Acceptance

Lets face it, there are things in life that are good, bad, great, terrible, and indifferent. You may feel down or lonely and the one thing that people tend to forget is to accept things that have happened. People tend to try and change what has already happened. You can't change what has happened, but you can understand, learn from, accept, grow, and change as a person from what has already happened. But the first step is to understand and accept that what has happened has happened and there is no turning around but there is always moving forward. If you can accept what has happened and grow as a human being and carry that knowledge forward from there then I believe that you, as a person, whomever you may be, can be a better person as a result. I just think more people need to learn how to accept circumstances. Because there is no going back but there is always the choice to move forward.

Music, the universal language

Whichever genre of music you prefer chances are that someone else likes the same type of music as you do. Music can bring people together, to vent emotions, to let someone know how you feel, get you through a rough day, or make a good day better.

I think if people appreciated music for music and not like a type or genre of music because it's "cool" or "trendy" or "it's what everyone is listening to," maybe music would actually be apreciated for more than a cool beat/rythem or a verse that stikes a chord, but for what actually went into making that particular song. What prompted the song writer to write the song? Why did the artist(s) decide to preform and go through with the song? What is behind the song? Why do you like it? If you like it at 'face value' or just because its cool or a good beat or good words, I don't really think that you would actually understand and grasp whatever message the artist(s) were trying to convey in their song(s).

So before you jump into "I love this band," or "I love this song," consider the message behind it, and not just take it for face value. If you still like the song/srtist then, then you can truly say you enjoy them for more than a catchy beat and a cool verse to go with it.

Russian spies in the USA, the modern day cold war? Or just an over reaction?

So tonight's entry is going to be short and sweet.

Within the past month or so about five Russian spies were arrested while living in United States suburbs. They're charged with various forms of espionage charges. And no one living around these Russians knew anything. Now every news cast I have seen concerning this is mentioning the 'new cold war.' Okay my opinion is this: we don't know all the facts, and why don't we see what else is uncovered before we start crying 'cold war.' It may be just that, but I think it is far to soon for anyone to judge. So how about everyone just waits to see, and listens to what happens before we get all up in arms over this and persecute for a 'cold war' when it could be something totally different. We should just leave this up to our proper authorities, IE our federal government, and let them do their jobs.

Seniority in the work place

Seniority in the work place, it happens. What do I mean by this? Well lets say you just made friends with a co-worker at your new job, but you have only been at this 'new' job for less than a year, while your co-worker has been working at the same job seven years. And you and your co-worker aren't far off from each other in terms of how much you get paid per hour. You both ask for a raise, who is more likely to get it? The one working seven years or you? One would generally say the employee who has been there longer. Correct, generally speaking. But what if you feel that you are just as deserving or more deserving depending how well you both perform at work and the quality of work that is done; even how many hours you may clock during a regular work week. Now who is more likely to get said raise, you or them?

In my opinion how long one has been at a job should come last and 'used' only in extenuating circumstances. If you and said co-worker have the same job title, work almost the same amount of hours, you both are within $5.00 pay per hour of each other, and you both work just as hard. So you both, in theory, should have equal opportunity of getting a raise, though your boss may not out right say it, the deciding factor for them is not how well you both perform at the job, it's who has seniority. If it isn't a raise it may be other perks, such as extra vacation time, while if you may want extra days off, you'll need to jump through more hoops, just because one has been there longer than you have. Is it unfair, yes it is.

That happened to me once. I had this job in a restaurant throughout high school. I though for sure I would get a raise in pay over my co-worker who had only been there six more months than me. I instead got fired in January of 2007 after I had been working hard there at the same job for almost four years, and my co-worker (also a dishwasher, much like myself) got to keep his job, and got a raise. He, in my opinion, did not deserve it, because of how much he slacked when he was supposed to be working and how many times he would show up and leave early for his shift. Things like that are unfair to those of us who genuinely work hard and give their job their all and don't get the 'reward,' because someone else got it just for the sheer and utter fact that the other person has been working there longer than you have.

Art

Art, something associated in what you may see in Le Louvre, or music, poetry, some may even say graffiti is art as well.

In my opinion art is something to be created, adored, something that is truly beautiful in its own unique way, and something that may even move you.

But lately there has been some artists, that have shock art. Something of which does not appeal to me at all. But the growing industry of art seems to be torn with those of whom shock art appeals to, those of whom it doesn't, and those who are indifferent to this newer art. In my art history class in college a few semesters ago we learned about shock art. Some of the images are rather...odd. But that is just my opinion. One of the images that was shown to the class was a tank with something in it, and supposedly the tank was filled with human urine. EW! I can almost wrap my head around this logic....almost. I rather stick to my traditional Picasso's thank you very much. You may argue that for their time all the Picasso's of that time, that their art, in that era, may just as well have been 'shock art' to the people living in that era. According to Wikipedia, shock art is defined as, "a contemporary art that incorporates disturbing imagery, sound or scents to create a shocking experience" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_art). Now unless I am mistaken, artists, such as, Picasso weren't trying to 'shock' anyone, they simply wanted to make money, create art, and put there message out there through their art/sculptures/etc. Whatever that message may have been, depending on the work of art/type of art, and the artist themselves. The 'old school' works of art used a lot of trickery within their images to catch ones eye, intrigue them, and make them think. One of the most famous ones is the Mona Lisa, which is an oil paining by Da Vinci made in the sixteenth century. It is now held in Le Louvre in Paris, France. When one thinks of the Mona Lisa, they tend to think of the most popular question, is she really smiling? You can look at it forever and could probably never figure it out, unless you're Da Vinci himself. Now that's part of the 'illusion' I mentioned earlier. Now I could be wrong, but I do not think artists, like Da Vinci, were all out to shock you, much unlike the shock artists of today. If they want to do shock art and people want to spend money on it, great for them. But I wish we heard more about art, much like Picasso and Da Vinci did. More of the balance between the 'old,' and the 'new' forms of art.