What's the next big thing?

Earlier this afternoon when I logged into my Netflix to continue my obsession with their original series House of Cards, I noticed something interesting. "Who are you?" they asked, with a profile picture of a teal face with my fathers name at the bottom. Their new feature, enables people like me--who share a netflix account with others in a family, to create sub-profiles to organize content. I love this idea! In a family of six who share the same account, it can be daunting to find what I previously watched or what matches my interests. My younger sisters watch the most, preferring to watch Dora the explorer or disney favorites (whose names I don't know). As a result, most of the t.v shows that show up in the preferred list, cater to their interests. When I don't know what to watch and try and find out what's new, this can be difficult.

Netflix has been great at reinventing itself, from this new feature to their original shows including the previously mentioned House of Cards as well as another, Hemlock Grove--they know how to keep things "hot." But what about other industries that lag in innovation? Today an article off of Yahoo (there's one company that knows how to rise from the ashes!), talked about the "boringness," of Apple. I've been a huge Apple fan ever since I was a kid, when the Iphone was first touted at the Macworld convention by Steve Jobs in 2007--I was enthralled. I knew I had to get this new hip device, that would not only be my cellphone, but my ipod, and would later become my internet on the go. Today, with a new Iphone out every fall you would think that Apple would reinvent itself each time. Instead, they're boring. The Iphone 5 looks sleek, its longer and slim--but its no different than the Iphone 4S that came out a year previously. Frankly, it doesn't have the same sort of appeal the Iphones had when they were first unveiled. Or even, a few years after that when I finally had enough money to buy the Iphone.

I now wonder what Apple will do, will it stagnate and become unmentioned, or will it too rise out of the ashes? This makes me wonder about other technological advances, or innovation in general. Is the world simply having a hard time with peering into the future of technology? Perhaps its the fault of a lack of leadership, Steve Jobs was credited with a lot of Apple's success and Tim Cook isn't a particularly creative individual. Perhaps it won't be Apple, but another company that hooks us all into the next big thing. Could it be Google's new goggles? --Kat

Hello again world!

I'm not as consistent as I would like to be, which is why keeping up with a blog is like running thru molasses on a hot day. I'm also constantly changing as a person, which makes me curious/scared about going thru the back posts for this blog. Can we just ignore what I said about past guys I liked, and indigo children set to rule the world this year? Because I'm pretty sure the latter isn't happening. I've now come back to talk about a subject that relates to me: child free mothers.

Jezebel has an article on it here that discusses a recent Time article on whether or not having "it all" means not having children.

According to Time, "A 2010 Pew Research report showed that childlessness has risen across all racial and ethnic groups, adding up to about 1 in 5 American women who end their childbearing years maternity-free, compared with 1 in 10 in the 1970s." Last semester I took a class on marriage and family that told the same story, that women are choosing to not have children in increasing numbers. Their reasons are many, some may be due to overpopulation concerns, wanting to focus on career instead of family, children aren't for them etc etc.

Like a lot of my opinions (and probably yours too) they are evolving ideas that do not force their way in, but instead sit and drink tea for awhile before making themselves known. I don't remember when I decided that children aren't for me. I've had a tumultuous childhood that I have known for years would be difficult to not impart on a precocious young mind. I have realized that a career is more important to me. I have taken a class that told me, not only would over $100,000 be spent on a child throughout its lifetime--but a marriage would be unhinged with the arrival of a child. My parents have four children, and I have watched my mother struggle to raise all of us, as well as my sister who has cerebral palsy and cannot take care of herself--enough to know that its hard work. I have watched enough children, changed enough diapers and been around them enough to realize that the benefits do not outweigh the costs. I do not see children as wonderful beings that will inspire my life, I see them as little human beings that will poop and cause me stress, and then grow up into teenagers that hate my existence. Not for me.

