What is it about a woman that brings a man back down to Earth?
How can a woman be everything to one person?
Those who criticize other men have never felt this,
They have never become vulnerable and fully opened up,
They laugh at other men for being happy,
They walk around without a care in the world,
They think that they know it all and that they're always in control,
Yet they long for a woman's touch and the warmth of her lips,
They miss it because they, too, once had what other men now have,
They realize the wrongs they did, but blame others for their faults,
They cringe at public displays of affection, yet wish that it was them,
Who holds hands? Not a real man, but a weaker one,
When was the last time your hand held the hand of a woman?
Why is your heart so cold? Why do you barricade others out?
Have you created this world or are you truly a victim?
There are no victims in the game of love,
Love has global compatibility, all who breathe can experience it,
I breathe, yet find myself unable to open up to become vulnerable,
Why is that? Have I been hurt in the past? Do I fear getting hurt again?
I'll tell you what I miss about a woman,
I miss lying in bed on a rainy Saturday talking the day away,
I miss the smile on the other side of the bed every morning,
I miss the hearing the phrase, "I love you",
I miss knowing so much about someone and returning the favor,
I miss eating ice cream after a walk in the park on a warm summer day,
I miss sitting on a blanket on the beach discussing the meaning of life,
I miss having someone to challenge me and make me question my own beliefs,
I miss having someone else tell me that I have bad breath in the morning,
I miss telling someone else that they have bad morning breath too, but that it doesn't matter,
I miss deep, passionate kisses that seem to leave a lasting impact,
That's for sure because I'm still feeling the effects of them,
I miss not being alone and knowing that someone is always close,
I miss having someone in bed to discuss my dreams and to tell me her dreams as well,
I miss first kisses, camping trips, and ventures into the unknown,
I miss deep, penetrating eyes that can level me,
I miss the taste of a woman, the smell she leaves after taking a shower,
I miss her bad cooking and her criticizing my terrible cooking as well,
I miss growing closer to someone and allowing them access into your soul,
However, I miss one thing more than anything else,
I miss who I used to be when I was with her,
I miss the times I would kiss her hand, her forehead, and her soft, subtle lips,
I miss the times that I would make her feel as if she was the only woman in the world,
I miss making her smile, especially when she was having a bad day,
I miss asking her questions that would lead to eventual discussions,
I miss making her oatmeal on a cold, winter day,
I miss making love to her and the goofiness that follows such a session,
I miss washing her clothes and smelling her perfume,
I miss buying her things other than flowers because I tried to be original,
I miss forgetting a Valentine's Day and having to apologize for it,
I miss arguing with her and having to apologize for it later,
I miss caressing her face and I miss her underwear that I despised,
I miss her getting upset at me for forgetting something,
I miss her sleeping in the car because I miscalculated the travel time,
I miss her trying to keep me awake on the road after a concert at the Gorge,
I miss her negatives and all of the things that I swore I would never miss,
Why is that, you may ask?
It's because I miss her.
I miss everything that she was, is, and ever will be,
I miss the things that I loved about her and the things that I hated about her.
I miss double dates and walks along the waterfront.
I miss the things that only she could give me.
She was special and I didn't realize that until now.
I'm living the life that I made for myself and I'm the only one to blame.
I may walk around laughing at guys in jewelry stores, but the bottom line is...
I wish that it was me.
I wish I had someone that I loved that much.
I wish I loved someone more than 3 months pay.
I wish I had someone to hold and to protect.
I wish I knew how to fix it all.
I wish I could have it all back.
I wish I knew and understood that that isn't possible.
I wish I was who I once was, but no longer am.
I miss how she made me feel.
I miss how her eyes would make me forget about a mistake.
I miss how her morning breath, although bad, made me laugh in the morning.
I'm sorry for who I have become.
I'm sorry for what I have done and how I now act.
You have moved on and I have moved on.
I haven't really, but I act like it.
You were wonderful and remain that way today.
I missed out and pushed you beyond the point of return.
I want you to find happiness because you deserve that much.
I deserve what I have brought upon myself.
I deserve writing poems like this at one o'clock in the morning.
I deserve missing what we once had.
I deserve the emptiness within my soul that you once filled.
I deserve everything that an insecure man has.
I am an insecure man.
However, I can say this with honesty and conviction.
I truly did love you more than anything else in the world.
I loved you so much it hurt to see you drive away.
I loved you so much that I had to let you go.
It was for your own good.
We truly, deeply loved each other and nobody can take that away from us.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Monday, August 18, 2008
Through the Eyes of A Child
The eyes of a child, innocent, ignorant, and yet so full of wonder,
Nearly every experience is a "first", every day brings something new,
Amazement, horror, bright, honest, and full of life,
The gaze of a child carries much energy and electricity,
Impossible to ignore and eager to learn,
What do I look like to a child?
What happened to those eyes that I once had?
A child...
Life's most absorbent sponge waiting to suck it all in,
As we sit by and only suck in what we want, what we can,
We age and we create channels. Channels with biases,
Children know no biases, only from what they're taught,
What if they were never taught biases? Would they be different?
What does it take for them to maintain their absorbency?
To be so young and vulnerable, yet amaze with their intelligence,
To make crucial decisions as an adult, but to do them through the eyes of a child,
What would be different? Would it be better? Would it be worse?
What if learning is its own punishment? What if children understand more than we do?
The first tickle, the first sight of fireworks, the first taste of lemons,
All amaze and bewilder a child,
How often do we experience situations or events like that?
