Last year, my birthday was a bust. My family remembered, pretty much nobody else did.
This year was different. Many people called, left facebook messages, and the people down my hall decorated my door and made me a brownie cake (both of which were surprises). I was definitely pleased; I didn't expect to be so far away from home and my closest of friends. It was as almost as good as it could've been--a Jones Soda would have made the evening a 10/10.
I'm kind of funny in that way, though I suppose many others are like minded. I don't like making a big deal on my birthday, but I like it when people remember. Birthdays are my favorite days of the year. Some how they're special, even though the commemerate a milestone that happens on the same date every year. Why is that?
Well, hmmm. Maybe because humans value life so damn much. Maybe we need an excuse to celebrate. Maybe we're taught to value birthdays because our ancestry didn't make it to as many as we do now. That seems like a good reason. Parents also are the ones that control birthdays, or plan early birthdays rather, and kids are kind of a big deal to them.
Anyway, thanks to all the b-day wishes (I'll reply all the facebook messages as soon as I can)!
In other news, Tom Delay is out for the count. I'm sure nobody will miss him. Not because he's lame and has no friends...but there's little doubt in my mind that he'll ever leave Washington.
Any guesses on the issues and companies he'll be lobbying for?
Also in other news. It was quite an exciting week on the Hill. The Federal Marriage Amendment (which failed miserably) was introduced and the GOP publicity stunt is complete. However, I write not in praise or even in disgust over the aforementioned legislation, but to question it.
I confess, I have a serious blindspot when it comes the gay rights issue. It's unsettling because I don't even begin to understand the other side. To me it seems like the biggest double standard of our times--isn't it a blatant reduction in civil rights?
Yes, it doesn't say anything about rights or have any semantic reference to rights. But, it's an effective poll tax...it places a qualification on who can get married, similar to how poll taxes and literacy tests placed qualifications on who could vote. I can't even buy for a minute arguments about destroying the family, or the 'sanctity of marriage' either. The way I see it there factors that destroy the family are based on communication, sacrifice, and contempt. I can't even begin to see how homosexuality is the reason. The only line of reasoning I remotely understand is that daunting phrase "the bible says homosexuality is wrong".
I understand that religious views are powerful, and understand discrimination based on religious view, not that I would ever do it, thinks its necessary, or condone it. Also, religious beliefs are a funny thing because they're not necessarily set completely in stone--as I understand it several denominations of christianity are more open and accept gays into their congregations. Is god judging one and not the other? How does this work?
Right now I stand down on any further discourse on the merits or demerits of both sides of the issue. I only ask:
Someone explain to me, or point me in the direction of someone who can. Not someone who assumes premises, or anything, someone who can rationally explain to me why people hold the view that the Federal Marriage Act should be passed.
Friday, June 09, 2006
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Inside the beltway
Yes. I'm inside the beltway.
It's been an interesting ride so far. Aside from riding public transit from Baltimore--30 minute bus ride, followed by a 45 minute stint on the subway, followed by walking 5 blocks and waiting, and finally walking 5 more blocks--I mean.
I'm kind of floored by what to say at the moment. It's like I've been going here for awhile. I've been doing a lot of thinking. I'm definitely calmer in the mind, and less confused. Ahh. So tricky. Life is beggining to get clearer, and as much I thought it was going to be less scary, it's even more terrifying because I can't use confusion as an excuse anymore. What a dillema, huh?
This city is interesting, I'm beggining to realize how much it really is in the south. People don't talk on their cell-phones on the sidewalk. It's rude. So, people don't do it. I think I'm falling in love with Denver and I haven't even been there. I love Michigan (Ann Arbor as well as Rochester). I'm alone, so none of this matters anyway.
This city is deceptive, it's very easy to feel lonely and together in it at the same time. The people walk leisurely but with a spring of briskness in their step as well, it's hard to figure if they are going or coming. I see newspapers. The city as a whole seems to breathe. it seems to sway like a willow tree, bending and flexing. It's not like New York, like a rigid machine powered by electric lights and current, but like something that's organic. This place has a tremendous amount of balance. You can taste the vibes of the city just like it is muggy and wet to breathe the humid air.
D.C. has a collective concious, even amidst the partisanship and everyone working in the dog-eat-cat-eat-mouse-kill-dog 10AM to 6PM grind...there's a mutual respect, or so it seems.
