I believe in soulmates. For a long time I was undecided. I think I know now.
Dancing in our one room apartment, after making myself dinner, promenading across with nobody around...I didn't feel alone. I was alone, mind you.
And, I can visualize myself and my thoughts and feelings from and outside perspective, so I feel like I have a soul of some sort.
Souls speak a different language I think. They decipher meaning between the definitions of words and the melodies of music. They connect to things in ways that I cant really reason out. Have you ever sat with someone, and held their hand, looked into their eyes, and grappled and grappled to contain yourself? As if you were locked? As if you lost your body in the moment, and were on autopilot, not thinking, and feeling your surrondings without feeling your heart beat? I think that's souls touching. I think they only do it when they really want to.
I was convinced of this during an evening, eating dinner, alone...because I was pleased with myself, and even though there was nobody else around, I didn't really feel alone. Someone elses soul was visiting me tonight, I think. After it came and left, I danced. It was the first time I can remember being at peace, by myself. Wonderful.
I don't know what a soul is. I don't know who makes them. But I'm happy, because I finally believe that they exist.
Monday, July 24, 2006
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Media Thoughts - Middle East Coverage
First of all, I think I’m in love with the Washington Post. It’s a great newspaper. It isn’t as comprehensive, and the editorial columnists aren’t nearly as fantastic as the New York Times just as its business section blows compared to the Wall Street Journal (and in general) just as it layout is horrible and I’d almost rather read USA Today because it’s packaging is much more attractive. But, it’s a great all around paper: balanced, adequate, and equally fun and serious. And, I find it to have pretty good analysis and good regard for journalistic ethics and standards.
I was just reading an installment from the Ombudsman (the actual piece, here which was quite interesting, I think) and it triggered one of my complaints of American newspapers. It’s Israel coverage, or rather the consequences of it’s Israel coverage.
Here’s where I reveal my biases on the Israel/Middle East conflict. I must admit, I’m only just starting to keep this issue on my radar; my knowledge on Israel/Lebanon/Gaza Strip/Middle East conflict is miniscule, far less than I need to make a reputable opinion on the matter. However, I’m a fan of stability, and I think military extremism (as it is expressed in the middle east) cannot co-exist with stability. This opinion holds true for Israel and its enemies. I’m not sure I can say that I side with either of the foes, but my gut feeling is that Israel is probably the more right, but definitely fueling the flames of its own fate.
Unfortunately, I find it very difficult to get a good opinion of what is true/false, or right/wrong in regards to the middle east. Coverage of the issue is something I would consider jaded. I think newspapers feel rather restricted to paint Israel negatively. As the Washington Post Magazine illustrated well in last week’s issue, the Israel lobby is extremely powerful. I think it sensible to believe that this power extends to the influence of media and popular culture. They sure are influential on campus.
With this looming negative reaction to posting anything pro-palestine, how are we to expect that newspapers are being diligent in giving a full view of the issue? On top of that, how can I hold a grudge over it? The problem with accepting this though, is how do I go about forming a rational opinion over Israeli affairs?
Yes, I know that I can seek out other opinions, like going to overseas news sources, or talking to people on both sides…but the truth is that’s hard. I barely have time to read the paper, blogs, and other American newspapers. I don’t have enough time or will to become an expert of Israel. That’s what I depend on newspapers for.
I must admit though, I’ve been surprised that I’ve been more or less satisfied with the coverage. The coverage of extremist events have been less than extremist. The coverage has been passionately dis-passionate and seems to have been reported well.
One more point, I definitely think its important to have variety even within a microcosm of the newspaper world (e.g. the varying Op/Ed conclustions between the NyTimes, WashPost, WSJ, LaTimes, etc..) News is hard to report, and there have been many good faith efforts across the globe.
I guess to step down from my stump, and summarize: I wish newspapers didn’t have to pander to an audience. I know that this will never happen (at least short of a revolution in the journalism that makes it much more profitable/cost effective or public outcry) So, a final word. Subscribe to a newspaper, don’t free ride. Write letters to editors. Participate. Back up the talk. (I don’t think I’m being hypocritical, I have a paid subscription to the WashPost and I’ve written letters to newspaper editors, etc.)
Howard Kurtz, a Washington Post Media Columnist, had a nice section in his blog entry about this. I read it in midst of/after writing this post.
A quick question – Did anyone else notice how the WashPost buried Bush’s veto story (the day after the veto) on Page 4? I was cheezed. What was up with that, I thought that was front-page material, easy.
