The Business of Relationships

There is a term that I am familiar with, in business - ROI or "return on investment". Basically, this is a measurement of the amount of investment, or money, you've put into a business venture and the return you've received after all is said and done. For example, if you've purchased 100 shares of some stock for $10 per share and receive $1M from it, your ROI would be ($1M-$1000)/$1000 which equals an ROI of $999 per share. There are other factors that may increase/decrease that ROI. For example, if you're starting a business, you'd have to factor in the time you've spent developing that business as well as other factors.

How does this all apply to relationships?

I believe there is an ROI when it comes to any relationship whether it be a business partnership, friendship, or loving relationship. I believe in applying those factors effectively. We all already do it. We just don't apply this level of scrutiny to it nor do we really have a specific term for it. For example, we all have friends. For some friends that request help, you'd turn the earth inside out while for others you'd pretty much ignore them. That's an application of the ROI without folks even really recognizing it. In other words, we place value on relationships and depending on how we feel about that person, we adjust our level of social investment.

A funnier application of this ROI, for example, is when a guy takes a lady out for dinner and expects not just regular sex which is bad enough, but, in some cases, oral, anal, and maybe even a tossed salad if they're into that AND then some, which I will refrain from describing. I am sure many women know exactly what I am talking about here. And, I am sure many selfish men know exactly what I am talking about as well. People like that invest the minimum and expect beyond the maximum ROI.

This is why I believe a deeper scrutiny of our relationships is warranted. I believe that the ROI should, at all times, be equal between two parties. This is the concept of a marriage being 50/50. When that ROI begins to shift into the negative or positive, either individual ought to make an effort to balance it out. It's a simple issue of fairness. Why should one benefit over another in any relationship? Simply put they shouldn't.

For the record, this is definitely different in business. In business, we want a positive ROI at all times, not a balance. In a balance, we don't make any money.

Anyway, problems arise because we sometimes don't scrutinize our relationships at all and realize, often too late, that your so-called friends have taken advantage of you. And, in many cases, we don't realize that WE take advantage of our friends as well. It definitely works both ways. This is where arguments begin to take place. Once a person feels taken advantage of, or their ROI has become too low, and they seek a resolution or a balancing of the ROI.

A quantitative example would be lending your friend $500. Over time, that friend has built up a good ROI with you. You trust that friend. So it's no problem to "overinvest" in their happiness, in the short term. You've received the same level of investment from that person so you have no reason to believe that person won't reciprocate.

Now, what happens when that investment isn't reciprocated. The person who's benefitted has taken advantage of the person who's currently, and unfairly, posting a negative ROI. No one wants to lose, be in the position of a loser, or experience loss in any way, shape, or form. At this point, it's the duty of both parties to come to some sort of compromise as to how to balance the relationship's ROI.

A quantitative example is easy to understand. How about a qualitative one? Let's take for example, a friend who simply asks for too many favors or one who is only seen when they need you to do something but is never available when you need them. And, we should also take into consideration those individuals who overinvest on their own accord.

For example, I find that if I like someone, I won't have a problem overinvesting and accepting a low ROI in the short term because I expect a high ROI in the longterm. In business, this is simply called sticking it out. When you first invest in a business, a new business, you can't expect a high ROI immediately. You have to stick it out. Also, in rough economic times, stock prices will drop. But, in good time, prices will go up. So, the balance in general is achieved. This is akin to a friend going through a bad patch in their life and it may require extra investment in the short term but will balance out in the long term.

However, the same general rules apply. Both parties should seek to balance the ROI. However, the tables turn a bit. Can one blame the other party for not wanting to reciprocate the level of investment? Absolutely not! It's called being uninterested. At the same time, one should expect to reciprocate that level of investment. So, how does one seek to balance the ROI without requiring further investment or investing any further themselves?

This is where scrutiny of the situation is the most important. From the point of view of the individual who's been asked for too much, that person should not have a problem denying further investment. In other words, we shouldn't have a problem saying NO especially if we are not comfortable reciprocating that level of investment. This is a way to not only balance the ROI but also review the situation at hand and truly decide whether it is worth it or not to continue a relationship with that person.

An individual who is overinvesting should be willing to acknowledge that they are investing in a situation that will ultimately fail regardless of the level of the investment. Throwing more money at a business is not going to magically make that business successful nor increase your ROI. Sometimes, that business is simply a bad idea from the start. It's time to cut your losses. Learn from the mistakes you've made and move on to more potentially lucrative ventures.

