Oh Dear, We've Got A Bias Problem In Our Hands.

I was at Chili's last night, and was eating. An older couple in the booth next to ours was talking about Hillary and Obama(Well, the guy was talking, his wife was making polite agreement sounds.) And he said things that were obviously biased, and untrue, making it obvious to where his allegiances lie.

Now, first off, it's not a political thing I'm talking about. That's just an example. My point is how hard it seems for people to be unbiased. I have no idea why this is, and I am certainly not an exception. It's just interesting. People become so stubborn to change of their opinions. Things thought first are always right. At the risk of offending people, an example would be people who still don't believe in Evolution. Everyone has their beliefs, and I can respect that, but I don't understand how people can flatly deny something that is certainly fact. I can see Intelligent Design. But...just creation theory? It's been disproven, it's just not real. And stuff like that happens in everyone's mind, whether it comes down to religion and politics, or the score of a backyard baseball game. I wonder if this is somehow coded in to our survival instinct, and goes along with not liking new things, and I'm betting it's in our culture somewhere.

I dunno. I'm a quote fan, as you may see from some of my blogs. So I'll end it with this one.

They were so strong in their beliefs that there came a time when it hardly mattered what exactly those beliefs were; they all fused into a single stubbornness.

Vigilantism

There's been a billion books, a billion movies, and probably a ton of songs about this. This being Vigilantism. In case you don't know, it's basically taking the law in to your own hands, often for revenge. Popular vigilantes would be The Punisher, from comics. Hell, the Die Hard movies are focused around a vigilante.

Generally, through the books and movies, you see the good side. FIGHTING AGAINST CRIME. Sometimes, they show the cops trying to arrest the vigilante. But, generally, the cops sympathize, and let them go. This is generally because something horrible happened to them, and they're getting revenge now. Of course, there's some grandstanding political figure condemning the whole thing, but who cares about them. Nobody trusts the politicians, the legal system, or the government.

I mean, think about it. I'm reading a book, A Time To Kill, where a man's daughter is raped, and he kills the two rapists on the steps of the Courthouse. Honestly, I agree with him. If I ever become a father/husband, and my family is hurt....Well, let's just say I don't trust in the judgement of the Court. We've all seen the acquittals and the short sentences that people get. But that's scary. I don't know of one person who can really say that they trust our government to do what's best for us, or that the politicians aren't lying, or that the legal system is fair.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was, or is an increase in Vigilantism as a result of this. Maybe not, and I'm just looking too deep into it. But say something horrible happens to you, or the people you love...And you don't trust the authorities to do the right thing....What DO you do?

Sliding Scale Rate

As it came up in class Monday, I asked my Econ teacher about Unemployment Benefits, and I was thinking it'd be a set rate. Like maybe at or slightly above what the poverty line is, per year.


Nope. It's sliding scale, based on previous income. I found this quote, and other sites seem to agree with it.

How much does unemployment insurance pay, and for how long?
The amount can vary slightly from state to state, but in general, the amount you will receive will be approximately 50% of your weekly earnings, with a set maximum amount you can receive. The maximum varies from state to state. (Note: because of this maximum, most workers receive far less than 50% of their weekly wage).

In general, Unemployment Insurance lasts for 26 weeks (about 6 months). In times of extended high unemployment, benefits may be extended by 13 weeks or more.

I can see the benefits to having this. It keeps people who have high bills, because they are in higher income areas, floating. But I'm not sure. People who have higher incomes save more, because they sped less of a % of their income overall, even though they spend more money overall. (Yay for Econ.) So they save alot more money then people who do not have as much income. So they'll be easier off, maybe not easy off, but easier, then those with a smaller income. I guess it seems like it'd be easier to survive with Unemployment Benefits for people with higher incomes, even though they're getting the same % of Benefits. Seems kind of unfair. I mean, if you have a 2 million dollar job, and then you lose it, for the next 6 months, you get 500,000 dollars. That's crazy. They should be able to easily live off their savings, unless they spent unwisely. Which is kind of their fault.

I see the benefits for having it too, but it seems like it should stop at a certain point, like 50-60,000. That's just my opinion though.

Sense of Accomplishment

Here's a little back story to why I started thinking about this. Since December, we had a TV stand packaged up, and a brand new TV still in it's box just waiting. We couldn't put either of them up, since we couldn't move the other TV cabinet, since it weighed more then an elephant. (Exaggeration.) We finally got some movers to come and move it yesterday morning.

So when I got home, the TV stand was in the family room, in the box. So, at roughly four, I got like 4 screwdrivers, a hammer(Never used it), a wrench(Never used it), and scissors and got down to business. By 9pm(Taking breaks every so often for dinner and such.) I was finished. And I felt GOOD. I wasn't expecting to get past the first part of instructions, much less finish the thing. But I did the whole thing myself, minus some parts where I needed my mother to hold something still while I screwed it in. Now, as far as building things go, it wasn't hard. It was screw here, fit in place, etc. There was just some tedious parts. But I had a sense of accomplishment. I spent most of my free time that day building something, and I was happy. Weird, huh?

Anyway, I was thinking about how little in our life gives that sense of accomplishment. How often do you feel good about that worksheet you finished, or that report you wrote up? I know I don't feel too good about it, it's just "Now that's done, what's next?" It seems like a ton of jobs don't give that sense of accomplishment either. I cannot, for the life of me, imagine a cubicle job being at all rewarding, like you're really DOING something. I kind of feel like a lot of problems might be lessened, if not solved, if people were getting more sense of accomplishments from their life. I don't think it's the long work hours, or the stress that really hurt people. It's the boring, tediousness, USELESSNESS that people feel towards their job. They don't care, because they don't feel like they're doing anything.

I suppose that's why I want to be a therapist. Helping people directly seems like a good way to avoid that, and I get to help people. It's win-win. Hopefully.

Whose Turn Is It To Be The Hero?

Right, so I was talking to a friend awhile ago, and he was having some trouble with a bully. And one of the things he said got me thinking. He knew that he could ignore the guy, because he'd done it, and it'd worked. Solved, right? Not really. See, he also wanted to be the guy to cut this guy down to size. He wanted to be the Hero. I know that I've seen a bully and wanted to put them in their place. I'd be surprised if everyone hasn't thought that one time or another. Even if it's not their business, or if they know it's best to just let it go...You want to be the person to punish this bully. "What goes around comes around." "You reap what you sow." Yeah, well, it's often the case that people want to be the person that makes that happen. You don't want to wait till the person is forty, and all alone...Because, hell, that probably wont happen.

So dealing with that little gem of life, what do you do? Why do we, the human race, but probably especially males, want to knock them off their high chair? I've got a couple of ideas. Number 1: What's more masculine then beating up the most masculine guy around, the tough guy? Number 2: Resentment. Nobody likes to be picked on. And it feels sooo good to put them in their place. Number 3: Glory. And Number 4: Because I don't think too many people actually feel that you reap what you sow. There's too many corrupt politicians that seem to get by fine, and a million others who just abuse, use, and take...And nothing is done.

So why not go all John Wayne, Rambo, or Patrick Swayze(Patrick Swayze?!? Watch Roadhouse. I watched that movie after my friend talked about it. It only reinforced this topic for me. It's pretty much exactly about what I'm talking about.) Somebody needs to protect the people of the world. Except that it never works out that way...Generally it works out like it does in the comedies. Geeky nerd takes a swing at jock bully...Gets whooped. And then everyone gets suspended.

Mostly, I just think it's interesting that we have what I shall now refer to as The Hero Syndrome. I think this is a contributing factor behind some of our greatest achievements...And our greatest failures. It has led to countless acts of bravery and selflessness. And it has led to wars. Hundreds of them, leaving uncounted numbers dead. I suppose THAT's what really interests me. The inherent complexity and confusion in the Human character. The black and white. There often doesn't seem to be much grey, deep down. Lotsa grey on the surface. But when you throw people in to the fire...It's black or white.

Wilful Ignorance

Here's a caveat(ALWAYS wanted to use that word in conversation.) This may turn out slightly rantish, but I'm going to do my very best to avoid that. Touchy subject for me.