I have yet to be judged for not having children, instead that (if it happens) will probably show up once I'm married (if that happens) and my peers are already planning to wed our children together. There is an assumption in our culture, permeated by centuries of the patriarchy that women are here solely for being vessels to care for children. The first wave of feminism challenged the idea that women belonged in the home, and championed for the right for women to enter into the workforce. But the assumption that women want and need children is still present in our culture. Time says it best in its article,

"The decision to have a child or not is a private one, but it takes place, in America, in a culture that often equates womanhood with motherhood. Any national discussion about the struggle to reconcile womanhood with modernity tends to begin and end with one subject: parenting. . . The Weekly Standard's Jonathan V. Last has made the case in his controversial book What to Expect When No One's Expecting that the selfishness of the childless American endangers our economic future by reducing the number of consumers and taxpayers."

I was raised in a home in which it was expected for me to have children, but also expected to go to school and hold a career. Its for this reason, that the notion of "having it all," always seemed like no big deal to me. I figured I could simultaneously go to college, meet my husband, get married, have kids and begin my political or business career all at the same time. But the older I've gotten, the more I've realized that its a lot more difficult than that. Our culture has always had a difficult time accepting a variety of life choices, instead the heternormative view is seen as "normal," and rational. Anything outside of a straight marriage, children or wanting to excel in a career by rising thru the corporate ladder--seem odd and strange to a lot of people. Its disheartening, that someone would call the choice of not raising children as "selfish." To me, after reading Dan Brown's novel Inferno, which centers around global overpopulation--I'm more inclined to believe in the opposite, that not having children will lessen the amount of people who contribute to consumption of natural resources that hurt the earth. Yes, I'm selfish to want to save the planet instead of contributing to the wealth of the 1%.

I've set my mind on being a childless women, despite social pressures, the media and my parents need to be grandparents. Does anyone else feel similar? What are you're reasons to have/not have children?

The Circle of life

I drew a circle today, and put "Me," in the middle of it. Above that however, I drew a pie chart for "1%," then in capital letters wrote beneath "me," "everybody else." Nobody forgets that we live in a society where the 1% rule, its all around us . . . on the news when we see tax cuts for the wealthy, in our grocery stores and malls, and when we see gas prices hike. The lower income families know it, when they can't afford food for their kids. The middle income families feel it, when its all they can do to keep afloat. Finally, the 1% see it, when they look around at their expensive cars, airplanes and homes. They see it when they can hire the top lawyers, lobbyists, and can give massive amounts of money to their favorite candidates.

My circle represents the world we live in, the world in which the 1% can take care of themselves, and the rest of the people can either get by, or not. Three different worlds, three different classes, and three types of people. Its funny, how when were living in the world of "me," we often forget the word, "others." You see it when the republicans call for wealthy tax cuts, and then when the rest of the liberals and democrats call for tax cuts to be abolished. its funny how most of the world looks at the 1%, and says they deserve to be stripped of their wealth, to spread it for everyone else. You know what I call that? Selfishness. But then, those wealthy people look back, and tell the poor people who have lost their homes, lost their jobs--selfish for wanting just a meager thousand for a month. Selfishness again. But, its only the wealthy that are allowed to get called selfish, after all, they have everything they want, why not let them give up a bit of their pie?

Its that delicate balance between who should give the biggest piece of their pie, that politics was created. Competing interests, vying for what they want--and the mixed group of politicians and lobbyists that serve them.

Back to my circle, there's something I realized when i looked at it. If the 1% can take care of themselves, why can't they take care of everybody else? "But wait! The rich cry out, we've earned this 1%, why should we give our hard earned money away?"

Well for one, something I've learned from my philosophy ethics class, they didn't earn it alone, the government helped, thru tax cuts, thru the money it used and gave to public high schools, to colleges. . . no, they didn't do it alone, they all had help, in one way or another.

But there is something those people can claim, they are the innovators--the geniuses, who created the engine. Without them, we wouldn't have shiny toys to show off to the rest of the world, we wouldn't have facebook, we wouldn't have the PS3 or Xbox. We wouldn't have fast cars, and homes built with solar technology. America is a great place to take an idea, and run with it. But those same people need to remember that they are not the only one manning the car. Everybody else are the drivers, they take what they are given and put the car in gear, and go. The top 1% though, still receives all the benefits, an argument could be made that they deserve most of it, but what they need to realize is that they wouldn't have gotten where they are, without everybody else.