At the same time, depending on the relationship at hand, it may not require you to cut your losses but instead, simply scale back your own level of investment to match the ROI. This can be a smart move because you free up capital to invest elsewhere while you maintain the relationship at hand. We don't know what possibilities the future will hold. Diversity is the one of the keys to success.

Read More

Should Ted Kennedy smoke marijuana?

I am sure my readers, all two of you, know that I am not a typical marijuana smoker. I know a lot more about this plant than most people will ever know. In fact, I've taught more than most people know. A day with me can seriously be an eye-opening experience, that is, if one is willing to allow their eyes to be opened.

Anyway, in recent news, we've found that out that Ted Kennedy has been diagnosed with brain cancer, specifically a glioma. Doctors say that he may have three to six months to live. best case scenario is that he may have up to three years to live.

At the same time, we all have at least heard of the ability of marijuana to halt and reduce the growth of certain types of cancer. I recently read an article at Chron.com that speaks to this issue. This author states:

"Scientists from the US back in the 1970's determined that cannabis killed glioma cells. This report was put on the back shelf and then lost. Currently scientists in Israel and Spain have reproduced these findings."

So, of course I try to do a little bit of research to that effect. I come across my favorite website, NORML.org:

Cannabinoids & Glioma

Of all cancers, few are as aggressive and deadly as glioma. Glioma tumors quickly invade healthy brain tissue and are typically unresponsive to surgery and standard medical treatments. One agent they do respond to is cannabis.Writing in the August 2005 issue of the Journal of Neurooncology, investigators at the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute reported that the administration of THC on human glioblastoma multiforme cell lines decreased the proliferation of malignant cells and induced apoptosis (programmed cell death) more rapidly than did the administration of the synthetic cannabis receptor agonist, WIN-55,212-2.

Researchers also noted that THC selectively targeted malignant cells while ignoring healthy ones in a more profound manner than the synthetic alternative. Patients diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme typically die within three months without therapy.

Previous research conducted in Italy has also demonstrated the capacity of CBD to inhibit the growth of glioma cells both in vitro (e.g., a petri dish) and in animals in a dose dependent manner. As a result, a Spanish research team is currently investigating whether the intracranial administration of cannabinoids can prolong the lives of patients diagnosed with inoperable brain cancer.Most recently, a scientific analysis in the October issue of the journal Mini-Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry noted that, in addition to THC and CBD's brain cancer-fighting ability, studies have also shown cannabinoids to halt the progression of lung carcinoma, leukemia, skin carcinoma, colectoral cancer, prostate cancer and breast cancer.

(References: Cannabinoids selectively inhibit proliferation and induce cell death of cultured human glioblastoma multiforme cells. Journal of Neurooncology. 2005 | Cannabinoids and cancer. Mini-Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry. 2005 | Anti-tumor effects of cannabidiol, a non-psychotropic cannabinoid, on human glioma cell lines. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. 2003)

Of course it would only make sense to do some deeper research as in actually getting the scientific report itself. Well there are some reference links attached above. I'll just click them all and see what I find.
Well there are three links there.

The first goes to National Center for Biotechnology Information which falls under the National Institutes of Health which falls under US Department of Health and Human Services. So, if you prefer to trust your government and/or you prefer to trust scientists over what some would consider a scientifically uneducated person, there you go! As far as I am concerned, I am one of those scientifically uneducated people because I don't understand a damn thing that it's saying. So, I will have to rely on the layman's interpretation above.The second link takes you to Bentham Science Publishers, a non-commercial organization, but it's only a blurb. The third link takes you to American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics which sounds good, right? I think it must be good because I don't understand a damn thing that says either. It's all "scienced out" and I can't decipher that shit.

Anyway, What would you do if it were you, a family, or a family member?

If it were me - if I were Ted Kennedy - I'd definitely go for some bud on this one. What does he have to lose here? His life? I thought he was going to lose that too soon anyway.

Read More

Ronald McDonald’s Bastard Love Child with Grimace

So, I was coming from a friend's house in the north section of the Bronx on my way home. I spotted some proof that if there is a god in the Christian sense, "He" does indeed make mistakes. Here are some pictures of this menace to fashion, common sense, and humanity as a whole!