Now, moving on to the topic of the day. Wilful Ignorance. If you don't know what this is, it's basically staying ignorant, even though you could move beyond this, for different reasons. Wilful Ignorance, it seems, is especially common in politics and religion. Though, it can happen in anything. Here's an example, the Mac commercials. They just came out with a new one, about how bad Vista is. Well, that's been most of their campaign, but this was more specific. And people will take it at face value without every getting opinions from people who are on Vista, have used it, and have had time to develop real opinions.

I understand being ignorant about some things, well, most things. I'm pretty smart, and I don't know alot more then I know. A whole lot more. But I WANT to learn things that I don't know. If you show me proof, I'll accept it. Well, if it's interesting, I'll continue looking it up, and thinking about it, but I won't deny it.

There's a quote in this book I'm reading, I believe from Mao, that goes something likes this. "We shall disagree with our enemies always, whether they are right or wrong." It's worded much differently, but that was the gist of it. And people do that. Again, especially with religion and politics. If I'm conservative, and you're liberal, or vice versa...Whatever you say, well, sorry. It's wrong.

Why do people do this? Why do we need to be wilfully ignorant, often on the most important subjects? Because it's uncomfortable? So you contiribute to the awkwardness, and the need to actually have intelligent conversation about the subject. Nobody's perfect. Nobody will be perfect. But, you don't need to stop trying to better yourself because of this.

My Masculinity Is Bigger Than Yours.

I was on YouTube last night, and by following the Related Videos boredly, seeing where I'd get, I got to a video about guns. (Try it some time. Start with a subject and just click Related Videos, and see where you end up. Or try it on Wikipedia. Interesting things can happen.) Some guy was talking about how he was an avid gun owner, but was going to vote for Obama. For whatever reason, it's not allowing me to see the comment made by a person anymore, but from my memory, he called Obama a socialist Nazi, and that if you wanted good information on the candidates, go to NRA's website. Oh also, he threw the term "Osama Obama around." I decided to respond with this.

"Please, let's not be so ignorant to throw the term Nazi out just because you disagree with someone's policies. I don't like McCain, or Hillary, or a thousand other people, and I certainly disagree with Obama on some things. But to associate them with a group that caused the deaths of millions is just irresponsible as a human being."

Guess what the response was that I got from a 33 year old man? "Cry me a river." Well now, that gets me on to my topic.

Guns. I believe in the 2nd amendment, but to a certain point. I loved the part in Bowling For Columbine where Michael Moore is talking to a guy about the 2nd amendment, and the right to bear arms. Not necessarily guns, but arms. Which includes nuclear weapons, so Michael Moore asks him if he thinks people should be able to own nuclear weapons. The guy replies something like "Well no, there's wackos out there."

So going down from that to stuff like Assault Weapons. I can understand owning shotguns and handguns. But personally, I think having an assault rifle in your house is a little excessive. You're not going to go hunt a deer with that. The only reason is for 'personal protection.' I suppose. I can see how people would feel safe with an assault rifle at their disposal, but if you feel the need to have such a weapon to feel safe...Well, there's obviously bigger problems going on in the society, because you appear to be living in a warzone then. And it's extremely unlikely that you're going to be broken in to anyway, and if you are, it's likely you're asleep. So your assault rifle isn't helping you much anyway.

I guess I think it goes back to the culture of fear that we've been talking about in class. I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm willing to bet that most of the world would feel LESS safe with an assault rifle in their house. So why is having such a dangerous weapon near us comforting, for some people? Does it make them feel more like a man, because they can protect their family from a freak rabid bear attack? I don't know, but I keep coming back to the quote from Albert Einstein. "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

Living Out Our Fantasies.

We talked about movies and their effect on our view of genders in class on Monday, and I wanted to continue that conversation. Sal was talking about all the gender implications in movies, and people like Xena and Lara Croft. Then he said that Juno just had normal people, and that's one of the reasons he liked it so much.

My theory about movies is that we're living out our fantasies, or even just another life through them. For 2 hours, we want to feel like Bruce Willis in Die Hard, or Arnold Schwarzenegger in Terminator. Or we want to feel like Xena, or Lara Croft. We want to feel extraordinary. We want to ooze sex appeal and danger. We want to be that witty, smart, confident and beautiful person on screen. We live our fantasies through them. Even in Juno, I'm willing to bet a lot of people saw it and thought "I wonder what I would do." You're escaping from your life by being in theirs. You wouldn't go see something that's normal for you. You wouldn't go watch a movie about a 17 year old who goes to school for 2/3rds of a year, and only occasionally encounters moments of hilariousness. You go watch a movie about a guy who compulsively draws penises, and a guy who changes his name to McLovin. Because it's not your life.

Who wants to watch their life magnified on a 20 foot by 20 foot screen, as they do nothing out of the usual? Nobody wants to see themselves, or anyone who looks like them, crack a joke that they got from the internet the previous night. You want to go see a movie with someone who is prettier than you, wittier than you, and better than you. Between me and you, we both know that they're human too. But not in the movies. In the movies they're like Greco-Roman Gods. So, for those 2 hours, you're that character on the screen, living out your fantasy. This works for books too. I know that in the 1000+ books I've read, that I've done it to escape from my life.

It's not the responsibility of the companies to make it more 'realistic' because 90% of the time we don't want realistic. And even if they do make it realistic, like Dove, you think they aren't thinking of the market appeal of being one of the first to have the "Regular Beautiful." ad campaign? Maybe they have good intentions, but if they didn't expect returns from this investment, with people who feel like Sal who buy their products because of this nice, homey campaign that they can relate to, do you think they'd be using it? (No offense Sal, =P)

It's the responsibility of the people to decide what they want. For myself, I'm going to continue reading the Sci-Fi books where I can for a moment, live in the future. I'm going to keep watching those hilariously unrealistic movies and even less realistic action flicks. Because even though I feel comfortable with myself, very comfortable even, I still have fantasies. And I don't think this is bad. It's all about knowing that after those 2 hours that my life isn't worth any less then theirs. Especially since theirs isn't real.

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

I was talking to my caseworker today, along with an intern and another caseworker about PTSD, or as it is known, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It was brought up by the subject of Veterans, as the intern was thinking about interning at a VA, which is basically provides care to veterans. She had started thinking about it because of someone she knew having a husband return from the war, and as is common with war-time soldiers, he had PTSD. If you do not know, PTSD can cause severe flashbacks, or changes in your personality for brief periods of time. As a result, this returning soldier beat his wife, who he had loved for some time now and had previously shown no signs of aggression, in to the hospital.

Honestly, I think PTSD is a very important issue, though I am biased slightly, as I had a diagnosis of PTSD at one point in my life, albiet not anywhere near as severe as most cases with soldiers. Even still, I would flinch when people got close to me. And it is much much worse for soldiers. And as our soldiers return, I feel like they're not getting any real support. Though, this is not a new phenemon, especially as it happened with Vietnam in particular too.

But imagine as 150,000+ soldiers return, I think quite a large percentage will have, or be diagnosed with PTSD. I think an even larger percentage will go undiagnosed. I feel like we're making a huge mistake, because all the news I hear about this subject is how the soldier's aren't getting the psychological support that is needed. What I feel the worst about though, is that we're creating a phenomen that is War, but the people we involve in it, we don't help them out as much as we SHOULD be, if they even survive.

Looking at it sociologically, I feel like we, as a nation, are abandoning people who need us, because it's so awkward to think about, to talk about, this idea of PTSD. Because often, I think we just want to forget about the war we were involved in. Especially the consequences of it. Even when we leave our fellow human beings in trouble.

Thought, and it's implications.

Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man.

When I saw this quote, I immediately though of the books I've been reading, which are the Dune series by Frank Herbert. If you have not read these, you might want to give them a look, because they are very very good. But on topic, in the series the idea of thought and change comes up multiple times.

One of the things was, that to a government, thought is dangerous. Thought, invention and change are all dangerous to the survival of a government. Personally, I think this is ironic. One of our greatest assets is the ability to have such organization as government and be able to co-exist like this, and work towards a common goal.

Kind of.

Often, we see our government applied for many other reasons than making our collective life better, but to make their own and their selective friends better off. And how better to do this been by using one of the most powerful resources available? An unthinking mass of people. One of the interesting takes that the Dune series gives is that the leader did not want the people to become this way. But they turned him in to a religious symbol, and deifyed him. And so, made way for themselves to be controlled.