The more we do and experience the fuller our "sponges" become,
Learning is the pursuit of answers,
Answers to questions only learning brings,
I miss the simpleness of being a child and the joy of experimenting,
Maturity is synonymous with pain, aggravation, and loss,
Loss of innocence, loss of life, loss of love, and loss of inner-joy,
The more I learn the more I become disgusted with the world,
The more I learn the more I feel helpless in a world full of uncontrollable situations,
The more I learn the more I feel in control yet not, all at the same time,
The more I control the more I feel lost and unable to grasp basic concepts,
Through the eyes of a child, what have I done wrong?
Do I need to regress and allow myself to be carried?
Too old to be carried by my parents, who shall carry me until I die?
God? The existence of a God is troublesome for me and has given me no comfort,
A child...taken care of by his/her parents, a child...taken care of by the world,
An adult...cared for by his/her family/loved ones, an adult...neglected by the world,
As we age the world gets smaller and more complex,
I fear complexity and wonder about the complications that accompany it,
What happened to simple? The simplicity once felt as a child, simplicity as a whole,
My entire world was simple, black and white, easier to enjoy,
Enjoyment as an adult is much harder and not as easy to come by,
Is this inevitable or is it a fault unto myself? Where, if even, did I go wrong?
I wish to close my eyes and open them to see the world through the eyes of a child,
To love what I hate and to embrace what I have always rejected and avoided,
To hug those I dislike and to find laughter at every difficult situation,
The eyes of a child, I miss the closeness we used to share,
Everything was 50/50, nothing was ever taken for granted,
If you miss me as well, meet me in my favorite childhood memory,
You remember, don't you? It is a memory only you and I shared,
As I close my eyes tonight I'll be calling for you, beckoning for your return,
I've missed you as I'm sure you have missed me, please return with haste,
You won't have to look very hard, it's quite obvious where I'll be,
I'll be sitting there, waiting to unlearn what I've learned,
We'll have much to talk about, catching up is always enjoyable,
Out of everything in my life there is only one thing that I miss,
The view that I once saw through the eyes of an eager and innocent child.
Nearly every experience is a "first", every day brings something new,
Amazement, horror, bright, honest, and full of life,
The gaze of a child carries much energy and electricity,
Impossible to ignore and eager to learn,
What do I look like to a child?
What happened to those eyes that I once had?
A child...
Life's most absorbent sponge waiting to suck it all in,
As we sit by and only suck in what we want, what we can,
We age and we create channels. Channels with biases,
Children know no biases, only from what they're taught,
What if they were never taught biases? Would they be different?
What does it take for them to maintain their absorbency?
To be so young and vulnerable, yet amaze with their intelligence,
To make crucial decisions as an adult, but to do them through the eyes of a child,
What would be different? Would it be better? Would it be worse?
What if learning is its own punishment? What if children understand more than we do?
The first tickle, the first sight of fireworks, the first taste of lemons,
All amaze and bewilder a child,
How often do we experience situations or events like that?
The more we do and experience the fuller our "sponges" become,
Learning is the pursuit of answers,
Answers to questions only learning brings,
I miss the simpleness of being a child and the joy of experimenting,
Maturity is synonymous with pain, aggravation, and loss,
Loss of innocence, loss of life, loss of love, and loss of inner-joy,
The more I learn the more I become disgusted with the world,
The more I learn the more I feel helpless in a world full of uncontrollable situations,
The more I learn the more I feel in control yet not, all at the same time,
The more I control the more I feel lost and unable to grasp basic concepts,
Through the eyes of a child, what have I done wrong?
Do I need to regress and allow myself to be carried?
Too old to be carried by my parents, who shall carry me until I die?
God? The existence of a God is troublesome for me and has given me no comfort,
A child...taken care of by his/her parents, a child...taken care of by the world,
An adult...cared for by his/her family/loved ones, an adult...neglected by the world,
As we age the world gets smaller and more complex,
I fear complexity and wonder about the complications that accompany it,
What happened to simple? The simplicity once felt as a child, simplicity as a whole,
My entire world was simple, black and white, easier to enjoy,
Enjoyment as an adult is much harder and not as easy to come by,
Is this inevitable or is it a fault unto myself? Where, if even, did I go wrong?
I wish to close my eyes and open them to see the world through the eyes of a child,
To love what I hate and to embrace what I have always rejected and avoided,
To hug those I dislike and to find laughter at every difficult situation,
The eyes of a child, I miss the closeness we used to share,
Everything was 50/50, nothing was ever taken for granted,
If you miss me as well, meet me in my favorite childhood memory,
You remember, don't you? It is a memory only you and I shared,
As I close my eyes tonight I'll be calling for you, beckoning for your return,
I've missed you as I'm sure you have missed me, please return with haste,
You won't have to look very hard, it's quite obvious where I'll be,
I'll be sitting there, waiting to unlearn what I've learned,
We'll have much to talk about, catching up is always enjoyable,
Out of everything in my life there is only one thing that I miss,
The view that I once saw through the eyes of an eager and innocent child.
Monday, August 11, 2008
What One Must Fully Understand
I tend to get into debates with people regarding the use of US military forces and the relations between various other nation-states. In order to allow a very good debate or discussion to take place a few things must be made clear between the two arguing sides:
1) I believe in the "democratic peace theory". I believe that countries that function like democracies diminish the possibilities of war. Democratic states are those that: the regime is held accountable during elections, they recognize basic human rights, have a free and open press, provide basic social services for those who desperately need them, have a functioning police and military force that enforces the stability of that state and the protection of their people, and that function within a capitalistic economic system.
2) "Democratic peace theory" is the belief that conflicts and wars will occur less and less as more and more countries become democratic. Throughout history, very few, if any, wars have taken place between countries that were considered to be democratic. Democracies do not fight each other; they work with each other and realize that hostile actions can have profound consequences on them because they are democratic and function economically by free and open capitalistic markets.