At the same time, this place is discomforting. The beltway is a shield, as if it were a great wall. This place is unreal, it seems like reality is so real it's a charade...planned and 'too clean'. I feel like a chambermaid in a glass house when I'm here, trying to keep the walls up. Washington...is quite an exclusive place, and this establishment is perpetuated. But, it's keeping the people warm in bed at night across the country, and helping to keep the world stable. Sometimes though, I wonder if the act of working in politics, is what creates the need for politics in the first place. It seems like, Washington D.C. (and major government systems for that matter), upset the natural order of things and become a self-fulfilling prophecy of controversy, disagreement, and supression.
But...the solution must not be to stone the glass house that the leaders of the world sleep in, but to bring more people inside. I don't think D.C. needs to be swarming with hundreds of people; the masses do not need to make politics their life. The masses need to make politics part of their daily life. The masses need to renew themselves.
Sisco, from down the hall told me about the honor code at Davidson College. Apparently, most people leave their doors unlocked, and it works. People proctor their own tests, and it works. The parallel drawn here, is that there is no exclusiveness about this system, everyone is involved and on board, so nobody has a reason to feel ailienated or vindictive because they are being treated unfairly. I think it's much more important to have ordinary citizens to feel welcome and comfortable on the political scene, not to tear down the political scene altogether.
I love you.
Good-Night.
It's been an interesting ride so far. Aside from riding public transit from Baltimore--30 minute bus ride, followed by a 45 minute stint on the subway, followed by walking 5 blocks and waiting, and finally walking 5 more blocks--I mean.
I'm kind of floored by what to say at the moment. It's like I've been going here for awhile. I've been doing a lot of thinking. I'm definitely calmer in the mind, and less confused. Ahh. So tricky. Life is beggining to get clearer, and as much I thought it was going to be less scary, it's even more terrifying because I can't use confusion as an excuse anymore. What a dillema, huh?
This city is interesting, I'm beggining to realize how much it really is in the south. People don't talk on their cell-phones on the sidewalk. It's rude. So, people don't do it. I think I'm falling in love with Denver and I haven't even been there. I love Michigan (Ann Arbor as well as Rochester). I'm alone, so none of this matters anyway.
This city is deceptive, it's very easy to feel lonely and together in it at the same time. The people walk leisurely but with a spring of briskness in their step as well, it's hard to figure if they are going or coming. I see newspapers. The city as a whole seems to breathe. it seems to sway like a willow tree, bending and flexing. It's not like New York, like a rigid machine powered by electric lights and current, but like something that's organic. This place has a tremendous amount of balance. You can taste the vibes of the city just like it is muggy and wet to breathe the humid air.
D.C. has a collective concious, even amidst the partisanship and everyone working in the dog-eat-cat-eat-mouse-kill-dog 10AM to 6PM grind...there's a mutual respect, or so it seems.
At the same time, this place is discomforting. The beltway is a shield, as if it were a great wall. This place is unreal, it seems like reality is so real it's a charade...planned and 'too clean'. I feel like a chambermaid in a glass house when I'm here, trying to keep the walls up. Washington...is quite an exclusive place, and this establishment is perpetuated. But, it's keeping the people warm in bed at night across the country, and helping to keep the world stable. Sometimes though, I wonder if the act of working in politics, is what creates the need for politics in the first place. It seems like, Washington D.C. (and major government systems for that matter), upset the natural order of things and become a self-fulfilling prophecy of controversy, disagreement, and supression.
But...the solution must not be to stone the glass house that the leaders of the world sleep in, but to bring more people inside. I don't think D.C. needs to be swarming with hundreds of people; the masses do not need to make politics their life. The masses need to make politics part of their daily life. The masses need to renew themselves.
Sisco, from down the hall told me about the honor code at Davidson College. Apparently, most people leave their doors unlocked, and it works. People proctor their own tests, and it works. The parallel drawn here, is that there is no exclusiveness about this system, everyone is involved and on board, so nobody has a reason to feel ailienated or vindictive because they are being treated unfairly. I think it's much more important to have ordinary citizens to feel welcome and comfortable on the political scene, not to tear down the political scene altogether.
I love you.
Good-Night.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Biases
I believe that I have run across a dilemma. For some reason, lying here in my bed I have begun to think about biases.
Take for example the facetious bias of “White men can’t jump”, just for examples sake…it’s the title of a movie and a pretty laughable well know ‘bias’ that seems to occur at random, in gymnasiums everywhere I go.
Let’s obviously assume that I actually believe this.
Now, where did I get this bias? Where did it come from? How did I come to have it? One apparent way that this happened is because someone gave it to me. So, under what conditions must I have received this bias?
Some must have passed it along to me. I must trust this person, or at least hold them as a source of some merit; otherwise I would have no motivation to take seriously what they say. Or, perhaps I would have a notion of it already. Or, I have heard this information from many unreliable sources, and form the group opinion to my own. In any case, this is all a result from receiving this bias from other people. This is not what I’m after. I’m curious about how biases arrive in the first place.
