Hall of Fame Thoughts

Once again we have an announcement from the great city of Cleveland that a new class will be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame for 2015.  Accompanied with that are my feelings of complete satisfaction with some of the choices and bewilderment at others.  I won't dissect each inductee, but I will touch briefly on them.

--Kudos to the Hall for finally recognizing Stevie Ray Vaughan and Double Trouble as worthy.  While definitely deeply rooted in blues, the rock element can't be denied.

--I'm not a huge fan of Lou Reed or Joan Jett, but many acts that followed them claimed them as major influences.  For that reason, I'm not going to dispute their induction.

--Though I'm not sure why the Hall started allowing R&B acts to be eligible, I'm glad to see the accomplishments of Bill Withers acknowledged.  I'm not familiar with the 5 Royales, but many of the early R&B acts that were the foundation of rock & roll before it was a phrase deserve a nod.

--I don't know who the Paul Butterfield Blues Band is.  I have heard of them but can honestly say I don't know anything by them.  This calls for a YouTube search.

--Ringo Starr gets the Award for Musical Excellence.  If I had to rank my favorite Beatles, Ringo would be a distant fourth.  Not sure what else he did to deserve this award, but I won't fight it.  Besides, I'd be lying if I said I haven't rocked out to "It Don't Come Easy".

-- My "What the hell??" moment goes to Green Day.  I'm only 34 and these guys were big when I was in high school.  How is it possible that they're eligible?  Shouldn't there be a longer time requirement?  I'm sure this will be the one that I get the most hate mail about, but I'm entitled to my opinion.  I just don't see their contribution to be as influential as Nirvana, who were inducted last year.  But wait... they were also big when I was in school.  Am I really getting old??

Overall, this class doesn't interest me as much as last year's did.  I was thrilled that Hall and Oates made it in 2014 after all these years and though I'm not a huge fan, it was great to see KISS become HoF'ers.  Something still sticks in my mind every year, though, that won't fully allow me to assign the HOF the legitimacy it should have.  No matter what grudge Jann Wenner has, the founder of Rolling Stone Magazine and influential higher-up of the HOF should agree with millions across the world and allow the Monkees to be inducted.  THEY ARE WORTHY.

Who would you like to see inducted in the next class?  Give me some of your choices.  As always, I look forward to your opinions.  \m/

Quantum Physics for Dummies

Most of the time when my mind wanders, it finds its way to dead ends.  The random problems that my brain thinks up work themselves out when I realize that the answer was either so obvious or I decide that the problems weren't worth the time to solve.  But then there are the rarities where I ask myself a question that I can't answer and it just leads to more questions.  That's when, if I'm feeling ambitious enough, I start scouring the Net for the answers.

 

About a week ago, I started thinking about parallel universes.  I know, that's not really a light subject to just conjure up out of thin air.  I'm not sure how it came up, but I'm sure it was because of a TV show or something I had been watching.  Being a sci-fi geek, this happens quite often.  So here was the multi-tiered question that occured to me:  Has a parallel universe, if it exists, always existed or is it created because of some event?  If created by an event, does all history prior to that creation cease to exist for the parallel world, does it use the history of the universe from which it was spawned, or does a completely new history get assumed by the people living in it and recorded as if it had actually happened?

 

Right now you're probably thinking one of a couple of possible responses.  "Huh?"  "Are you on drugs?"  "This is completely stupid."  "That just blew my mind."  There probably are a few more I didn't account for, but to answer those:  no, I'm not on drugs and yes, it may be completely stupid, but then again, it may be mind-blowing,  In preparation for writing this, I did a Google search for "Albert Einstein parallel universe" and clicked on the first link I found that looked like it would have some interesting information.  http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/parallel-universe.htm was very short in length, but rich in information about theories concerning parallel universes.  My questions still haven't been answered, but at least it's a start.  Basically, Albert Einstein believed that alternate universes are altogether possible, but was never able to prove it.  Other scientists in the years following his death, like Hugh Everett III & Dr. Michio Kaku have picked up the torch to prove he wasn't off his rocker and some have gotten closer, but still no concrete proof.  Their individual theories like "Many-Worlds", "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle", and "String Theory" sound impressive and that's because they are, but no one can confirm them.  That's why they're still theories.  But with every day that passes, we're getting closer to some confirmation.

