iKnow :) that I havent posted a blog in awhile. But that's probably because: 1) I havent really had anything I thought worth saying; 2) I've been spending more time on Facebook as an outlet; and 3) I go through phases from compulsive to abandonement.
Anyway, the iPhone. I think I'm going to get it when the new version comes out in June. The 3 main reasons that I didn't get it so far are: 1) Everyone has it and I hate jumping into something everyone has/does. It's sheepish; 2) I thought, at least to me, that it's bulky and slightly too heavy; and 3) I have been with Verizon for almost 15 years now and it's hard to sever that tie. It's one of the longest 'relationships' that I have had. Btw, I don't think that I own or have anything in my apt. that old.
BUT the more and more that I see some of my friends use the iPhone, the more I want it. The convenience of it all is winning me over. 1) Surfing the internet is as easy as surfing on a PC (bloggin from it will be just as easy too); 2) One can jump to Facebook and post things in seconds; 3) there are fantastic apps. like Shazaam (e.g. if one is at a bar or a lounge and wants to know what they're playing at the moment, one just clicks on the Shazaam app. and within a minute, the app. tells you what song it is and you can just download it from the iTunes store if one wants it. Instant gratification! It's so American in that way.) and there are games, guides (e.g. Zagat), tip calculator, etc. that are either free or at most $5.99.
I still like my phone with a qwerty keyboard since 95% of the time I text vs. actually talking and a physical qwerty is convenient. Nevertheless, the overall convenience of the iPhone seems to me now pressing and insurmountable.
So, when the new iPhone comes out in June, I am most likely going to get on the bandwagon. I can't wait!
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
On Gay Marriage
First off, let me say that I am a 'straight' guy. But I am all for gay marriage. I didn't always think this way. In fact, up to a couple of years ago, my thinking was that same sex unions should only be called civil unions with all the rights of a marriage. But without granting the word 'marriage.' The word 'marriage' I concluded then has a sacred connotation, and thus, the institution of marriage with the sacrement of the church should only apply to a hetrosexual union on the basis of religious tradition which has lasted for close to 2,000 years.
But then I thought: 1) nowhere in the Bible does it say that people of the same sex can not be married; 2) the Bible, which is supposedly inspired by God, was nevertheless, written by men, who are by nature flawed and subjective and there's also the histrocity aspect of the Bible, that is, what they wrote depended alot on the times in which they wrote and the prevailing mores of those times just as slavery was the norm in Roman times and the same in America in the 17th and 18th century; 3) the Bill of Rights, clearly states that we have inalienable rights among which are, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The ban on gay marriage violates the latter two rights.
So, I reversed my opinion on the entire matter. All people: gay, straight, handicapped, ethinicities, etc. are all human, and therefore, the inalienable rights apply to all.
I still believe that marriage is sacred. It is a solemn oath and duty once the bond/the covenant is made. But I don't believe that the principles and the sentiments of and for the sacred comes from the Church alone. In fact, the Church, in many ways is a flawed institution, not all but many. People interpret the Bible as they deem right. Thus, we have the diaspora of denominations and offsprouts within the denominations. Why should their interpretation of the Bible trump any other human interpretation of morality.
People should rise above religion and instead behave compassionately, empathetically, sympathetically, rationally, and spiritually.
Kepler, Corpernicus, and Galilleo were all excommunicated by the Church because they observed and said that the earth rotates around the sun vs. the other way around. The Church, based on one verse from the Book of Joshua stoodfast to the view that the sun rotated around the Earth and thus any other view was considered heresy. Then in the 20th century, the Church apologized for its error.
The one and only thing I like about the Bible is the love that Jesus extended to all people (except for the hypocrites like the Pharisses and the Seducces whose egos eclipsed compassion).
So, cheers! to Iowa and Vermont for choosing love and reason over hate and dogma.
But then I thought: 1) nowhere in the Bible does it say that people of the same sex can not be married; 2) the Bible, which is supposedly inspired by God, was nevertheless, written by men, who are by nature flawed and subjective and there's also the histrocity aspect of the Bible, that is, what they wrote depended alot on the times in which they wrote and the prevailing mores of those times just as slavery was the norm in Roman times and the same in America in the 17th and 18th century; 3) the Bill of Rights, clearly states that we have inalienable rights among which are, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The ban on gay marriage violates the latter two rights.
So, I reversed my opinion on the entire matter. All people: gay, straight, handicapped, ethinicities, etc. are all human, and therefore, the inalienable rights apply to all.
I still believe that marriage is sacred. It is a solemn oath and duty once the bond/the covenant is made. But I don't believe that the principles and the sentiments of and for the sacred comes from the Church alone. In fact, the Church, in many ways is a flawed institution, not all but many. People interpret the Bible as they deem right. Thus, we have the diaspora of denominations and offsprouts within the denominations. Why should their interpretation of the Bible trump any other human interpretation of morality.
People should rise above religion and instead behave compassionately, empathetically, sympathetically, rationally, and spiritually.
Kepler, Corpernicus, and Galilleo were all excommunicated by the Church because they observed and said that the earth rotates around the sun vs. the other way around. The Church, based on one verse from the Book of Joshua stoodfast to the view that the sun rotated around the Earth and thus any other view was considered heresy. Then in the 20th century, the Church apologized for its error.
The one and only thing I like about the Bible is the love that Jesus extended to all people (except for the hypocrites like the Pharisses and the Seducces whose egos eclipsed compassion).
So, cheers! to Iowa and Vermont for choosing love and reason over hate and dogma.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Ode To Manhattan
As much as I complain and bitch about Manhattan and how many low lives that I find here at any moment, I must forfeit my complaints from time to time.
It is true that I am sure that 98% of the people that I see and have encountered here are peasants with accompanying low forehead and flip flops and all, I don't think that there is another city on this planet, that in absolute terms (#s), that has as many interesting and diverse group of people.
Other than S.F., New Orleans, Chicago, London, Paris, Honolulu, Sydney, Barcelona, Montreal, Monte Carlo, and Hong Kong, I can't imagine living anywhere else. Nowhere else (I would think) has the same level of energy, diversity, and modernity.
In Manhattan, there is nothing that one can not have. Food, shopping, clubs, lounges, hotels, people, culture, and possibilties.
It's true that if one does enough of it, it does become a routine and routines can become boring. But we Manhattanites have the choice to not participate amidst all of the choices at any given day and night. What other cities (besides the aforementioned) can one say this about? Manhattan ranks on top.
S.F. would be the closest to this. Plus it has the better weather and better access to nature. Kudos to S.F. But may the gods bless Manhattan. My Salome; my sweet toxic love.
It is true that I am sure that 98% of the people that I see and have encountered here are peasants with accompanying low forehead and flip flops and all, I don't think that there is another city on this planet, that in absolute terms (#s), that has as many interesting and diverse group of people.
Other than S.F., New Orleans, Chicago, London, Paris, Honolulu, Sydney, Barcelona, Montreal, Monte Carlo, and Hong Kong, I can't imagine living anywhere else. Nowhere else (I would think) has the same level of energy, diversity, and modernity.
In Manhattan, there is nothing that one can not have. Food, shopping, clubs, lounges, hotels, people, culture, and possibilties.
It's true that if one does enough of it, it does become a routine and routines can become boring. But we Manhattanites have the choice to not participate amidst all of the choices at any given day and night. What other cities (besides the aforementioned) can one say this about? Manhattan ranks on top.
S.F. would be the closest to this. Plus it has the better weather and better access to nature. Kudos to S.F. But may the gods bless Manhattan. My Salome; my sweet toxic love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