So, how is that an individual would go about arriving at a bias on his own? So, maybe he has a lack of information. But, any person in their right mind would know that it’s possible to have all information and knows better than to make a judgment based on misinformation. So, if this avenue was the cause, it would be because of the viewer being unable to reconcile what they see and how the world could be. So, this is human error.
What would also be attributed to human error is a bias arrived because of someone misrepresenting themselves. A misrepresentation in a way also leads to a misinterpretation. Say someone gave a bad first impression and then acted like themselves, then the person viewing them would be confused and perhaps form a bias about that person based on the first experience. All in all, it seems legitimate to call a self misrepresentation ‘human error’, it just happens sooner in the chain.
But, how much bias could this human error cause? Think of white supremacy, is this because white people accidentally came to believe that non-white races were inferior? Did that nazi’s mistakenly come across the notion that jews and gypsies were deserving to die? Perhaps I should rephrase my original thought, I’m not questioning biases on the whole, I’m talking more about stereotypes. I don’t really mean bias in the sense of a conflict of interest.
So, if it wasn’t human error what was it? Did some humans conspire at some time in their life to perpetuate sterotypes? Why would they consciously do it? Unfortunately, it does not appear that there is some other way that stereotypes begin…someone wants them to.
This is quite disheartening to conclude since this would mean there are truly evil, or power hungry people around.
Note, that it is not acceptable to say that people hold different beliefs, and that’s why they begin to stereotype and hold biases. Thinking this would require their biases to exist in the first place, because nobody would hold irrational views for no reason. Basically, I’m saying that biases plant the seed for having different beliefs, instead of vice versa. Granted, my point is thrown out the window, if people fundamentally process information differently.
So, that leads me to two useless places.
Gosh, which one could it bed? Maybe bother? Am I underestimating human error? Wow, it’s a lot to think about.
Take for example the facetious bias of “White men can’t jump”, just for examples sake…it’s the title of a movie and a pretty laughable well know ‘bias’ that seems to occur at random, in gymnasiums everywhere I go.
Let’s obviously assume that I actually believe this.
Now, where did I get this bias? Where did it come from? How did I come to have it? One apparent way that this happened is because someone gave it to me. So, under what conditions must I have received this bias?
Some must have passed it along to me. I must trust this person, or at least hold them as a source of some merit; otherwise I would have no motivation to take seriously what they say. Or, perhaps I would have a notion of it already. Or, I have heard this information from many unreliable sources, and form the group opinion to my own. In any case, this is all a result from receiving this bias from other people. This is not what I’m after. I’m curious about how biases arrive in the first place.
So, how is that an individual would go about arriving at a bias on his own? So, maybe he has a lack of information. But, any person in their right mind would know that it’s possible to have all information and knows better than to make a judgment based on misinformation. So, if this avenue was the cause, it would be because of the viewer being unable to reconcile what they see and how the world could be. So, this is human error.
What would also be attributed to human error is a bias arrived because of someone misrepresenting themselves. A misrepresentation in a way also leads to a misinterpretation. Say someone gave a bad first impression and then acted like themselves, then the person viewing them would be confused and perhaps form a bias about that person based on the first experience. All in all, it seems legitimate to call a self misrepresentation ‘human error’, it just happens sooner in the chain.
But, how much bias could this human error cause? Think of white supremacy, is this because white people accidentally came to believe that non-white races were inferior? Did that nazi’s mistakenly come across the notion that jews and gypsies were deserving to die? Perhaps I should rephrase my original thought, I’m not questioning biases on the whole, I’m talking more about stereotypes. I don’t really mean bias in the sense of a conflict of interest.
So, if it wasn’t human error what was it? Did some humans conspire at some time in their life to perpetuate sterotypes? Why would they consciously do it? Unfortunately, it does not appear that there is some other way that stereotypes begin…someone wants them to.
This is quite disheartening to conclude since this would mean there are truly evil, or power hungry people around.
Note, that it is not acceptable to say that people hold different beliefs, and that’s why they begin to stereotype and hold biases. Thinking this would require their biases to exist in the first place, because nobody would hold irrational views for no reason. Basically, I’m saying that biases plant the seed for having different beliefs, instead of vice versa. Granted, my point is thrown out the window, if people fundamentally process information differently.
So, that leads me to two useless places.
- People may stereotype, because they want to, or have some benefit if they do. Maybe it keeps the population in line. Maybe it led them to great wealth. Maybe they just needed slaves to they bullshitted their way into convincing themselves that one race was inferior to another.
