Oct04

BE OUTSTANDING: Do what most people don’t!

by misheel on October 4th, 2009 at 3:46 am
Posted In: Motivational

BEHAVE DIFFERENTLY THAN MOST PEOPLE… because “Those who do what others don’t [not can't] reap the rewards.” (Words in the parentheses added.)

I'm seeing the world with glasses half full! ;-)

The best way to apply this quote is to think about what most people do, which is form bad habits that shackle them from experiencing life to the fullest and living with power, focus, and intention. So, let’s go over what most people do… so we can identify how to behave differently.

  • Most people don’t do something to the best of their ability, but settle for the mediocre, telling themselves “perfectionism isn’t healthy.”
  • Most people don’t take criticism well, they get defensive.
  • Most people don’t take compliments well, even when they look and act like they are: they let their inner voice interfere instead.
  • Most people procrastinate and don’t do the most important thing first.
  • Most people don’t focus, follow through, and finish the task on hand.
  • Most people don’t know their limits and don’t know their potential, because they have never gone far beyond their excuses, their voice of mediocrity that they took to be the “voice of reason.”
  • Most people don’t wake up happy.
  • Most people don’t think about the other person first.
  • Most people don’t try to be agreeable or understanding, but try to be right.
  • Most people don’t compliment others at every chance, but will notice, judge, and make fun of other people’s mistakes, errors, and misdirected behaviors, even if just in their minds.
  • Most people think they are more special somehow than everyone else with whom they interact.
  • Most people won’t change their habits after reading this.

Do the little things that make you different and big progress will happen.

To your success and happiness!

-Misheel

P.S. Above is a picture of me seeing the world through glasses half-full.  ;-)

└ Tags:
1 Comment
Oct01

MEDICAL CANNABIS — Policy-making in Progress

by misheel on October 1st, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Posted In: medical marijuana, Social Issues

Longmont, CO – Last night, over eighty people from the newly created medical cannabis community (cannabis is commonly referred to as marijuana, a term that was coined in 1920s) from Northern Colorado met to discuss new local governance regarding dispensaries. They included an official from the District Attorney’s (DA’s) office, a local defendant’s attorney, caregivers who grew cannabis, workers and owner of a lab that tests cannabis, and patients. (Full names are not used because even though the meeting was in public domain, I did not get express permission from each person to write about them.)

Medical Cannabis

“There are a lot of gray areas, and our job is to self-regulate and help the law-makers, so that it’s not decided for us, without our input,” said Larry, a local dispensary owner and one of the organizers of the meeting.

Amy, the official from the DA’s office agreed, saying, “We will cooperate and help to come to clear terms, because we can’t prosecute when there are gray areas… When law enforcement officials do their job to protect the community and the offenses are unclear, they cannot work effectively.”

Jeff, the attorney, said, “When you wait for things to happen to you, they will happen to you. [laughter from the audience]  That’s why it’s important for us to take matters into our hands to affect change so we can try to direct what future we have.”  He continued to the effect that this community will not be putting the best picture  if the public sees the medical cannabis as a vehicle for college kids on the Hill, in Boulder getting drunk and high.  (Not that they aren’t already.)

Some interesting notes from the Q&A session:

-If you have less than 2 ounces of marijuana on you and you don’t have a medical license to use it in Colorado, you can be charged with merely a petty offense which is a $100 ticket.  So, if you were trying to obtain a medical license using the suspect doctors who were giving people licenses for fake diseases (a lot of whom are under investigation now), it is actually cheaper, less of a hassle, and kinder to the medical cannabis users to NOT have a medical license.

-When local ordinances clash with State constitutional amendment such as the case with allowing medical cannabis, they probably will not hold up in the State Supreme Court.  So, although some cities like Louisville, Broomfield, and Lafayette have members who freak out and try to ban it in their cities, they will not win an outright ban.  However, they may still try to regulate it out of business.  For example, a list of zoning limitations may make it impossible for a dispensary to find a real estate location that is in compliance.

-Medical cannabis usage is still so contentious that some people will use nuisance actions to try to shut down individual dispensaries.  Some will be legitimate, but others, simply the fact that the dispensaries exist is enough to bother a lot of people into taking negative action.

The importance of public education regarding the benefits of medical cannabis usage became clear when Cathy and Jason spoke.  Cathy, a suburban mom patient who never considered use of cannabis before her doctor prescribed it to her, spoke of how her neighbors started calling the police on her many times, as soon as they somehow found out she was using medical cannabis.  She got harassed by her neighbors as she walked down the street, when her cancer went into submission, “You still using that weed, though your cancer is gone?”