3) Peace, although desired by all, cannot always be attained by diplomacy and non-violent intervention. The stronger hold a leader has on his/her people the harder it will be to change, alter, or remove them from power.
4) The United Nations, though being a "toothless tiger", must re-legitimate itself by punishing those that fail to meet the guidelines of UN Resolutions. They must also become more apt to use military intervention when needed and do so with an overwhelming military presence. Case in point: Iraq after Desert Storm. The UN did nothing but impose economic sanctions to punish Saddam for his failure to comply with UN Resolutions. Those sanctions only hurt the people of Iraq and not Saddam himself. A leader who is not held accountable of his/her actions by the institution of open and free elections cannot be properly punished by economic sanctions. The only way to ensure proper punishment is to either remove that leader via military intervention and/or forcing the leaders of that country to become democratic. Saddam didn't comply with UN Resolutions because he was never held accountable for his actions due to his extremely oppressive control and rule by his Ba'thist Party for 40+ years. Being a democratic state ensures that the will of the people can remove that leader and replace him/her with one who will help them modernize and will do so by following the rules and respecting basic human rights.
5) Restricting basic human rights by any leader should be frowned upon and immediate action should take place. A society without a free and open press, free and open elections, respect for women's rights, freedom of religion, etc. is not a democratic state. Countries that do not fulfill basic human rights will be forced to do so either by threat of military intervention and/or regime change. A countries leader cannot be held accountable and in check by a citizenry that is weakened by lessened human rights.
6) The United States cannot accurately be called a "democracy". We also must critically look at ourselves just as we look at other countries and realize what we need to do to promote democracy and human rights worldwide. Each state must be willing and able to adjust themselves to ensure that we are practicing what we are preaching. There will be no actions that can be seen as hypocritical.
After this is fully understood by the other person, a positive and progressive discussion can now take place.
The unilateral decision to invade Iraq has weakened the United States' reputation across the globe, but more so in the Middle East. This could have and should have been prevented. How?
I argue that the decision to militarily remove Saddam Hussein was justified and very much needed in order to promote the "democratic peace theory". The United States chose to act because the UN chose not to act. Saddam remained in power for 12-13 years because the UN failed to strictly enforce the consequences of non-compliance by Saddam to their numerous UN Resolutions. I don't encourage the use of military force or violence. However, I feel that military action is needed especially when the leader of a particular country continues to mock various international organizations and various other states. Hostile actions by any leader must be looked down upon and handled immediately to prevent worse actions or atrocities.
People think that peace can be obtained by allowing other states to function on their own and that any aggressive military action is preventable. This view, despite sounding great in theory, is not possible in the world in which we now live in. World peace cannot and will not be possible until each and every country practices democracy, promotes and observes basic human rights, and allows its elected government to function under a fair system of checks and balances. Until this happens, war, violence, and military intervention will be a commonality in international affairs.
The United Nations must also regain legitimacy by taking an active role in preventing genocide and oppression on any group of individuals. How can this come about? There are a few things that need to take place:
1) All countries that have a seat at the UN must appropriate a certain amount of soldiers to assist in humanitarian interventions. For example: the current situation in Sudan must be handled immediately and without hesitation. The combined forces will enter the country prepared to imprison or kill any person holding a weapon. After the country has been intervened, the two sides must sit down and work out an agreement to end the violent hostilities within that country and across other borders, if need be. If an agreement cannot be worked out, the countries with intervening forces within Sudan will come up with their own agreement that will be unfair to both sides and will be strictly enforced by the UN's new aggressive military forces. Once an agreement is created and signed by both parties the government of Sudan will be held accountable of enforcing those rules. If the Sudanese government fails to do so, they will be threatened with a military intervention and possible regime change. If they still do not comply, an invasion will take place and a fair and accountable regime will be put into place. A constitution will also need to be created, followed by the creation of a police force and military force.
People will feel that the country should be able to come up with their set of rules and ruling regime. Very true and I agree with this statement very much. However, if a country really wanted to do this they would have done so already. Democracy must spread throughout the world like wildfire and countries must be run by legitimate leaders who are held accountable for their actions by fair and frequent elections. If they fail to even attempt to do any of this, they will be faced with a possible military intervention and regime change. If a state shows signs of progress, but is unable to fulfill expectations on time they can apply for an extension. However, this extension will only be granted once and will only last one year or, if during a leader change, one year after the new leaders first day.
If a country does not want to be interfered upon than this deadline will force them to get along to work out the future of their own country. If they can't get along now, they will never get along anytime in the near future. Participation in this process will be mandatory and given one year to work out the creation of democratic institutions. After one year, each country will be evaluated based upon their progress and participation. Each case will be handled on a case-by-case basis.
2) UN participation should be highly encouraged and heavily promoted. If states can't financially afford some way to contribute to certain causes they can help out in other ways. However, being democratic and capitalist will only hinder some excuses that some countries may make.
3) Every action will be debated in an open forum and must include every member of the UN. Each member must contribute to the discussion in some way and one, two, or three members MAY NOT dominate the discussion in any way. Listening should occur more than speaking.
Unilateral military intervention should be eventually phased out over time and legitimizing the UN and the heavy promotion of global democracy will help make this happen. Violence, although not desired, is and will be needed at some point down the line and no state should opposed to the possibility of this. Diplomacy can happen, but powerful, unchecked leaders make diplomatic solutions less likely.