And, at the risk of offending someone, which is not my goal, what better way to take control of a population then convincing them that you have religious or holy power? There have been many cases of abuses of this trust that is placed in religious figures, because that is almost the ultimate power. You are speaking with the word of God. And to question this, as we as a species are want to do, question, is heresy or blasphemy. Obviously, some people take religious figures and symbols with a grain of salt, and focus more on the connection with a higher power. But what of those who don't, always? What happens if this is taken advantage of, even if only by one person?

I apologize if this sounds like I'm speaking too much about my opinion on religion, but I'm more using it as an example than anything, as hopefully an easy way to explain what I'm about to try and say.

As a whole, thought creates change and inventions, which also create change. Thought is change. This creates a problem for governments, because often you see governments stagnate after a certain period of time, unless a radical, and very often, a bloody change occurs. Most likely, this is a complete upheaval of the government, and a replacement is put in place. This can cause a huge loss of life, very very unnecessary loss. How many countless millions have been killed because of this basic concept, of all that is created will eventually be destroyed. All forms of life, even artifical ones like government.

So, would it be better to have a benevolent despot who controls all change, thought, and invention, at the plus side of having much much loss of life. Or is it worth all those countless lives that have been wasted, all for something as immaterial as change and free thought? It's a strange...thought. Often we determine human life as the ultimate object, with no price on it worth paying.

But what happens when that price becomes something that even if you don't always use, but that MEANS something to you as much as being able to think what you want?

Again, I apologize if this is slightly rambling. My thoughts aren't always coherent, but I do my best.

Not so much sexism as....

I can't, and wouldn't anyway, speak for the rest of the male population. But here's my personal input on what I deem to be a fairly serious issue. And this issue is the fact that it appears that most women, or atleast girls, have a huge misconception about guys. Again, I can't speak for most guys, and these misconceptions obviously have enough root in them so that they're repeated. But seriously.

Why is it okay to assume that all guys are sex sex sex penis sex. I mean, really. I know guys act like it sometimes, but girls can act like it too. But it's amplified for guys. Sure, hormones can make guys horny, but what the hell, girls get horny too. And then it's every guy is the same. Every guy would cheat on his wife if he wasn't going to be caught, and every guy would have sex with any pretty girl. And guys don't have girls as friends just to be friends with them, they want sex. I have one thing to say to that.

Bull. Shit. That is so ridiculous, that really, it angers me. I have girl friends, and you know what? They're friends. Imagine. Really. It's that easy. Hey, they're all cute too. But I LIKE them as friends. I wouldn't change that. I know when someone will be a friend or if there's a chance to be something more almost immediately, and if it's the former, it's like, bam, kay, we're good. I'm lucky to have this skill, but to some degree everyone has this. And even those who don't, they don't want to have sex with everything that moves. God, even if it WAS all about sex, there's so many different things to say about it. Maybe they're thinking about sex like intimacy. Maybe THEY think they need to have sex because if they don't, they're gay, or a pussy. And it sure isn't just the guys who'll tell him that.

As was brought up to me today, America is a culture of extremes. It's SEX SEX SEX, or you're a nun, or frigid. The ironic thing is, neither of those extremes is comfortable with sex, in my opinion. You can brag about it, but you're not talking about it. And they're two different things. Why so uncomfortable with sex? Possibly because we're uncomfortable with intimacy, and guess what the most intimate act is? Bingo. Girls aren't the only ones uncomfortable about sex, the only ones who think about it more than "I want to do it." Some of us care more about love then sex.

And for the guys, if this is your mindset, grow up. You're not 9 years old, and giggling at the word penis anymore. It is, possibly, THE most annoying thing to me. The whole shallow thing.

My point, if there is one, is this. There is no guy to show you that we're not all the same. Because there's not one exclusion to the rule. There's many many many more.

And if there isn't, and it's just me and a handful of others, well fuck. I still stand by my statements for myself.

Making A Promise To Be Broken.

Hey look, I can be contradictory too. Who would make a promise to be broken? That they don't really mean to keep? Well, we all do, for one, but at least for some of us, we mean to keep it, but we subconsciously know that we never will. For others, they never even mean to keep it.

It's kind of like that latter one. I am absolutely, positively sure that I will not keep this promise. But I'm as equally sure that I will continue to make this promise every time I break it. So, in a way, I am keeping the promise. But I'm going to have to be re-affirming it a lot. Annoying, but sacrifices must be made, I suppose.

We all do that third option too, the one I just described. "I'm going to be nicer to people." Um, sure, for the 30 minutes you remember that you made that promise, and then you're only doing it so you don't seem like an asshole to yourself. You're not being nicer just to be nicer. So, I pose this question. Are you really being nice if you're not doing it out of the kindness of your soul? I guess, you might be. Being nice is just being nice, and if you force yourself to do it, against your own will, maybe that's being nicer then if you enjoy it.

But this was supposed to be about me. The promise I'm making, that I am sure will be broken and then re-affirmed, then broken, and so on until I die, hopefully making at least some progress. Progress is all we can ask for...Again, I digress. Can't help it. And I don't have the heart to hit the backspace button on such a little life gem like that.

I decided, yesterday, that I would try to be a little more like Morrie. Not completely like him, of course, because hey, I disagreed with some of his things. But I think it's reasonable that we should all be more forgiving, and less ashamed. And maybe, one day this week, I'll wake up, pretend there's a little bird on my shoulder, ask it if I'm going to die, and feel like I'm a great big fool. But then maybe I'll do it two times a week next month. Maybe it'll help.

But I'll probably forget about that promise too. Until I remember, and make the promise again, do it for a little awhile, and maybe, learn to be a touch more forgiving, a touch less ashamed, over the period of however many years until I die. Inch by inch and foot by foot. I'm reading Kurt Vonnegut's Welcome To The Monkeyhouse and in one of the stories, a character asks "How did we get here?" the other one replies "One foot in front of the other, through the leaves and over the bridges." Nobody thinks about that, how every journey is composed of thousands of little steps. That's all a journey is. A thousand little steps.

Amazing story.

Born without eyes, and his limbs unable to extend, this guy manages to play the piano. Beautifully too. I saw him on the end of the Ellen Degeneres show, as I got home. I was dumbfounded as he played Georgia On My Mind, by Ray Charles. So I looked him up, and found that link. I wanted to know more about him. He played at University of Lousville, he had Extreme Makeover: House Edition come to his house, and he's been all around, and on ESPN news.

I was moved to tears by this guy. In his interview with Ellen Degeneres, he said that "He thought his blindness was an ability, because all he saw was what was inside the person. Alot of people with sight are judged people by their hair color, clothes, whether white, black, red, or yellow. And those are just adjectives with no meaning whatsoever." He has reached a sociological ability far beyond what I know I've, and many people I've met, achieved.

This 'disabled' person was given the gift to play music with great skill. It's one of the first times that I've been moved to tears, and I don't cry easily. But him playing Georgia on My Mind touched me for some reason. He goes around, and gives inspiration and hope to countless people. And he does this as someone who, while we may not think less of, we think of with less 'ability' than us. And not only with his music, but with his words.

Violence, and it's undertones.

We've talked about the school shootings, and how some of the reasons for such an event could be things like trying to prove you are a man. Sal also talked about how violence is, in our culture, a way of showing that you are a man. I'm bigger, badder, and meaner than you, so I'm more of a man than you are. I just want to put some quotes on here that make me think about violence and 'manhood.'

Was all this bloodshed and deceit - from Columbus to Cortes, Pizarro the Puritans - a necessity for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization? Was Morison right in burying the story of genocide inside a more important story of human progress? Perhaps a persuasive argument can be made - as it was made by Stalin when he killed pesants for industrial progress in the Soviet Union, as it was made by Churchill explaining the bombings of Dresden and Hamburg, and Truman explaining Hiroshima. But how can the judgement be made if the benefits and losses cannot be balanced because the losses are either unmentioned or mentioned quickly?

The power of hiding ourselves from one another is mercifully given, for men are wild beasts, and would devour one another but for this protection.

One does not learn how to die by killing others.

We have, I fear, confused power with greatness.

