics last year in Britain.

Does the Malaysian government compile such figures? Does it keep tab of such social infections amongst our young? Those who know more about these things, do we have sexual health clinics in Malaysia? Young people it is your responsibility, do take care. Don't injure your loved ones and spoil your futures.

The Dark Knight's Ghastly Joker: Heath Ledger Touted for an Oscar

Handsome is as handsome doesn't in The Dark Knight. Of the three male actors who dominate the movie, it's Heath Ledger with his face hidden behind twisted clown makeup, whose perfect features are never seen, who has proven to be the most memorable. Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker in The Dark Knight is both a demonic creation and three-ring circus of one. Ledger died in January at the age of 28 from an accidental overdose, after the principal photography of the film had concluded. His death could have cast a paralyzing pall over the movie if his performance were not so alive. Ledger's Joker is a creature of such ghastly life, and his performance is so visceral, creepy and insistently present that the portrayal pulls you in almost at once.

Ledger's performance is so intense and lasting in part because, despite his insane mask, it's a subtle and nuanced performance that is so powerful it almost erases all memories of the handsome Australian actor behind the Joker's mask. The makeup seems to have liberated Ledger. Ledger's body movements are flexibly agile, he's expressive with only his eyes and his voice has oscillating surges of irony, mockery and psychopathology. Ledger's performance as the Joker in The Dark Knight is an essay, in a way that he's never shown before when playing straight-faced characters, in pure magnetic charisma.

While Hollywood's Academy Awards are still more than six months away, the late Heath Ledger already is being touted for a supporting actor nomination for his terrifying performance in The Dark Knight. Ledger's performance is so mesmerizing and daring as Batman's clown-faced arch enemy that it's possible he might become the first performer since Peter Finch (in the 1976 Network) to receive a posthumous Oscar.

[wpvideo aDiKkzbL w=460]

The Dark Knight (Official Movie Trailer)

[wpvideo 3JWI2zmb w=460]

Interview with Heath Ledger about The Dark Knight

[wpvideo etk8JXZD w=460]

Director Christopher Nolan: Producing The Dark Knight

You can read more about what I've written earlier about Heath Ledger here and here.

Technorati: Heath Ledger, Ledger, The Dark Knight, The Joker, Joker, Academy Awards, Oscar, Oscar nomination, art, celebrities, Australia, culture, cultural, entertainment, multimedia, Manhattan, movies, films, NYC, New York City, Gotham, Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, news, photographs, photography, social, social life, society, video, videos, entertainment news, world news, world, sexy

Please Remember Me and Bookmark This:

Skepticism is essentially a continuous reduction to premises.  No matter your argument, a skeptic will hammer your premises relentlessly, reducing them to still more fundamental premises even past the point where those premises can be counted upon.  If you're attempting to prove that a bird is an animal, they'll ask how you can know a bird exists, and how you know you exist as an observer to identify one, etc. etc.  It's a useful angle to take in a philosophical sense from time to time.  What I want to mention in this post is how skepticism is usually limited to metaphysical or other non-moral oriented philosophical discourse.  Any attempt at moral skepticism will get you shunned, at best.

Moral skepticism may not be the description I'm looking for.  But if you ask someone why it's moral not to kill people, they can't tell you why.  They don't know.  They may fidget a little with "but it's... bad..." and if they're smarter than the average bear they may whip out a "right to life" speech in justification.  It only delays the inevitable.  In a very fundamental sense, common morals are constructed through conditioning of random tidbits picked up from many different people over the course of your life, and defended with feelings instead of rationality.  Charity is an appeal to emotion, claimed to be justified in what way?  "But haven't you any compassion for your fellow man?"  That's not an argument.  While you may have a point, I am making no claims either way, you have to back it up with something rather than a simple socially coercive trick.  People who are generous hear it as a conditional, where if they are good people then they will do what this person wants them to and because this is human behavior, it is transformed into a biconditional where if you are not a good person then you will not.  Fortunately for charity organizations or would-be do-gooders they don't have to formalize such a cruel sentiment- if they did it would be obvious that they're trying to manipulate people.

Once again, this is very important, I am making no blanket statements about all charity groups.  I am making no assertions about the morality or immorality of their efforts.  I am merely saying that the means by which they arrive at their moral conclusions are...  shoddy.  They may be correct in the same way that I might say that if I am a wizard, then the moon is a sphere orbiting the earth.  I am a wizard, therefore the moon is a sphere that orbits the earth.  While a true conclusion, it doesn't hold up.