- People fundamentally process things differently Then fundamentally different and conflicting opinions might happen and cause people to have conflict over interpretations of the world…leading to ‘human error’ in processing these interpretations?
Gosh, which one could it bed? Maybe bother? Am I underestimating human error? Wow, it’s a lot to think about.
Sunday, May 14, 2006
This I Believe
A few weeks ago, Steen dropped me upon a wonderful website. It was on the NPR site, it was a web-presence for their on going series “This I Believe”. Apparently this series was first done in the 1950’s by Edward R. Murrow. It was originally done because the climate of the country was fearful and shaky. They felt it necessary to revive the series just over one year ago. The producers invite regular people to submit their statements of personal conviction. The contributors have ranged from Colin Powell to random everyday citizens. This is my submission. Who knows, it may be on the radio someday, but if not…I’ll lay it to rest in my blog.
The "This I Believe" website
I was playing in a grueling doubles tennis match on an uncomfortably warm May afternoon my junior year of high school, in a contest with our cross-town rival. My doubles partner and I grudgingly dropped the first set, rallied back to take the second set, and were armpits deep in the deciding third set. The set score became six games each, which in the Michigan high-school tennis world means – tiebreaker.
My partner and I quickly found ourselves on the losing side of the scorecard in the race-to-seven-win-by-two-points tiebreaker. By this time the rest of the afternoon’s matches had already finished—the entire crowds eyes added weight to our already exhausted psyches—as we battled on the court with the tiebreak score now reading 1-6; we were a mere point away from losing the tiebreaker, match, and city bragging rights.
Then, something happened. The tide might’ve turned, the moon could’ve shifted, the wind probably blew in a more favorable direction…at the time I didn’t really know how we ended up changing the course of the tiebreak. But in retrospect, it was simple. We just tried harder. We dug a little deeper.
Running an extra lap at the end of a workout, being a bit more patient, putting a little more of the soul into work, jumping a little bit higher, studying an extra 10 pages of a textbook, running down a tennis ball that seems just out of reach. These are things I believe in doing. I believe in digging a little bit deeper.
Unfortunately for me, digging a little bit deeper is often one of the hardest things to do. After all, why bother spending more time and effort than is necessary to do something? It is more efficient to shirk nonessential pursuits, especially if the big picture is unaffected by it. I’ll be the first to admit that there is a warm, gooey comfort that comes with lethargy.
On some levels it is illogical, but I have a strong conviction to try my hardest anyway. Digging deeper is how I grow. That little extra oomph adds up. Eventually my serve is a little more accurate, or I’m a little bit better at solving calculus equations because I’ve dug deeper all along. I’ve found not only that hard work pays off, but that extra effort pays off even more. Giving 100 percent is the key to reaching potential, digging a little deeper seems to be the key to raising it.
That May afternoon, down a landslide in a third-set tiebreak, my doubles partner and I had to dig a little deeper to win a tennis match. We dug, and we did win. It remains the most character shaping match I’ve ever played, and the pinnacle of my short athletic career. Former President Calvin Coolidge said that persistence is what solves humanity’s problems and I wholeheartedly agree. Digging deeper has never let me down, and I don’t think it ever will.
The "This I Believe" website
I was playing in a grueling doubles tennis match on an uncomfortably warm May afternoon my junior year of high school, in a contest with our cross-town rival. My doubles partner and I grudgingly dropped the first set, rallied back to take the second set, and were armpits deep in the deciding third set. The set score became six games each, which in the Michigan high-school tennis world means – tiebreaker.
My partner and I quickly found ourselves on the losing side of the scorecard in the race-to-seven-win-by-two-points tiebreaker. By this time the rest of the afternoon’s matches had already finished—the entire crowds eyes added weight to our already exhausted psyches—as we battled on the court with the tiebreak score now reading 1-6; we were a mere point away from losing the tiebreaker, match, and city bragging rights.
Then, something happened. The tide might’ve turned, the moon could’ve shifted, the wind probably blew in a more favorable direction…at the time I didn’t really know how we ended up changing the course of the tiebreak. But in retrospect, it was simple. We just tried harder. We dug a little deeper.
Running an extra lap at the end of a workout, being a bit more patient, putting a little more of the soul into work, jumping a little bit higher, studying an extra 10 pages of a textbook, running down a tennis ball that seems just out of reach. These are things I believe in doing. I believe in digging a little bit deeper.
Unfortunately for me, digging a little bit deeper is often one of the hardest things to do. After all, why bother spending more time and effort than is necessary to do something? It is more efficient to shirk nonessential pursuits, especially if the big picture is unaffected by it. I’ll be the first to admit that there is a warm, gooey comfort that comes with lethargy.