My Father taught me how to be a man – and not by instilling in me a sense of machismo or an agenda of dominance. He taught me that a real man doesn’t take, he gives; he doesn’t use force, he uses logic; doesn’t play the role of trouble-maker, but rather, trouble-shooter; and most importantly, a real man is defined by what’s in his heart, not his pants.

All of these quotes seem relevant to me on this topic. I, obviously, can't speak for everyone, nor can I speak for all the guys. But it seems like we, we being the male population, are trying to find other outlets for the violence that...seems to be inherent in us. As if it's coded in to our DNA, or, merely, instilled in to us since birth as a result of the society around us. We watch football, and hockey, and sure we love it when someone scores. But damn, aren't most of us just waiting for someone to get demolished. How many of us secretly cheer when someone gets hit by a 350 pound linebacker, and tears an ACL? I'm sure there's other reasons for this, like jealousy, but we just like violence. If we were born in to a society where the Gladiatorial Arena was legal, I bet most of us would be watching it on TV every Sunday Night, cheering for our favorite team. This connects to my other blog, Fascination With Death, I suppose. But this time, it's a question I end on. Is violence so encoded in us, as a result of whatever, that we'll never be able to break free of it, and it's implications? Or can we, as a society, as a people, move beyond it?

The Web Theory

I used the web metaphor in my earliest blog, when it was just on Facebook. I was talking about choices and how they branch out in a neverending web. I'm using the web metaphor again, and choices too. But not our choices.

I'm talking about the choices made by people that influence us even though we may not like the outcome. This web ensnares us. These choices flow outward and entangle, making the web I'm talking about. It's happened for atleast my entire life so far, and I don't expect it's different for anyone else. Or that it'll stop, ever. People make choices that affect us, good or bad. We're stuck with the consequences, even though we normally don't have a say in these choices.

Here's an example. Given where I live, I'm not exposed to many cultures, except for a select few. So given this, I don't always have the best background and experiences to pull from when I do meet someone from a different culture, any of them. This is something that I'm really hoping to change at some point. But, my point is, I didn't decide this. I didn't decide to live here, or whatever. I just do, and the consequences of it are on me. You can apply this to many different things.

It's like I've got 80,000 spiders constantly building ONE web, and it's around me. I have no doubt that some of these spiders are of my own making, but whether they're mine or not, they're creating a web, or if you like, a wall, that holds me back from connecting with people as much as I could.

We Help You, You Help Them

This is how I see one of Barrack Obama's proposals. I'm not a great expert on it, only heard him speak about it. But it's something like this.

We help you go to college, with payments, so more people get educated. In return, you do community service.

It seems like a good idea, but I'm a bit wary. One, especially with our current economy, it seems a bit far fetched. How much are we going to help? Public colleges only? Community colleges? Do you need a certain GPA?

Everyone isn't as lucky as us, given that we're a wealthy area, but many people have pulled themselves out of poverty by sheer work. It almost seems like just some words. I don't see how it'd work. It'd be a logistical nightmare, keeping track of all that. Did so and so(All 50 million of them) do their 25 hours of community work this year?

I think it's all great and inspiring, and I love learning more than most, so I think it'd be great if more people got educated, but it seems like something that's not really something that can be accomplished in a reasonable way.

A Bronx Tale(Groups)

What are all the groups that Collogero belongs to? (Think in terms of the circles exercise we did in class.) Would you put him in Sonny’s crew, or would you put him and Sonny in their own crew? What is Collogero’s Master Status? Why do you think so? Do you think his master status changes throughout the movie?

Collogero, or C., belongs to his family, his friends, being italian, his school, and he and Sonny's own group. They are definentely in their own group, which is kind of mentioned in the movie, with Sonny telling him that he doesn't want C. to be like him. It's much more of a one on one experience between the two, with Sonny being a surrogate father. Overall, I think his master status is his family, specifically being his father's son. I don't think it ever changes, because it's just too much part of who he is. He struggles with this, yes, but I think that it's always a defining part of him, specifically the "Wasted Talent" bit.

Fascination with death.

Why is it that we, as a culture, as a SPECIES, have a fascination with death? We're paranoid about it, we have countless rituals for it, thousands of movies and books about it. The human race seems to be obssessed with the fact that some day, we are all going to die.

Some want to prolong that moment. Some want to live on that edge of live and death. And some take death in to their own hands, to give it out, or to end theirs quicker. I've never heard of another animal doing this, intentionally killing itself. Most animals seem to go about life without a real thought about death. But we have myths about ghosts, zombies, vampires, everything that symbolizes death.

I read a book once, a fictional account of dragons. One of the things I remember most about the book was that they mentioned something about dragons not knowing hot to fight back against extinction, because it never occured to them to have to. As the biggest baddest predators around, so nobody messed with them. See, that's not humans. We've gotten to the top by way of invention and cleverness. We're the hunters now, but our genes still remember the feeling of being somewhere on the middle with a wood spear, and the paranoia that went with it. It's like we feel threatened by the existence of other species. We're not going to be pushed off, so damnit sorry pandas, we've gotta get rid of you.

I mean, jesus, we've got snuff films which can show you the death of others anytime you want. How...Just, I mean. Think about that. How CRAZY is that? You can have someone's death replayed over and over at your fingertips. It's like a god-complex, literally. You're controlling someone's life, in a way. Though it's a digital form, and they've already died. But that's rational, I think this goes much more subconciously.

One of the reasons that I've always wanted to meet an alien race was because I wanted to know if suciude was heard of in their race. Is it a human thing? Or maybe an intelligent life thing. Would another intelligent species be as paranoid and obsessed with death as we are? Would they be more practical, like some animals who just eat their dead, because hey, it's food. Or more spiritual and have their own version of religious views of the dead?

I cannot even imagine....

Okay, I don't get angry easily. Anyone who knows me, knows this. I am patient, I am forgiving. But when I am angry, I tend to....get very angry. Many of you(Probably all) have heard of the NIU tragedy. It's a tragedy, and a horrible thing to happen. My mom's ex boyfriends son goes there(We're still close to them.) and was in the lecture hall next door.

This is not what I'm angry about. What I'm angry about is this.

godhatesfags.com

This site makes me want to vomit. If I wasn't already feeling sick, I would be now. The people who believe in this, and who made that site are to me, trash. The rule of freedom of speech goes so far, and so does the freedom of religion. They are picketing at NIU, saying it was a good thing what happened, because god is angry about gays, and that's why they died. They say it's a good thing. They have done this for hurricanes, and storms, and anything.

I cannot even begin to understand this. Part of me wants to cry, which is rare. People are so pathetic that they would stoop to this level. It's like laughing in the face of those victim's families and then grinding salt in to their wounds. Their website is just vile vicious slander, of the worst kind. They picket their funerals. They picket soldier's funerals. They believe themselves to be the world's last hope, special, and they are damning us all.

This blows my mind, the sheer ignorance. It just makes me sad. Not for them, because I have nowhere near the amount of patience or forgiveness for this. I don't think anyone could, not even Gandhi, or Martin Luther King Jr. I feel sad for the countless amounts of victims that have been slandered by these people.

I don't know why I decided to make this, but it seemed right. As if people should know about these guys.

Men and Women

Here's a prime example of "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus"offered by an English professor from the University of Colorado for an actual class assignment:The professor told his class one day: "Today we will experiment with a new form called the tandem story. The process is simple. Each person will pair off with the person sitting to his or her immediate right.As homework tonight, one of you will write the first paragraph of a short story. You will e-mail your partner that paragraph and send another copy to me. The partner will read the first paragraph and then add another paragraph to the story and send it back, alsosending another copy to me. The first person will then add a third paragraph, and so on back-and-forth.Remember to re-read what has been written each time in order to keep the story coherent. There is to be absolutely NO talking outside of the e-mails and anything you wish to say must be written in the e-mail. The story is over when both agree a conclusion hasbeen reached."The following was actually turned in by two of his English students: Rebecca and Gary.THE STORY:

(first paragraph by Rebecca)At first, Laurie couldn't decide which kind of tea she wanted. The chamomile, which used to be her favorite for lazy evenings at home, now reminded her too much of Carl, who once said, in happier times, that he liked chamomile. But she felt she must now, at all costs, keep her mind off Carl. His possessiveness was suffocating, and if she thought about him too much her asthma started acting up again. So chamomile was out of the question.

