trust in someone who is an MD. for someone to say "he should know, he's a doctor".
Isn't that funny... how people rely so heavily on titles, and degrees? I especially like it when people, close-mindedly, say "I'm a ___ major, I would know BETTER than you." Why is it that people somehow let something trivial like that dictate what one does and does not know? I cannot even begin to express my frustration over it when people pointedly state their higher intelligence because they have more years of education.
I don't even know where to start with people who at first see it from the same perspective, and then later become so entrenched in that same ideology that they once loathed. It's very backward to me.
So I guess I strongly dislike hypocrites, and on top of that, people who are close-minded enough to believe that there is higher intelligence based on your studies in that field. To an extent, I agree, but if someone tells me they know more about something when its very public knowledge, I do want to knock that person over their head.
Oh I like the age-discrimination, too. When people think they know more because they're more modern, or they've experienced more of it. How does that person know that I haven't experienced just as much at my age? I could just as well have!
Monday, April 30
Apr 30, 2007
Okay, it's not like the song, at all. Anyhow, by now it's been all over the news, but to recap, i-580 coming from SF collapsed onto the i-880 interchange from i-80W after a truck carrying full tanks of gasoline crashed. The driver escaped with second degree burns, but the freeway was not so lucky.
I wasn't sure where the freeway was down, and it's a lucky thing that it happened when the least amount of people would be out, sometime between 3AM and 4AM... some of my friends were driving back from eating, and saw the fire, and snapped a couple of pictures.
I drove past it this morning on my way to work, and I really had no idea where the freeway had capsized, I wasn't even sure if it wasn't my normal route to work, lucky for me it wasn't, but I'll definitely be taking a different way home to avoid the heavy traffic. I'm not even sure how much the freeway will affect commuters, but then of course at that split, we do get the bottleneck affect... it'll be interesting.
I wasn't sure where the freeway was down, and it's a lucky thing that it happened when the least amount of people would be out, sometime between 3AM and 4AM... some of my friends were driving back from eating, and saw the fire, and snapped a couple of pictures.
I drove past it this morning on my way to work, and I really had no idea where the freeway had capsized, I wasn't even sure if it wasn't my normal route to work, lucky for me it wasn't, but I'll definitely be taking a different way home to avoid the heavy traffic. I'm not even sure how much the freeway will affect commuters, but then of course at that split, we do get the bottleneck affect... it'll be interesting.
Tuesday, April 24
Apr 24, 2007
I'm sure the following entry will be somewhat reminscent of what every girl has been through at some point in their life, if not throughout.
So let's begin.
I've been described as "flirty", "boy-crazy", "cold", "messed up", and some other terms I'm sure are relative to my boy encounters. I'm by no means young, but definitely not far enough along in life to say that I'm entirely experienced, but old enough to know maturity from immaturity. I have to admit that I did most of my growing up while I was still at the University, while everyone else was just starting to get all the partying into their system, I had somehow grown worn from having partied as much as I could handle in one summer's time.
I distinctly recall a conversation a friend and I had during the summer before my freshman year, he asked, "How many relationships have you had? You have a very extensive understanding...", at the age of 18, I had had none. Now about half a decade later, I have had many encounters with the opposite sex, and only one resulted in what I would consider a "serious relationship". And I'm sure everyone would expect me to be completely sheltered, and know little to nothing about the opposite sex, and my dealings with them, as a result, would be that of a 4th grader. Contrary to that belief, though, I am far from uneducated, and treat most with little respect, and am sympathetic to no one.
Maybe it was all the novels that I had read when I was younger, although holed in my house was my decision, I had very little contact with the opposite sex, and did not feel that I was missing out.
When my friends come to me with their boy/girl problems, I feel like a lot of them are so simple, so in your face, that it's just too easy to see what the solution is. Yet everyone seems to overthink every action they want to make. They overthink it, and when they do act upon an impulse, they realize that OMG I've just SCREWED it all up! Then they think, what could I have done differently, what SHOULD I have done differently, and truth is, nothing!
I'm not entirely exempt from this over obsessive disorder, but I have come to grips with it, and have embraced it. I have in a sense learned to be male when dealing with situations like it. It's a generalization to say that it is male, even sexist, but it has been in my experience that men deal with relationships in a far more relaxed manner. They don't seem to overthink any of their actions, and if things don't go as according to plan, they're not mulling around as though their life just ended. They move on, because the earth doesn't stop rotating because you've had one hang up!
