This is what I like to see: people sitting in a room with one another that probably, under normal circumstances, wouldn't sit in the same room. Pharrell Williams is interviewing people on a show called Artst Tlk on a network called the Reserve Channel, which is in itself cool because it gives a people who wouldn't normally have talk/TV shows the opportunity to have a TV show. Pharrell sits with two guess each episode and they dialog about their ideas, their work, what motivated them to get started, what keeps them going, and the philosophies behind their ideals. Insight into other great people's lives is always amazing... but this is the type of amazing we need. Not just the random and/or ignorance that reality TV plays up; we also need insight into the intellectual and artistic side of people's minds as well. I like what Pharrell is doing. Check out one of the videos after the jump and enjoy.
Pharrell Williams - ARTST TLK
This is what I like to see: people sitting in a room with one another that probably, under normal circumstances, wouldn't sit in the same room. Pharrell Williams is interviewing people on a show called Artst Tlk on a network called the Reserve Channel, which is in itself cool because it gives a people who wouldn't normally have talk/TV shows the opportunity to have a TV show. Pharrell sits with two guess each episode and they dialog about their ideas, their work, what motivated them to get started, what keeps them going, and the philosophies behind their ideals. Insight into other great people's lives is always amazing... but this is the type of amazing we need. Not just the random and/or ignorance that reality TV plays up; we also need insight into the intellectual and artistic side of people's minds as well. I like what Pharrell is doing. Check out one of the videos after the jump and enjoy.
Politics and the economy and stuff...
Normally I don't talk politics... cause I hate it and the online dialog about it typically causes all types of racial nastiness. I honestly think all the debates sound like those elementary debates where our peers at the time would get up on the podium in the school cafeteria and promise pizza everyday and an extra hour's worth of recess. They were willing to say ANYTHING to get the gain the people's support.
Things haven't changed much since we've hit the adult world.
Those same people are still promising things that they don't have the power to control in order to get a vote (evident in President Obama's Presidency more than any other I can remember; the republicans handicapped almost every move he tried to make.) A vote that only "kinda" matters sometimes (example: see the George Bush incident in 2000 when he lost the popular vote but won over the electoral college).
But I had a thought process sparked while I was in line to vote...
A gentlemen who was not much further ahead of me in line was speaking with this lady and he caught my attention because he said something about the democratic party. Now, before I go on, let me set this encounter up: I had been playing this game where I had been trying to guess who was a democrat and who was a republican based on their disposition and how their jewelry looked. I would look at their papers to try to confirm. I know... it was shallow, but I was bored. Anyway, I look at this guy and I honestly couldn't really tell by looking at him. Looked like a cool guy in his mid forties. Didn't have on any jewelry that I could remember. The only thing that may have gave him away was his hair. His hair looked like he was two days removed from an Esquire shoot. Not perfect but done just enough to make me think "this fella pays extra for this... and he goes twice a week". I look down at his paper - Republican... So when I hear him say "Now, the Democratic party...." I'm expecting to hear slander, as I had heard elsewhere in the line by other Republicans, but he surprised me...
He began to talk about the GDP of the USA and how, every time the US of A is under Republican control, GDP has gone down and how the notion of the "trickle down" economy doesn't really work. He was against having someone run the nation like a corporation. He said that owner's of corporations care most about one thing: the bottom line... and if they can find a way to only pay somebody 5 dollars a week to get a job done, they will do it. Honestly, this is nothing that we haven't heard before from any Democratic/President Obama supporter, but it was when he started talking about his own personal business that I had my thoughts stirred up.
This guys says that he owns his own business; he has several employees. And while he's talking, he asked the lady a rhetorical question. He say's "If they make it so that I can get more money, but the demand isn't there, why would I hire more people?! I'm not gonna hire anybody if the demand isn't there." And inside of me a light bulb came on... and I began to think about the bailouts and how ALL of the mega wealthy people went on trips and took vacations, etc... I remembered the story of the how the guy got paid MILLIONS to close down several Home Depot Expo... and then I made it personal and I asked myself a question...
I said to myself: Self?
Myself said: Huh?
