Wednesday, November 2, 2011
I've Got a Little List (of Gratitude)
My friend Lucy initiated an advent calendar of gratitude for November, and I decided to participate as well. I'll update this about every five days.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Today's Special: 6 Business Ideas (for FREE!)
I have often thought about starting my own business. Within five minutes, though, I am so overwhelmed with the thought of dealing with bureaucracy that my dreams are forever smashed. Besides, I would need another person to deal with the actual business side, the part with the numbers, quarterly sales meetings, deals, and so on, because I'm more of an idea/big picture person. My creativity is more for the product itself, not it's marketing.
Before I start listing ideas, I think it is important to define the state of the world and what it needs at the moment. Anyone can conceive of a coffee house, but do we really need more overpriced drinks and brownies so large they look like they devoured other brownies? We must avoid "bubble companies," places like cupcakeries and Pop-Tart delicatessens which piggy-back on economic bubbles, for once the bubble has popped, so will the company. It is also important to note that the world is not America. Much of it is still only developing or lower, so what might seem run of the mill here could be a real innovation elsewhere. This means that while competition here and in Europe is dog-eat-dog, one might fit in quite easily elsewhere and quickly become prosperous. Meanwhile, what isn't developing or lower is currently hurting. The future is so dark at the moment for many first-world nations that we can barely see anything past a year, and what we do see is frightening. This is another reason to avoid frivolous things like coffee houses (unless it assured that it could work in your place; I would say, avoid New York City); people will need businesses that provides them essentials (and cheaply). They will also need, however, diversion from all the bleakness. YouTube became wildly successful for providing both, as evidenced by at one moment watching tutorials on using Microsoft Office to cat massaging. This brings me to another point: technology. Who knew we would need iPads? Steve Jobs. Facebook has become one of the most fabulously successful companies around, and in only a decade (its creation was even the basis of a good movie). Google continues its path to gobble up everything (ex. YouTube). Therefore, technology and the internet are great places to work in, if you can (here is where I would definitely be an idea man; I don't know code or how to put together a computer). Also, see if you can provide something for very little or free. The above companies do such, but they make money from other means, such as advertisement. That covers a good deal, and though I could probably point out more concerns, I will just move on to the list.
- Self-publishing: This covers everything from creating the physical book to getting it on shelves (physical or electronic). It is relatively easy to do this these days, without the need of going to some publishing company and praying that some lower level employee won't just stow it away. Companies have arisen that don't care what your book is, but they will create the physical copies for you. Or you could make them yourself. There are now machines one can purchase at a relatively low price and, with a little extra space, one can be a micro-publisher. Then there are e-books, which eliminates the need for any publishing. Get Adobe Acrobat, and you can put finely crafted books online for people to purchase. As a composer, I myself would focus on making sheet music available. Caveat emptor: avoid pricey and ridiculous copyright schemes. Instead, get a Creative Commons license.
- Website of websites: There are so many websites I go to at the moment, and it can be hard to keep track of them all. Something like a blog feed would be nice. However, these sites involve constantly updated information, like new job postings, or the status of an application, or emails, and it would be nice if I had one place to go for it all. I would log on to my account on this meta-website and see all sorts of updated info for job sites, emails from various email accounts, perhaps bills that I pay online. Whatever it is that keep track of online, it could be compiled into one place for me. The problem here is security: that is a lot of information to have available at once, so maybe instead of immediate access, one could log in to each site from this one place. The meta-website can then suggest related websites that might interest the user, enhanced by being connected to one's social website (Facebook, etc.). This could go many ways
- Social networking: It seems like Facebook has the market cornered here, but many people have begun complaining about the many changes it keeps making. Then Google devised Google+, and people have switched over. I do not use Google+, because I have no desire to at the moment and Facebook works just fine for me. However, I bet either site could still be improved upon. Facebook, after all, did completely out do that other site, MySpace, or whatever it's called (does anyone still use that?).