Stand out, or stay in?

I'm constantly wrestling with two different sides of myself, and they can both be clearly defined by my astrological sign. Now, I know not many people believe in horoscopes, and astrology isn't just about that. Its about using someone's sun sign to determine someone's traits and basic characteristics. I agree, sometimes people don't act like their sun sign--but for the most part, I've come to realize that's a big indicator. This comes from experience, my sun sign is Aquarius, and the signs in the elements air and fire) are ones that I'm supposed to get a long with, coincidentally these are usually the signs that i find, bring me the best friends. For instance, my best friend is the only person that i feel truly understands me--and her sign is libra, which is the best match for an Aquarius.

Otherwise, I have a lot of good friends that fall under the category of Libra, Sagittarius and gemini. My brother who I am pretty close to, is also a Leo. But enough of that! My point has to do with two warring sides of my personality. In aquarius, there are two planets that rule, which are Saturn and Uranus. (Uranus being the dominant sign) Saturn which rules Capricorn, is more a planet about structure, rules and becoming self disciplined. If you want someone to tell you your wrong, go find a capricorn, they're usually the ones who tell you the truth as they see it.

On the other hand there is Uranus, which is completely opposite. This planet is all about being unconventional, it enjoys resisting authority and marching to the beat of its own drum.

Can you see my problem a bit? I'm constantly having issues with wanting to be my own person, yet caring about what people think, wanting to make people happy. Yet, trying to make sure I stay independent and logical. One thing about me is that I don't have much regard to my emotions, i choose to disobey them and instead follow with my head.

I chose the title, "stand out, or stay in?" because standing out is all about being who I want to be, which means i'm not going to act the way others want me to, how society deems fit. I march to the beat of my own drum. Unfortunately, lately thats been difficult. Because sometimes, the way i look at life, isn't the way others do. So lately, i've felt the heat for my ways of looking at the world. Part of me doesn't care, if someone tells me I'm one thing, well then so be it. It doesn't have to effect me.
However, that mentality is slowly changing, because i keep finding that people look at me differently. I lose people with my lack of tact, my disregard for my own emotions, and my issues with morality.

So then i have an issue of needing to "stay in," but that's hard. Because as much as i want to be able to have my cake, and eat it too--its hard to find the balance. Its difficult staying true to my beliefs, while watching out for eggshells.

It doesn't help that I'm also stubborn, even when i know i should do the right thing--my resistance against authority kicks in, telling me, "why should you obey other people?" I'm trying to find the balance right now, but I guess I'm always going to have a battle with myself.

Hopefully I'll have a solution one of these days.

A few words on a rainy day

My earlier post regarding Sarah Palin hasn't been finished, and there's a few good reasons for that--I'm somewhat bias to her, and in an effort to fully analyze her skills and faults, I need more time. That post may or may not come anytime soon, or i will just write it months before the next election.

I feel the need however, to write about some other issues that have plagued my mind these past few days.

First has to do with nonbelievers and Christmas, something you should know about me, is that I am not a christian, nor do i belong to any other religious affiliation. However, my family strongly believes in the divinity of Jesus, the bible and God. I grew up thinking that Jesus was the only truth, and that christianity was the only religion that was right. But in the past two or so years, i have had a drastic change in thought process.

Anyways, most of my family knows this about me, and my brother. Well, the other day my mother was talking to my grandma and she asked if my moms "older kids were celebrating christmas." My mother, was a bit taken aback, (thank goodness) and asked why my grandmother would say that. Her reply went something like this, "why would they not celebrate jesus and celebrate christmas."

It was a weird moment for me, first of all my first thought was, "guess I'm not getting gifts from nana this year." Secondly, I disliked the view people have that Christmas is strictly a christian holiday. Does anyone remember that december 25th isn't Jesus's real birthday? That the only reason we celebrate during the winter time is because of the pagans? Furthermore, at least in America, christmas is so commercialized. Unless your a believer, your not really going to remember that christmas is a holiday celebrating Jesus. Its become a time to celebrate the winter, a holiday were we give gifts, decorate a tree and tell our kids that Santa is going to bring gifts. Where is Jesus in all of that? Nowhere.

