CD Hunt
So, I was on my way to Borders today after work.
Luckily I found myself there. Otherwise I wouldn't be listening to this great music.
"The Essential India" is what I'm listening too. It's a three-cd set, with one disc for Bollywood Gold, one disc for classical acoustic, and one disc for more contemporary chart-toppers.
Talib Kweli's album wasn't there. Jason Robert Brown wasn't there. I couldn't find their selection of choral music, either. And then, this album caught by eye against the world music wall. I immediately had to purchase it. I love Indian music, but I didn't really allow myself to admit the fact until just today...I've never purchased any hindi music before.
Culture has suddenly become important to me, really without any preemption. I love being Indian. I really am Indian.
But, in the store, i started to wonder why. Why did I surpress culture for so long? Why am I suddenly coming to realize that I truly am Indian. Why do I want to learn to read and write hindi?
It's just...my body is Indian. The way I carry myself is the way of my ancestry. The way my voice sounds, is Indian. I have everything that is Indian, and I've spent most of my life developing what is not Indian.
In addition to an intimate, soulful, relationship...my Indian-ness is a void in my life. It's important to be authenthic, as I was just blogging about. However, so far I've been neglecting part of my identity. I'm Indian American. Not just American, and not just Indian either. I have to be Indian, denying it is a lie.
So, part of the next phase of my development in addition to trying to be effective and consistent in all phases of life is to further explore my identity.
It's a process of going from an by Default American-Indian man, to that of an Indian-American, because that's what I am, and Indian American. And if I don't figure out what it means to be Indian-American, I'll never know who I am. Because...at the end of the day, if I don't understand "Indian", I'm missing out of half of who I am.
Progressions
I'm sorry Mr. Blog. You've been idle for too long.
I spoke with Jennie (my boss/co-worker) the other day. Among other things, like higher education and leadership theory, we were speaking about an exercise that all student workers in the division of student affairs are doing. It was a skills assesment. So we were discussing, and we got on the topic of "being authentic" in the context of human development.
So, "being authentic" means this: You are trying to be true to yourself in all facets of life, in a sincere way. So, at work you're striving to be you. At home your striving to be the same you. At play you are still trying to be that same you. You're trying to synergize your roles in life into one person. This struggle is something that happens for many people during their lifetimes. This is the stage I'm currently at.
What interests me is the transition period. How is it possible to understand when a person makes one jump to the other. Is it a natural process in which one seamlessly passes through? Is it something that must be made discretely and explicitly? I do believe that it is made seamlessly but discretely as wel. I feel that most people mst not reflect to regularly, and thus only figure out that a jump in personal development has been made only after some "significatn" life event has been reached. Like, say an experience like camp. An experience like world traveling. So maybe after a pledge term at a fraternity or a summer abroad will someone get the opportunity, or even force themselves to reflect about what is going on with them in their lives.
However, this is yet another reason that I advocate for regular reflection (a blog is a very good way to reflect)...because with regular reflection, the jump--in personal growth--is constanly being worked on, but also it can be noticed quicker. Then, the skill or growth that has been improved can be exercised more confidently faster. Reflection is the practice in "practice makes perfect". This reminds of another interesting piece of advise that I heard on an NFL commercial; "Ameteurs practice until they get something right, professionals practice until they cant get something wrong".
How true is that. Skills are practiced. Leadership is practiced. Sports are practiced. Studying, writing, researching, and horseshoes are practiced. Everything can be practiced. What cannot be? Grace, i think that's it.
But anyway, how long are these transition periods? Are they turbulent? Do they come with age? Must htey come with age? What is the role of a nurturer or teacher? All these questions are fascinating.
I've also been speculating about what the next possible phase for growth may be, after "authenticity". I have a feeling it might be something along the lines of "finding/living by principle. Being able to live as one person, in a principled way. Then perhaps, being able tolive as one person in a principled way in a manner that benefits others.