On some levels it is illogical, but I have a strong conviction to try my hardest anyway. Digging deeper is how I grow. That little extra oomph adds up. Eventually my serve is a little more accurate, or I’m a little bit better at solving calculus equations because I’ve dug deeper all along. I’ve found not only that hard work pays off, but that extra effort pays off even more. Giving 100 percent is the key to reaching potential, digging a little deeper seems to be the key to raising it.
That May afternoon, down a landslide in a third-set tiebreak, my doubles partner and I had to dig a little deeper to win a tennis match. We dug, and we did win. It remains the most character shaping match I’ve ever played, and the pinnacle of my short athletic career. Former President Calvin Coolidge said that persistence is what solves humanity’s problems and I wholeheartedly agree. Digging deeper has never let me down, and I don’t think it ever will.
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Closeness.
I was just journaling, and wrote a particularly memorable passage. Let me share it with you.
-The context is, something I recently discovered...being open to letting other people get closer to you.
"That's the lure about friendship, you create something mystical-by forming the bond of friendship. It's powerful. It's an age old tradition of humanity. So once you make that magical bond, burturing it is what you want. We want to see things grow. We want to see life. So...closeness matters, and when [nurtured] at a special time, [closeness] is the best thing in the world."
-The context is, something I recently discovered...being open to letting other people get closer to you.
"That's the lure about friendship, you create something mystical-by forming the bond of friendship. It's powerful. It's an age old tradition of humanity. So once you make that magical bond, burturing it is what you want. We want to see things grow. We want to see life. So...closeness matters, and when [nurtured] at a special time, [closeness] is the best thing in the world."
Monday, May 01, 2006
I think I'll start watching the Colbert Report
"Jesse Kornbluth: All Hail Stephen Colbert (You Have to See It to Believe It): "If there was any doubt about Stephen Colbert's genius, it evaporated at the White House Correspondents dinner."
Normally, when I'm watching C-Span it's only a brief flittering through the channels and there's something semi-interesting on that catches my attention. Sometimes it's a speech, other times it's legislative sessions [Once I saw a session that the chambers were nearly empty and legislators were naming Post Offices].
I was flipping through my RSS feeds and saw a link to Stephen Colbert's performance at the White House Correspondents. It was...HILLARIOUS.
With swash-buckling wit and a wonderful interpretation character, Colbert took stabs at President Bush that is seemingly on the tips-of-tongues of all Bush's critics. The difference being, he actually got them out.
Apparently, some first hand accounts of the tape - I watched online on a very low-res version - state President Bush as being "visibly uncomfortable"
See this link too: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-durang/ignoring-colbert-part-tw_b_20130.html
Basically what it comes down to, is that the media kind of covered and hid on this one. I read some pieces from the AP, Reuters, and the Tribune (at the request of one of these links), and in my professional opinion as a reporter, it was an absolute debauchery of what the story should've been.
Basically, in covering the dinner Colbert's performance was screaming "Use me as the lead of your story!". These articles could've definitely been very clever, witty, and creative in covering the story.
Honestly, I could've done a better job.
Which leads me to a conclusion.
1. The reporters were not ballsy enough to report this in it's most significant form. They don't even have to write it making Colbert a hero, they could easily get criticism of Colbert's performance too.
2. It was canned by the editors. Hopefully the edit pages of these papers say something about it soon.
All in all, I'm a little dissapointed with the NYTimes this morning- they ran their story AP yesterday.
The Michigan Daily would've been ballsy enough to cover this well, It's a shame that that nation's top newspapers, granted they did write very accurately, didn't angle their stories to give the public who has not and will not watch the tape the full breadth of what happened at the White House Correspondent's dinner.
Normally, when I'm watching C-Span it's only a brief flittering through the channels and there's something semi-interesting on that catches my attention. Sometimes it's a speech, other times it's legislative sessions [Once I saw a session that the chambers were nearly empty and legislators were naming Post Offices].
I was flipping through my RSS feeds and saw a link to Stephen Colbert's performance at the White House Correspondents. It was...HILLARIOUS.
With swash-buckling wit and a wonderful interpretation character, Colbert took stabs at President Bush that is seemingly on the tips-of-tongues of all Bush's critics. The difference being, he actually got them out.
Apparently, some first hand accounts of the tape - I watched online on a very low-res version - state President Bush as being "visibly uncomfortable"
See this link too: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-durang/ignoring-colbert-part-tw_b_20130.html
Basically what it comes down to, is that the media kind of covered and hid on this one. I read some pieces from the AP, Reuters, and the Tribune (at the request of one of these links), and in my professional opinion as a reporter, it was an absolute debauchery of what the story should've been.
