Well, the semester has died down which means this blog is back from hiateus!
Anyway, today's topic is, in quote form "Never make someone a priority if they only make you a option"- Unknown
I've seen this quote a lot lately, and in the free time I've had (hooray Christmas Break!), I've had time to reflect on this quote. More specifically, I have been thinking :when are you someone's priority and when are you someone's option? Seems like a simple question, but in truth, nothing in this world is black and white; it's all shades of gray. So, in this situation, you may never be an extreme-someone's unconditional friend or trampled foe. Likely, if you are stuck in this situation with someone, they are either a friend of a friend or a sort of aquaintance.
That being said- are you a priority or an option?
Over this past semester, I did a lot of people watching. In order to assimilate, you have to know your surroundings, right? And I did notice one specific thing: a lot of people were treated like the stereotypical options.
Now don't get me wrong! Everyone is entitled to have priorities. Those people are called your inner circle of friends. You show you care for them through the little things, whether it be a random text or IM, or a little candy bag or card. The problem then becomes what does one do if one of their chosen priorities starts treating them like an option?
The initial reaction is just drop the bastard. If they don't like you, eff them- insert other self esteem cliches. But the truth is, it's not so easy. First off, what if the person who starts treating you like an option is in your group of priorities? And how does one bring it up without being awkward? Just confront them and ask what the deal is?
Ideally, yes. And by all means try it. But such confrontations do not always yeild positive results.
The person might take offense, either legitimetly because you overracted about their actions that led you to believe you were their "option", or out of guilt. It could lead to a destruction of friendship.
Or, maybe if you're lucky, you might be able to work some previous unsaid emotions out.
What I'm trying to get at is: even if you are someone's option, that is not reason to make that person feel like shit. That way, such confrontations will be obsolete. Even if someone isn't your best friend, there is some common curtosy to be had. That's the problem I see on this campus, in this generation, really: lack of common respect. If someone sends you a text, take 2.5 seconds to respond even with a "sorry no thanks." If you invite all your friends to dinner, invite that one extra person that is friends with all those people even if you aren't best friends. That one act of kindness can go a long way.
To be someone's option isn't a bad thing; it is physically impossible to be everyone's priority. Friendships start naturally and you put effort in now and then to maintain them: those are your priorities. Your options are the people you call once in awhile to grab coffee or go out with. And that's not a bad thing. It's a fact of life. But you don't need to treat your options as second class citizens. They are still human beings who deserve love and respect. So the next time that annoying friend from class calls and asks if you want to grab a snack with him, don't just ignore him. Either send a polite decline ("I can't make it, sorry") or suck it up and have a 10 minute snack. Who knows you might even have a good conversation.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Digital Deathbed
Ever noticed how people with Blackberries or iPhones always have their device out and are plucking buttons constantly?
Ever see how more people text and IM and facebook rather than give someone a call?
Ever wonder about someone's tone on a text or IM and analyze the sentence for hours on end?
Ladies and Gentlemen, I welcome you to the 21st century.
Now, I'm not against technology. If it were not for the graces of technological progress, information would be much harder to get and news would spread much slower. The Tehran Protests on twitter would have been obsolete, and who knows if you would have ever reconnected with your best friend from high school if there wasn't a Facebook.
Back in the day, people didn't move much. The 50 to 60 people you went to school with, grew up around, etc was your world. It was rare to go far for college, if you went to college at all, and chances were you married someone your family was familiar with.
In today's world, we have a much more mobile population, and because of social networks and cell phones and whatnot, we can (somewhat) keep this idea of a close-knit community while extending our physical space and expanding our social circle.
Or can we?
I can't help but wonder if technology is a cheap substitute. I understand its capacity to bring people together, but nothing is stronger than person-to-person interaction. Even a phone call is somewhat personal; you can hear the intonations of another's voice and gage their true feelings. By relying on computers and texts, we are cutting out about 60% or more of communication (tone and/or body language) and living off of assumptions and guess work. It is easier to fool a girl into thinking you have true feelings for her and lure her into bed. It's easy to seem like you're friendly with someone when it reality you can barely tolerate them.