It's so exciting...my only qualm is...it takes a long time. And being able to negotiate principles with my lifestyle would be really important in college, right now. I could really use the skill of pushing myself to be disciplined to benefit others. I mean, I wish I was farther in the progression...I could really do alot with those skills now. I feel as if some of these realizations might come too late in life, or they coul dbe better serving if they came erlier in life. What an adventure, what an adventure.
Goodnight moon.
Happy Diwali.
Also, it's sweet typing laying down with your eyes closed. it's so much trust in your mental ability, and a freeing sensation from your eyes and ears. typing without looking with your eyes is like putting a ton of trust into your sense of touch and the sharpness of your mind.
Oh how I miss the blog.
Just?
So, I just got back to my place from studying downstairs. I've been reading quite a bit; I'm halfway up to my eyeballs as of yet. Still plenty of steam left.
Anyway, I've been reading a good load about the O.J. Simpson trial--as required for my Legal Philosophy class--and it's been rather interesting. The last line of the reading prompted some thoughts about what is just and morally correct. More so, if some case is judicated erroneously is there ever a time where its justifed to defy the opinion through judicial nullification, etc. etc.
Actually, why don't I just quote the text.
"Can a historically erroneous verdict ever be a legally--and morally--just result? As a Socratic teacher of law, I leave you to ponder this uncomfortable question." - Alan M. Dershowitz (From Reasonable Doubts)
Basically, some argue that O.J. got away with double murder, but the question Dershowitz raises is if it could possibly okay or worth it (he was partially framed, the police work could have been unjustly and racially motivated, etc. etc.)
Well, I wish to go to the basic premise of why we have a judicial system in the first place. It's to punish offenders of the laws, but why do we have laws? To keep order, and keep the citizenry safe.
Legally-
Of course this can be legally justified. If the rule of law is followed in the proceedings, the judicial proceedings that is, then everyone has a fair shake at a fair trial. I believe that our legal system even compensates for issues like racial/gender imbalance in a courtroom body (juries, judges, lawyers) through jury selection, right to choose counsel, and the possibility for appeal. Also even accounting for jury nullification, the trial is still fair. It is an assumed risk that the jury might praise you or screw you over. Would you rather have it another way? No permanent eye-witness can, or probably should, exist...in any case everybody's case is in the hands of the jury/justice/group of justices. To break it down quick: shit happens (and sometimes juries are psycho).
Just-
Gosh, what is just? I wish Socrates were here, haha. Now, let's assume that the person gets off of double murder. Then it is just, because the defendant is innocent until proven guility. I suppose I define unjust as the innocent being proven guility, and everything else as just. Yes, this means that murderers can go free. But, if they commit crimes on top of double murder, they should eventually get caught. Innocent vicitims is the sunk cost in exchange for liberty and fair trials. Though, I pray that my loved ones aren't those trampled in vain by criminals who have walked.
Moral-
Wow, this is difficult to argue. I suppose it could be argued to be moral, if the trial overall has some societal good. As if, the helps maintain the order of law as a deterrent because the trial actually happens. As if, there is some fundamental good in the judicial system functioning, in and of itself. It could concieveably aid the citizenry, even if a guility criminal goes free, because the system yields benefit because it is acting legally and justly (see above).
However, I don't think ethical souls can stomach this defense (which I admit, is threadbare and not deep. To which I say, gimme a break, it's only my blog with a very small readership, if it has one at all)
I see this as undermining the moral value of the legal system if criminals knowingly go free. The system is supposed to find those who are guility, guilty. The system is supposed to make criminals pay. The system is supposed to be a beacon for fairness and truth, and it is simply not honest when guility criminals go free.
It is not fair to everyone for someone else to play the system. It makes the system appear dysfunctional, thereby causing a removal faith in the system as a whole (see, if a witness lies once, all of what he says could be a lie), a removal of faith in the system promotes lawlessness and in turn tarnishes the value of the rule of law...contradicting the purpose of having a legal system in the first place.
So...Legal, Just, but not moral.
But that's just from a pontificating semi-adult college student. Not to mention, he's wearing purple athletic shorts, listening to Mr. Brightside, how blasE. I'm not going to lie, I really just wanted to use the word blasE, even if it doesn't fit in context.