Jason, a teacher, was charged with 34 counts of marijuana possession and acquitted because it was for medical usage.  And “coincidentally” on the day he was acquitted, he lost his job.

Examples of some of the rules proposed in Frisco, CO;

  • Dispensaries must have business licenses.
  • Dispensaries cannot be within 500 feet of daycare centers, halfway houses, correctional facilities, pediatricians (here someone raised the issue that children can be medically licensed to be treated by medical cannabis, even though the regulations are obviously trying to protect children).
  • Dispensaries cannot be mobile, cannot be located out of a hotel, motel, or any temporary stay facilities.
  • Product must be locked and stored at night.
  • Dispensaries must operate normal business hours, deemed to be 9am-7pm.
  • No on-site use in the dispensary.
  • Interior and exterior must discourage crime by use of reasonable security, exterior lighting.
  • Any dispensary name containing the word marijuana and cannabis must have the word “medical” before it.

The community listened to these regulations from the town of Frisco and most seemed to agree that they were fairly reasonable.  The audience was in general agreement as to standardizing labels, signage, and quality (“putting the ‘medical’ back into medical marijuana,” as Hugh, a testing facility owner, put it), and improving on public education, image, and creating a community board to assist local lawmakers.

└ Tags: , ,
 Comment 
Aug18

ANIMAL RIGHTS–Where do you stand?

by misheel on August 18th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Posted In: Social Issues, Animal Rights

OK, so you’re one of 97% of pollsters who think it should be a felony for people to hold dogfights, because violence and cruelty against animals for mere entertainment should be punished.

What if a dogfight was held for filming a movie? Ok, so you boycott the movie or vote to charge the producers and the director for felony or a misdemeanor, because the stunt-dogs might suffer physical harm for mere entertainment.

What if the dogfight was held for purposes of filming for a documentary? Would you press felony charges on the producers, or would a possible educational value alleviate the offense?  Well, it depends on what’s being labeled a dogfight.

Would it make a difference if the animals were watched carefully against harm, and dogs were pitted against humans or other animals for training purposes? This may be for market value, educational value, or entertainment value, but also for more accepted uses for those dogs.  Like police dogs.

Sorry for the series of questions there.  The point I’m making here is, everything is on a scale.

It is easy to point fingers at a black-and-white issue like dogfights and their perpetrators.  It is another thing altogether to ask for extreme measures against Zoos or hunting, when there is the greater picture to consider than individual animal suffering.

One animal or even millions of animals being killed is all a matter of context and relevance; one whole species being represented by one animal is different from millions of animals over-crowding an area.  In the latter situation, it may be kinder to kill some, making it easier for the rest of the animals to survive because it leaves more resources available.  Another example of this is in herding.  When the herd is too large, it puts extra strain on the environment throwing it off balance, which may endanger the whole herd for next seasons to come.

Just like killing some can be kinder to a greater number of animals, Zoos have their places too. Since animals (generally) cannot specifically communicate their distress to us, veterinarians have a more complex job than doctors do. Zoos and rehabilitation centers cooperate together in research and share this knowledge with veterinarians.  Even if it makes you sad to see those captive animals, they served to save countless lives of animals you don’t see in those zoos, because of the research and the veterinary insights we have gained.

We easily impute feelings, pain, and individuality to our pets, like dogs and cats.  We observe animal cruelty more readily, against cats and dogs.  It is easier to sense someone’s intention toward those animals.  However, it would be a mistake to assume animal cruelty on the part of zoo keepers and hunters, by misplacing those subjective feelings and taking an extreme position.

One can easily argue that zoologists, through the knowledge and expertise, and hunters, through their wildlife preservation, funding, and donations, combine to save more animals than all the animal rights activists ever did.

└ Tags: , , ,
3 Comments
Aug10

SOCIAL NETWORKING WEBSITES AND IMAGE MANAGEMENT: Finally the Public may personally understand the problems of Public Individuals

by misheel on August 10th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Posted In: Social Issues

Picture 9

Now more than ever, the Average Joe faces the same problems the Public Personas have always faced, because of social networking websites like Facebook, My Space, Hi5, or Twitter.  Image Management issues.

There will always be many layers of social images we must manage, at work, at play, in our family lives, and with those from our past.  The older we are, more levels of it we must deal with.  The fairly uni-level interactions published on social networking websites force us to confront more varying complexities.

For example, companies want employees to behave in the way that coincide with their goals of public image, regardless of whether the employees are on company time or personal time.  Getting fired for posting humorous clips about your company would be one of those.  Social networking sites give insight to the private lives, (or, rather oversight) to the boss or co-workers.  But I am not just talking about basic faux pas like adding a co-worker or a boss as a friend on Facebook, and then getting caught during work hours, or having boating pictures from that day you took off “sick”.  (Or, this embarrassing bathroom self-photo that got shared all over, of the girl above.)