We will fight global oppression by providing (collectively) computers and internet access to every town across the entire globe. The lessened amounts of money spent on military build-ups for all countries will go towards making information and knowledge much more easily accessible. Oppression, preventable diseases, and ethnic hatred comes with the lack of information and knowledge. The world will only move forward if we actively promote education and the wonders of the internet and technology. This technology will allow immediate notification of any problem taking place. The horrors of Myanmar only continued because of the control of the internet, information, and the oppression of the people. Having worldwide internet access will make situations like this less likely and easier to address immediately. Technology, unlike what George Orwell wrongly predicted, is our best weapon for fighting global ignorance and for promoting education and democracy. Intelligence and education are an oppressing powers kryptonite. The time to act is now.
The world can experience world peace and global participation. This will provide a much more stable planet that can collectively focus on climate change, genocide, natural disasters, and the betterment of humankind. We can one day hold hands with each other knowing that we worked together to fight oppression, preventable diseases, global hunger, climate change, and promote basic human rights in order to make the world a better place for all people. The United States knows that we cannot make this happen on our own and unilateral commitments only weaken our ability to defend ourselves and extend a helping hand elsewhere. Our respect for basic human rights and our example of a democratic government will help lead the way to a brighter future, not only for us, but for the entire planet. Individual success will come with collected success. The future of the world lies within our inner desires for peace and tranquility.
1) I believe in the "democratic peace theory". I believe that countries that function like democracies diminish the possibilities of war. Democratic states are those that: the regime is held accountable during elections, they recognize basic human rights, have a free and open press, provide basic social services for those who desperately need them, have a functioning police and military force that enforces the stability of that state and the protection of their people, and that function within a capitalistic economic system.
2) "Democratic peace theory" is the belief that conflicts and wars will occur less and less as more and more countries become democratic. Throughout history, very few, if any, wars have taken place between countries that were considered to be democratic. Democracies do not fight each other; they work with each other and realize that hostile actions can have profound consequences on them because they are democratic and function economically by free and open capitalistic markets.
3) Peace, although desired by all, cannot always be attained by diplomacy and non-violent intervention. The stronger hold a leader has on his/her people the harder it will be to change, alter, or remove them from power.
4) The United Nations, though being a "toothless tiger", must re-legitimate itself by punishing those that fail to meet the guidelines of UN Resolutions. They must also become more apt to use military intervention when needed and do so with an overwhelming military presence. Case in point: Iraq after Desert Storm. The UN did nothing but impose economic sanctions to punish Saddam for his failure to comply with UN Resolutions. Those sanctions only hurt the people of Iraq and not Saddam himself. A leader who is not held accountable of his/her actions by the institution of open and free elections cannot be properly punished by economic sanctions. The only way to ensure proper punishment is to either remove that leader via military intervention and/or forcing the leaders of that country to become democratic. Saddam didn't comply with UN Resolutions because he was never held accountable for his actions due to his extremely oppressive control and rule by his Ba'thist Party for 40+ years. Being a democratic state ensures that the will of the people can remove that leader and replace him/her with one who will help them modernize and will do so by following the rules and respecting basic human rights.
5) Restricting basic human rights by any leader should be frowned upon and immediate action should take place. A society without a free and open press, free and open elections, respect for women's rights, freedom of religion, etc. is not a democratic state. Countries that do not fulfill basic human rights will be forced to do so either by threat of military intervention and/or regime change. A countries leader cannot be held accountable and in check by a citizenry that is weakened by lessened human rights.
6) The United States cannot accurately be called a "democracy". We also must critically look at ourselves just as we look at other countries and realize what we need to do to promote democracy and human rights worldwide. Each state must be willing and able to adjust themselves to ensure that we are practicing what we are preaching. There will be no actions that can be seen as hypocritical.
After this is fully understood by the other person, a positive and progressive discussion can now take place.
The unilateral decision to invade Iraq has weakened the United States' reputation across the globe, but more so in the Middle East. This could have and should have been prevented. How?
I argue that the decision to militarily remove Saddam Hussein was justified and very much needed in order to promote the "democratic peace theory". The United States chose to act because the UN chose not to act. Saddam remained in power for 12-13 years because the UN failed to strictly enforce the consequences of non-compliance by Saddam to their numerous UN Resolutions. I don't encourage the use of military force or violence. However, I feel that military action is needed especially when the leader of a particular country continues to mock various international organizations and various other states. Hostile actions by any leader must be looked down upon and handled immediately to prevent worse actions or atrocities.
People think that peace can be obtained by allowing other states to function on their own and that any aggressive military action is preventable. This view, despite sounding great in theory, is not possible in the world in which we now live in. World peace cannot and will not be possible until each and every country practices democracy, promotes and observes basic human rights, and allows its elected government to function under a fair system of checks and balances. Until this happens, war, violence, and military intervention will be a commonality in international affairs.
The United Nations must also regain legitimacy by taking an active role in preventing genocide and oppression on any group of individuals. How can this come about? There are a few things that need to take place:
1) All countries that have a seat at the UN must appropriate a certain amount of soldiers to assist in humanitarian interventions. For example: the current situation in Sudan must be handled immediately and without hesitation. The combined forces will enter the country prepared to imprison or kill any person holding a weapon. After the country has been intervened, the two sides must sit down and work out an agreement to end the violent hostilities within that country and across other borders, if need be. If an agreement cannot be worked out, the countries with intervening forces within Sudan will come up with their own agreement that will be unfair to both sides and will be strictly enforced by the UN's new aggressive military forces. Once an agreement is created and signed by both parties the government of Sudan will be held accountable of enforcing those rules. If the Sudanese government fails to do so, they will be threatened with a military intervention and possible regime change. If they still do not comply, an invasion will take place and a fair and accountable regime will be put into place. A constitution will also need to be created, followed by the creation of a police force and military force.