I was just reading an installment from the Ombudsman (the actual piece, here which was quite interesting, I think) and it triggered one of my complaints of American newspapers. It’s Israel coverage, or rather the consequences of it’s Israel coverage.
Here’s where I reveal my biases on the Israel/Middle East conflict. I must admit, I’m only just starting to keep this issue on my radar; my knowledge on Israel/Lebanon/Gaza Strip/Middle East conflict is miniscule, far less than I need to make a reputable opinion on the matter. However, I’m a fan of stability, and I think military extremism (as it is expressed in the middle east) cannot co-exist with stability. This opinion holds true for Israel and its enemies. I’m not sure I can say that I side with either of the foes, but my gut feeling is that Israel is probably the more right, but definitely fueling the flames of its own fate.
Unfortunately, I find it very difficult to get a good opinion of what is true/false, or right/wrong in regards to the middle east. Coverage of the issue is something I would consider jaded. I think newspapers feel rather restricted to paint Israel negatively. As the Washington Post Magazine illustrated well in last week’s issue, the Israel lobby is extremely powerful. I think it sensible to believe that this power extends to the influence of media and popular culture. They sure are influential on campus.
With this looming negative reaction to posting anything pro-palestine, how are we to expect that newspapers are being diligent in giving a full view of the issue? On top of that, how can I hold a grudge over it? The problem with accepting this though, is how do I go about forming a rational opinion over Israeli affairs?
Yes, I know that I can seek out other opinions, like going to overseas news sources, or talking to people on both sides…but the truth is that’s hard. I barely have time to read the paper, blogs, and other American newspapers. I don’t have enough time or will to become an expert of Israel. That’s what I depend on newspapers for.
I must admit though, I’ve been surprised that I’ve been more or less satisfied with the coverage. The coverage of extremist events have been less than extremist. The coverage has been passionately dis-passionate and seems to have been reported well.
One more point, I definitely think its important to have variety even within a microcosm of the newspaper world (e.g. the varying Op/Ed conclustions between the NyTimes, WashPost, WSJ, LaTimes, etc..) News is hard to report, and there have been many good faith efforts across the globe.
I guess to step down from my stump, and summarize: I wish newspapers didn’t have to pander to an audience. I know that this will never happen (at least short of a revolution in the journalism that makes it much more profitable/cost effective or public outcry) So, a final word. Subscribe to a newspaper, don’t free ride. Write letters to editors. Participate. Back up the talk. (I don’t think I’m being hypocritical, I have a paid subscription to the WashPost and I’ve written letters to newspaper editors, etc.)
Howard Kurtz, a Washington Post Media Columnist, had a nice section in his blog entry about this. I read it in midst of/after writing this post.
A quick question – Did anyone else notice how the WashPost buried Bush’s veto story (the day after the veto) on Page 4? I was cheezed. What was up with that, I thought that was front-page material, easy.
Monday, July 17, 2006
define: courage - Google Search
define: courage - Google Search
I will try to make it through this post. My arm still is sore, but I miss the freedom that comes with writing. And, it's been a tumultous time since I've last written; quite a hella hard week. Life seems to simplify, only as a prerequisite to getting complicated again. But, alas we live longer and learn more. And...find more courage.
Courage seems to be a pretty shifty topic. I thought I had a handle on it, but it would appear as though i have a better idea now.
Courage: Doing what you should do despite the opposition you may recieve. It's the tenacity of running into oncoming danger. Facing difficult odds, and then performing an act, despite it. It's that intense eyed glare when starting down an opponent across the line of scrimmage, or attending a funeral of a loved one when you know you'll be a wreck. It's the 'i can do this, i can do this' you say internally when attempting something new. Courage, is focus.
I have long lived by this definition of courage, and have found it to be rather satisfactory. It has never steered me in the wrong direction. It is what one would want courage to be, the ability to co-exist and marginalize the effects that fear creates. It's the "I'm scared, but I'm tough mentality." It's something that is easy to relate to, everyone has fear, so everyone can have courage if you face your fear.
So then, by this definition, courage is accessible...and having fear is not only allowable, but necessary. it's a sexy courage, that is able to be worked towards.
Then a few minutes ago, I finally understood the next level of courage. It had been ciricling in my thoughts for probably a good year. It feels good to get it out.
Here's my beef with the old way. It's to vain, which seems impure to me. Let me explain.