From what I'm reading, some theories, like the Many-Worlds or Heisenberg Uncertaintly Principle,  hinge on some sort of event that actually creates the parallel universe, such as a scientist simply observing the state of a quantum object (whether in wave or particle form, wave vibration, etc...) or even by making the decision to not make a determination at all.  Such an event can cause the split of the universe to accomodate for all possible outcomes of the observation.  What a powerful thing to consider:  that even the THOUGHT of multiple outcomes could create those multiple outcomes somewhere.  If we'd ever find this to be true, the human mind should be considered the greatest object ever created.  Sort of makes you reconsider trying to discuss Schroedinger's cat (Google it).  Using this information to my question, my question still remains unanswered; we could still share history, there could be no history prior to the event for the alternate world, or they could create a history from shared thought-pooling once it is established.  If we follow the theory of Dr. Kaku, which is called String Theory, it's much easier to believe that the universes have their own histories different from each other.  His theory states that all objects in the universe, even on down to the smallest particles known currently as quarks, are made up of tinier building blocks that resemble rubber bands and what matter they create depends on these bands and how they vibrate.  This creation happens across eleven separate dimensions.  Because of how it's created, our universe is therefore separated by itself inside of a "bubble", which exists along side of the other parallel universes in their own "bubbles".  It's theorized that they can interact with each other by sharing gravity, but that would create an explosion similar to what some scientists believe happened at the Big Bang.  Probably not a good idea for this to happen.  BUT, this string theory would then, as I said, give credence to the idea that any alternate worlds would have a unique history, some being just slightly out-of-phase from each other, but definitely unique to that "bubble".

These theories are just the most prominent; we've barely scratched the surface.  Plenty of other scientists have their own ideas on if any of this is possible.  The truth could be a combination of a couple or all of them, it could be one singular idea, or another possibility is that none of these can actually occur.  Possibly by considering these in this blog, we've created some alternate realities of our own.  Maybe some day we'll know...or in another reality, we already know.  One thing I do know:  I'm not anywhere even CLOSE to answering my own questions.  But I think it's fun to keep trying! 

If I haven't driven you nuts by this discussion, I invite you to join in.  Any of your own theories?  Questions that you think I or someone else that reads this may be able to answer?  Post them here!

Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged

I'd like to think that the group of friends that I have in real life and in social media is a diverse one.  We come from all different backgrounds with different likes and dislikes, varied viewpoints and beliefs.  In my opinion, that's the only way to stay true to yourself. If you don't reevaluate your positions based on new information from trusted sources (like friends and family), you really have no room to speak your mind because you're going off of history only instead of current fact.  This makes things that much more frustrating when a person I normally agree with refuses to hear my point of view if mine varies from theirs, which actually happened to me today.

A contact of mine on Facebook posted an opinion in their status, along with a link to an article.  The opinion was stated as absolute with no exceptions, but I saw another viewpoint that I considered to be well thought out and valid.  Instead of welcoming a new vantage point to enter into the discussion, my comment was immediately dismissed as incorrect.   This is from a person who shares my same conservative values, so normally we agree.   But the more I thought, the more I could recall times where I found her viewpoints to be closed-minded and abrasive.  They were based in truth, yet did not come across in a way that invited me to hear more.

Unfortunately, this is why I feel the conservative message falls on so many deaf ears.  Often times the only conservative voices people hear to base an opinion on are the ones who are yelling the loudest.  They don't hear the soft-spoken, level-headed thinkers who prefer to discuss in smaller groups or on a blog that only a few will read.  I'm not saying that some topics don't require a raised voice with a passionate delivery, but for the most part I believe people would rather enter into discussion rather than being scolded.  The old saying about catching more flies with honey than vinegar definitely applies.

To me, this definitely applies to my conservative brothers and sisters who identify themseIves as Christians.  I, myself, am far from perfect (as most who really know me will agree) and I don't really expect anyone else to be either.  But it seems that there are some like my Facebook friend who find it easy to sit behind their golden keyboard and pass judgment, rather than hear something that could slightly alter their thinking.  I'm not suggesting an abandonment of values or ignoring of Christian teachings.  If you see the title of this blog entry, you'll know where I'm headed with this.  My opinion:  God did not put us here to be judges of one another.  He gave us minds to think, voices to speak, hands to hold, and hearts to love.  We should act as examples for others, but not place ourselves on a pedestal so high that others feel it is unattainable.  When we try so hard to preach why we are right, we are doing something wrong by not listening.  If we just took the time to hear someone out, we might just find something that will strengthen our own ideas, beliefs, and thoughts.

Conservatives, liberals, independents, and everything in between, take my advice under consideration.  There are places we can find to agree, but the minute you start acting as if you know better than everyone else and shout your beliefs instead of inviting dialogue, you close the ears of those you're trying to reach.  Try stepping down from behind the bench, Your Honor, and let the judging to someone more suited to slam the gavel.

Totally unrelated side note:  Tomorrow is Father's Day.  A happy one to my dad, stepdad, grandfather, + father-in-law, all of whom are trying every day to show me more about being a good father to my daughter.