The fact that the people in our lives are not just all “friends,” create more gray areas that Public Personas have been dealing with all along.

Having a more public role, athletes, actors, TV personas, and other media professionals are familiar with the problems regarding image management and the media. They (or their publicists) often subscribe to a strict usage of their social networking websites, where the greater the number of fans, friends, and/or followers, the more it limits their personal expression.  The limitations may affect those who personify counter-culture or defiance, because that’s an image to uphold, too.

Clearly, the greater the number of people involved, the less the common ground between them, not only in opinions, but also in how appropriately the opinions are expressed.

You can’t always appeal to what’s common to everyone, so why try? When Public Personas attempt to deviate from a strict usage, they are punished by scrutiny, inviting controversy. For example, J.R. Smith’s tweets were recently criticized for possible gang-related messages, in the Denver Post, citing his use of the letter “k” for spelling words with “c” or “ck”.

People are diverted and entertained by flaws or “alarming” behavior. It’s often not even about you. It’s just that when we know someone on a one-dimensional level, it is easier to be entertained by his/her mistakes.  You are more like a caricature in their lives, because there is no humanly possible way to be truly close with everyone.  Just like that, your behavior is up for scrutiny.  The wild picture of you that a friend posted and tagged might not be great for everyone to see.

On top of this, our social lives online give rise to seemingly innocent questions, like,

  • Whether to confirm or ignore requests to be fans of companies, websites, or organizations
  • Whether to be friends with certain people
  • Whether to cuss or use slangs
  • Whether to be supporters of certain causes or political stances
  • Whether it would cause problems to have too many people know your birthday
  • Whether exclusions to invitations to certain events would go unnoticed (or, conversely, why you were not invited to an event that you see pictures from)
  • Whether to delete an inappropriate comment by a friend

Basically, the question is how much to reveal, about what. In spite of the promise of easily managing our networks and reconnecting with old friends and associates through the social networking websites, these kind of questions must be navigated through on a regular basis.

The more peripheral or the more varying your actual relationships are within your online social network, the more unwilling you will become in stepping outside of the conforming lines of what is publicly deemed a “responsible” behavior, (however ridiculously converging those lines may be.)

This compounded pressure normally falls on those whose careers are necessarily public.  Unavoidably, this scrutinizing not only shackles those who conform to their fans’ expectations everyday, but also those who conform to the expectations of professionalism, or of friends and family at cost of limiting personal expression, in the semi-public social networking spheres online.

It doesn’t matter whether people are larger than life, or in our lives.  Many people care too much about each other’s “image management” and not enough about just letting each other be a normal human being, flaws and all.  Ironically, this is because we care too much about our own “image management,” since we’re comparing “them” to “ourselves,” after all.

–

Update 12/8/09: That said, check out “Funniest FB Snafus“!!

└ Tags: ,
 Comment 
Aug06

Chinggis Khaan is not the “same kind” as Hitler

by misheel on August 6th, 2009 at 6:14 am
Posted In: Mongolia

Dear to Whom It May Concern:

In the article “Genghis Khan Rules Mongolia Again, in a P.R. Campaign,” NY Times has, through its misrepresentation of Chinggis Khaan’s (the true spelling of his name, not the Russian version used everywhere) influence and general opinion regarding him in Mongolia, and insincere quotation of this hapless Mongolian guy Toguldur Munkochir, lost credibility with me (and a lot of other Mongolians, I am sure).

Dan Levin wrote of the Mongolian “rebranding” of Chinggis Khaan as “with a focus on his lighter side”–in describing the commercial use of this beloved leader’s image. Mongolians are not “rebranding” their founding father and leader; the popularity of Chinggis Khaan seems a rebranding only to those who are new to the debate regarding Chinggis Khaan’s character.

There is nothing “light” about Chinggis Khaan, who is seen both as a barbarian and a visionary, who has brought on slaughters and has made possible the trade and education without which Renaissance would not have occurred in Europe, who has led Mongolians to its mark on world history that today still makes him the most famous Mongol ever, and who has been labeled a barbarian because of his success (for no one sues a homeless man) which he gained through brilliant military genius and leadership, marked by vigilance, violence, and vigorous passion for justice. If he was cruel, he is still loved by Mongolians.

Dan Levin’s leveling Chinggis Khaan down to a brand, is to put the cart before the horse. But this was not what induced me to respond with an email to you. I was shocked when I read the last parts of that article and was sure that the ending quote was taken totally out of context.

↓ Read the rest of this entry…

└ Tags:
 Comment