The old definition of courage is dependant on the coexistence of fear and courage, so courage is not a state of being that can happen in its own right--you need fear to be courageous. You need situational context to be courageous.
My gut tells me that an abstract topic like courage needs to not be dependant on anything else to be courage. Courage ought to be something from within, instead of something that arises on a case-by-case basis.
I think for the truly courageous this concept of "fear" doesn't even exist. I think they just do, there is no second guessing or anxiety, or fear, they just go out there and do it.
If they need to make a clutch free thorow, they automatically remove themselves from the situation and make the free throw. To them--the courageous--it's not a clutch free throw, it's just a free throw. I'm begging to see courage as almost dispassionate at its core. It's not only complete acceptance of the world, but it's a step up, it's choosing the world you live in, in a completely honest way.
To me now, this is what courage is, this is what I'm strving for. A world where the effects of fear are overwhelmingly outweighed by strength, but a state of peace where strength is not necessary because fear is inconcieveable.
Steps of development, as I see them:
Co-existence of fear and strength,
Supression of Fear
Full mitigation of fear; strength completely outweighs fear,
Removal of fear
Impossibility and inconcieveability of fear. (Courage)
I will try to make it through this post. My arm still is sore, but I miss the freedom that comes with writing. And, it's been a tumultous time since I've last written; quite a hella hard week. Life seems to simplify, only as a prerequisite to getting complicated again. But, alas we live longer and learn more. And...find more courage.
Courage seems to be a pretty shifty topic. I thought I had a handle on it, but it would appear as though i have a better idea now.
Courage: Doing what you should do despite the opposition you may recieve. It's the tenacity of running into oncoming danger. Facing difficult odds, and then performing an act, despite it. It's that intense eyed glare when starting down an opponent across the line of scrimmage, or attending a funeral of a loved one when you know you'll be a wreck. It's the 'i can do this, i can do this' you say internally when attempting something new. Courage, is focus.
I have long lived by this definition of courage, and have found it to be rather satisfactory. It has never steered me in the wrong direction. It is what one would want courage to be, the ability to co-exist and marginalize the effects that fear creates. It's the "I'm scared, but I'm tough mentality." It's something that is easy to relate to, everyone has fear, so everyone can have courage if you face your fear.
So then, by this definition, courage is accessible...and having fear is not only allowable, but necessary. it's a sexy courage, that is able to be worked towards.
Then a few minutes ago, I finally understood the next level of courage. It had been ciricling in my thoughts for probably a good year. It feels good to get it out.
Here's my beef with the old way. It's to vain, which seems impure to me. Let me explain.
The old definition of courage is dependant on the coexistence of fear and courage, so courage is not a state of being that can happen in its own right--you need fear to be courageous. You need situational context to be courageous.
My gut tells me that an abstract topic like courage needs to not be dependant on anything else to be courage. Courage ought to be something from within, instead of something that arises on a case-by-case basis.
I think for the truly courageous this concept of "fear" doesn't even exist. I think they just do, there is no second guessing or anxiety, or fear, they just go out there and do it.
If they need to make a clutch free thorow, they automatically remove themselves from the situation and make the free throw. To them--the courageous--it's not a clutch free throw, it's just a free throw. I'm begging to see courage as almost dispassionate at its core. It's not only complete acceptance of the world, but it's a step up, it's choosing the world you live in, in a completely honest way.
To me now, this is what courage is, this is what I'm strving for. A world where the effects of fear are overwhelmingly outweighed by strength, but a state of peace where strength is not necessary because fear is inconcieveable.
Steps of development, as I see them:
Co-existence of fear and strength,
Supression of Fear
Full mitigation of fear; strength completely outweighs fear,
Removal of fear
Impossibility and inconcieveability of fear. (Courage)
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Bad News
Blog, you are out of commission for a week. Unfortunately I'm having repeated motion injury in my right hand/arm, which pains, alot.
-Ciao
-Neil
-Ciao
-Neil
Saturday, July 08, 2006
Media Commentary.
First of all, I think I’m in love with the Washington Post. It’s a great newspaper. It isn’t as comprehensive, and the editorial columnists aren’t nearly as fantastic as the New York Times just as its business section blows compared to the Wall Street Journal (and in general) just as it layout is horrible and I’d almost rather read USA Today because it’s packaging is much more attractive. But, it’s a great all around paper: balanced, adequate, and equally fun and serious. And, I find it to have pretty good analysis and good regard for journalistic ethics and standards.