It's such a cool word, na?
The Killer Thrill
It's a rush to feel like you are doing something...controlling something...and making progress.
Thrills just need to be felt. My age cohort thrives on thrill. We learn, work, and play all in a thrilling fashion. We are addicted.
Look at the academic system for example. The system is high intensity with high-stakes and a high yield for rewards. Those who are strong push, push, and push. The ambitious ones survive and in turn seek more thrills and successes.
The same goes for the social scene: alcohol, sex, and loud music. It's rather thrilling from what i can grasp about it. I'm thrilled even when I'm in the evironment.
But, why are thrills so addicting? Could it be physiological? It must not be exclusively, because emotions/moods feel wierd when thrills are not present.
The only reason that I can imagine that thrills are so fantastic because of how controllable they are. They are pleasureable and controllable. It's a rush to feel like you are doing something...controlling something...and making progress. It's a occurence that is fleeting of tension and freeing of passion.
Why should I try to stop people from thrills? How to define the costs of a thrill? Because there are costs.
Revision about mountains
A revision about my theory of climbing mountains.
In the previous post "So you climbed a mountain, so what?", I concluded that
"The great expanse of western states is unimaginable and truly beautiful. But, I don't think it'll ever be big enough to satisfy the need for knowledge and global culture.
-Note: It sure is fun to explore, especially climbing things"
I would like to make a revision on that statement.
The incredible splendor of the natural world is unimaginable and truly beautiful. But, I don't think those things will ever be big, impressive, or beautiful enough to satisfy the need for knowledge and global culture, in and of themselves.
I make this distincition after spending a night sleeping on one of the dunes at Sleeping Bear National Lakeshore. I was there on a fraternity retreat; we spent time shooting the wind, bonding, and being generally amiable. My brother, Dan-O "Skeet Skeet" Ostahowski (an adventurer if I've ever known one) wanted quite badly I think, to sleep on the dunes for a night. It was late at the time and I said if he went I would go with him. Mind you, that I was banking on the fact that he might not go. (I was all about it at first, but then flinched when some were telling tale tales of "cougar attacks" the year prior).
But, we went. The earth was spinning below me. The sky was like I hadn't been able to see it in many moons. I wished on a shooting star.
And, we began talking...about intelligible--seamlessly with unintelligible--things. It was glorious. It was beautiful. I wanted to take back my childhood and spend more time outdoors. I wished my family had been a nature-loving one, instead of a let's get a hotel and go to tourist attraction types (to be fair, my dad was all about these sorts of things; at least we went car camping once because of him). In a phrase, I felt as if my life hadn't been complete thus far. It was not mixed properly; it had time spent reading, writing, exercising, and that sort. It was not complete with ample time in nature, barely any time until relatively recently.
So, I revise my statement as to not marginalize time spent in nature. Time doing many things is important. Without exposure to pop culture, nature, politics, atheltics, and whatever else life just feels a little incomplete.
Noise.
The television is off. The lights are off. The radio is now off. All that's on is the computer, and at the moment it's less of a PC and more like a notebook.
It's almost quiet. It's an interesting transition. This time last year I was uncomfortable with the quiet (dinner was accompanied by a television, drives were supplemented with a CD or the FM radio, even during showers I listened to 95.5 in the morning.) Now, I like the quiet.
The television seems like noise most of the time. I don't like having the TV just be on in the background...it's an overload to have so many forms of media encompassing all moments of life. I like hearing the sound of my breathing...I actually feel alive. I don't feel dead. The television makes me feel dead. It makes me feel like I'm living life passively. The less TV, the better.
I take that back, TV is cool when it is engadging. When you can connect with it, instead of just being entertained by it. Like Grey's Anatomy. It's a connectable show. Some people connect with Emeril Live. Others connect with Friends or CNN.
Alas, life is moving quickly...faster by the year, it seems. I don't know whether I like it. Sometimes I wish it would fast forward to the age of 27, other times I wish I could stay in a place forever. So...i'm undecided. But, what I have decided, is that it's better with the volume turned down.