(second paragraph by Gary)Meanwhile, Advance Sergeant Carl Harris, leader of the attack squadron now in orbit over Skylon 4, had more important things to think about than the neuroses of an air-headed asthmatic bimbo named Laurie with whom he had spent one sweaty night over a yearago. "A.S. Harris to Geostation 17," he said into his transgalactic communicator. "Polar orbit established. No sign of resistance so far..." But before he could sign off a bluish particle beam flashed out of nowhere and blasted a hole through his ship's cargo bay.The jolt from the direct hit sent him flying out of his seat and across the cockpit.

(Rebecca)He bumped his head and died almost immediately, but not before he felt one last pang of regret for psychically brutalizing the one woman who had ever had feelings for him. Soon afterwards, Earth stopped its pointless hostilities towards the peaceful farmers of Skylon 4. "Congress Passes Law Permanently Abolishing War and Space Travel," Laurie read in her newspaper one morning. The news simultaneously excited her and bored her. She stared out the window, dreaming of her youth, when the days had passed unhurriedly and carefree, with no newspaper to read, no television to distract her from her sense of innocent wonder at all the beautiful things around her. "Why must one lose one's innocence to become a woman?" she pondered wistfully.

( Gary)Little did she know, but she had less than 10 seconds to live. Thousands of miles above the city, the Anu'udrian mother ship launched the first of its lithium fusion missiles. The dim-witted wimpy peaceniks who pushed the Unilateral Aerospace disarmament Treaty through the congress had left Earth a defenseless target for the hostile alien empires who were determined to destroy the human race. Within two hours after the passage of the treaty the Anu'udrian ships were on course for Earth, carrying enough firepower to pulverize the entire planet. With no one to stop them, they swiftly initiated their diabolical plan. The lithium fusion missile entered the atmosphere unimpeded. The President, in his top-secret mobile submarine headquarters on the ocean floor off the coast of Guam, felt the inconceivably massive explosion, which vaporized poor, stupid Laurie.

(Rebecca)This is absurd. I refuse to continue this mockery of literature. My writing partner is a violent, chauvinistic semi-literate adolescent.

(Gary)Yeah? Well, my writing partner is a self-centered tedious neurotic whose attempts at writing are the literary equivalent of Valium. "Oh, shall I have chamomile tea? Or shall I have some other sort of F**KING TEA??? Oh no, what am I to do? I'm such an air headed bimbo who reads too many Danielle Steele novels!"

(Rebecca)Asshole.

(Gary)Bitch!

(Rebecca)F**K YOU - YOU NEANDERTHAL!!

(Gary)In your dreams, Ho. Go drink some tea.

(TEACHER)A+ - I really liked this one.

This is from a chain letter I got, and unlike most chain letters, I thought this was awesome. I don't know if it actually happened, or someone just made it up. Even if they did, it still gets the point across. It's funny, which helps. It's about the differences between the sexes, though presented in a way that everyone can understand it.

Though it may be a little on the extreme example side, it still does get the point across that though we are the same species and all, there is a lot of difference between the two sexes. You see some differences in sexes in some other species like female lions being the hunters and the males just...relaxing. But there are alot of species where it seems that they are much more similar then we are. Was this part of our evolution, the mentality difference, and it once served a purpose, or does it still serve one? If so, what are the downsides to this? You'd think having a group of people with different priorities would be a bad idea in the wild, where you're not at the top of the food chain.

Yes We Can(No False Hope)

In this video, made by Will.I.Am, after he saw a speech by Barrack Obama, there's a line where Barrack says "We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope, but in the unlikely story of America, there has never been anything false about hope."

I think that this is an incredibly interesting thing to say, because it applies to hope in general, not just in america. Is there ever anything false about hope? Is it ever not realistic to have hope? He makes some pretty bold claims, with his Yes We Can slogan in this speech. Some people would say he's unrealistic. And some would say he's inspiring.

Is there any difference between the two, when it comes to hope? I guess it could just be how you look at it, with the cup being half full, or half empty. Some of our greatest leaders have said some bold things. Kennedy said we'd go to the moon, and so we did, though not in his lifetime. Maybe things are only unrealistic because we let them be, and we need someone to say "It is possible."

Maybe that's the only way to evolve, as humanity. To solve our problems.

Me On Blogging

Blogging is an interesting concept, I think going back towards a journal. It seems like a combination of both a Diary and a Newspaper, albiet a more personal newspaper. I think it seems just to be just impersonal enough that you feel that you can talk about things you wouldn't maybe talk about in person, but still personal enough that you want to, and that you want to have your friends read it. It also allows other people to get to know you, and maybe decide if they want to get to know you better, on a deeper level than "You like the Bears too? Cool, let's hang out."

The Awkwardness of Silence

As a general rule, I think people find silence, especially for any period longer than 30 seconds awkward. I think it makes people feel like they're not connecting, as if the silence is a gap between people, and people want to be connected. It's much easier to talk about anything, everything, than to sit in silence and think. Myself, I like silence. It's part of the reason that I'm a night owl, and enjoy the night so much. It's got a peaceful silence that you can't get in the day.

I guess you could say that some people like to hear themselves speak, and that's why they talk so much, but I think for most people it's something else. It's more because the silence is awkward to them, than they want to hear themselves speak. I have met some people who talk to fill the air though, which I think is common. You're not connecting if you're not talking, is a common thought, I think. Of course, this can come at the expense of listening. There's a famous quote, which is "Most people aren't listening, just waiting for their turn to speak." How many times have you tried to have a conversation with them, and they either don't hear what you're saying, or they completely ignore whatever it was you're talking about in favor of another topic? I think it's pretty common. People want people to know them, but not always do they want to know other people.

I don't think that too many people yearn for peace and quiet, though that is the phrase used. I think they just want relaxation, which comes in many ways. You can relax by playing football, but that's not exactly quiet. If people yearned for it as much as it's said they do, I think it'd be a more common thing, instead of the rare event that it is.

The awkwardness of a silence depends on the group of people. It's less awkward if it's with people you know, because you're comfortable with them. It takes a measure of comfort with the people to have the silence not be awkward. Some people have no one they can do this with, some people can do this with multiple people. Some people are just more comfortable with silence than others, for whatever reason. I'm sure that it's possible that if you grew up in the country silence might be more comfortable, than if you grew up in the middle of Chicago with cars going by all night.

I think that if people could listen more, and be more comfortable with silence, than people might save themselves alot of trouble with...everything. Alot of conflicts could be avoided if both people had listened instead of waiting for their turn to speak. But it takes alot more patience that alot of people want to give, especially if it's to someone that they don't know.

What makes someone human?

The Power of hiding ourselves from one another is mercifully given, for men are wild beasts, and would devour one another but for this protection.

There are two kinds of men who never amount to much: those who cannot do what they are told and those who can do nothing else.

Men do not care how nobly they live, but only how long, although it is within the reach of every man to live nobly, but within no man's power to live long.

Man is never honestly the fatalist, nor even the stoic. He fights his fate, often desperately. He is forever entering bold exceptions to the rulings of the bench of gods. This fighting, no doubt, makes for human progress, for it favors the strong and the brave. It also makes for beauty, for lesser men try to escape from a hopeless and intolerable world by creating a more lovely one of their own.

The good devout man first makes inner preparation for the actions he has later to perform. His outward actions do not draw him into lust and vice; rather it is he who bends them into the shape of reason and right judgement. Who has a stiffer battle to fight than the man who is striving to conquer himself.

Men of strong minds and who think for themselves, should not be discouraged on finding occasionally that some of their best ideas have been anticipated by former writers; they will neither anathematize others nor despair themselves. They will rather go on discovering things before discovered, until they are rewarded with a land hitherto unknown, an empire indisputably their own, both right of conquest and of discovery.

Every human being on this earth is born with a tragedy, and it isn't original sin. He's born with the tragedy that he has to grow up. That he has to leave the nest, the security, and go out to do battle. He has to lose everything that is lovely and fight for a new loveliness of his own making, and it's a tragedy. A lot of people don't have the courage to do it.