So, if I could take a more skeptically reductive approach to morality, I'll refer to charity first.  So we have some population of people who need help in some form or other.  Maybe they need food, shelter, that sort of thing.  True, I think we can agree on that.  We have established that they need it.  However, there is this sort of mystical magic wand *stuff happens* deductive approach before we arrive at, "therefore all those who are not in need are obligated to help them."  Now, as a philosophical point divorced from my own reactions to such a point (Atlas Shrugged, anyone?) I have no real problem with this as a possible conclusion.  But you do have to get there somehow.  Waving a utilitarian catch-all of "the greatest good to the greatest number" seems plausible, but fails because maybe some super-rich person has a psychological dependency on collecting yachts which he must satisfy or suffer excruciating mental torture for the rest of his life.  While a far-fetched case, value is relative.  The example only stands in for more common marginal cases.  If I have a foot-long sandwich which I'm hugely looking forward to eating even though it's more than I strictly need to survive, is it utilitarian to give half that sandwich to someone just because they need to eat something?  I am tracking a similar vein from previous posts, but essentially the utilitarian ideal is defeated by subjective and relative value.  Obviously I have no issue with donations.  However I would like to refine what most people think of as a donation- donors are not giving for the sake of others, they are donating for their own motives.  If they enjoy helping people, then they are donating for their own enjoyment.  Nothing wrong with that, but that's a fact.  For those types of people, if they didn't enjoy it they wouldn't do it.  Perhaps donors are giving for the sake of their own egos, or perhaps to ease guilt, or maybe they think they are getting something in return, such as virtue in the eyes of God which will net them a ticket into Heaven.  Nothing wrong with any of these cases, apart from the God part being irrational but hey if that's what floats your boat, go nuts.  However, sacrifice for the sake of others to no personal advantage whatsoever is never morally justified.  I am open to alternate ideas, please tell me what you think.  If you believe you can justify the morality of charity deductively, give it your best shot.

The fact that I have issued the challenge is not enough.  I have to prove this assertion on my own rather than blankly demanding that others disprove it.  By its very definition, to sacrifice is to give up value.  Presumably to someone else's benefit, but not necessarily.  Now let's consider the people who have the most objective value as opposed to the people who have the least.  In order to have objective value, you need to be able to produce results that are valuable to others.  Maybe you can weave baskets, maybe you have great leadership abilities.  You have something that others consider valuable.  According to this doctrine, in order to sacrifice to someone else's benefit, there must exist someone else of lesser objective value than yourself.  Theoretically, there must therefore be some level at which you are neither giving nor receiving value through this sacrifice medium- the average.  Your objective value is sufficiently low that you are not required to give anything up, yet high enough that you don't warrant receiving anything either.  Now if you're in this position you actually have two choices to acquire additional value.  Option A; you can attempt to increase your own personal objective value- maybe acquiring a new skill or something- or Option B; you can decrease it, perhaps by working less.  Note: we are applying the same reasoning to small denominations of difference to test it for validity.  If you work less hard, you are handed more value courtesy of the people who choose option A.  If you improve yourself, some or all of that additional objective value is redistributed to the people who choose Option B.  Now this seems almost too simple a game-theory problem, but given a situation like this, it is positively inevitable that a self-reinforcing loop of the entire population deliberately decreasing their own objective value.  The reason for this is obvious: real-world results are not dependent on the incentives used to achieve them.  Mutual agreement to pay someone for a job is just as valid as agreement to pay someone twice as much for half the job.  You'll get half the job, at twice the cost.