I said: If I already had a well running, very efficient business that, somehow, began gaining substantially more profits, why would would I go hire more people? Without additional demand, what would those people do? Why would I hire people to do NOTHING? I wouldn't... I would pocket that money. I may give some to the employees currently there... maybe... since it does make business sense to keep them happy... but I'm not hiring new people just to give them money while they sit on the clock and twiddle their thumbs. Why would I?! Just to say I'm helping the jobs market?! That doesn't really make business sense to me; not when I would get the same effect donating to the charity of my choice. At least that way I would have yet another tax write off at the end of the year. (sidenote: I'm not that cold-hearted. I'm just trying to think logically like I think a corporation would think.) Thinking as a corporation, there is just no way that I would just GIVE money to people to do absolutely nothing since I don't have any work for them to do. And I know what you're thinking... "if you gave them a job, they would have money and more demand would be there." This is true. BUT it is also dependent on EVERY corporation operating the same way. Meaning... you have to get the likes of Donald Trump to stop telling people that they're fired and tell him he is going to have to hire people that he has no use for whatsoever. There would have to be a significant amount of businesses operating the same way and giving people jobs for any amount of new demand to even be significant enough to matter.
Here's the truth as far as my eyes can see: People with lower income are the spenders; this is majority of your consumer base. Higher income people are the investors and savers. At the end of the day we need BOTH the rich investors and the lower income consumers to have at least SOME sort of income. Investors are needed to keep new businesses afloat... but without the consumers there would be no need for the new businesses at all.
In my opinion, gasoline prices caused the issues. $300 a month in gas became like another big ticket purchase that many couldn't afford since they were already living check to check. It was gas that made food prices go up and once the food prices went up, the rest was history. "Broke" people had decisions to make: Buy this new TV/pair of shoes/house/car... or eat. If they cure the prices of stuff we must consume (gas, bread, eggs, milk, etc.) so that they are no longer ridiculous, people will have more money to blow on stupid stuff. Consumers go up, demand goes up. Demand goes up, new hires go up. New hires go up, consumers go up. It's the circle of economic life.
(Sidenote: It's a global economy. It's a good idea to vote based on the person you feel has the best foreign policy because, if the other nations stop working with us... well... let's just hope other nations don't stop working with us... we don't want to see that happen.)
Things haven't changed much since we've hit the adult world.
Those same people are still promising things that they don't have the power to control in order to get a vote (evident in President Obama's Presidency more than any other I can remember; the republicans handicapped almost every move he tried to make.) A vote that only "kinda" matters sometimes (example: see the George Bush incident in 2000 when he lost the popular vote but won over the electoral college).
But I had a thought process sparked while I was in line to vote...
A gentlemen who was not much further ahead of me in line was speaking with this lady and he caught my attention because he said something about the democratic party. Now, before I go on, let me set this encounter up: I had been playing this game where I had been trying to guess who was a democrat and who was a republican based on their disposition and how their jewelry looked. I would look at their papers to try to confirm. I know... it was shallow, but I was bored. Anyway, I look at this guy and I honestly couldn't really tell by looking at him. Looked like a cool guy in his mid forties. Didn't have on any jewelry that I could remember. The only thing that may have gave him away was his hair. His hair looked like he was two days removed from an Esquire shoot. Not perfect but done just enough to make me think "this fella pays extra for this... and he goes twice a week". I look down at his paper - Republican... So when I hear him say "Now, the Democratic party...." I'm expecting to hear slander, as I had heard elsewhere in the line by other Republicans, but he surprised me...
He began to talk about the GDP of the USA and how, every time the US of A is under Republican control, GDP has gone down and how the notion of the "trickle down" economy doesn't really work. He was against having someone run the nation like a corporation. He said that owner's of corporations care most about one thing: the bottom line... and if they can find a way to only pay somebody 5 dollars a week to get a job done, they will do it. Honestly, this is nothing that we haven't heard before from any Democratic/President Obama supporter, but it was when he started talking about his own personal business that I had my thoughts stirred up.