A side note--progress is being made on proving the inherent good of love. I hope.
This I Believe
My father is an explorer, a hard worker, an intellectual, a rock…He advised me in our discussions:"You must create a dream".
It has been too long since I have performed the "This I Believe" exercise. I think it's part of the reason why my moods/anxiety levels have been so out of whack.
I had to catch up on reading three essays today which were very varied and interesting.
The Craft of Dreaming- 9:45 PM
Not too long ago, I was riding in a car with my father. He was on his way to be unwillingly seperated from my mother because of a new job. He worked in the same engineering job for the same company for twenty years. He was now blazing a new trail.
My dad is a world traveler, but he rarely speaks of it (He worked on a boat for a shipping company for five years before he met my mother, taking him to Iran, Singapore, Portland, and Malta to name a few places). He is an explorer, a hard worker, an intellectual, a rock. Though, most of all, I think he is a dreamer. Not only does he dream though, he is an expert in the craft of dreaming.
He advised me in our discussions:"You must create a dream".
When I say the craft of dreaming, I mean the meticulous process of finding an idea, vigorously examining and challenging it, and realizing all the steps necessary to making it a reality. "Dreamcraft" was an integral part of my father's life, without the creation of a dream, he would have never moved to the United States from India. His defining qualities are the skills necessary for building dreams. He didn't get to where he is on luck, not by a longshot.
I'm begging to see that his advice is good. Building dreams is necessary for anyone without complete good fortune to try to chip away at getting what they want in life. The most successful people--financially, socially, romantically, intellectually, soulfully--are the ones who dream big and strong. It seems like the ones who have what they want in this world, have perfected and practiced the craft of dreaming.
I believe, I have to believe in the craft of dreaming. It seems like the only way to getting what I want in this world. Afterall, I'm not that lucky anyways.
--10:21 PM--
24Bash II is this friday. Will you be there?
Welcome home Melanie!
From round the country, and the world.
So. As most people do, I keep track of blog visitors. Don't worry, the only valuable information is the location of where people access my blog from, when they do, and how long they stay, etc. It's pretty standard stuff.
But...what boggles my mind, is where people log-in from.
Like...Denver, CO. I know about 3 people in Colorado...and I don't think any are from Denver. Boulder, maybe. It's kind of cool...especially because its Denver. I want to visit Denver SOOOO badly. Colorado in general. From what I can understand, I think I would love it there. Boulder too...except I don't think I'm wealthy enough, maybe not liberal enough, either.
24Bash II is next week:
http://umichigan.facebook.com/event.php?eid=2204958325
Cacti are around
So, I bring this post from sunny Phoenix, AZ. I'm sitting at "Sky Harbor" International Airport, and I decided a post was in order. I was most recently in Seattle, WA moving my father there.
We drove.
Here is one of the pictures.
So, there is some ethical dillema that has been bothering me quite a lot recently. The homeless.
Actually, let me articulate more. How do you handle/help the homeless on the street? Do you "spare change for a good friend", or "have a nice day" (a shout-out to all my Ann Arbor people). How much do you give a homeless man on the street? Should you give cash, or your Starbucks Latte? What will they purchase with it? Does it help or exacerbate the problem of having homeless people in the first place?
This problem definitely existed in Washington D.C. as well as every other city/town that one goes to. Sometimes I can't even beleive the getups of people panhandling. I don't know who to believe or what to do. Also, my beliefs of the free-market economy come into conflict...bringing this issue to something of a political dillema instead of just a moral and ethical one.
So, from what I understand about free-markets, peoples work and value of work dictate how much they should be paid, which is why Doctors get paid more than people who work as airline baggage handlers. The amount of skills and demand for doctors is greater than that of baggage handlers, so they are paid more. That's simple. So, now look at the average homeless person. The value of their services is slim, if anything at all. So, when adhering to free market principles, it makes sense not to give them any money. Artifically adjusting their wage would lead to surpluses and shortages (however small).
1-strike against helping the homeless.