Now some people are probably irritated at my straw-man depiction of their beliefs.  True, my case of small differences in value requiring equalization is easy to disagree with.  The problem is that if this moral idea is functional, it should still work then.  In the ideal, perfect Communist vision everyone has the same level of material prosperity.  So my case is actually extremely valid since that's the inevitable result if what you say is true about it working at larger scales. A claim of defying universality is extreme, but I'm prepared to treat that one as well.  Sure, it sounds horrible that a CEO has a private yet, a yacht, and a mansion while thousands of poor people try to scrabble together a living.  However think about that situation a little- how did the CEO get there?  Presumably he provided something of value to other people and they were prepared to trade for it.  OK, so you don't have a problem with the self-made man, but you do have a problem with millionaire rich kids.  Inherited wealth?  Somebody had to earn it, and someone else didn't spend it.  True, on the surface it doesn't seem *fair* that by random chance that kid has millions dropped in their lap.  However, if their parents earned that money by providing value to people, and they chose to bestow that value on their kid, that is entirely within their choice.  Alright, so I'm reducing it to the self-made parents.  What about so-called Old Money?  Where nobody actually knows where the fortune came from, it's just always been there.  Someone probably earned it, but it was like 300 plus years ago so who cares who did it?  Well if you're prepared to concede that parents have a right to help their children as part of their free choice if they earned the money themselves, and that's a legitimate exchange of value, then how the child got the money is irrelevant.  They can then give that value to their children, and so on ad infinitum as long as the fortune lasts.  If you're not prepared to concede that parents may give their children money of their own free choice, you may want to rethink your conception of charity.  Because if you think that it's valid for those parents to give that money to random strangers, but immoral to give it to their children whom they wish to give it to...  errm, that's a little inconsistent.

But what about the extravagant parties and the immense waste of wealth!  This is unacceptable!  Why?  Why is it really unacceptable for spoiled rich kids to buy yachts on a whim, throw massive champagne bathing parties onboard and then blow them up in massive fireworks shows, only to repeat the stunt every day for a year?  Why do you care? Are you jealous?  Do you think you have a right to that person's wealth, that just because you want some of it that you should get it?  Who's calling who spoiled here?  It's their money- if you agree with the above paragraph, they acquired it through legitimate means.  Who are you to say that they aren't allowed to do that for enjoyment because it costs too much?  How can you get so uptight about a millionaire buying a private jet which they can afford, but not bark down your neighbor for buying a car that's going to cost them more than they can afford?  If you feel the right to steal a piece of the millionaire's pie, what should you think of that neighbor?  Hell, with gas prices the way they are you would have the moral authority to bash anybody who buys any car at all these days.  And if they buy a new SUV you could actually go on a witchhunt and burn them at the stake.  Morality policing is by its very nature contradictory

This post is getting a little long in the tooth.  Unfortunately I don't feel like I was able to capture the essence of what I was aiming for.  I'll try to sum it up as succinctly as possible.  Morality must necessarily be subject to the laws of logic, requiring both premises and logical processes.  However any attempt to formalize common premises produces chaos, and logical processes are often elided entirely, lock stock and barrel, but are still widely accepted.  Please, stop that!

 "Ni siquiera nos dejaron despedirnos del público" dijo Francisco Rodríguez, quien solicitó a SDP que ofreciéramos de su parte una disculpa a sus radioescuchas por no haber podido anunciar su salida del aire personalmente. Esto se debió a que los directivos de Radio Capital informaron a Francisco Rodríguez de su salida del aire alrededor de las 11 de la mañana, tiempo del centro de México, poco más de dos horas antes de que hubiera podido iniciar el programa, que se transmitía a la una de la tarde.

 Respecto a los motivos por los cuales los directivos de Radio Capital sacaron del aire al programa de radio, Francisco Rodríguez comentó a SDP que "gobernación les debe haber apretado las tuercas" como resultado del seguimiento que se le dio a la nota sobre los contratos de Mouriño.

 Cabe señalar que el pasado 17 de julio se dio a conocer en diversos medios que el IFAI reconoció la existencia de 180 contratos de las empresas de la familia de Juan Camilo Mouriño con Pemex.

 El despido de Francisco Rodríguez sería el tercer acto de censura contra periodistas radiofónicos por parte del gobierno usurpador de Felipe Calderón, siendo los dos primeros la salida del aire de Radio Monitor y el despido de Carmen Aristegui de W Radio.

Una razón más para apoyar al peje en el 2008.

cortesia SDP

Há os que acompanham a rádio da polícia (?) ou de outros órgãos em busca de informações em primeira mão. Seguindo o hype do momento, o Twitter, um grupo de bombeiros voluntários de Lima, Perú, atualiza constantemente uma conta no twitter com as recentes ocorrências emergências atendidas. Enfim, uma utilidade pública para o twitter.

We are both "watching" some items at present and what annoys the hell out of my wife is people who bid way in advance. Now i know it is down to the individual but my wife does prefer and some what enjoys the last minute frenzy that occurs when you frantically press the refresh button with seconds to go.