- Jack-of-all-trades: Let's face it, hard times are coming, and the less you have to pay to have something done, the better. So if you can have one person do most of the tasks, then that consolidates your payment. Start a business where you hire people who can do anything and everything, from lawn care to home care, driving someone around, personal care, organizer, planner, and so on. The problem here is that much of this may require state licensing, so unless one can deal with the headaches therein involved, this may not be the best route.
- Personal software developer: Perhaps Hector has a great idea for a computer game, and he can lay out all story lines and characters and such, but has no idea how to go about actually creating it. He's in luck, because your company will work with him to do such. Payment can be before-hand or after the fact, or both, depending on what Hector wants to do with it.
- Generating business ideas: There are two sides here: a.) someone wants to start a company, and maybe has a vague idea of what they want, which you and your team flesh out this person and make a reality; or b.) someone already has a company, but is looking for a way to add more, to branch out, or simply refresh it, so you and your team look at what's going and formulate solutions. Perhaps something like this already exists--I don't know, and I don't really care at the moment. These are just ideas.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Blame
I know a few people who will blame anything and everything but themselves. "I didn't have a good morning because you didn't have coffee made." "I failed my test because the teacher didn't tell us everything that would be on it, and you didn't help me study." And so on. I'm going to make this a short post and say: Try blaming yourself first. This post is inspired by a Facebook debate about the economy and education and Wall Street Occupiers and etc., like many others, and it suddenly struck me that what everyone needed (myself even on occasion) was a hardy slap and to be told to look to thine own faults. Sure, the government is awful and has ruined our economy; Wall Street and other mainstream financial/economists types, supported by the government, has done the dirty work to screw us over; and so on. But I say, are we not all to blame? Has not our common compliance with dictates, has not our common avarice, has not our sense of superiority, our imperial short-sightedness lay the foundation of our current state of affairs? If you want to change the world, start by changing yourself. Large amounts of peoples have made, are making, and will make themselves better because individuals improved their own lot before meddling in the affairs of others. To go to something smaller: are you in a difficult situation? Instead of blaming the shortcomings of others, look to your own and improve them.
End rant.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
The Enemy: Death
The recent execution of the possibly innocent Troy Davis reminds me of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend about execution, and my position then was about what it is now (which I will explain throughout). It shocked me that he, a religious person, believed it to be a necessary element of justice. I thought, and still think, that the main enemy in the Bible is death, hence: the doom of the descendants of Adam and Eve to return to dust; the first crime after leaving Eden is murder (of Abel), and Cain is banished from the Lord; that throughout the Old Testament, thousands are executed because they have forsaken the will of the Lord of Life, and therefore are already dead, their execution merely fulfilling it; the fact that Christianity rests on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ; passages like 1 Corinthians 15:50-57 (or perhaps all of Corinthians); and so much else. I therefore look upon death with great loathing, and wish it on no one.
This includes those who supposedly deserve to die. Execution is (supposedly) the worst punishment available for criminals. But I ask, who orders the sentence, man or God? In the Old Testament, it is presumably Yahweh; but we have no decrees from on high now saying that so-and-so has forfeited his right to life, therefore what little remains is to be taken from him: all we have is the State and Personal Vendettas. I do not trust the State with anything, especially not Life, so I obviously have even less trust in their ability to execute. This is supported by instances like Troy Davis' recent demise, who may or may not have been innocent, but the fact that the question still remained (well, for those outside government its seems) should have put such a finality out of consideration. Likewise, revenge is perhaps an even shakier ground for justice, as vengeance is carried out usually without much consideration for evidence and the like. However, we can punish people who carry justice out on their own, but how do we punish the State when it blunders and murders innocent people? As for the Big Evils, like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, serial killers, etc., the same should hold, because it is how we treat the worst among us that shows how good our best qualities really are. I cannot say that I am not relieved that these men have no more chance to raise Hell on Earth, and like Satan they were Agents of Death, but I still derive no pleasure from their death. In this case, the enemy of my enemy is still my nemesis.