Basically, in covering the dinner Colbert's performance was screaming "Use me as the lead of your story!". These articles could've definitely been very clever, witty, and creative in covering the story.
Honestly, I could've done a better job.
Which leads me to a conclusion.
1. The reporters were not ballsy enough to report this in it's most significant form. They don't even have to write it making Colbert a hero, they could easily get criticism of Colbert's performance too.
2. It was canned by the editors. Hopefully the edit pages of these papers say something about it soon.
All in all, I'm a little dissapointed with the NYTimes this morning- they ran their story AP yesterday.
The Michigan Daily would've been ballsy enough to cover this well, It's a shame that that nation's top newspapers, granted they did write very accurately, didn't angle their stories to give the public who has not and will not watch the tape the full breadth of what happened at the White House Correspondent's dinner.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Kathy Freston: What's Up With All This Talk About Soul Mates?
Kathy Freston: What's Up With All This Talk About Soul Mates?: "I love talking about relationships; I love hearing people's stories about where they are insofar as romance. I love how their eyes light up and they sort of snap to attention when trying to get their mind around the concept of 'soul mates.' I can't tell you how many times I've heard the questions, 'How can I find the One?' or 'How do I know if I've met the One?' There is some serious obsession out there about the One -- that oh-so-perfect partner -- and I think I know why.
I think we have some kind of innate memory about intense and unwavering connectedness, and that memory makes us dissatisfied with superficial surface stuff. We know there is something more. Maybe the memory is passed down to us from generations who went before and lived great loves; or maybe it's part of our biological make up which harkens back to before we were bodies. But it's in us; the knowledge that we are part of some great interconnectedness lives in us like a promise. And because we want that magical mystical experience..."
This is an issue that I understand, but I can't grasp. Maybe I don't understand it yet. I'm not sure.
But, what does it feel like when you love someone?
Where does passion lie?
Is a feeling of intense connection and synchronicity passion? Is there such a feeling that people have where they just want to be with you, and abandon the rest of the world? Is passion an illusion?
I'm not convinced that all there is to passion is an instant 'knock-me-to-the-floor' feeling of lust and devotion. There can't be. That passion would never last-and I strongly believe that passion does last. It has to be something more internally driven, like a gleeful joy just thinking of another person. The kind of feeling you get just thinking about the best day you ever had, or the feeling of sunshine in summertime.
This feeling we want to experience--passion--can't be some sort of feeling that is a special breed of affection. Affection has to be the same, the difference being that instead of just an affection, it's coupled with a connection, a kind of unreal capacity to understand another person and know them intimately...or more importantly, wanting to know not just who they are, but knowing them.
Well, I hope so anyway. Otherwise, I'm screwed. I definitely don't have the kind of flash for a rip-your-clothes-off-dance-with-you-in-the-moonlight type first impression. I hope that can be worked on with time.
I think we have some kind of innate memory about intense and unwavering connectedness, and that memory makes us dissatisfied with superficial surface stuff. We know there is something more. Maybe the memory is passed down to us from generations who went before and lived great loves; or maybe it's part of our biological make up which harkens back to before we were bodies. But it's in us; the knowledge that we are part of some great interconnectedness lives in us like a promise. And because we want that magical mystical experience..."
This is an issue that I understand, but I can't grasp. Maybe I don't understand it yet. I'm not sure.
But, what does it feel like when you love someone?
Where does passion lie?
Is a feeling of intense connection and synchronicity passion? Is there such a feeling that people have where they just want to be with you, and abandon the rest of the world? Is passion an illusion?
I'm not convinced that all there is to passion is an instant 'knock-me-to-the-floor' feeling of lust and devotion. There can't be. That passion would never last-and I strongly believe that passion does last. It has to be something more internally driven, like a gleeful joy just thinking of another person. The kind of feeling you get just thinking about the best day you ever had, or the feeling of sunshine in summertime.
This feeling we want to experience--passion--can't be some sort of feeling that is a special breed of affection. Affection has to be the same, the difference being that instead of just an affection, it's coupled with a connection, a kind of unreal capacity to understand another person and know them intimately...or more importantly, wanting to know not just who they are, but knowing them.
Well, I hope so anyway. Otherwise, I'm screwed. I definitely don't have the kind of flash for a rip-your-clothes-off-dance-with-you-in-the-moonlight type first impression. I hope that can be worked on with time.