People will feel that the country should be able to come up with their set of rules and ruling regime. Very true and I agree with this statement very much. However, if a country really wanted to do this they would have done so already. Democracy must spread throughout the world like wildfire and countries must be run by legitimate leaders who are held accountable for their actions by fair and frequent elections. If they fail to even attempt to do any of this, they will be faced with a possible military intervention and regime change. If a state shows signs of progress, but is unable to fulfill expectations on time they can apply for an extension. However, this extension will only be granted once and will only last one year or, if during a leader change, one year after the new leaders first day.
If a country does not want to be interfered upon than this deadline will force them to get along to work out the future of their own country. If they can't get along now, they will never get along anytime in the near future. Participation in this process will be mandatory and given one year to work out the creation of democratic institutions. After one year, each country will be evaluated based upon their progress and participation. Each case will be handled on a case-by-case basis.
2) UN participation should be highly encouraged and heavily promoted. If states can't financially afford some way to contribute to certain causes they can help out in other ways. However, being democratic and capitalist will only hinder some excuses that some countries may make.
3) Every action will be debated in an open forum and must include every member of the UN. Each member must contribute to the discussion in some way and one, two, or three members MAY NOT dominate the discussion in any way. Listening should occur more than speaking.
Unilateral military intervention should be eventually phased out over time and legitimizing the UN and the heavy promotion of global democracy will help make this happen. Violence, although not desired, is and will be needed at some point down the line and no state should opposed to the possibility of this. Diplomacy can happen, but powerful, unchecked leaders make diplomatic solutions less likely.
We will fight global oppression by providing (collectively) computers and internet access to every town across the entire globe. The lessened amounts of money spent on military build-ups for all countries will go towards making information and knowledge much more easily accessible. Oppression, preventable diseases, and ethnic hatred comes with the lack of information and knowledge. The world will only move forward if we actively promote education and the wonders of the internet and technology. This technology will allow immediate notification of any problem taking place. The horrors of Myanmar only continued because of the control of the internet, information, and the oppression of the people. Having worldwide internet access will make situations like this less likely and easier to address immediately. Technology, unlike what George Orwell wrongly predicted, is our best weapon for fighting global ignorance and for promoting education and democracy. Intelligence and education are an oppressing powers kryptonite. The time to act is now.
The world can experience world peace and global participation. This will provide a much more stable planet that can collectively focus on climate change, genocide, natural disasters, and the betterment of humankind. We can one day hold hands with each other knowing that we worked together to fight oppression, preventable diseases, global hunger, climate change, and promote basic human rights in order to make the world a better place for all people. The United States knows that we cannot make this happen on our own and unilateral commitments only weaken our ability to defend ourselves and extend a helping hand elsewhere. Our respect for basic human rights and our example of a democratic government will help lead the way to a brighter future, not only for us, but for the entire planet. Individual success will come with collected success. The future of the world lies within our inner desires for peace and tranquility.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
HUB Subway Employees
My military interventions course starts at noon and ends at 2:15pm. After sitting for two hours in a hot classroom I like to sit down and enjoy a Subway sandwich before sitting in the library to read and study. I've always enjoyed eating Subway and usually like the people working there. However, the Subway in the University of Washington's HUB (Husky Union Building) is the worst one I've ever been to. The quality of the food isn't really the issue, although I have noticed that there is an obvious difference in how they portion certain condiments. The employees that work there are terrible, with one exception. There are two employees there that have been making my sandwich for the last year that I've been attending the UofW. These two ladies (both Asian and around 50 years old) are always grumpy, ill-tempered, and neither one of them ever smile. I don't accept the notion that not smiling is a "cultural thing" because it just doesn't fly here in the United States. If these two ladies genuinely dislike their line of work then they need to find another line of work. As a paying customer, I refuse to feel as if I'm wasting their time and making their day more stressful. They applied for that position knowing the details of the job and they should either suck it up and accept it or get out and let someone who really needs a job fill their spot. There are plenty of hardworking people out there that would gladly work a stressful, high-intensity job just so that they could put food on their table, pay their bills, and pay all of their other living expenses.
Here is my point: businesses take themselves too seriously. They honestly believe that "even though we may not provide the best customer service or the best overall product, the customers will always come back". Sadly, their philosophy has held to be quite true. People may really hate going to Walmart, but because of their low prices and numerous store locations many people don't have many other options. If people have the option to not go back to a business after experiencing very poor service they should do it. I understand that not everyone can exercise this option and I respect that. However, you should file a complaint against that employee. I have filed a complaint with Subway and I hope to never see those two grumpy, old, crusty women again. Instead, Subway should hire two young kids who need extra money to pay their tuition, rent, or to give them some extra spending money to enjoy their college life more and stress their parents out less.
I'm tired of people always complaining about their job and where they work. If it's so terrible...quit. Nobody is keeping you there. If you have an easy job and are barely scraping by you should have nothing to complain about. If you're in that position you have no one else to blame but yourself. Quit making other people feel guilty for your poor choices. You should accept that you are fortunate enough to have a job, bottle your emotions, and act like nothing is wrong. Those are the perfect ingredients for a great spicy Italian Subway sandwich.
If you receive poor service you're probably not the only one. If you complain and others complain action will have to be taken on behalf of that particular business. They would rather keep you as an on-going customer than to keep a grumpy employee that makes customers feel like crap. I hope these two ladies get a wake-up call and realize that they are no longer living in their former country. They chose to come to the United States to improve their quality of life. We didn't ask you to come here and you weren't taken from your home by force. You chose to come here so you have to adapt to our customs. We like great service and our money speaks volumes. We will not accept the excuse that your grumpiness is a "cultural difference". Yes, we respect and encourage people to hold on to their cultures and we want to learn about other cultures and learn from them, but we will not allow our money to go waste to support a grumpy employee.