I was just reading an installment from the Ombudsman (the actual piece, here which was quite interesting, I think) and it triggered one of my complaints of American newspapers. It’s Israel coverage, or rather the consequences of it’s Israel coverage.
Here’s where I reveal my biases on the Israel/Middle East conflict. I must admit, I’m only just starting to keep this issue on my radar; my knowledge on Israel/Lebanon/Gaza Strip/Middle East conflict is miniscule, far less than I need to make a reputable opinion on the matter. However, I’m a fan of stability, and I think military extremism (as it is expressed in the middle east) cannot co-exist with stability. This opinion holds true for Israel and its enemies. I’m not sure I can say that I side with either of the foes, but my gut feeling is that Israel is probably the more right, but definitely fueling the flames of its own fate.
Unfortunately, I find it very difficult to get a good opinion of what is true/false, or right/wrong in regards to the middle east. Coverage of the issue is something I would consider jaded. I think newspapers feel rather restricted to paint Israel negatively. As the Washington Post Magazine illustrated well in last week’s issue, the Israel lobby is extremely powerful. I think it sensible to believe that this power extends to the influence of media and popular culture. They sure are influential on campus.
With this looming negative reaction to posting anything pro-palestine, how are we to expect that newspapers are being diligent in giving a full view of the issue? On top of that, how can I hold a grudge over it? The problem with accepting this though, is how do I go about forming a rational opinion over Israeli affairs?
Yes, I know that I can seek out other opinions, like going to overseas news sources, or talking to people on both sides…but the truth is that’s hard. I barely have time to read the paper, blogs, and other American newspapers. I don’t have enough time or will to become an expert of Israel. That’s what I depend on newspapers for.
I must admit though, I’ve been surprised that I’ve been more or less satisfied with the coverage. The coverage of extremist events have been less than extremist. The coverage has been passionately dis-passionate and seems to have been reported well.
One more point, I definitely think its important to have variety even within a microcosm of the newspaper world (e.g. the varying Op/Ed conclustions between the NyTimes, WashPost, WSJ, LaTimes, etc..) News is hard to report, and there have been many good faith efforts across the globe.
I guess to step down from my stump, and summarize: I wish newspapers didn’t have to pander to an audience. I know that this will never happen (at least short of a revolution in the journalism that makes it much more profitable/cost effective or public outcry) So, a final word. Subscribe to a newspaper, don’t free ride. Write letters to editors. Participate. Back up the talk. (I don’t think I’m being hypocritical, I have a paid subscription to the WashPost and I’ve written letters to newspaper editors, etc.)
Howard Kurtz, a Washington Post Media Columnist, had a nice section in his blog entry about this. I read it in midst of/after writing this post.
A quick question – Did anyone else notice how the WashPost buried Bush’s veto story (the day after the veto) on Page 4? I was cheezed. What was up with that, I thought that was front-page material, easy.
I was just reading an installment from the Ombudsman (the actual piece, here which was quite interesting, I think) and it triggered one of my complaints of American newspapers. It’s Israel coverage, or rather the consequences of it’s Israel coverage.
Here’s where I reveal my biases on the Israel/Middle East conflict. I must admit, I’m only just starting to keep this issue on my radar; my knowledge on Israel/Lebanon/Gaza Strip/Middle East conflict is miniscule, far less than I need to make a reputable opinion on the matter. However, I’m a fan of stability, and I think military extremism (as it is expressed in the middle east) cannot co-exist with stability. This opinion holds true for Israel and its enemies. I’m not sure I can say that I side with either of the foes, but my gut feeling is that Israel is probably the more right, but definitely fueling the flames of its own fate.
Unfortunately, I find it very difficult to get a good opinion of what is true/false, or right/wrong in regards to the middle east. Coverage of the issue is something I would consider jaded. I think newspapers feel rather restricted to paint Israel negatively. As the Washington Post Magazine illustrated well in last week’s issue, the Israel lobby is extremely powerful. I think it sensible to believe that this power extends to the influence of media and popular culture. They sure are influential on campus.
With this looming negative reaction to posting anything pro-palestine, how are we to expect that newspapers are being diligent in giving a full view of the issue? On top of that, how can I hold a grudge over it? The problem with accepting this though, is how do I go about forming a rational opinion over Israeli affairs?
Yes, I know that I can seek out other opinions, like going to overseas news sources, or talking to people on both sides…but the truth is that’s hard. I barely have time to read the paper, blogs, and other American newspapers. I don’t have enough time or will to become an expert of Israel. That’s what I depend on newspapers for.