I've often been bombarded with multiple relationship problems, and I find myself a little irritated at having to repeat the same advice again, and again, so instead of beating around the bush, as I would when I'm trying to comfort someone, I'd state an overly blunt fact, and tell them that although I am their close friend, I will tell them how it is, how anyone else would perceive it. Usually when my girls hear it for the first time, they feel a little alienated, almost as though I'm accusing them of whatever mistakes they have made, but then they come around, and it's all better. It's a cycle really, none of my friends have had serious relationships, and of the ones that do, have had no other experiences other than the ONE they've been in since high school.
I'm reasonable, I'm open to criticism, I'm dependable, I'm everything you'd want in a friend, but I'm also very frank, even if I don't mean to be, and I'm spontaneous, and pretty much as the horoscopes would tell you, I'm blunt, like you wouldn't believe, and to top that off, I'll give you a piece of my mind, if necessary.
HO-HO.
So let's begin.
I've been described as "flirty", "boy-crazy", "cold", "messed up", and some other terms I'm sure are relative to my boy encounters. I'm by no means young, but definitely not far enough along in life to say that I'm entirely experienced, but old enough to know maturity from immaturity. I have to admit that I did most of my growing up while I was still at the University, while everyone else was just starting to get all the partying into their system, I had somehow grown worn from having partied as much as I could handle in one summer's time.
I distinctly recall a conversation a friend and I had during the summer before my freshman year, he asked, "How many relationships have you had? You have a very extensive understanding...", at the age of 18, I had had none. Now about half a decade later, I have had many encounters with the opposite sex, and only one resulted in what I would consider a "serious relationship". And I'm sure everyone would expect me to be completely sheltered, and know little to nothing about the opposite sex, and my dealings with them, as a result, would be that of a 4th grader. Contrary to that belief, though, I am far from uneducated, and treat most with little respect, and am sympathetic to no one.
Maybe it was all the novels that I had read when I was younger, although holed in my house was my decision, I had very little contact with the opposite sex, and did not feel that I was missing out.
When my friends come to me with their boy/girl problems, I feel like a lot of them are so simple, so in your face, that it's just too easy to see what the solution is. Yet everyone seems to overthink every action they want to make. They overthink it, and when they do act upon an impulse, they realize that OMG I've just SCREWED it all up! Then they think, what could I have done differently, what SHOULD I have done differently, and truth is, nothing!
I'm not entirely exempt from this over obsessive disorder, but I have come to grips with it, and have embraced it. I have in a sense learned to be male when dealing with situations like it. It's a generalization to say that it is male, even sexist, but it has been in my experience that men deal with relationships in a far more relaxed manner. They don't seem to overthink any of their actions, and if things don't go as according to plan, they're not mulling around as though their life just ended. They move on, because the earth doesn't stop rotating because you've had one hang up!
I've often been bombarded with multiple relationship problems, and I find myself a little irritated at having to repeat the same advice again, and again, so instead of beating around the bush, as I would when I'm trying to comfort someone, I'd state an overly blunt fact, and tell them that although I am their close friend, I will tell them how it is, how anyone else would perceive it. Usually when my girls hear it for the first time, they feel a little alienated, almost as though I'm accusing them of whatever mistakes they have made, but then they come around, and it's all better. It's a cycle really, none of my friends have had serious relationships, and of the ones that do, have had no other experiences other than the ONE they've been in since high school.
I'm reasonable, I'm open to criticism, I'm dependable, I'm everything you'd want in a friend, but I'm also very frank, even if I don't mean to be, and I'm spontaneous, and pretty much as the horoscopes would tell you, I'm blunt, like you wouldn't believe, and to top that off, I'll give you a piece of my mind, if necessary.
HO-HO.
Sunday, April 22
Apr 22, 2007
Since the primaries started to steal the spotlight in most national newspapers, the idea that Obama and Clinton should be on one ticket seems like a good idea.