Here is my point: businesses take themselves too seriously. They honestly believe that "even though we may not provide the best customer service or the best overall product, the customers will always come back". Sadly, their philosophy has held to be quite true. People may really hate going to Walmart, but because of their low prices and numerous store locations many people don't have many other options. If people have the option to not go back to a business after experiencing very poor service they should do it. I understand that not everyone can exercise this option and I respect that. However, you should file a complaint against that employee. I have filed a complaint with Subway and I hope to never see those two grumpy, old, crusty women again. Instead, Subway should hire two young kids who need extra money to pay their tuition, rent, or to give them some extra spending money to enjoy their college life more and stress their parents out less.
I'm tired of people always complaining about their job and where they work. If it's so terrible...quit. Nobody is keeping you there. If you have an easy job and are barely scraping by you should have nothing to complain about. If you're in that position you have no one else to blame but yourself. Quit making other people feel guilty for your poor choices. You should accept that you are fortunate enough to have a job, bottle your emotions, and act like nothing is wrong. Those are the perfect ingredients for a great spicy Italian Subway sandwich.
If you receive poor service you're probably not the only one. If you complain and others complain action will have to be taken on behalf of that particular business. They would rather keep you as an on-going customer than to keep a grumpy employee that makes customers feel like crap. I hope these two ladies get a wake-up call and realize that they are no longer living in their former country. They chose to come to the United States to improve their quality of life. We didn't ask you to come here and you weren't taken from your home by force. You chose to come here so you have to adapt to our customs. We like great service and our money speaks volumes. We will not accept the excuse that your grumpiness is a "cultural difference". Yes, we respect and encourage people to hold on to their cultures and we want to learn about other cultures and learn from them, but we will not allow our money to go waste to support a grumpy employee.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Barack Obama
I remember watching the 2004 Democratic Convention on TV. After Barack Obama gave his speech, in the same way that Ronald Reagan gave his speech in 1968 for Barry Goldwater, I remember saying, "This guy is going to be the first black president of the United States". At the time, I wanted to know much more about him; I was hooked. I bought his first book "Dreams of My Father" and I read most of it. I'll be the first to admit it, I liked him. As a person, I liked him. He sounded like an average person. However, I changed a lot over the last 4 years. I started off as a communist/socialist, experimented with the far right and read everything ever written by Barry Goldwater, went out with a liberal group that drank beer and discussed politics called "Drinking Liberally", drifted towards the middle, and finally made my transition to a more conservative stance. Now, I'm not one of these radical conservatives that refuses to challenge his own beliefs, but I tend to be quite conservative...at least financially/economically. I, personally, think abortion is a disgusting act; however, I feel that it is and always should remain a woman's choice. I support welfare, but only to help people get back on their feet. I've seen it work and I believe that it is necessary to help hard-working people who run into difficult times. I believe that international issues are America's business and we should intervene when it's necessary and if it's possible financially and militarily. I believe that the United States should start raising taxes to start paying off the war in Iraq. The majority of people in America have not and do not feel the effects of living in a country in a state of war; this needs to change. I support the war in Iraq because of the vital need of having another functioning, self-sufficient democracy in the Middle East. Aside from all of that, I am hard to pin down politically.
Barack Obama, in 2007, began showing his true colors and those colors are more obvious now than they ever were. The Obama that we see now can't stand behind a podium and give magnificent speeches and call it a day. He must now be placed in the pressure cooker and face the hostilities that many politicians face on a daily basis. To date, Obama carried his far-left beliefs through the primaries to finally defeat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party nomination. Since then, we have all seen how much Obama has changed. He changed his stance on the Iraqi troop withdrawal, his non-support for the troop surge (which has and continues to work), his stance on campaign finance, and has not put any focus on the black and hispanic communities. He rearranges the truth to fit what he has said in the past. When faced with criticism on his past stances, he dances around the issue and refuses to admit that he has, in fact, changed positions. My question to Obama supporters is, "How can you trust someone who can't stand firm on anything?" How do you know what he stands for if he keeps changing his views and positions? A person can only dance so much before he gets tired and gets caught sleeping. Case in point: John Edwards. We all felt bad for John and the rest of the Edwards' family after hearing that Elizabeth had breast cancer. We saw how compassionate John was for his wife and we felt warm inside for seeing a husband stand by his wife in her time of greatest need. However, we now see how much we were fooled...myself included.
Not only had John gone out and had an affair, but he, most likely, also conceived an illegitimate child from this affair. From this day on, John Edwards has no moral ground to stand on. Any future chance of running for president is shot and any future doing anything else is pretty much shot. John was the democrat that I supported the most despite not being a democrat. He was a great politician, but he sure comes up short in the morality department.
Barack Obama is now what Michael Jackson was to the 1980s. He's a token black guy that has a lot of white friends and can be black when he wants to be black and can be white when he wants to be white. People in the media that keep asking if race will have anything to do with this upcoming election are beating a dead horse. Of course race will play a huge factor in this election. This election may be historical on an age and color basis, but it will have no redeeming value to it. The GOP has done a fairly poor job running this country the last 8 years and it has forced the American public to nominate an inexperienced black guy and an over-the-hill crusty, white guy who sold himself out just to finally get his name on the ballot. The John McCain from 2000 was a real political machine: military experience, maverick, called out the conservative Christian leaders as "wacko", and ran the campaign that he wanted to run. However, because of the current political climate, he has failed to stay the same politically. The conservatives wanted Romney, but the independents wanted McCain. The Bush Administration pushed a lot of their voting base to the middle and this could have a lot to do with the fact that a real conservative politician wouldn't stand a chance against either Obama or Clinton.