I must admit though, I’ve been surprised that I’ve been more or less satisfied with the coverage. The coverage of extremist events have been less than extremist. The coverage has been passionately dis-passionate and seems to have been reported well.
One more point, I definitely think its important to have variety even within a microcosm of the newspaper world (e.g. the varying Op/Ed conclustions between the NyTimes, WashPost, WSJ, LaTimes, etc..) News is hard to report, and there have been many good faith efforts across the globe.
I guess to step down from my stump, and summarize: I wish newspapers didn’t have to pander to an audience. I know that this will never happen (at least short of a revolution in the journalism that makes it much more profitable/cost effective or public outcry) So, a final word. Subscribe to a newspaper, don’t free ride. Write letters to editors. Participate. Back up the talk. (I don’t think I’m being hypocritical, I have a paid subscription to the WashPost and I’ve written letters to newspaper editors, etc.)
Howard Kurtz, a Washington Post Media Columnist, had a nice section in his blog entry about this. I read it in midst of/after writing this post.
A quick question – Did anyone else notice how the WashPost buried Bush’s veto story (the day after the veto) on Page 4? I was cheezed. What was up with that, I thought that was front-page material, easy.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Offspring Alienation Syndrome
I feel terrible. I think I just made my mom really sad on the phone. I don’t know why I do this, or why it continues to happen. Naturally, I wasn’t even trying to be an jack-ass, uppity, or inconsiderate. Is it me? Is it pretty much everyone? Why does this happen? Why does this phenomenon of offspring alienation happen?
Do you know what I’m talking about? Hopefully this doesn’t happen for everyone, but at the same time I hope I’m not alone is making my mom so flustered after most telephone calls. Anyway, this phenomenon is the discomfort when parents/guardians call on the phone, just to check in or talk about nothing, or to nag, or to just chat because they haven’t spoken with their “baby” all day. This occurs everyday, and it happens without fail. If you missed the call you get the “where were you?” If you don’t call back for a few hours then the response is: “Why didn’t you call back, I was worried,” of course in a gleeful, un-alarming tone which is so innocent it’s almost cause for skepticism. It’s that intervention for no reason that seems like such a violation of newly discovered independence and adulthood; it’s indulgence and an easy excuse for ego-centrism it’s almost ridiculous. It’s obviously wonderful to be cared about, but why do I feel so much irritation if it’s coming from mom and dad, and not the best buddy or the girl of my dreams?
I often wonder if it’s because our parents are overindulgent…almost as if it was an extension of their consumerism and boomer mentality. Our parents are prone to succumb to the pressures of an uncertain world, I think, and they babied us because of it. (Especially those of us brought up in the WASPy suburbs) Can they help it? Should I blame them? Parents just want to hear our voices and be a part of our lives—make sure that they remain important and don’t get lost as time passes, their generation fades away and our reaches our prime. Who can blame them for wanting to feel loved? I sure can’t. They set a good example, too. They give love, so they can in turn receive love.
Then maybe its us too. I like being in control of my surroundings. I like customizing things to how I like them. I like trickin’ out the computer with all my favorite apps, just as I like jockeying the radio when I’m driving in the car. It’s almost compulsive how I skip over songs I don’t like or flip through TV channels that are boring. If I create change, I can be on top of it. If I embrace the inevitability of inconsistency I don’t have to answer to anyone else’s orders or requests. In a nutshell, if I perceive that I’m changing my environment, nobody else can. On top of that, there’s the unattractiveness of a constant force shaping our lives. Our parents are always involved, challenging us, molding us. It’s not a ‘pleasant surprise’ when they make their daily cameo appearance…in fact it’s not a cameo appearance at all. They are part of the supporting cast, or the executive producers if anything. When parents call, there is expectation. When there is expectation, there’s a certain amount of control over the environment that is lost. That makes us uncomfortable…our generation has been conditioned on ergonomics and push-button changeability. In other words, when our parents are in our realm, we’re reminded that there are deals that we’re locked into.
But, at the same time that line of thinking seems terribly illogical. Why shut out a close relationship, when close relationships are important and seemingly what people crave most? Why put parents on the back burner when they’re a guaranteed ace-in-the-hole? The only reason I can think of is because the conversation becomes terribly one-sided and the expectation is that we are children to our parents, and rightfully so. Because…we are. That’s unfortunate though, because as children we have this obsession with growing. And in turn, our relationships have to grow too.