Although I won't go as far as to say that Bush completely screwed up our economy, I do think our economy has been in better situations, our international relationships have definitely taken a turn in the last couple of years, with many countries looking to shifts in parties in hopes of a change in policy decisions. So it seems like the perfect time for the Democratic party to provide some change. Since the last 2 terms have been Republican, many people, instead of putting due responsibility where it belongs, will hold the associated party accountable. It is time for a change, and what better way to make that change than to put two minorities in office, a black man, and a white woman. The order in which they should hold office is still in the air, but it seems logical to have Hillary run as president, and Obama run as vice, because Hillary has had years of relative experience, and although Obama is not entirely inexperienced, 4 years as a vice would give him the needed time to prepare him for a later presidential run.
Although I won't go as far as to say that Bush completely screwed up our economy, I do think our economy has been in better situations, our international relationships have definitely taken a turn in the last couple of years, with many countries looking to shifts in parties in hopes of a change in policy decisions. So it seems like the perfect time for the Democratic party to provide some change. Since the last 2 terms have been Republican, many people, instead of putting due responsibility where it belongs, will hold the associated party accountable. It is time for a change, and what better way to make that change than to put two minorities in office, a black man, and a white woman. The order in which they should hold office is still in the air, but it seems logical to have Hillary run as president, and Obama run as vice, because Hillary has had years of relative experience, and although Obama is not entirely inexperienced, 4 years as a vice would give him the needed time to prepare him for a later presidential run.
Thursday, April 19
Apr 19, 2007
I read another journal entry that made a really good point. Why is it that we're so consumed with the titles of jobs, of people, of things? I'm going to a meeting tomorrow that starts at 10A, and ends at around 3P, if everything goes according to plan, and one of the genetic counselors I work with gave me the meeting agenda, and a copy of all the people in attendance.
Then, it hits me! I'm the only name on the list without an M.D., M.S., M.A., M.P.H., or M.Ed. following behind. I've met and worked with almost everyone on that list of attendees, save for the directors from the other State sites, but somehow I felt a little left out. Just like everyone else, it was a name next to a bulleted list, only indicative of the number of people in attendence. I look at the list and thought, "hmmm I'm the only one on the list not having had the 8+ years of higher education." And although I should be completely proud of having finished my college education, I feel like in present society, it just isn't enough to have the 4 years after high school. In 2007, 4 years in college is like the new 4 years in high school. It seems like 4 years in graduate school is what people would equate to what is 4 years in undergrad some 10-20 years ago.
So what is it about being called a "doctor" that makes it seem so legitimate that one has made it in society? I'm not sure I know the answer to that, but it rings a bell. Like everything else in society, a title is that confirmation. Without one, it's like you're just one in a million stamped with a barcode. It's like a necessary distinction to say to the world, "look! here I am! I'm accomplished!". Yet at the same time, I wonder why it is that we need that justification? Is it not enough that we've accomplished what we have, to the best of our ability? Why is it that we need to make accomplishments in line with society's standards? Why does it matter?
I guess it's not just titles of the jobs I'm talking about, but titles in general, why do we need titles, for reassurance? for confirmation? so we know that we're on the right track? It is a contradictory sense of dependence, that although we live in a society full of what they would call freedom, independence and an ability to move up and down the social ladder, we're dependent on everyone else to get us where we need to go. It's funny how the world works so circularly.
Then, it hits me! I'm the only name on the list without an M.D., M.S., M.A., M.P.H., or M.Ed. following behind. I've met and worked with almost everyone on that list of attendees, save for the directors from the other State sites, but somehow I felt a little left out. Just like everyone else, it was a name next to a bulleted list, only indicative of the number of people in attendence. I look at the list and thought, "hmmm I'm the only one on the list not having had the 8+ years of higher education." And although I should be completely proud of having finished my college education, I feel like in present society, it just isn't enough to have the 4 years after high school. In 2007, 4 years in college is like the new 4 years in high school. It seems like 4 years in graduate school is what people would equate to what is 4 years in undergrad some 10-20 years ago.
So what is it about being called a "doctor" that makes it seem so legitimate that one has made it in society? I'm not sure I know the answer to that, but it rings a bell. Like everything else in society, a title is that confirmation. Without one, it's like you're just one in a million stamped with a barcode. It's like a necessary distinction to say to the world, "look! here I am! I'm accomplished!". Yet at the same time, I wonder why it is that we need that justification? Is it not enough that we've accomplished what we have, to the best of our ability? Why is it that we need to make accomplishments in line with society's standards? Why does it matter?