I feel that Obama is doing what he doesn't want to do, but is being forced to do...gravitate towards the middle. If Romney would have gotten the nomination for the Republican Party Obama could have easily kept a lot of his leftist leanings because of the political polarity of the two candidates. However, there appears to be a developing trend in American politics. Romney once ran against Kennedy as a Democrat. He was against the NRA, supported abortion, and supported gay marriage. However, he lost an election standing on those grounds. Despite his defeat, American politics allows politicians to "reinvent" themselves politically and are able to do so with little hostility.
I then feel inclined to ask this question, "What good are political beliefs if they can constantly change without criticism?" I have faced much criticism because of my change in political view, but that tends to happen to young men and women during their mid-twenties and early thirties. We tend to accomplish more, get paid more, get better jobs, and enjoy living better lifestyles. We support welfare when we're young, but oppose it as we get older and become more successful. It's like not having an opinion on abortion or being pro-choice until a woman chooses to abort the child that you and her created together. You see, we experience different things in life and those experiences change how we see the world. You may vote against school levies in the beginning, but vote for them when your children's education is affected by the outcome of that initiative. You may vote against an initiative to provide more money to the public library, but when you have a child who loves to read and study at the library you see how important those extra funds really are. I hope you see where I'm going with this.
Political changes are common for most people. The only political group that doesn't change that often are senior citizens. They're on a limited budget as it is and they overwhelmingly vote against any initiative that further deprives them of their monthly income. However, the young generations of people constantly change because of changes within their own lives. Social security is never an issue until you're old enough to collect or know someone personally who benefits from it after becoming physically handicapped or have lost a parent or spouse. You see, core values aren't core values because life isn't consistent. Once you get married and have all of the children you'll ever have you might begin to develop a sense of core values. Property taxes, school levies, marriage/child tax credits, etc. will affect how you vote, but this is in no way permanent. This could change the second a particular issue hits close to home for you.
After much thought and consideration, I'm still not voting for Obama or McCain. I'm still voting for Ron Paul. However, I'm pretty sure that my political views will change as I graduate college, begin my career, get married, start a family, see my parents grow older, and prepare for my own retirement days. A lot can happen and nothing is for certain. That is why I understand why Obama and McCain have altered their political views, but I do not support them. They're not doing it for anything else besides trying to get elected. I understand how someone can change politically because of a personal issue or a life-altering situation. The United States will continue to see this political pendulum that has existed for hundreds of years. People in the 1980s loved Ronald Reagan, but were disgusted of George H.W. Bush's handling of the economy and voted in William Jefferson Clinton. The economy flourished with Clinton because of the dot-com boom, but he failed horribly in his foreign policies. George W. Bush has done a poor job domestically, but has possibly created a very important democratic state in the Middle East. Before you criticize how Bush "lied" to get us into the war in Iraq, consider how history has explained this decision. Kennedy sent troops to Vietnam after failing horribly with the Bay of Pigs. Saddam sent his troops into Kuwait in the attempt to raise their hopes after fighting Iran for 8 bloody years. Clinton bombed Iraq amidst his political scandal with Monica Lewinsky. Bush used 9/11 as a motivating force to get troops into Iraq to establish a democratic state in the Middle East. The whole issue of "weapons of mass destruction" was just an excuse to get us into a war with unlimited funding appropriations. The American public and the UN Council would never buy the excuse of democracy promotion or regime change and that is why they chose to "create" a reason to invade. They knew that Saddam wouldn't back down and publicly state that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction. He wouldn't do that because he would be viewed as a weak leader in the Middle East and face a possible Iranian attack. For example, let's use the American Pie example with the girl spreading rumors that Finch had a massively large "member". He didn't deny it and whether or not it was true was regardless. It was only what people were told and believed that mattered. No guy would admit to having a less than average size penis and this is a great analogy to the psychology behind Saddam's refusal to deny that Iraq did, in fact, possess weapons of mass destruction.
We are now seeing how poorly the GOP has left this country and how little the democrat controlled Congress has done to correct it. That's the beauty of politics: it's always changing. So, if you find yourself changing your political beliefs it's okay. However, try to understand why they're changing and try to understand that people can indeed change. People who refuse to change despite learning new facts, are a rarity. A politician changing their political stances and views should be understood, but ridiculed as well. They, unlike you, have a motive for changing and it's important for you and the rest of the citizens to find out why and hold them accountable. Every action a politician makes should be reviewed and taken into account. As Ghandi once said, "Be the change that you see". It's up to you to decide what that change is and what needs to happen in order for that change to take place.
Barack Obama, in 2007, began showing his true colors and those colors are more obvious now than they ever were. The Obama that we see now can't stand behind a podium and give magnificent speeches and call it a day. He must now be placed in the pressure cooker and face the hostilities that many politicians face on a daily basis. To date, Obama carried his far-left beliefs through the primaries to finally defeat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party nomination. Since then, we have all seen how much Obama has changed. He changed his stance on the Iraqi troop withdrawal, his non-support for the troop surge (which has and continues to work), his stance on campaign finance, and has not put any focus on the black and hispanic communities. He rearranges the truth to fit what he has said in the past. When faced with criticism on his past stances, he dances around the issue and refuses to admit that he has, in fact, changed positions. My question to Obama supporters is, "How can you trust someone who can't stand firm on anything?" How do you know what he stands for if he keeps changing his views and positions? A person can only dance so much before he gets tired and gets caught sleeping. Case in point: John Edwards. We all felt bad for John and the rest of the Edwards' family after hearing that Elizabeth had breast cancer. We saw how compassionate John was for his wife and we felt warm inside for seeing a husband stand by his wife in her time of greatest need. However, we now see how much we were fooled...myself included.