It should be plain by now that death is not my friend; yet, there is much today in the way of praising death for supposedly making life meaningful. I believe it was Freud who advised us to make friends with the necessity of dying. For me, I would change "necessity" to "inevitability." We need not die, but yet we do. To accept this is to realize that our days are short and that we must make the most of them; therefore, people say that death makes us realize the value of life (and the more imminent, the more valuable it becomes). I do not deny this, but ask: do we have a choice? Are presented even once in our lives the chance of immortality? Do we know what it is like to have life into a time without boundaries? Or are we hostages from the cradle to the grave, prisoners of the Inevitable? To accept death is to make do with a situation that we have no option of escaping. I often wonder what it would be like if we all did live forever. Would we be so accepting of death then? Or would we look at it as it should be looked at: the greatest of enemies?
Sunday, September 11, 2011
The Sudden Legend
Recently I've been reading through the Ancient Greek plays (or rereading, as with Euripides' Bacchae); this includes Euripides' Trojan Women, Aristophanes' Lysistrata and Frogs, and Aeschylus' Oresteia Trilogy. All of these, as well as almost all other plays these Greeks wrote, dealt with myths and legends that even at their time in the 5th century B.C. were ancient. However, an event happened that was so monumental that it instantly attained the status of a play-worthy story: the Persian Wars, in which the Greek underdogs defeated the massive forces of Xerxes in humiliating defeat, particularly at one of the most stunning naval victories of all time, the Battle of Salamis. The Greek world was stunned by their triumph. In Athens, the poets and playwrights saw, aside from the greatness of it, what C. John Herington called "a perfect exemplification of the ancient law of hybris-ate; almost, one might dare to say, the incarnation of it, on the grandest conceivable scale." He wrote this in an introduction to Persians, written by Aeschylus only 7-8 years after Salamis, in which he fought. Persians tells of the aftermath of the battle from the view of defeated; it begins with the chorus of Persian regents at Susa, the capital, praising their empire and emperor. Atossa, the queen and Xerxes' mother enters and joins. However, a messenger arrives and delivers the bad news: the Persian navy has been destroyed and the army's morale has been struck a mortal blow, and in their retreat have nearly completely perished from hunger and the elements. There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth, they call forth the ghost of Darius, Xerxes' father and former emperor who had made Persia great, who explains all, and then Xerxes himself enters, completely miserable and humiliated. Of course, Aeschylus would have no way of knowing the inner workings of Susa on that day, or any day really, so the play is mostly imagination playing upon the common tragic theme of that time, overweening pride. Xerxes dared to overcome nature and the gods, and thought that by merely amassing a large force, he could defeat a supposedly inferior people; the gods thought differently.
Now, some two and a half millennia later, we face a similar situation. The disaster of September 11, 2001 has had global consequences, and yet, people in the arts are very wary on how to approach it. Granted, the Greeks who wrote about the Persian Wars were of the victors, so they didn't face the burden of calamity. As a slew of articles today in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch have shown, there is great unease in movies, television, even theatre and literature. Most works include 9/11 slant-wise, sometimes making it seem like we only see the World Trade Center in the distance through a window, or at other times making it the white elephant in the room that everyone feels to reverential about to mention. Some have dealt with it directly: there's United 93, a movie dramatizing the events on the plane and on the ground about the people who courageously but perilously sabotaged one of the missions; there is another movie, World Trade Center, whose title explains enough. I also should mention documentaries, like Fahrenheit 9/11 and Loose Change 9/11, which raised grave questions about practically everything. In music, the composer John Adams was commissioned to write a commemorative work, and produced On the Transmigration of Souls, which is shattering, and Steve Reich wrote a string quartet called WTC 9/11, which faced controversy recently for the album's cover art. This particular controversy is endemic of what seems to be the large problem, which is: what is proper? Where is the line between reverence and sacrilege, the line between mere truth and too much? 9/11 has become a sudden legend; the truth about the events of that day, as well as its cause and effect, have already entered the foggy realm between objective truth and metaphorical truth, as well as being corrupted by official lies and common prejudices. But unlike the joyous victory for the Greeks that were the Battle of Salamis and the Persian Wars, 9/11 was a disastrous defeat for the whole world, and we are all burdened with that question of what is proper, so until we figure out our stance, we can only tell the truth slant, if there remains any truth by the time we feel comfortable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)