###
Subscribe to my feed, it will make it easier to check up on posts if you are a regular, or it could spur you into the dimension of weblogging and RSS feeds.
http://ntambe.blogspot.com/atom.xml
I highly reccomend the Slate magazine feed, as well as Howard Kurtz and Thomas L. Friedman's column...(Friedman's isn't free, so just read it in the paper if you get the Times)
http://reader.google.com is a pretty nice place to start for a web-based feed reader.
-Cheers
-Perge!
http://ntambe.blogspot.com/atom.xml
I highly reccomend the Slate magazine feed, as well as Howard Kurtz and Thomas L. Friedman's column...(Friedman's isn't free, so just read it in the paper if you get the Times)
http://reader.google.com is a pretty nice place to start for a web-based feed reader.
-Cheers
-Perge!
Class Dismissed: Lessons from year one.
It is finally time to elaborate on the first year of university studies. I have been home for a few days now, and have had ample time to pontificate about my year and how I wanted to approach this blog entry. First and foremost, I didn’t want this to be a sappy emo-for-a-dollar waste of space intending to draw sympathy from readers—I wanted to actually reap benefit and analysis in my process of writing and others reading this entry. Also, I wanted to have some structure as this is a rather hefty topic.
So, here is the approach: in no particular order, here are things this year I never expected to happen, that did. Also, please indulge in some thoughts about why they did happen at all.
Like I said, no particular order.
I never thought I would’ve struggled in an English class.
No kidding, this is an arrogant statement. But really, I love writing. I write in my spare time. I write when I should be doing other things. I’m a newspaper reporter for cryin’ out loud. Writing is not something that comes with much friction for me, but boy did I struggle. I suppose I should’ve been working as hard at the beginning of the semester as I was at the end of the semester, but I thought English was no problem. After all, write a few papers, read a few books—I thought I would finally be able to digest British Literature, big mistake—get a grade and we’re dundies.com. [Buzzer sound].
English was definitely a challenge, and I think everyone in my class was better for it. It was wonderful to struggle in a class again, even if it gave my GPA an unnecessary shot in the arm. But from what I can figure this is part of what college is all about, especially the freshman’s experience: rigor. Students are, and should have rough courses in their first year, so long as they’re administered fairly (please discard for a moment that I thought my class was hella hard compared to other first year english courses). I have often been bothered by university culture of recent times, not because of the rigor, but the response to rigor by my peers.
My father, when telling me about his university experiences (
My father’s college years were not for soft, candy-ass kids from the ‘burbs who were going to college to earn their parent’s trust funds or find a spouse (yes, I am very critical of girls who proclaim themselves in search of ‘MRS’ degrees). My father went to college to better himself. My father went to college to improve his life and his future earnings. My father went to college of his own accord, so he could be a college graduate and enrich his life accordingly. My father worked his arse off to get by in life. My father wouldn’t have complained about my English class—mind that English isn’t even his first language. I shouldn’t either. I should buck up about school, and just ‘get er done’. So should everyone else.
I never would’ve thought that I’d be in a fraternity
I don’t think that anyone did.
At the end of the day the greek system is very hit or miss. I should say, there is stale cookies in the jar. And it’s worth it. It’s a good thing that the greek system at U of M is different than at other universities I’ve visted. It’s very much a part of the University, but it’s not simply ‘boozeville’. Yes Dan Leader, it’s not just Boozeville. Haha, I’m only jesting out of brotherly love. (Dan Leader is the mayor Boozeville).
It’s more than Boozeville, meaning that the Greek system is diverse, and many houses stand for more than just a blowout party. It has plenty of problems, believe me. But, that’s for it’s own rant, not in an column of this type. In summary, I never thought I’d be in a fraternity, and I’m definitely glad I did.
I never thought that friends would be so easy to make
I suppose that it wasn’t easy, but I never thought that good friends would be so plentiful and easy to come by. Part of this is my personality, I’m aware. But I must have been lucky as I—as well as many others I’ve met seem to feel this way—have found some unbelievable people to share my time with. Some lived a floor above me. Some I ran into randomly. Some were in classes. Some were even at fraternity parties. The brother I never knew flippin’ lived across the hall from me. There’s something magical about living in college.
As a piece of advice to those younger, leave your door open when you live in the dorms, you never know who might stop by.
It’s quite an incredible thing, starting from scratch and making new friends. I wish adults had the opportunity more often. You learn so much about yourself when you are looking internally to how you are presenting yourself to other people, and analyzing how other people perceive you. There is much self-improvement, ideally, when making new friends. It’s a fresh start to discover and pursue the person you want to be.