But, then there is the notion of welfare, noblesse oblige, and helping those who are less fortunate than ourselves. As a well off human being I should try to help others. This doesn't require me to empty my pockets though, I think. I think pure altruism is a bunch of baloney in the long run anyway. (I'll just leave it at that...from the philisophical standpoint that I studied in my philosophy class last year). But, even a nickel or a dime. Or a cup of coffee. Or a candy bar. Surely that isn't too much to spare. And I can still function without difference than before if I spare a bit of loose change. On top of it all, helping others has somewhat of a selfish feeling. So, it appeals to my ego as well as my moral sensibilities. Helping others, its something we learned in Kindergarten, right?
1-strike against balking at the homeless
Okay, then theres the issue of the greater good. This sort of falls in line with free-marketing, but I think its sufficiently different to highlight on its own. What about the greater good? What if the homeless person buys cigarettes, or booze, or drugs. What if giving them a handbill prevents them from getting a job, and keeps them on the track of just getting by. And, theres the issue of...personal safety. It seems like a small risk to mingle with people who could be dangerous in some way shape or form. (Gosh I should like a neo-con). Society is better off cutting the fat, and people have to be held responsible for their actions right?
2-strikes against helping the homeless
And, the final issue on my conscience, what if those homeless are incapable of helping themselves? What if they are disabled? Insane? In poor health? What if they can't get by, and a little leg up will help them? Then it would be in the interest of the greater good to help them. If they were able to rise with a boost, its better to boost them and have them be off the homelessness circuit, right?
2-strikes against balking at the homeless
So...I'm at a stalemate. At least in this discourse.
But...There's something that happend that I think needs some sunlight.
I was in this park in Seattle yesterday, and I was watching some people, virtually all kids playing by this large fountain. This man, comes by on a bike. I think he was selling homeless newspapers (Village Voice-esque perhaps?) to make money. He seemed to only have a bike, shoes, a little bit of clothing, and a duffel bag of supplies. If he had more, he didn't have much more than that.
He asked me to watch his stuff while he went nearby and enjoyed the fountain (this is a really large fountain by the way). And he went. And he was free. He enjoyed.
When he came back, he reminded me about how awesome it is, and now necessary it is to just feel free. And it made sense. He didn't have much, but he was free. He loved himself. He was infinite. He was capable of only loving other people. We had a pretty nice chat. He was interesting. Talking to him was inspiring, not because he was down-trodden, but because he was one of the free-est people I've ever met. (Melanie/Jessi--not that I think you've ever read my blog--, you would've enjoyed this quite a lot, I think).
And...at the end of it. I thought. I might not be giving this guy a dollar, and hes not asking for any. But what's important--for us both--is that were communicating. And regardless of your philosophy on how to help the poor or homeless, we should be comfortable with the issue. Our daily experiences should be at least a little bit more than brushing aside someone begging for change which pretending to listen to an MP3 players (I'm definitely guility of this...it's hard not to do, because its so easy and innocent). Maybe its just our mentality. Maybe we should try to remember that the homeless/poor/eccentric/disadvantaged, regardless of whether we help them, are people too...and if we tried to help them, it would be better if we could look them in the eye and shake their hand.
That guy at the park, I don't know his name. But, he wished me a beautiful day, safe travels, and that he loved me. I cared for him too, i told him that i thought he was a beautiful person, and I meant it. He may not have asked me for help, and I may not have given him any...but after talking to him, as I walked out of the park, I sure wished he had enough to eat that night.
Perfect, it's boarding time. Adios Phoenix, Hello De-troit.
"All my gangstas and all my thugs..."
Ok, you climbed a mountain, so what?
I currently write you from Three Forks, MT. It is 11:01 Mountain time and I have to wake up in a few hours to drive the final 700 miles to Seattle. I spent much time driving through very scenic places today (the Badlands and the foothills of the Rocky Mountains) and I spent a long time thinking. For that matter, I was more like day dreaming/thinking slowly.
I was looking out the window, seeing buttes and mountains. I couldn't help but imagine climbing them. At times I wanted to stop the car on the road's shoulder and climb out into the prarie and just go--run, roll, walk, lay, bicycle, everything. The urge was barely controllable. I think climbing a mountain would be an amazing thing. Cause its, ya know, climbing a mountain. It's what adventurers dream about.