For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can't readily accept the God formula, the big answers don't remain stone-written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command or faith a dictum. I am my own God. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us.

How is one to live a moral and compassionate existence when one is fully aware of the blood, the horror inherent in life, when one finds darkness not only in one's culture but within oneself? If there is a stage at which an individual life becomes truly adult, it must be when one grasps the irony in its unfolding and accepts responsibility for a life lived in the midst of such paradox. One must live in the middle of contradiction, because if all contradiction were eliminated at once life would collapse. There are simply no answers to some of the great pressing questions. You continue to live them out, making your life a worthy expression of leaning into the light.


I'm not talking about what makes us Homo Sapiens as a species. That's a fairly easy question to answer. I'm talking more about what makes a man a man, what makes someone their own person. Obviously, I am very well qualified to speak about this. I am 16, I read a time article, and I'm a week in to a Sociology class. I have alot of experience in this. Obviously.

Alright, anyway. I've got a theory. You're born, and while you have SOME semblence of a personality(Y'know, genetics and shit.) alot of it is based on upbringing. But that's not my theory, that's pretty much a fact. My theory is that we're born as very confident, very strong, very loving, very intelligent. We have all the good qualities, and it's more up to the parents to keep the child from forgetting these things about themselves, then actually giving them these qualities.

Of course, there are the fringes. Those who are brilliant, and geniuses, I'm talking about those 5 people who are ridicuously smart, and who I feel sorry for. Those who, for whatever reason, have some genetic defect that causes whatever thing. Mental retardation, etc. There's also the sociopaths and the pathlogical fringe, but I don't think anyone understands why they are what they are. I don't think you can get that effect from plain bad enviorment.

Anyway, back to my main point. If people are born with all these awesome qualities, what happens? Because, I think, we can agree, there's too many people who are...questionable. I mean, come on, "hey wazzup guys how r u, lyk rly?" isn't exactly giving me more faith in humanity. And there's enough wars, and murders, and thefts and crimes that it appears something has gone wrong. And I also don't think that there's alot of parents sitting there are night going "I bet I can make my kids stupid, and shallow...If I only knew how." But it appears to happen anyway, on a pretty wide scale.

I suppose you could blame some of it on just bad parenting. They can't be around as often as they should, because of jobs. And there's like a 50% divorce rate, so maybe that's not good either. Though I think I turned out fine. But I don't think it's a good thing either. Just a point. Society could be it. I mean, getting influenced by MTV, and allll that. You want a rounded off experience, but watching Jackass every day probably isn't boosting your intellectual capability all that well.

I don't know. I sometimes wonder if we were better off in the past. I kinda hope that someone would go all Fight Club and bring us all back in to an age where we had none of this shit. As they say somewhere in that movie, I think, hunting deer around the ivy covered Empire State building. I mean, sure, there's no vaccines, there's no computers, there's no TV, there's no Pacemakers. But for all that, what have we also made? Nuclear weapons, a shitload of guns, tanks, aircraft carriers. God knows, it's not the equipments fault, and having stuff like that is pretty cool. But it has still has the ability to destroy our world like 400 times over. That's a very very small margin of error. I mean, people got murdered, and there was war way back when. But did 50 million die over the course of something like 6 years? No. Less of a population, I suppose, but there was no...feeling that we would wipe out our entire race.

And then, perhaps we might have been better off, spiritually, emotionally, whatever. I mean, is sitting in a cubicle(Yeah, I'm aware that not everyone sits in a cubicle, but tell me how many people just LOVE working.) better than hunting mammoths in an outfit made out of skins, and wearing wood skinshoes, using a spear you made out of a tree with a stone knife? It just seems somehow perferrable to me. Maybe it's just some nostalgia, but whatever. I just think that somewhere, we went wrong. And that people aren't really being people anymore. We're capable of too many things, like murdering 7 million Jewish and other ethnicities, or causing the starvation of 300 thousand in ONE country. Too obdient. We rely too much on others. Maybe I'm wrong, but I wonder if we were capable of that 2000, 5000, 10,000, 30,000 years ago. Maybe we were. But maybe it was less of a percantage. I just think that somehow, we're losing our humanity in favor of other things. Of easier things.

Yup. That's all.

Aggressive/Assertive

Blessed be the meek, for they shall inherit six feet of the earth.

Now, I could've read the quote wrong, and maybe you'll read it another way, but hey, it's all about interpretation. It doesn't matter what I see in it. Well, it does, but not to you. Anyways, some other quotes, some songs, and some situations later, it got me thinking. The result is the long rambling conversation I'm about to have with myself.

Alot of people praise the meek, the patient, the ones who accept their life. Hell, I wish I was more patient then I am, and was more accepting. But I do always want more. Not in the sense of material goods, though hey, it's not going to be turned down. I'm no saint. But in the sense of more out of life. I want it ALL. I want to experience this, and that. Well, again, not entirely. I do draw my limits. I don't see the point of drinking/smoking/doing drugs to experience life. I gotz me some better ways to release endorphins, thanks. But what does being meek, and patient GET you?

Do you get more friends, because you're nicer to people? Maybe you shouldn't be nice to people. Maybe people need to be kicked in the ass sometimes. But Ryan, being meek and patient don't mean you don't know when not to be. Well, I think meek does. Meek, to me is letting things pass you by, because you don't want to fight it. I can cite so many examples to why that is a bad idea, that instead, I'll cite none. And patience. Sure, I understand being patient with people, and all that. That's necessary. It's courtesy. But I'm talking about being patient with your life. Accepting it for what it is. "Well, I know life sucks. I'm just being realistic, that's all." No, not really. What I don't mind if when people say this "Life sucks. It's short, brutal, and seems to have absoloutely no point. But goddamnit, I'm going to make my life have a point." Not that it's ever been said to me, but I've thought it atleast.

Maybe I'm just crazy. Well, that's probably not in debate. I gave the middle finger to the last star in the sky this morning, and called it an asshole. I was pretending it was God, because that's how I roll. But I did it in a way, personally, to me meant, "You made a shitty world. And you made me part of it. So I'm going to make my little corner of it better." Not that I really believe in a God. It's the whole agnostic part of me, y'understand. But if there is one, I hope he/she is sitting up there, with their head in their hands, just incredibly frustrated with me.

So, since we've gotten this far, and I've given you my opinion on how you should live your life, what's the difference between Assertive, and Aggressive? I mean, everyone knows Aggressive is bad, right? Assertive is just standing up for yourself, and being yourself, and that's good. I don't think the line is so black and white though. One, because people will view you as aggressive, and you might view yourself as assertive. It's all about your way of looking at it. And two, maybe 5 different people see Aggressive and Assertive in different ways. None of them is wrong. Though none of them are probably right either. And three, I think you have to go beyond Assertive sometimes, in to the realms of the bad bad bad Aggressive, where all you're left with is the burning desire to do IT, whatever it is, and you couldn't care less about anyone who gets in your way, innocent bystander or not.

Maybe Assertive isn't enough sometimes. Maybe from time to time, there needs to be somebody who just says "Fuck it." and barrels right through everybody. And they do so not out of apathy, but because the end objective is more then any single person or group. So, then, is being Aggressive wrong? Do you have the willpower, and partly the apathy, to be able to throw away innocent lives like that? Let's say the End Objective is...I don't know, something really benifecial, and logical. Like a huge grant for some really good charities. And to achieve that goal, you may have to ruin a few innocent lives. It no longer seems so black and white anymore. Greater Good, which you may never live to see, and may never actually come around, VS the Innocent Bystanders, who never did anything, but are unfortunately in the way, and are here and now, not the future?

And how far do you draw the line in personal relationships. Where do you let people be, with their personal lives? Where do you stop and let them handle it? Sure, you want to have faith in them. But what if what they're going through is so hard, that they need somebody to help them. Help them, against their will. Can you stomach the abuse, the anger, the sadness of hurting those you care about, for in the end, the greater good? Can you cut off your own leg, or everyone's leg, so that we all don't die of cancer? Seems like an easy choice. It's not. Trust me. You know what you would do. You know what everyone else thinks, right away when they see it. But what if they're the ones cutting the legs off? The ones cutting off a resiting, screaming, crying little boy who just desperately wants to be left alone, because he doesn't understand that he will die? And if you manage that one, how about the other million kids you'll have to do that to? How long before you lose your mind, in to a place so deep that it can never be recovered? If I had to bet, I'd say it's after the 5th kid. Maybe.