How do people become friends so quickly? Is it a common bond of being alone again? Is it simply the friendliness of
I never thought that I’d understand my parents so well
This was definitely an interesting occurrence. After all this time studying and making the grade—spending time improving myself—understanding my parents is not something I would have imagined. There was an overarching theme to this year: “learning to struggle again”, which brought me closer to my parents, even though I obviously saw them less than before.
My parents definitely struggled in their time, and I realized that so much of what they do, and how they command me. How they bitch and complain and demand my best performance is because they know how much of a struggle college, not to mention life in general, is. Parents are doing the best they can to provide for us so that we don’t struggle. What they do is beginning to make sense. Who am I kidding, they have no method to what they do :-P.
On a side note, my hands are staring to look curiously like my father’s. His fingers are shorter and stubbier though.
I never thought that girls would be attractive
I’m not going to lie, coming into my freshman year, I thought the girls would be pretty bad looking. All the rumors of “
Guys who persist that this is true, that
All in all,
Guys from other Univeristies can shut their pie-hole. Our girls are just as rockin’ as those on your campus.
*I’ll give you that there not all are, but there are plenty.*
I didn’t think that I’d become arrogant, so quickly
To be perfectly frank, I know that college has begun to separate those that are intellectual—or those who desire to be—from those that are not. And, from what I can gather, my peers at the
And I love it.
There’s a big difference I’ve noticed in some old friends and others. Some have embraced college to expand their minds and thoughts and push themselves to the limit. Actually I shouldn’t say friends, I’ve observed this phenomenon—I shall call it ‘The Michigan Difference’ even though many other top institutions have this effect—when sitting in random places overhearing the conversations of college-aged strangers. All in all, lots of people in college don’t know shit about anything: the world, or terribly much about their own areas of expertise. They seem to just speak like laymen anyways. I’ve heard people, who are older college students around town, talk like idiots. College is not accessible to all and it should be. But for people whom university studies are accessible, take advantage of them. Sheesh.
I am so amused by being a cocky Michigan student—not that I throw it around, just realizing it in my own head is enough for me—it makes me feel elite. As it should. College educations, as I said before, are investments that I hope make people better citizens in the world. Newsflash, it doesn’t really help much to be a college student/graduate who doesn’t kick it up a notch and do something great. In fact, I don’t think ‘great’ has to be world changing, just something that leaves the world a bit better than before. It’s not cool to succumb to striving only for privileges encouraged by a culture of merit, there’s so much more we can do. Plant a tree. Be nice to neighbors. Read a newspaper. We are blessed to have the college experience to learn more about ourselves and the world; this attitude of brotherhood, empathy, intelligence, awareness, and action must be spread. And most definitely, these ideas don’t spread when the words used to proliferate them sounding like they come from a 6 year old.
These are glimpses of my year.
In finale,
Hail to the Victors.
Coming this week…commentary of oil prices and microeconomics.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Going Home
It’s 12:09 AM. I’m going home today. For real.
I’m not sure how I feel about this. I guess I was expecting to feel diff I guess I was excited to leave Ann Arbor, and I am. I am excited to do what I want with my time. I’m excited to learn on my own. I’m excited to see my friends and family. I’m ready for a non-university life again. But, I thought I’d be more excited than I am now. Why I feel this way is not why others might expect. I’m not disappointed to leave this place because I’m going to miss friends (even though I will) or the next party. I’m nervous about leaving here because I don’t know that ive gotten any farther. I don’t know if I’ve made any progress in life.
A cynical thing to say, yes. But really. I’m living a life that’s no different than the one before. I understand and wholeheartedly believe that the friendships and experiences that I have here are what is going to make college for me, but really…should I feel like I’ve improved as a person?
I don’t know what the hell ive learned this year.
Okay. I must list and reflect. Idea generation time.
I’ve learned that learned that
Scratch that. I’m not ready to write this. Good night.
I’m not sure how I feel about this. I guess I was expecting to feel diff I guess I was excited to leave Ann Arbor, and I am. I am excited to do what I want with my time. I’m excited to learn on my own. I’m excited to see my friends and family. I’m ready for a non-university life again. But, I thought I’d be more excited than I am now. Why I feel this way is not why others might expect. I’m not disappointed to leave this place because I’m going to miss friends (even though I will) or the next party. I’m nervous about leaving here because I don’t know that ive gotten any farther. I don’t know if I’ve made any progress in life.
A cynical thing to say, yes. But really. I’m living a life that’s no different than the one before. I understand and wholeheartedly believe that the friendships and experiences that I have here are what is going to make college for me, but really…should I feel like I’ve improved as a person?
I don’t know what the hell ive learned this year.
Okay. I must list and reflect. Idea generation time.
I’ve learned that learned that
Scratch that. I’m not ready to write this. Good night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)