Obviously, I started to examine how I felt about climbing mountains and I immediatedly started vacillating about how good climbing a mountain actually would be. It's just like, so what, a mountain has been climbed. It has a nice view up there, and its good exercise, and its good recreaction. What does it do? Nothing. Nothing is gained, except the feeling of climbing a mountain.
But, that's precisely it. It's climbing a mountain. CLIMBING A MOUNTAIN. Why not climb a mountain, why else are they there? Since when does climbing a mountain need a positive externality anyway? Afterall, it's pretty incredible to stand atop a mountain in the first place.
[Went to bed here, it is now 7:30 AM local time the next morning]
So, climbing a mountain doesn't amount to anything, but its pretty flippin' sweet on an individual level.
But, just climbing mountains isn't enough for me I think. I don't think I'd be able to live permantly as a farmer or something. I couldn't only climb mountains. I think once we subscribe to intellect we lose the ability to only exist as natural creatures, the craving for learning is too much.
I can't imagine living in the country; I'd definitely have to have an internet connection and subscribe to various national news sources (and have a library close by).
The great expanse of western states is unimaginable and truly beautiful. But, I don't think it'll ever be big enough to satisfy the need for knowledge and global culture.
-Note: It sure is fun to explore, especially climbing things
Seattle, ho!
Wants/Personal Update
In the past few years, I have spent many moons thinking about basic human wants. In the past few hours, I think I have arrived at a working set of "wants". I ask, please review them, and comment and discuss...especially if you think I'm missing something. I'm not entirely sure if I am, but please comment. Also, please bear in mind that these categories may be inclusive (or for that matter exclusive) of what you may consider more primary wants. But, the fact that we may use different words to describe the same things is interesting in itself.
List:
1. To have peace.
2. To be loved.
3. To be free.
4. To have purpose.
I think that this is the order, as well. Please let me know if you think that the order is out of whack as well.
Now...the issue is. Knowing what I want, and not knowing how to get it. It's damn stressful. We'll...yes, it is. If I wasn't thinking about it, it would mean I'd become complacent. I'll pass on complacency. 'Live' is an active verb, ("He lived" versus "He was lived."). If you don't live actively, make it by choice. Meaning, if you choose to take a step back and go with the flow, don't let it be a rationalization of inaction. Be strong. Press on. (this was my self-taught lesson of the day--thoughts about self-study are to come later, I'm sure.)
------PERSONAL UPDATE------
I arrived in Detroit Thursday.
I'm leaving for Seattle on Saturday morning. My father and I are driving there because has accepted a job in Washington State. He needs a car there, which in my world means roadtrip. I will be arriving in Michigan late Saturday evening (12th of August).
I leave for school late-week, around the 23rd-24th of August, whatever that Thursday/Friday is.
24-bash's date will be set on the road somewhere. Check your facebooks ladies and gents.
My freshmen tour of Ann Arbor will be announced as well.
Call me while I'm gone?
Souls' Speak
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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:
Learn to accept and appreciate indulgence.
When close relationships arrive in life, they are bound to become more focused and intimate—I sure hope so, otherwise what’s the point of ‘settling down’? So, to prevent the a similar Spousal Alienation I think it’s important to learn to accept that there could definitely be someone out there who is gaga over you. Cause once ya’ have someone around that’s really great, why pull away from them? Also, having someone who loves you unconditionally definitely seems better than the opposite.
Taking relationships step by step, cherish them, and not spoil them—learning not to go overboard.
This I think, is equally important. It takes two to tango, and learning to stop from pushing someone away is equally important is not pulling away. I think the net effect is wonderful. Two people, committed to a relationship, who appreciate and nurture it. People who love unconditionally, and force themselves to love every minute and not take any second for granted.
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.
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.
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
Redirect
No new post.
Just a link to a draft of a poem today.
http://refrigeratordoor.blogspot.com/2006/06/quiet-time.html