BUT and this is what drives my wife crazy, people decide to raise the price days in advance.....to directly quote my wife "Don't they bloody understand the concept of late bidding, they are only making it more expensive for themselves and to those who actually want it".

I have a theory here, i think that people who bid early are either friends or linked to the people who are selling to ensure that the price is good, i suspect that they have already arranged a price "offline" and are willing to lose the item should a better price come along.  I wonder whether there is a site which actually facilitates this "covert" ebay price scamming?

I am of course only suggesting this happens in frustration of losing a "kangeroo Poo"  t-shirt which i was desperate to own, but was not prepared to pay the inflated price (which was exactly the same as the shop price).

On that note and if you use ebay, please remember my wife's saying as she may well be bidding against you during those last few seconds.....3.2.1 - congratulations you are the successful bidder.

Should a person with depression take antidepressants if they don't want to?

Is it healthy to receive feedback from someone you don't get along with?

I consider myself a fairly mature person.  However, when it comes to interacting with one of my preceptors, I became very immature: passive aggressive, non-communicative, angry.  He's often telling patients with psych problems that they need to let out their emotions and then when I cry he says I'm depressed and need to try medication.  I refuse to discuss my issues with him because he's a complete ass and yet thinks he knows what's best for me.  We last worked together and he gave me feedback on Weds.  I'm still upset by what he said to me.  There was no way to win.  I hated him and yet he was my primary preceptor.  I couldn't exactly be honest or else I'd be called insubordinate, which wouldn't be the first time in my life.  So I played the passive aggressive game, which makes me hate myself and him that much more.  I know I have issues.  We all have issues.  I don't want to do pelvic exams and I get overwhelmed with emotions when I have to do it.  I used my reaction as an indication NOT to go in to family practice and yet he says there is something wrong with me and questioning me belonging in the field medicine.  Would it be better if I was a robot and did everything I was told without feeling a god damned thing???  Besides, I don't WANT to be an MD.  I want to be a DO.  I want to analyze problems based on the anatomy, the blood/nerve supply and venous/lymphatic drainage.  THAT IS WHAT I WANT and yet he (the DO hired to teach us OMT) doesn't fucking believe in Osteopathy!!   IT makes me want to scream so loud that I burst my own ear drums.  There's something wrong with me?  He should look at his own lazy ass and say the same fucking thing.  Thank goodness there were some DO's throughout the year who were able to teach me something and give me their thoughtful feedback regarding the present state of Osteopathy.

Please pardon my profanity.  It took me 2 days to recover my shattered self-esteem and now I'm just writhing with anger.

The setting was idyllic; the finely clipped lawn stretched wide, then plunged steeply into a narrow canyon, its far edge rising to other green hills where grew also ancient California Pepper trees akin to those whose gnarled trunks and low-hanging branches stood before me in stately form. I gazed as Jerry parked the car, taking in the white tent that had been erected and the red and white checkered cloths that covered the tables.

Grandchildren ran to us, and thus began the party.

If the party had not been perfect, I wouldn't try to convince you of such a notion, but in all truth, I can affirm that it was. From setting, to food, to conversations, to treats, "entertainment," and to guests it was a sterling, perfect party, and it is safely ensconced in my memory bank, filed as a very special time and event.

"I want this to be a simple affair, Rebecca," I had told her in the early stages of planning the party that my children were pitching for my 70th birthday. "I want my family and a few close friends there, but I don't want anything extravagant; I don't want it to be a burden on anyone.

""Okay, Mom."

That was the genesis of the party style, and I left it that way. Somehow these four marvelous youngsters of mine executed exactly what I wanted, even though I didn't precisely know myself just what I envisioned. It was a dream party.

I had wandered around, admiring and exclaiming over everything, including my baby and childhood pictures that were displayed, which Rebecca had pilfered from our "picture room" in Crestline. The decorations were adorable and included bouquets of sunflowers and white daisies, stuck into large Mason jars and tied around with raffia streamers. Such was the thoughtfulness of these children of mine, that on every table, as part of the centerpieces, were resin ants, high-legged ones. I suppose those bug-eyed and fetching critters were to insure a realistic picnic ambience, just in case the natural born insects failed to make an appearance.