So, it really bugs me that people think of Christmas as a religious holiday, its not just for you guys! Non believers can celebrate too, we like getting presents, decorating trees and believing in a mythical man who comes down our chimney on christmas eve.

Well, thats the end of my rant. Have a Merry Christmas, happy holidays or Happy Hanukkah everyone.

What we didn't know about our government that we know now

I'm going to interrupt my posts about Palin to speak out about the U.S cables that were leaked onto wikileaks yesterday. In actuality, they were not the first and if the Obama Administration does not take serious action soon, they will not be the last.

A lot of sensitive information was released, various diplomats discussed leaders around the globe (in unflattering terms i might add) also and more importantly there were conversations with Arab leaders that urged the United States to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. There was also information about China, namely that their hackers which have been collecting and growing since 2002 were responsible for Google being hacked this past January.

While the release of these documents is a matter of National Security, and there will certainly be a lot of republicans condemning Obama's administration for not taking enough measures to prevent this--I feel as if we must look at this information and realize something very important. We don't understand that many of the things government does, has a reason.

Take Iran, for years people on the sidelines--the ordinary folks, have been crying to end the many wars America has been involved in. Several times during his campaign, Obama discussed his plan to bring home the troops once and for all. I remember when Obama took office in 2009, and his talk about ending the war was halted. If i remember correctly, (i may be wrong) he also discussed sending even more troops out into the fields. Many people were dismayed at this, as was I until i thought of something. We don't know everything, and there's probably some big secret for why were still involved in the war that the government won't tell us--and that Obama just found out, that changed his mind.

Looking at these documents tells us that there is a lot of pressure on our government to stop Iran's nuclear facilities. Its one out of many reasons for why were still fighting, and were not going to quit just yet. What's more, how many other documents are there that would give reason for why our government works the way it is?

We just don't know. But yet, in our naivete and fear we strike against the government, because they have lost our trust. So in the end, we create a problem that could wind up affecting them, in ways that harbor our safety.

Instead of looking at these leaks as another stab at government, we should instead look at them as a reminder that we do not know everything, and that the government does act in our best interest as best as it can. They're like the parent, that knows everything but wont tell us why its wrong to go out at night to that party--or does, but we the children are too stubborn to realize why.

--Kat Vengo

Sarah Palin: Why she is/isn't suited for President.

Were two years past the 2008 Presidential elections, which means in another two years we will be faced with a decision. To keep Obama as our President for the next four years, or elect a republican in. There are many republican names that have been circulating to run against each-other during the primaries, I've heard of a few such as Mitty Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Sarah Palin.

Many people love Sarah Palin, and I can see why. She's a beautiful woman with high energy, she has the enthusiasm of a ring leader, as many people have called her. As a prominent member of the Tea Party, the former governor of Alaska has rounded her "momma grizzlies," and inspired many people. In the news since the 2008 election, when McCain announced her as his VP, Palin has become a household name. But should Sarah Palin take the plunge, and run for President in the next 2012 election? Moreover, if Sarah Palin ran--would she be a suitable President?

First, lets discuss what a President's role in the government is, so that we may figure out what qualities he/she should embody.
Article 2 details some of the Presidents roles, he shall have command of the armed forces, with consent of 2/3 vote from the Senate the President can make treaties, appoint ambassadors and other public offices, and fill up vacancies. And as article two, section three writes "He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."

So what will it take for someone to fulfill all of these duties? As well as some other duties that Presidents in recent years have come to accept, such as responsibility for the economy as recent Presidents have done in the past?

I believe our President should be well informed of the constitution, as well as other parts of government. As Commander in Chief and host of ambassadors, the president should be educated in matters of foreign policy and the military. He or she should also be able to know about those countries to which he shall be in communication, as well as knowing the history of our nation so that he may make decisions with hindsight.

So how do we use this information in deciding whether or not Palin will be suitable for the White House? Well, looks like we shall find out next time!

-Kat Vengo