And say you manage to say, after the 10th kid that you just cannot do this anymore, despite the fact that you are the only person who CAN do it? Will you sacrifice yourself, in a way so much beyond your body, to where you are sacrificing your mind, and possibly your soul, for the physical good of others? What happens at the 25th kid, when your body is just shaking so bad, and you're in such psychological stress that you cannot even speak anymore? And you look up at the line, where everybody is waiting for their kids turn, everybody crying, even though they know it's necessary, as they wait for you to cut their kid's leg off, so that they don't die. And the line goes on forever.

All I'm asking you is this. How long can you go before the difference between assertive and aggressive no longer means anything to you? How long can you hold back, in the name of Patience?

Heh. Maybe all you're doing by being patient is delaying the inevitable, and making it worse too. Making the inevitable explosion on somebody much worse then it has to be. And maybe all I'm doing is being an asshole, by being aggressive/assertive/whate

ver.

"To be, or not to be,--that is the question:--
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?"

Keeping Busy.

Gonna mix it up a bit, add some quotes at the start to make you think about the topic, before I start actually getting down to the nitty gritty of Love. Well, the best I can anyway. =P I don't necessarily agree with all of these, but they're there to make you think, not force an opinion on you. I understand that there's alot of them, but bear with me, eh?


Never pretend to a love which you do not actually feel, for love is not ours to command.

Love is not enough. It must be the foundation, the cornerstone - but not the complete structure. It is much too pliable, too yielding.

Love isn't a decision. It's a feeling. If we could decide who we loved, it would be much simpler, but much less magical.

I don’t think anyone can DO anything that would make him worthy of love. Love is a gift and cannot be earned. It can only be given.

To be brave is to love someone unconditionally, without expecting anything in return. To just give. That takes courage, because we don't want to fall on our faces or leave ourselves open to hurt.

Honesty is the only way with anyone, when you'll be so close as to be living inside each other's skins.

When you give each other everything, it becomes an even trade. Each wins all.

Just because you love someone doesn't mean you have to be involved with them. Love is not a bandage to cover wounds.

What else is love but understanding and rejoicing in the fact that another person lives, acts, and experiences otherwise than we do…?

Love is everything it's cracked up to be…It really is worth fighting for, being brave for, risking everything for.

All love that has not friendship for its base, is like a mansion built upon sand.

Beyond happiness or unhappiness, though it is both things, love is intensity; it does not give us eternity but life, that second in which the doors of time and space open just a crack: here is there and now is always.

I love you - those three words have my life in them.

I have loved to the point of madness;
That which is called madness,
That which to me,
Is the only sensible way to love.

A kiss is a lovely trick designed by nature
To stop speech when words become superfluous.

Love is that condition in which
The happiness of another person
Is essential to your own.

The bottom line is that (a) people are never perfect, but love can be, (b) that is the one and only way that the mediocre and vile can be transformed, and (c) doing that makes it that. We waste time looking for the perfect lover, instead of creating the perfect love.

Okay. Now we get to me, the opinion that you have been dearly waiting for. I already did a blog/note about Love, but I felt I had to do another. Why? Don't know. Just one of those things I guess. Moving on.

The Greek Language, from what I understand, has multiple words for love.

Eros: Romantic love, passionate love, sensual. It does not have to be sexual in nature, though it can be used that way.
Agape: General affection. It can be used the way we do. "I loved that steak." "I love my car." "I love my wife." Etc.
Philias: Friendship.
Storge: Natural affection, i.e. parents for kids.
Thelema: Desire to do something.

I'm going to be talking about Eros, though the others are also interesting and all that. But they don't get to me like the idea of Eros. I may also repeat some ideas from before, but y'know, it happens. Now, finally, my ideas.

True love. It's one of those things that has stories, poems, and other media, written about it every day. And probably has been written about every day since humans became humans, and will probably be written about every day until we all die. Because in a sense, love is what we're all living for. Maybe you're living for a couple of the loves, but I think, deep down inside, most people are living for love. Maybe they have it. Maybe they want it. It depends. But love, truly, makes the world go 'round. Well, a better way to put it is that love make us make the world go 'round.

An interesting idea is one brought up in one of the quotes, that we should spend time creating the perfect love, and not looking for the perfect lover. Now, that doesn't mean you can love anyone, because that is obviously false. You probably can't love most people. But there's still a sizable portion of people who you CAN love. Or maybe there's one true person, but I doubt it. You find someone who you're capable of loving. I think you'll know it, when it happens. Even I've experienced it. It's just something you know. You don't love them immediately, it's not love at first sight, which I think people confuse it with. And maybe that's where the idea came from. But I think it's just a feeling you get. A feeling that if the conditions were right, then you could end up in love with this person. And maybe the conditions aren't right, and never will be right, and you have to move on, and accept it. Who knows.

Then, you've got the slight paradox and conundrum of connection. When you're in love (Well this is all just hypothetical pretty much since I've never been in it but you understand) you want to be connected to that person. Well, you ARE connected. But how far do you take it? Are you one person? What does independence and dependence mean when you're in love? Are you supposed to drop everything for love, real true love that you feel in your heart? Well what you think is love anyway. If it's true, and we're all living our life for love, then maybe it's not so radical to give up our life for love. Another quote that I could not find is something like this, "With you, I should love to live, and be ready to die." Is that just some stalker guy talking, or is it actually entirely reasonable and meaningful, because people are so changed when in love?

I mean, think about it. A widely accepted fact is that we can only rely on ourselves. We will never have anybody else, forever. I say it. I believe it. But I also believe that to be in love, you've got to let go of that, or else you'll never really be in love. I don't know. I guess my kind of idea of the world of love is a very strange one. The sky is bright purple, there's no gravity, and everything is upsidedown. Maybe that makes no sense, but it does to me. Because I think the ideas and ideals that appear, and are true in the regular world, no longer apply in the world of love to some extent. I mean, sure, you don't want to go crazy to be in love. But maybe you've got to. Maybe love is crazy, and in spite of everything, it's the part of you, the naive little part of you that's telling you "Fuck it, go for it. It's worth it." So you dive in to the ocean of love, hoping that you'll instinctively know how to swim, or find something that floats that you can hang on to.

And how much do you take for love? When your 'lover' is being rude, or selfish, or treating you badly, how much do you take for love? Well, the argument can be made that you can never love a person who treats you bad, but meh. Everybody has their faults, and moments of weakness. Nobody's perfect, and they can't always treat you like you are. I mean, sure, you probably can't love a guy/girl who's ALWAYS treating you bad, but what if it's just every so often? So what happens when they don't, and they get a bit snappy? Maybe that's just be being technical, but I think I get the point across. Of how much do you take, in the name of love, because you're bound to have to deal with some shit from your partner.

And of course, the big question. How do you know it's love. I don't think the idea that "You just know in your heart." is right, because alot of people are stupid, and infatuation can be taken as love. And hearts and minds can be fooled. So how do you REALLY know that it's love, the type of love that it might be worth it to throw your life, well your current life, away for, so that you can make a new one? Maybe you don't. Maybe you just hope, and all you've got during the dive in to the ocean is the hope that it's not a 1 foot deep shallow filled with rocks. And if it is, hopefully you can pull yourself together again.

Heh. Maybe I can explain better when I've been through it all. For now, I'm just stuck at "Capable of Love." =) G'night folks.

Romantic Comedy

Hmm. See, one of the most interesting things to me is love. The whole concept. The whole idea of love. I'm not sure why. But nothing fascinates me more, nor do I want anything more. Everybody talks about it, to some extent, everybody thinks about, and everyone wants it. That is a fact. Everybody wants love, l
ove like in a romance novel, or in a romantic movie with Hugh Grant and Julia Roberts. Hey, you can even follow the basic formula for love. Here it is.