I was so engrossed with these things, that they had completely set up and were playing music before I even saw them. Those responsible were watching my reaction and later told me it was as though I was oblivious to them as two young women moved across the lawn, set up their instruments and began playing. I turned and saw that a cellist and a violinst had been engaged to furnish music for my party. Beside the people, who of course, ranked first, this music was my favorite part of the whole deal. With only a couple of breaks they played for the better part of two hours. That the music was so hauntingly beautiful, and afforded such a splendid visual sight, and that my children had thought of such a treat, moved me so that I stood in tears as I took it all in.

Michael had bought prime rib roasts and hand cut them into steaks, which he grilled to order, along with chicken breasts, and hot dogs for the children. Corn boiled in a giant pot, gourmet cheese was passed and green salads and luscious bread and plain butter and herbed butter, and fiery red watermelon slices were handed around. Then was the cake, black and gooey, and there were huge cupcakes with sunflowers in their centers, and gifts, and Happy Birthday sung to the string accompaniment and then I said, "It's Shawnna's birthday," so we sang again, and this time I joined in.

They thought of everything; had engaged people from Andrew's church to help serve, brought bottles of bubbles for the children, and their paper plates of food were served atop a Frizbee, so that when they finished eating, a Frizbee game went on for hours.

We visited for a very long time, and then the light began to fade, and we gathered for group pictures.

My four marvelous kids and their daddy and their mama.

And after this picture was taken, I said, "Okay, all the adults be gone. I want a picture of my grandkids with their granny."

In no way do I deserve the life I have lived; the marvelous husband I married, the astonishing children God gave us, our 12 grandchildren and 8 great-grandchildren and the large number of loyal and loving friends. I'm thankful for health and physical possessions and that I live in this wonderful country, the United States of America. I'm ecstatic that I've been blessed with 70 good years on this earth.

This morning, we had a two-hour breakfast with Steve, at 3:00 we're meeting Rebecca and Andrew and their families at the beach in Imperial Beach and at 7:00 we're having dinner with our dear friends, Nita and Johnny Hodges.

The birthday lives...:)

In the age of the Internet, it might not be hard to guess what happened to those pictures: Someone posted them on the social networking site Facebook. And that offered remarkable evidence for Jay Sullivan, the prosecutor handling Lipton's drunken-driving case. (link)

Taurus (April 20-May 20): All your decisions -- what to wear, how to move your money in the stock market, whom to love -- benefit from an instinctual approach. Stop thinking and listen to what your feelings are trying to tell you.

Gemini (May 21-June 21): Your energy doubles when you cut out worry from your emotional diet. It also helps that a change in your work environment allows you more freedom. You'll be flexing your creative muscles to great response.

Cancer (June 22-July 22): You're so receptive now that the people around you feel compelled to teach or reveal information to you. Ask questions that never occurred to you to ask before.

Leo (July 23-Aug. 22): This is a crucial day for a project you've got going on. Take the time to plan your next steps. It's the best way to ensure that it all gets done.

Virgo (Aug. 23-Sept. 22): Sometimes being focused on small things hangs you up. But now the opposite is true. The attention you give to detail will free you and help you better appreciate the work at hand.

Libra (Sept. 23-Oct. 23): You'll be running damage control for a mistake that someone else made. Before going with the first solution that pops into your head, think of 10 and then go with the best.

Scorpio (Oct. 24-Nov. 21): Your private worry will go away if you ignore it long enough. In the words of novelist Robert Louis Stevenson, "Keep your fears to yourself, but share your courage with others."

Sagittarius (Nov. 22-Dec. 21): There's a community of creative people just waiting for you to join them and add your ideas to the mix. Show up where like-minded folks are likely to gather.

Capricorn (Dec. 22-Jan. 19): Sometimes living by the rules helps you excel in your endeavor, and then there are days like this when the opposite is probably true. Break from your routine and play hooky.

Aquarius (Jan. 20-Feb. 18): Though you have dreams of winning the lottery, it's easy to recognize today that in many ways you already have. Your relationships are strong and getting stronger -- what more is there?

Pisces (Feb. 19-March 20): Time accelerates when you're with a certain someone -- maybe it has something to do with your heart rate going up at the very sight of this person. Anyway, you're smitten.

Today's birthday (July 18): It's a big world out there and this year your awareness of it explodes. Follow your curiosity through August -- it leads to a fascinating new relationship. You're making money in a different way through September. Capricorn and Scorpio are your fans. Your lucky numbers are 9, 30, 15, 43 and 17.