Amateur Sociology in the Workplace

I've been out in the workforce now for basically sixteen years now.  Compared to those older than me, unless they spent a considerable amount of time being unemployed, that's not a lot of time.  But compared to those who spent time in college, I'm at least four to six years up on them in work experience.  Sure they've got the degree, the higher salary, more vacation, a bigger house...wait, there was a positive for me somewhere...oh yeah, more time on the job.  I guess that's a positive.  But what I'm not getting in 0's at the end of my paycheck or in time spent traveling to an exotic location, I'm getting in the form of an education.  I seriously should have taken up sociology because examining the different types of co-workers has been absolutely fascinating.  Note:  I'm not actually studying anything.  This is more of a realization I've come to over time and just decided to blog about tonight.  I've discovered a few typical types of co-worker that seem to be universal.  Everyone who reads this will know someone or a few someones that fit into these categories.  There may be more categories than this or people that fit into more than one category depending on the situation, but these are what I consider to be the main ones, at least in my experiences.  (Please note:  anyone who takes any of this seriously obviously has no idea who I am or what I'm about and should probably quit reading at this point.  I am no more an expert in any of this than I am qualified to be a rocket scientist.)

1. The Moron - A category that's pretty much self-explanatory and the kind that is most prevalent.  Some are born this way, some cause themselves to be this way due to chemical influence, and some actually choose to be this way to avoid responsibility and conflict.  These are the co-workers that ask questions after months or years of service about things they should remember from the first week.  Generally, you just wonder why these people are gainfully employed, let alone being in a position that requires them to know something more than alternating inhaling and exhaling.  As long as you don't have to directly interact with them, they can be a great source of entertainment as they interact with others.
2. The Constantly Apathetic Person - Plain and simple, this one just doesn't care.  As long as they can earn a paycheck and get through the day, whatever happens just happens.  This can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the situation.  If you're needing people to stay out of your way so you can complete your job, this kind will be glad to oblige.  But if part of your job is relying on them to complete theirs, this is where a problem can arise.
3. The Partially Apathetic Person - Also known as the "situationally apathetic person", this is one of the more frustrating types.  This is a person who generally cares about doing their job, but can all of a sudden decide that it's no use.  At that point, they become useless until their own frustration passes and they return to caring again.
4. The Complete A-hole - Hopefully you can avoid contact with this one, but usually it's unavoidable somewhere in the day.  This one will sabotage a good mood for no apparent reason or will ruin work-related plans in some way, shape, or form just because they can.  Again, you wonder why someone like this continues to be employed.  My theory is that they were a Constantly Apathetic Person in a position so long that they've become bitter and bored, transitioning into the Complete A-hole.
5. The Pleasant Placeholder -  A ray of sunshine that brightens up the whole office!  Generally an agreeable person who will be happy to help in any way.  Unfortunately, if you don't know how to spot it, this could be a disguise for type 1, The Moron, and you can get horribly fooled.  But a genuine Pleasant Placeholder is usually a good thing.  They're happy where they are, they do their job, and they don't get in your way.
6. Management - Simply put, everyone has to deal with this at some time, unless you're as high up the ladder as you can get.  If so, you're in this category.  You can be Management and be another of these categories, but the reason I broke them out separately is that there is nothing you can do about them.  Management knows better than you do...about everything.  There is no fighting them or trying to change their mind, especially if it's Ownership/Management.  At this point, it's best to keep your mouth shut, nod your head, listen until they stop talking, and walk away.  Even better than that, avoid them altogether.
7. The Caring -  Someone who knows what they have to do, attacks it like it is their own business and gets frustrated easily when it can't be accomplished.  And the usual reasons why it can't be accomplished?  See numbers 1-4 & 6.  Simply put:  if you're a 1-4 or a 6, get out of this person's way and let them do the job.  If it's screwed up, then you can blame them.  At that point, though, at least you can say that someone tried, which is more than most of the other types would ever dream of attempting.  Give them a chance.  This, as you might be able to guess, is the rarest of all of the categories.  This is the one I try to be.

I'm sure there are more groups that I'm missing, but these tend to be the stand-outs.  Most of these categories aren't as cut and dry in most companies, as many of your co-workers can be two or more of these at the same time.  If you're anything like me, some of your day is spent figuring out who is what category on that given day.  Knowing that will affect how you go about your business, telling you who will be of help and who it would be best to avoid.

Disclaimer:  This wasn't really written to be of help to anyone but myself, just to air some frustrations I've had over the years over many jobs in a humorous way.  Any resemblance to any former or current co-workers is strictly coincidental...or is it? :)

I hope you've enjoyed reading this.  Did you come up with any other categories?  Have any funny stories about co-workers that pertains to this?  (Please omit names.)  Feel free to comment away!  Have a great day, everyone.