I had to risk my life to take these pictures as I was driving and using my cellphone camera (STOP SNITCHING) to get this evidence that the human race may really not be worth saving, cept me and a few others. LOL

Read More

Wedding Photographers in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania is, of course, a component state of the United States of America, often simply referred to as Pa. Another name bandied around for Pennsylvanian is Quaker State as the Quaker help precedence in Pennsylvania when William Penn's Government help drafted the First Frame of Government constitution for Pennsylvania where the liberty of conscience is guaranteed. Its largest city is Philadelphia.

Weddings in Pennsylvania

Weddings in Pennsylvania are conducted pretty much the same way as elsewhere in the United States of America. They send wedding invitations, they have bridal showers, they hold wedding receptions and also not forgetting the irreplaceable wedding photography, done professionally, of course by Pennsylvania wedding photographer.

Frequently, these wedding photographers in Pennsylvania will also probably throw in a presentation with slides of wedding photos during the wedding reception. At the end of the wedding reception, there will be the usual wedding favors.

Read More

God is a childish superstition...

Personally, I've kept thoughts about "God" to myself so as to not offend others which include my own mother and father and many other people that I hold dear in my life. My willingness to express my disbelief in any god came from the recently uncovered writings by Albert Einstein.

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

I agree with Albert Einstein in many ways. I've always felt "God" was more like an imaginary friend that people use as a crutch to get through life. And no, I am not going to look at all the "beautiful" things around me as "proof of God" while I completely ignore all of the bad things in the process; nor will I seek to blame some imaginary "Satan" for the problems of the world, either.

I also agree about the bible statement as well. It's a great piece of literature and you can learn a lot from it, but it's not some handbook for life. There are many other books that I've taken knowledge from and the judeo-christian bible is probably on the very bottom of a short list of books that offer knowledge. If you want a real "bible", go read The Art of War by Sun Tzu. He's my "Jesus Christ" and there's no doubt that he actually existed. I like the idea of the Ten Commandments and Seven Deadly Sins.

At any rate, "God" has been a recurring issue in my mind for possibly the last few years. I've come to the conclusion that I am agnostic...

agnostic
a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly; one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

The primary reasons for my decision stem first from the rejection of organized religion, specifically Christianity/Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam; the chief monotheistic religions of the world. Next came the need to understand the concept of god. I realized that since time immemorial, god was the reason for everything - the sun, the moon, the stars.

This primitive excuse for existence lead people to believe to assign different gods for different duties. This brought about the idea of mysticism, or magic, much like tarot card, and palm, reading. People would view specific circumstances and match their consequences, thus becoming prophets. For example, a person who may have had a broken leg may know it will rain when they feel pain in that leg.

These men and/or women, were treated as prophets, or even priests. They were thought to have connections with the gods for their abilities. Then if they praised a specific god, they would gain some sort of specific reward, or blessing. The lowly farmers praying for a blessing of rain for a good harvest would ultimately find out when their prophet was signaled through the pains in his previously broken leg. When no pain came, they were told, they didn't do enough. When the rains did come, they were told that their god was pleased with them and that they would be blessed.

What's sad is that not much has truly changed since then. I was watching an episode of Good Times. The Evans family was going to be evicted unless they could come up with the rent. So, when it came time for the moving men to kick them out, James went to go hustle pool while Florida stepped over to her picture of Jesus Christ and asked the Lord "to make it rain." James came back with the rent money. After all was said and done, Florida thanked "God"! I guess not much has changed in the last few millenniums.

Ultimately, my views of god center around the infinite possibilities of the universe. This is why I don't completely discount the idea that there is a god as atheists do. There's simply too much in this universe to accept or reject a being that can be defined as a god, in general terms. However, I do not subscribe to the Christian definition of god, or any organized religion's definition of god. One thing that's great about the universe is that in it's chaos, there's incredible order and balance. I believe in balance, equal and opposite reactions, and karma. For example, if you maintain evil people and evil ways, evil things will come back to you. An easier way of saying that is, you live by the gun, you die by the gun. And the opposite is true; it's balanced.