And, I think that’s the moral that I’m getting out of this. To have truly deep relationships there is evidence of two things we must learn to do:
I don’t know about ya’ll, but that sounds wonderful to me. Next time, I should have some more patience when talking to my parents on the telephone, my sweetheart—and consequently myself—will thank me for it someday.
Do you know what I’m talking about? Hopefully this doesn’t happen for everyone, but at the same time I hope I’m not alone is making my mom so flustered after most telephone calls. Anyway, this phenomenon is the discomfort when parents/guardians call on the phone, just to check in or talk about nothing, or to nag, or to just chat because they haven’t spoken with their “baby” all day. This occurs everyday, and it happens without fail. If you missed the call you get the “where were you?” If you don’t call back for a few hours then the response is: “Why didn’t you call back, I was worried,” of course in a gleeful, un-alarming tone which is so innocent it’s almost cause for skepticism. It’s that intervention for no reason that seems like such a violation of newly discovered independence and adulthood; it’s indulgence and an easy excuse for ego-centrism it’s almost ridiculous. It’s obviously wonderful to be cared about, but why do I feel so much irritation if it’s coming from mom and dad, and not the best buddy or the girl of my dreams?
I often wonder if it’s because our parents are overindulgent…almost as if it was an extension of their consumerism and boomer mentality. Our parents are prone to succumb to the pressures of an uncertain world, I think, and they babied us because of it. (Especially those of us brought up in the WASPy suburbs) Can they help it? Should I blame them? Parents just want to hear our voices and be a part of our lives—make sure that they remain important and don’t get lost as time passes, their generation fades away and our reaches our prime. Who can blame them for wanting to feel loved? I sure can’t. They set a good example, too. They give love, so they can in turn receive love.
Then maybe its us too. I like being in control of my surroundings. I like customizing things to how I like them. I like trickin’ out the computer with all my favorite apps, just as I like jockeying the radio when I’m driving in the car. It’s almost compulsive how I skip over songs I don’t like or flip through TV channels that are boring. If I create change, I can be on top of it. If I embrace the inevitability of inconsistency I don’t have to answer to anyone else’s orders or requests. In a nutshell, if I perceive that I’m changing my environment, nobody else can. On top of that, there’s the unattractiveness of a constant force shaping our lives. Our parents are always involved, challenging us, molding us. It’s not a ‘pleasant surprise’ when they make their daily cameo appearance…in fact it’s not a cameo appearance at all. They are part of the supporting cast, or the executive producers if anything. When parents call, there is expectation. When there is expectation, there’s a certain amount of control over the environment that is lost. That makes us uncomfortable…our generation has been conditioned on ergonomics and push-button changeability. In other words, when our parents are in our realm, we’re reminded that there are deals that we’re locked into.
But, at the same time that line of thinking seems terribly illogical. Why shut out a close relationship, when close relationships are important and seemingly what people crave most? Why put parents on the back burner when they’re a guaranteed ace-in-the-hole? The only reason I can think of is because the conversation becomes terribly one-sided and the expectation is that we are children to our parents, and rightfully so. Because…we are. That’s unfortunate though, because as children we have this obsession with growing. And in turn, our relationships have to grow too.
And, I think that’s the moral that I’m getting out of this. To have truly deep relationships there is evidence of two things we must learn to do:
- Learn to accept and appreciate indulgence.
- Taking relationships step by step, cherish them, and not spoil them—learning not to go overboard.
I don’t know about ya’ll, but that sounds wonderful to me. Next time, I should have some more patience when talking to my parents on the telephone, my sweetheart—and consequently myself—will thank me for it someday.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
NyTimes
I'm quite dissapointed in the Bush administration, and the Republican party.
I'm not even sure they remember what they're "fighting" for.
I think it's about time to stop bullying the New York Times for doing their job.
The WashPost had a nice synopsis of what's going on in today's paper.
There are many things I disagree with the government about, and a lot of things I hold my tongue about. I don't think its smart, respectful, or appropriate to shoot my mouth of being overly critical of an executive that has a tough job, in tough times.
I even am starting to open my mind to other issues that I have trouble understanding the other side on: Gay Marriage, Flag Burning, etc. (Which by the way, are less important issues to be debating in the summer term than say...immigration, healthcare, or foreign policy). But I'm drawing my line in the sand right here--Don't tread on free speech.
Also, the LATimes and the WashPost both published similar stories about the bank records program. I didn't even find the pieces to be un-objective. They were well done, descriptive, and piercing. In my opinion, they were good pieces of journalism.