This guys says that he owns his own business; he has several employees. And while he's talking, he asked the lady a rhetorical question. He say's "If they make it so that I can get more money, but the demand isn't there, why would I hire more people?! I'm not gonna hire anybody if the demand isn't there." And inside of me a light bulb came on... and I began to think about the bailouts and how ALL of the mega wealthy people went on trips and took vacations, etc... I remembered the story of the how the guy got paid MILLIONS to close down several Home Depot Expo... and then I made it personal and I asked myself a question...
I said to myself: Self?
Myself said: Huh?
I said: If I already had a well running, very efficient business that, somehow, began gaining substantially more profits, why would would I go hire more people? Without additional demand, what would those people do? Why would I hire people to do NOTHING? I wouldn't... I would pocket that money. I may give some to the employees currently there... maybe... since it does make business sense to keep them happy... but I'm not hiring new people just to give them money while they sit on the clock and twiddle their thumbs. Why would I?! Just to say I'm helping the jobs market?! That doesn't really make business sense to me; not when I would get the same effect donating to the charity of my choice. At least that way I would have yet another tax write off at the end of the year. (sidenote: I'm not that cold-hearted. I'm just trying to think logically like I think a corporation would think.) Thinking as a corporation, there is just no way that I would just GIVE money to people to do absolutely nothing since I don't have any work for them to do. And I know what you're thinking... "if you gave them a job, they would have money and more demand would be there." This is true. BUT it is also dependent on EVERY corporation operating the same way. Meaning... you have to get the likes of Donald Trump to stop telling people that they're fired and tell him he is going to have to hire people that he has no use for whatsoever. There would have to be a significant amount of businesses operating the same way and giving people jobs for any amount of new demand to even be significant enough to matter.
Here's the truth as far as my eyes can see: People with lower income are the spenders; this is majority of your consumer base. Higher income people are the investors and savers. At the end of the day we need BOTH the rich investors and the lower income consumers to have at least SOME sort of income. Investors are needed to keep new businesses afloat... but without the consumers there would be no need for the new businesses at all.
In my opinion, gasoline prices caused the issues. $300 a month in gas became like another big ticket purchase that many couldn't afford since they were already living check to check. It was gas that made food prices go up and once the food prices went up, the rest was history. "Broke" people had decisions to make: Buy this new TV/pair of shoes/house/car... or eat. If they cure the prices of stuff we must consume (gas, bread, eggs, milk, etc.) so that they are no longer ridiculous, people will have more money to blow on stupid stuff. Consumers go up, demand goes up. Demand goes up, new hires go up. New hires go up, consumers go up. It's the circle of economic life.
(Sidenote: It's a global economy. It's a good idea to vote based on the person you feel has the best foreign policy because, if the other nations stop working with us... well... let's just hope other nations don't stop working with us... we don't want to see that happen.)
LUV - The Movie
And so we have something to cheer for.... Introducing LUV - starring Common. LUV might actually be love worthy. The trailer seems like it could shape up to be one of those memorable films in the black community. Let's just hope the character development is good and the plot of story isn't too simple (I'd honestly like to see more depth in the characters and stories of more black films... Maybe that's just me though). At any rate... The homeboy hipped me to this and I thought it would be good for the people of 713street to see... So I posted it. Watch below and enjoy.
The Smartglass App by Microsoft
Hey man... Microsoft might be onto something with this "Smartglass" app... I think this is something that I would really enjoy having on my phone and tablet (whenever I get one). It basically connects phones, tablets and Xbox 360s like one seamless device. See the video below to see how it operates.
You can visit the official Smartglass web page for even more details by clicking here.
The Interview Period
Celibacy and abstinence - two very real words and two of the more difficult topics to tackle by young males. Why am I talking about it, you ask? Well... Not long ago I was dealing with a young lady who didn't quite understand my hesitation and then decline of her sexual advance. It put a strain on our "friendship" (and I use that term very loosely) and we never recovered. At the time of her "offering" I had known her just about 4 days. I told her it was too soon and I don't sleep with strangers. I know a lot guys would have taken advantage but, say what you want to, the decision I made was safe and it's smart. Anyway, I was telling my homeboy about it and, after I gave him the full story he says "Oohhhh no! If we are looking for long term, that's somethin you RUN from!" To which I replied: "Exactly. And that's exactly what I ended up doing." But I don't think she looked at things the same way...