The great thing about my beliefs is that I don't have to live according to any arbitrary restrictions. I can enjoy a ham sandwich. I can enjoy premarital sex. I do unto others as I'd have them do unto me. I don't have any misconceptions. I don't imagine that some old white man will catch me when I fall. There is no old white man. When I fall, the earth catches me. Whether I live or die depends on how high I am. The force with which I hit the ground is equally spread throughout my body. Small fall = small force = no damage. Big fall = large force = potential for damage/death. I may scream out for God but that's only because settling on being agnostic is new to me. I am still shedding my Catholic upbringing.

Anyway, read the article. But, take notice toward the end. I think Einstein does understand his views offend his people and even lies a little so as not to offend. Sometimes, it's easier to just shut up! I guess we geniuses think a lot alike! LOL.

Belief in God 'childish,' Jews not chosen people: Einstein letter
Tue May 13, 9:02 AM ET

LONDON (AFP) - Albert Einstein described belief in God as "childish superstition" and said Jews were not the chosen people, in a letter to be sold in London this week, an auctioneer said Tuesday.

The father of relativity, whose previously known views on religion have been more ambivalent and fuelled much discussion, made the comments in response to a philosopher in 1954.

As a Jew himself, Einstein said he had a great affinity with Jewish people but said they "have no different quality for me than all other people".

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." "No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this," he wrote in the letter written on January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, cited by The Guardian newspaper.

The German-language letter is being sold Thursday by Bloomsbury Auctions in Mayfair after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, said the auction house's managing director Rupert Powell.

In it, the renowned scientist, who declined an invitation to become Israel's second president, rejected the idea that the Jews are God's chosen people.

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions," he said.

"And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people."

And he added: "As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."
Previously the great scientist's comments on religion -- such as "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" -- have been the subject of much debate, used notably to back up arguments in favour of faith.

Powell said the letter being sold this week gave a clear reflection of Einstein's real thoughts on the subject. "He's fairly unequivocal as to what he's saying. There's no beating about the bush," he told AFP.

And here is another article that I found with a few extras.

Einstein letter calls Bible 'pretty childish'
Famous scientist also dismisses belief in God as product of human weakness
The Associated Press
updated 3:16 p.m. ET, Tues., May. 13, 2008
LONDON - Albert Einstein: arch rationalist or scientist with a spiritual core?


A letter being auctioned in London this week adds more fuel to the long-simmering debate about the Nobel Prize-winning physicist's religious views. In the note, written the year before his death, Einstein dismissed the idea of God as the product of human weakness and the Bible as "pretty childish."


The letter, handwritten in German, is being sold by Bloomsbury Auctions on Thursday and is expected to fetch between $12,000 and $16,000.


Einstein, who helped unravel the mysteries of the universe with his theory of relativity, expressed complex and arguably contradictory views on faith, perceiving a universe suffused with spirituality while rejecting organized religion.


The letter up for sale, written to philosopher Eric Gutkind in January 1954, suggests his views on religion did not mellow with age.


In it, Einstein said that "the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."


"For me," he added, "the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."


Addressing the idea that the Jews are God's chosen people, Einstein wrote that "the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."


Bloomsbury spokesman Richard Caton said the auction house was "100 percent certain" of the letter's authenticity. It is being offered at auction for the first time, by a private vendor.


Quirky beliefs
John Brooke, emeritus professor of science and religion at Oxford University, said the letter lends weight to the notion that "Einstein was not a conventional theist" — although he was not an atheist, either.


"Like many great scientists of the past, he is rather quirky about religion, and not always consistent from one period to another," Brooke said.


Born to a Jewish family in Germany in 1879, Einstein said he went through a devout phase as a child before beginning to question conventional religion at the age of 12.


In later life, he expressed a sense of wonder at the universe and its mysteries — what he called a "cosmic religious feeling" — and famously said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."


But he also said: "I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws."


Brooke said Einstein believed that "there is some kind of intelligence working its way through nature. But it is certainly not a conventional Christian or Judaic religious view."


Einstein's most famous legacy is the special theory of relativity, which makes the point that a large amount of energy could be released from a tiny amount of matter, as expressed in the equation e=mc2 (energy equals mass times the speed of light squared). The theory changed the face of physics, allowing scientists to make predictions about space and paving the way for nuclear power and the atomic bomb.


Einstein's musings on science, war, peace and God helped make him world famous, and his scientific legacy prompted Time magazine to name him its Person of the 20th Century.

Read More