Step 1: Witty Putdowns Against Eachother After Random Meeting.
Step 2: Shyness As Both Realize They Like Eachother, But Still Witty Putdowns.
Step 3: Hesitant Kiss, But Then Some Awkward Putdowns.
Step 4: Relationship.
Step 5: The Guy Does Something Stupid, And Girl Walks Off, Probably In To The Rain.
Step 6: The Guy Does Something Really Sweet, And Guy and Girl Fall In Love.
Step 7: End Movie With Witty Putdowns.

That is your formula for love. Now just go find your Hugh Grant, or your Julia Roberts, and engineer that. Voila. Proven by a ridiculous amount of movies. But then, you've also got so many conflicting opinions on what love is. You've got the "Do Anything For You" love. You've got the "I Love You But Hate You" love. You've got the "We're Seperate But One." Love. You've got the "Inseperable." love. Shit. You got 7 billion types of loves, one for each person. But the funny thing about it is, with such differing opinions, how can you love someone if your versions of love are different? I mean, that's a pretty damn big deal breaker.

Oh, I forgot something. You've also got the version of love, well the opinion of love, that says that love doesn't exist. It's just glandular, or chemical. Maybe a cynical view, but one to consider nonetheless.

Then while we're on the topic of love, because we are, you have to consider the amount of people. Is there that one right person for you, that has been so abundant? That someone out there is waiting for YOU, not anybody else, just YOU, and you them. The appeal there is obvious. Or maybe there's 100s, maybe even 1000s of people that you COULD love. And all it depends upon are circumstances. Random, out of your control circumstances. Or maybe some are in your control, too. But I bet some aren't.

And then you've got the question, is Love age limited? Does the big L confine itself to 20 and above, or maybe 20 to 50. Or is it an emotional age thing we're going on. Sure, you want to say emotional age, but come on, so many people are going to stay at the emotional age of a 12 year old, that claim to be in love, that you have to wonder. That many people can't be lying. Well, they can. In fact, they probably are. Delusional fuckers. Moving on.

How about love at first sight? Or does it have to develop? Is it a combination? Is there a limit to love? Can you say "I love you...50% of what I could." And be honest? Not that you'd ever say that, because then you'd be so socially inept so as to be stuck in a cave. But you get my meaning. Ever heard that line from Wedding Crashers "People say we only use 10% of our brains, but I believe we only use 10% of our hearts." Maybe it's true. Maybe we could love SO much more. Are we confining ourselves, perhaps, in our love? But back to love at first sight. Can you look at someone and think, truthfully, that you'll love them? You just know that you will? Or does love come about as you spend time with someone, gradually? Or is it like a chemical reaction, where at the meeting of the two people, they instantly know, and are changed? I don't know. If I did, this blog would be pretty useless.

Can love come and go? Can you ever stop loving someone, if you truly loved them at one point? I mean, if you're so deeply connected in love, then how could that ever really go away? Hell. If you're in love, is that something you can give up, really? Can you walk away from love? "Well sure, for my own good, for the other person's good, etc." Think about it. My two points. One, how could you love someone, if both of your goods were not in sync, if it was bad for either? Well, Ryan, things change. Nah, I don't think so. Not like that. Second point, walking away from love would be painful as hell. Well, Ryan, sometimes you have to accept pain for the greater good. Thanks, I think I knew that. But if you walk away from love, isn't that like leaving a big part of yourself behind? Can you live with that, with a hole? Maybe you could've changed something in the relationship, and saved all this. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Who knows? I don't.

You may notice that this blog has alot more questions than my other two. There's a reason. It's because I don't understand the topic in this as well as I do in the other two. It's something that I think about. But I don't understand it. Heh, maybe it's just something you're not supposed to understand, just do, and go through. Maybe that's why it can never get explained. Maybe, maybe, maybe, I guess. Here's to the night, folks.

Understanding?

I was sitting here, in my house, alone, looking outside at the night. A thought occured to me, not necessarily a new one, but a new perspective on it. The thought was that we're all so stupid. So entirely stupid. We understand nothing about anything, and our entire span of life is us blundering through an unlighted maze, bumping in to walls, obstacles, and other people. And then we die, long before we ever come anywhere near to the end of the maze. Maybe if you're lucky, you find a dead-end, and you know that you took a wrong turn somewhere. Only when you slam face-first in to the cold wall, and realize that you need to retrace your steps and try again.

Now, most of you, if not all, of you who will read this, if any will(=P) think that that right there is some cynical shit. Maybe you'll think "What happened to him recently that he got so cynical in such a short time?" Well, nothing. Because it's not cynical. It's just a thought. We understand nothing about life. That is a fact. Maybe we've got the basics. We know that we're related to apes, and we're mammals. We know how to drop bombs on people, and we know how to make cars. But what is the USE of all of that? It doesn't make our life any better, not really. We're still as spiritually and self-impaired as we were a million years ago, if not more so.

We don't understand ourselves. Not to any real extent. We can't control ourselves. We're just along for the ride. The best we can do is know the signs, and duck and run for cover. How many people do you know that are really, truly, in control of themselves and their life? Who do you know that can control their emotions, and all that? And maybe it's not a bad thing that we can't. Maybe we're not meant to control our emotions, otherwise what fun would life be? But we don't even UNDERSTAND our emotions. They're just something we live with. We don't even experience our emotions like we should. Well, that's what I think anyway. We don't know what love is. We don't know what hate is. We don't know was sadness, or joy is. Sure, go look it up in a dictionary, but that's not knowing what it is.

How often have you felt truly connected to someone? How often have you felt honestly truly contented? How often have you felt like there was a fire inside you, and you just wanted to burn as high as the sky? How often have you felt love, true, deep, uncomprimising love? How often have you felt the righteous anger that burns in your eyes, an anger that has told everyone around you that you do NOT want to be fucked with, under any circumstances? How often have you FELT?

If you say anything more then a minute, more then a moment, then I am calling your bluff, or I think you misunderstood my questions. Because those moments are moments of perfection. And if you think that you've collected more then a moment or a couple of moments of perfection then you're confused. A moment or two of perfection is all we get. Again, maybe that's not bad. Maybe it gives us something to strive for. But a moment out of how many moments? A moment that is probably more luck than anything else? Imagine a LIFE of those moments.

That's why I feel that we're all so stupid. That's why I think so much. So maybe I can make some light for myself and for the people near and dear to me, so that we may navigate this maze of life a little bit better. So that maybe I'll get an extra moment of perfection. Maybe a moment that I can share with others. Welcome to my life.

Strange Web of Chances

Y'know, I was thinking, as I do, and I was thinking about how what we say, or do affects things. Not uncommon, but it was in a weird way. There's a theory that everything you do, or didn't do, spins off a new universe, so in another universe you might of said yes when that one person asked you to prom, or said no when somebody asked to borrow money. Now imagine all the choices you've made in your life, and then imagine the close to 7 billion people we have living on Earth right now, plus all the people who have come and gone. That's a lot of universes, is it not? But, anyway, moving on.

Hindsight isn't always 20/20, despite the cliche. I look back sometimes, for brief moments, and wonder "I wonder what would of happened if.." of course, everyone does that. But when I was thinking about it, I had strange thought. Every choice you make is a web, branching out in an ever lengthening span of interconnected possibilities. Who knows what would of happened if I had decided to stay home and be there that one day? Would I be such a completely different person that I would not be friends with the people I am friends with now? It just seems strange thing to realize now, how quite different we all could be, except for one strange, and almost meaningless choice that we are all constantly making, and have made.

Imagine, that one choice that you never even gave real thought to could have changed your entire life. Or maybe it changed someone elses. Maybe you said something to someone, without even thinking through what you were saying, and maybe you made their life unimaginably better, or you came within inches of demolishing it, except for some fact that some other person said something to them the day before, something that they didn't even think through, and now saves someones life.

The choices we make are constantly interacting, creating an ever lengthening web that ensnares everyone that we come in to contact with, possibly wrapping them in it's comforting warm embrace, allowing them to become what they have always known they could be, or slowly strangling them, draining them dry of potential. And the difference between those two may be that one choice you made on a boring Saturday afternoon, when you had nothing else better to do.

If you have no clue what I'm talking about, it's fine. I don't really either. It's just something that struck me as something to write out. Oh by the way, don't look to deep in to it to try and find out what's going on with my life, or who I am, or whatever. It's just a thought, my precious loves. =)