La verdad es que se vuelve una forma directa de comunicarle a la gente lo fácil que es tropezar con un letal artefacto como este, sin mencionar el delicado desenlace que atraerá dicho descuido:

Muy inteligente y directo, una acción simple de guierrilla que ocupó muy poco dinero, pero con gran impacto y un call to action para ayudar a las víctimas de las minas antipersonas.

Desafortunadamente no tengo el dato de quién la hizo, así que si alguien lo sabe estaría buenísimo que lo dijera.

Buen fin de semana y cuidado por dónde caminan.

La imagen me la traigo desde los recomendables sitios de NFG y Zarqun.

As a seller, when you enter into the real estate office that has your property listed for sale, how many people in that office are working for you?

Lets say it’s a big office and there are a total of 25 Realtors that work at this office. How many do you think work in your best interest?

Back in the 90’s the correct answer would have been at least 26 people. My math is not goofy because the total consists of 25 agents plus the office manager and you could even add in the entire staff to this number as well. Everyone one in the entire office was working for you, the Seller, and in your best interest.

Now it is just the opposite. There is only one real estate agent working in your best interest. The other 24 agents are working against you. That’s right against you! They all work in the Buyer’s best interest. Make no mistake about this, these two interests are entirely different and should be treated so.

The entire system has been altered and most sellers do not realize this vital change. The teams have changed in their entirety. Before it was representation of all the sellers, now it is representation of all the buyers.

The office manager is not even working in your best interest. They are working in the capacity of a deal facilitator. This topic of office management is very fuzzy and I will explore it in a later article.

When you now hold any conversation in what you consider to be your real estate sales office (after all you did hire this company) if it is of any consequence whatsoever, you need to make sure it takes place behind closed doors and only in the presence of one single person. The agent that actually has your listing.

Limit any public conversation at the Realtor’s office to just small talk. In common areas with other ears nearby do not discuss thing such as how you are pressured to sell or what your burning needs are for the proceeds money or how your personal life is deeply effected by the need to sell. Unless your intentions are to inform 24 other agents of the exact why, where, how and why you are motivated to sell and that you will most certainly accept less money because of the reasons you have just stated.

If any information that is shared by you in passing that can help out the negotiating position of one of the other 24 agents buyers, the other agents in this office are all duty bound to inform their buyer of this information that you have just innocently given away to them for them to use against you with their buyers. The buyer is entitled to any and all legal information that the Buyer’s agent is in possession of that will help the buyer.

Do you know that if your agent is scheduled to hold an open house at your property and he or she has a conflict and has another Realtor cover the open house, this fill in agent is not working in your best interest but rather as a facilitator? If an unescorted buyer should come to the open house, fall in love and make an offer through this fill in agent the agent would not be working in your best interest but rather in the buyers best interest. Did you just stand around with this fill in agent for the last two hours and tell them your life’s story and why you need sell? The other agent can and will now use you own words against you and it will most probably cost you money.

     Una de las dificultades que se presentan al trabajar con las ciencias sociales es la gran cantidad de opiniones y pareceres que proceden de los distintos investigadores, concepsiones que a menudo son disímiles, y hasta contradictorias; sin embargo, no dudamos que subyacentemente a esas bariables, pemanece el deseo de cada quien, de aproximarse lo más posible a la veradad.  

     El concepto de cultura, es uno de esos términos imprecisos, pero  que se utiliza diariamente en la conversación, el aula, la prensa, etcetera. Frecuentemente escuchamo a alguien decir, que conoce a cierta persona que habla cuatro idiomas; acontinuación agrega  --Es una persona muy culta--. En otra ocasión, un amigo nuestro se comporta indebiodamente en el cine, el baile o en un paseo, la respuesta de alguien ante esa nota discordante será --Es un individuo sin cultura-- . En terminos más academicos, es frecuente escuchar a los maestros hablarle a sus almnos de  ª La cultura mayaª, o más, aún, de ªLa civilización Romanaª . Tenemos entonces, por de pronto, que el termino cultura  se utliliza de diversas maneras y con intenciones variadas, por lo que nos parece que debemos principiar por ponernos deacuerdo, para los cual enunciaremos un concepto de cultura.

     Cultura es la conducta o comportamiento, aprendido y posteriormente manifestado por los miembros de una sociedad.