Here's my issue...
People use sex too often as a tool to help convince somebody (who may not be all that interested in them) that they are a good "investment" - if can use that terminology. As a male, I want sex..... but as a MAN I want to be able to make an accurate judgement on who I want to be in relationship with without "but her (insert term for female sex organ) so GOOD THO!" being a determining factor that tips the scales in her favor when I really need to look at the fact that this girl (for example) is mentally and emotionally unstable with substance abuse issues and has been flexing with her credit card so she won't look broke; only to have to check her once we start officially dating and she becomes sadly mistaken that HER debt and inability to maintain any type of budget is automatically my problem. That wasn't a real situation for me... but it's a very real situation; so high off of the sex that you can't see that the person you're foolin around with is someone who needs to be in a straight jacket with a padded room.
Sex was never meant to be used as a "tool" to keep; in my eyes, it should be the ultimate prize for the commitment you make to one another based on the "worthiness" that you prove over time with your CHARACTER. You attract with your looks. You keep with character. You reward permanent serious commitment with sex. Truthfully and honestly, the only way to be 100% ALMOST sure, is to be married (I say almost because some people don't even take that seriously these days). Sleeping with somebody within a week puts you in prime contention to be elected as a jump off... and a "jump off" will be just that - treated like a harlot with no hope of ever being the wife (or "wifey" for that matter). The way I think now, if I don't have what I deem as a serious, committed relationship, I will abstain from sex. The fact that I'm a mature adult who has had enough meaningless "sessions" drove me to think "it's best we part ways before we waste anymore of each other's time".
But I wonder.... Is this common knowledge? Does Generation Y get that, for the most part, sex during week 1 doesn't typically lead to anything meaningful? I want to say yes... I want to say that majority of us have some type of understanding that, if you don't build some form of relational foundation, the house will fall during the first storm... but I just can't. True enough, there are exceptions to the rule. I know of one couple who says they slept together on the first night, moved in with each other shortly after, eventually got married and have been "happily" married for several years... but I would imagine that that wife sleeps with one eye open. In order to avoid the "hoetic hoetry" known as infidelity, she needs to stay on point. All her energy has to be focused on keeping his eyes from wandering and who wants to live like that? (Honestly, based on what I've been hearing from the horror stories of the friends of homeboys, he might need to sleep with one eye open too! I know of TWO situations where women have cheated on men and came home with another man's baby in their belly. Not only did you cheat but, no protection?! Come on son... SMH.)
The longer I live, the more I observe that relationships built on lust typically die the same way. I have seen SO MANY relationships (and marriages) die because of infidelity, which is basically just a complete lack of self control. But I wonder... Has "lust at first sight" become the new norm? Have women just adapted to the fact that men want sex and caved to the pressures built by today's sexually driven society or are the situations I've seen, heard and dealt with the exception to the rule? Somebody please let me know. And understand that, for the sake of the argument, I don't even have to take it as far waiting until marriage; I get that majority of humans don't have the discipline to wait that long, but am I being unrealistic to expect you to wait until I'm sure I even want you around when the new year rolls around?!
This can't be it.
I just won't believe it.
I gotta interview you before I practice baby making with you (especially since sometimes during the practice you get that interruption to your regularly scheduled program where you are notified that this is not a test, i.e. birth controls that aint controlling and condoms that ain't "condom-ing"). My kid can't be stupid or crazy (or too ugly for that matter) and neither can his/her mother... And 4 days just aint long enough for me to make proper judgement. But maybe that's just me...
Meet Clyde Moonshine
This is Clyde... Clyde Moonshine. He makes music. The CD might be something like the music you would expect a Marvin Gaye, Andre 3000 and Rick James collaboration to sound like in this new millenium. You should listen to the track below and purchase his project by clicking on the large photo at the bottom. If you like music, you might actually enjoy it.
CLICK THE COVER
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)