This seems to me to be a new age of McCarthyism, except McCarthy is now the Executive Branch of the government teamed with House Republicans, and the scare is not communism, but poor poll ratings.
The New York Times is shedding light, bringing the best disinfectant to government action. Free press is crucially necessary to the stability of a democratic populous (note the lower case 'd')...without one, we would be blind to any tyrannies of the government which may arise. Want to know what a society without a free press is like? Go to China. Which I suppose is okay, but from what I've read/heard about the country, it has some serious human rights issues.
But anyway, I don't think these gripes from govt. insiders is about protecting national security...there's no way terrorists are oblivious to the sensitivity of bank records...especially after it's been expressed publicly that were going after the money.
Basically, aside from the hot-air. Think of it this way...free speech is a value instilled by the First Amendment to the constitution. The amendment was created precisely to mitigate a govt. attempt to curb free speech.
Not that the program is illegal, (which I've read it is not), but I think the government should set an example of valuing rights and liberties, especially when trying to build a nation as such.
Our actions abroad should match our actions at home...for saving face, and for principles sake. Hopefully our next mission after Operation Iraqi Freedom doesn't have to be Operation Freedom of the Press.
I'm a proud reader of the NYTimes, WashPost and other news outlets. And, supporting them doesn't make me Un-American, it makes me an active, aware, informed citizen. I think historically, it's much more American to be concious of government and particpate in it then to incubate leaders from criticism, wave a flag, and call it a day. Flags are cool though, despite my views on patriotism, there's one on my desk right now.
For me that flag doesn't stand for a historic war, a party, or a dead president. That flag stands for my freedom to learn, to love, to listen, to speak, and to participate. The free press is an integral part of that process.
I'm not even sure they remember what they're "fighting" for.
I think it's about time to stop bullying the New York Times for doing their job.
The WashPost had a nice synopsis of what's going on in today's paper.
There are many things I disagree with the government about, and a lot of things I hold my tongue about. I don't think its smart, respectful, or appropriate to shoot my mouth of being overly critical of an executive that has a tough job, in tough times.
I even am starting to open my mind to other issues that I have trouble understanding the other side on: Gay Marriage, Flag Burning, etc. (Which by the way, are less important issues to be debating in the summer term than say...immigration, healthcare, or foreign policy). But I'm drawing my line in the sand right here--Don't tread on free speech.
Also, the LATimes and the WashPost both published similar stories about the bank records program. I didn't even find the pieces to be un-objective. They were well done, descriptive, and piercing. In my opinion, they were good pieces of journalism.
This seems to me to be a new age of McCarthyism, except McCarthy is now the Executive Branch of the government teamed with House Republicans, and the scare is not communism, but poor poll ratings.
The New York Times is shedding light, bringing the best disinfectant to government action. Free press is crucially necessary to the stability of a democratic populous (note the lower case 'd')...without one, we would be blind to any tyrannies of the government which may arise. Want to know what a society without a free press is like? Go to China. Which I suppose is okay, but from what I've read/heard about the country, it has some serious human rights issues.
But anyway, I don't think these gripes from govt. insiders is about protecting national security...there's no way terrorists are oblivious to the sensitivity of bank records...especially after it's been expressed publicly that were going after the money.
Basically, aside from the hot-air. Think of it this way...free speech is a value instilled by the First Amendment to the constitution. The amendment was created precisely to mitigate a govt. attempt to curb free speech.
Not that the program is illegal, (which I've read it is not), but I think the government should set an example of valuing rights and liberties, especially when trying to build a nation as such.
Our actions abroad should match our actions at home...for saving face, and for principles sake. Hopefully our next mission after Operation Iraqi Freedom doesn't have to be Operation Freedom of the Press.
I'm a proud reader of the NYTimes, WashPost and other news outlets. And, supporting them doesn't make me Un-American, it makes me an active, aware, informed citizen. I think historically, it's much more American to be concious of government and particpate in it then to incubate leaders from criticism, wave a flag, and call it a day. Flags are cool though, despite my views on patriotism, there's one on my desk right now.
For me that flag doesn't stand for a historic war, a party, or a dead president. That flag stands for my freedom to learn, to love, to listen, to speak, and to participate. The free press is an integral part of that process.
Saturday, July 01, 2006
Woops.
I apologize for the hiatus, I didn't really enter the blogsphere this week. I realized that I forgot about the weekly This I Believe session. Here it is, I figure that it is better late then never.