I guess it's not just titles of the jobs I'm talking about, but titles in general, why do we need titles, for reassurance? for confirmation? so we know that we're on the right track? It is a contradictory sense of dependence, that although we live in a society full of what they would call freedom, independence and an ability to move up and down the social ladder, we're dependent on everyone else to get us where we need to go. It's funny how the world works so circularly.
Tuesday, April 17
Apr 17, 2007
So casual relationships... when two people choose to enter a casual relationship, in a scenario where a friendship was formed first, does that demean either one of those people? Or in a second scenario where two people were in a very intimate, and serious relationship, decided they were better as friends, and then hooked up, does that change the dynamic of the first question?
My opinion is that casual relationships are demeaning, if both people agree on the path of the relationship, there is respect coming rom both parties, but what happens when there is no verbal agreement? Does that mean that there is a violation of some rite? And I am aware of the conscious debauchery that takes place in college settings, but are those people able to perform on that same level, without the alcohol to push them along? IS alcohol being used as an excuse for unwarranted behavior?
I've always believed that people say and do things that they would otherwise think twice or thrice about, but under the influence, they're entirely uninhibited. And I do stand by that, but what I'm wondering is... does society set a standard for moral conduct in terms of the way people have relationships, or casual relationships? And is the only way to do as one pleases, while still fulfilling society's standards, to use alcohol as an excuse?
I'm not sure what my stance on it is really, I do think that society has changed a lot in terms of economy, and technological advances, but when it comes to morals and ideals, they seem to have stagnated in the early 1900s. You'd think that with all these advances, some things would become more acceptable, but really mindsets don't change much, do they?
My opinion is that casual relationships are demeaning, if both people agree on the path of the relationship, there is respect coming rom both parties, but what happens when there is no verbal agreement? Does that mean that there is a violation of some rite? And I am aware of the conscious debauchery that takes place in college settings, but are those people able to perform on that same level, without the alcohol to push them along? IS alcohol being used as an excuse for unwarranted behavior?
I've always believed that people say and do things that they would otherwise think twice or thrice about, but under the influence, they're entirely uninhibited. And I do stand by that, but what I'm wondering is... does society set a standard for moral conduct in terms of the way people have relationships, or casual relationships? And is the only way to do as one pleases, while still fulfilling society's standards, to use alcohol as an excuse?
I'm not sure what my stance on it is really, I do think that society has changed a lot in terms of economy, and technological advances, but when it comes to morals and ideals, they seem to have stagnated in the early 1900s. You'd think that with all these advances, some things would become more acceptable, but really mindsets don't change much, do they?
Apr 7, 2007
When the shooter was still unidentified, there's little question that people assumed that he fit a certain profile. We jump to conclusions , and then are left with the shock that he's not what we had expected. I guess the question to ask ourselves is why at the age of 23 would someone feel that his life is so bad that he has no other options. And then you have to question why it is that the Korean students are banning together for support.
The shooter was described as a "loner", was this a choice, or did he not have other options? Then you have to question the demographic of the student population at the university, and the respective demographic in the surrounding community. Were the victims in the shooting entirely random? Or is there a pattern, that although seemed random, fit a certain criteria?
What it boils down to is what in society has caused people at such a young age to feel the need to act so violently towards others.
Although it is good to be well informed, when does broadcasting go too far? Is it really necessary to refer back to Colombine to show the severity of the event? Part of me feels that the constant reminder causes more harm than help, because although something like Colombine is just a sign of the troubles that have befallen our teens, it is also providing an example for others to "follow". It seems like it is time to reevaluate our society for all that it thinks it is doing for the people.
The shooter was described as a "loner", was this a choice, or did he not have other options? Then you have to question the demographic of the student population at the university, and the respective demographic in the surrounding community. Were the victims in the shooting entirely random? Or is there a pattern, that although seemed random, fit a certain criteria?
What it boils down to is what in society has caused people at such a young age to feel the need to act so violently towards others.
Although it is good to be well informed, when does broadcasting go too far? Is it really necessary to refer back to Colombine to show the severity of the event? Part of me feels that the constant reminder causes more harm than help, because although something like Colombine is just a sign of the troubles that have befallen our teens, it is also providing an example for others to "follow". It seems like it is time to reevaluate our society for all that it thinks it is doing for the people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)