Not only had John gone out and had an affair, but he, most likely, also conceived an illegitimate child from this affair. From this day on, John Edwards has no moral ground to stand on. Any future chance of running for president is shot and any future doing anything else is pretty much shot. John was the democrat that I supported the most despite not being a democrat. He was a great politician, but he sure comes up short in the morality department.
Barack Obama is now what Michael Jackson was to the 1980s. He's a token black guy that has a lot of white friends and can be black when he wants to be black and can be white when he wants to be white. People in the media that keep asking if race will have anything to do with this upcoming election are beating a dead horse. Of course race will play a huge factor in this election. This election may be historical on an age and color basis, but it will have no redeeming value to it. The GOP has done a fairly poor job running this country the last 8 years and it has forced the American public to nominate an inexperienced black guy and an over-the-hill crusty, white guy who sold himself out just to finally get his name on the ballot. The John McCain from 2000 was a real political machine: military experience, maverick, called out the conservative Christian leaders as "wacko", and ran the campaign that he wanted to run. However, because of the current political climate, he has failed to stay the same politically. The conservatives wanted Romney, but the independents wanted McCain. The Bush Administration pushed a lot of their voting base to the middle and this could have a lot to do with the fact that a real conservative politician wouldn't stand a chance against either Obama or Clinton.
I feel that Obama is doing what he doesn't want to do, but is being forced to do...gravitate towards the middle. If Romney would have gotten the nomination for the Republican Party Obama could have easily kept a lot of his leftist leanings because of the political polarity of the two candidates. However, there appears to be a developing trend in American politics. Romney once ran against Kennedy as a Democrat. He was against the NRA, supported abortion, and supported gay marriage. However, he lost an election standing on those grounds. Despite his defeat, American politics allows politicians to "reinvent" themselves politically and are able to do so with little hostility.
I then feel inclined to ask this question, "What good are political beliefs if they can constantly change without criticism?" I have faced much criticism because of my change in political view, but that tends to happen to young men and women during their mid-twenties and early thirties. We tend to accomplish more, get paid more, get better jobs, and enjoy living better lifestyles. We support welfare when we're young, but oppose it as we get older and become more successful. It's like not having an opinion on abortion or being pro-choice until a woman chooses to abort the child that you and her created together. You see, we experience different things in life and those experiences change how we see the world. You may vote against school levies in the beginning, but vote for them when your children's education is affected by the outcome of that initiative. You may vote against an initiative to provide more money to the public library, but when you have a child who loves to read and study at the library you see how important those extra funds really are. I hope you see where I'm going with this.
Political changes are common for most people. The only political group that doesn't change that often are senior citizens. They're on a limited budget as it is and they overwhelmingly vote against any initiative that further deprives them of their monthly income. However, the young generations of people constantly change because of changes within their own lives. Social security is never an issue until you're old enough to collect or know someone personally who benefits from it after becoming physically handicapped or have lost a parent or spouse. You see, core values aren't core values because life isn't consistent. Once you get married and have all of the children you'll ever have you might begin to develop a sense of core values. Property taxes, school levies, marriage/child tax credits, etc. will affect how you vote, but this is in no way permanent. This could change the second a particular issue hits close to home for you.
After much thought and consideration, I'm still not voting for Obama or McCain. I'm still voting for Ron Paul. However, I'm pretty sure that my political views will change as I graduate college, begin my career, get married, start a family, see my parents grow older, and prepare for my own retirement days. A lot can happen and nothing is for certain. That is why I understand why Obama and McCain have altered their political views, but I do not support them. They're not doing it for anything else besides trying to get elected. I understand how someone can change politically because of a personal issue or a life-altering situation. The United States will continue to see this political pendulum that has existed for hundreds of years. People in the 1980s loved Ronald Reagan, but were disgusted of George H.W. Bush's handling of the economy and voted in William Jefferson Clinton. The economy flourished with Clinton because of the dot-com boom, but he failed horribly in his foreign policies. George W. Bush has done a poor job domestically, but has possibly created a very important democratic state in the Middle East. Before you criticize how Bush "lied" to get us into the war in Iraq, consider how history has explained this decision. Kennedy sent troops to Vietnam after failing horribly with the Bay of Pigs. Saddam sent his troops into Kuwait in the attempt to raise their hopes after fighting Iran for 8 bloody years. Clinton bombed Iraq amidst his political scandal with Monica Lewinsky. Bush used 9/11 as a motivating force to get troops into Iraq to establish a democratic state in the Middle East. The whole issue of "weapons of mass destruction" was just an excuse to get us into a war with unlimited funding appropriations. The American public and the UN Council would never buy the excuse of democracy promotion or regime change and that is why they chose to "create" a reason to invade. They knew that Saddam wouldn't back down and publicly state that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction. He wouldn't do that because he would be viewed as a weak leader in the Middle East and face a possible Iranian attack. For example, let's use the American Pie example with the girl spreading rumors that Finch had a massively large "member". He didn't deny it and whether or not it was true was regardless. It was only what people were told and believed that mattered. No guy would admit to having a less than average size penis and this is a great analogy to the psychology behind Saddam's refusal to deny that Iraq did, in fact, possess weapons of mass destruction.
We are now seeing how poorly the GOP has left this country and how little the democrat controlled Congress has done to correct it. That's the beauty of politics: it's always changing. So, if you find yourself changing your political beliefs it's okay. However, try to understand why they're changing and try to understand that people can indeed change. People who refuse to change despite learning new facts, are a rarity. A politician changing their political stances and views should be understood, but ridiculed as well. They, unlike you, have a motive for changing and it's important for you and the rest of the citizens to find out why and hold them accountable. Every action a politician makes should be reviewed and taken into account. As Ghandi once said, "Be the change that you see". It's up to you to decide what that change is and what needs to happen in order for that change to take place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)