9:00 PM --Start to think of a topic.
9:04 PM -- Mind is wandering.
9:08 PM -- Let's Begin
I have a bad habit, sometimes it bad, embarassing, or inappropriate. Usually though, nobody really minds, and I love it. I sing. I dance. But...the scandalous part it, I do it all in public. Furthermore, I do it on the street corner.
And, I'm going to do it again. And again.
It's not a terrible thing because I'm off key (which I am), or that I dance like a horny hooligan (I lost interest in that years ago), but it's just that I do it so publicly. On street-corners, in subway stations, in line at restaurants, everywhere. Most of the time it's unnoticed, sometimes I get a smile or two, and sometimes others get terribly uncomfortable or embarassed. The sidewalk becomes a stage. It's really cool.
And, It's very healthy.
It's an exercise in freedom. It's a challenge to a comfort zone. It keeps me on my toes. It's liberating. It forces me to slow down and breathe. It's time to myself.
Really though, I do it for the sake of being a contrarian. It's a quick jab in the mouth of the stupid side of civilization. Since when did it become so necessary to be formal on the commute across town? Singing on the street has the net-effect of posting a billboard that says 'For crissakes, loosen up."
I think it's silly to feel awkward in a public place when saying 'bless you' to a stranger, or sitting in silence on a plane/metro/restaurant. Why are we avoiding eachother. We're all human, we're all in the same place, we all are wearing clothes...why perpetuate this discomfort with eachother.
This simple notion seems to translate into other areas. Let me put it into the form of a question. Would nations get along better if world leaders weren't so uptight in their daily lives? Wouldn't making friends with strangers expand world-views and foster more understand, fellowship, and cooperation?
I'm not prepared to leave these questions unanswered. To my knowledge, these things can matter a lot. I think constantly improving the atmosphere may go unnoticed in the present, but is invaluable in the future. Societal norms are the sort of things that need chipping away at. They take time, and effort, and collaboration.
Singing and dancing in public is one of the ways I do my part to "make the world a better place", I guess. I believe in it. Think of it this way, If I'm being awkward in public, everyone else doesn't have to. Haha.
Once again, I am putting in a plug for The This I Believe series.
This I believe Homepage
9:00 PM --Start to think of a topic.
9:04 PM -- Mind is wandering.
9:08 PM -- Let's Begin
I have a bad habit, sometimes it bad, embarassing, or inappropriate. Usually though, nobody really minds, and I love it. I sing. I dance. But...the scandalous part it, I do it all in public. Furthermore, I do it on the street corner.
And, I'm going to do it again. And again.
It's not a terrible thing because I'm off key (which I am), or that I dance like a horny hooligan (I lost interest in that years ago), but it's just that I do it so publicly. On street-corners, in subway stations, in line at restaurants, everywhere. Most of the time it's unnoticed, sometimes I get a smile or two, and sometimes others get terribly uncomfortable or embarassed. The sidewalk becomes a stage. It's really cool.
And, It's very healthy.
It's an exercise in freedom. It's a challenge to a comfort zone. It keeps me on my toes. It's liberating. It forces me to slow down and breathe. It's time to myself.
Really though, I do it for the sake of being a contrarian. It's a quick jab in the mouth of the stupid side of civilization. Since when did it become so necessary to be formal on the commute across town? Singing on the street has the net-effect of posting a billboard that says 'For crissakes, loosen up."
I think it's silly to feel awkward in a public place when saying 'bless you' to a stranger, or sitting in silence on a plane/metro/restaurant. Why are we avoiding eachother. We're all human, we're all in the same place, we all are wearing clothes...why perpetuate this discomfort with eachother.
This simple notion seems to translate into other areas. Let me put it into the form of a question. Would nations get along better if world leaders weren't so uptight in their daily lives? Wouldn't making friends with strangers expand world-views and foster more understand, fellowship, and cooperation?
I'm not prepared to leave these questions unanswered. To my knowledge, these things can matter a lot. I think constantly improving the atmosphere may go unnoticed in the present, but is invaluable in the future. Societal norms are the sort of things that need chipping away at. They take time, and effort, and collaboration.
Singing and dancing in public is one of the ways I do my part to "make the world a better place", I guess. I believe in it. Think of it this way, If I'm being awkward in public, everyone else doesn't have to. Haha.
Once again, I am putting in a plug for The This I Believe series.
This I believe Homepage
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)