Do people depend on technology because it gives them the facade of having deep human connections with multiple individuals? Does someone like a person because he or she is that person, or simply because he or she is another entry on their contact list?
I don't know about you, but I'd much rather be with a person who gives me a call or shows up at my door than sends me a cheap four word text.
Ever see how more people text and IM and facebook rather than give someone a call?
Ever wonder about someone's tone on a text or IM and analyze the sentence for hours on end?
Ladies and Gentlemen, I welcome you to the 21st century.
Now, I'm not against technology. If it were not for the graces of technological progress, information would be much harder to get and news would spread much slower. The Tehran Protests on twitter would have been obsolete, and who knows if you would have ever reconnected with your best friend from high school if there wasn't a Facebook.
Back in the day, people didn't move much. The 50 to 60 people you went to school with, grew up around, etc was your world. It was rare to go far for college, if you went to college at all, and chances were you married someone your family was familiar with.
In today's world, we have a much more mobile population, and because of social networks and cell phones and whatnot, we can (somewhat) keep this idea of a close-knit community while extending our physical space and expanding our social circle.
Or can we?
I can't help but wonder if technology is a cheap substitute. I understand its capacity to bring people together, but nothing is stronger than person-to-person interaction. Even a phone call is somewhat personal; you can hear the intonations of another's voice and gage their true feelings. By relying on computers and texts, we are cutting out about 60% or more of communication (tone and/or body language) and living off of assumptions and guess work. It is easier to fool a girl into thinking you have true feelings for her and lure her into bed. It's easy to seem like you're friendly with someone when it reality you can barely tolerate them.
Do people depend on technology because it gives them the facade of having deep human connections with multiple individuals? Does someone like a person because he or she is that person, or simply because he or she is another entry on their contact list?
I don't know about you, but I'd much rather be with a person who gives me a call or shows up at my door than sends me a cheap four word text.
Monday, October 26, 2009
NOTE!
A discrepency has been brought to my attention. In the previous three entries, I referred to America as a pure Democracy. It is not; it is specifically a Democratic Republic. When I say democracy, I am referring to the democratic tradition and ideals where the power is said to lay with the people. Democracies include America, Britian, France, etc; mostly former first world countries.
Sorry for the confusion.
Sorry for the confusion.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Democracy (Part 3 of 3)
I apologize for straying from the schedule the past week- it's mid-term season here at ol' FU.
SO. Democracy.
I've made a case that the two party system is fallible and that our electoral system is flawed. So then I ask:
Why do we impose this flawed system on to nations that do not want it?
Back in the hay-days of the Communist vs. Capitalist battle, America and other leading democracies tried to impose their system of government on developing nations, fearing if they did not, the big bad Communists would. There were 1st world countries (capitalism), 2nd world (communism) 3rd (neutral/ developing), and 4th (very, very underdeveloped) countries. Not much criss-cross; very black and white.
But America was petrified of Communism gaining power. For example, look at the China situation right around WWII. During that time period, before the rise of Mao, the Nationalist Party was at it's height of corruption. Since the 1850's, the Nationalist Party was renown for bureaucratic corruption that resulted in peasantry and lower class exploitation. Yet, when there arose a dispute in China after Japan's surrender of which government system would take over China, the US backed the Nationalist Party without a second thought. The US did not consider that perhaps the China Communist Party might bring some ideological balance; they sided with the party that would benefit their wallets in the free trade society, not necessarily the side that would feed their moral fiber.
**Disclaimer*** I am in no way advocating the violence and injustice that ensued during Mao's Great Leap Forward or Cultural Revolution; I am merely stating that the US did not consider that the Communist ideals in China were worth weighing*****
In more modern times, even though the Communist battle is over, the US and other big Capitalist countries still try to impose their brand of democracy on developing countries. In the Latin America's, in Central America, and in the Middle East- nearly every time the US or a similar country tries to impose democracy, there is blood, warfare, and only limited success.
Karl Rove spoke at the college I transferred from (Goucher). I was telephoned and told that apparently an Iraqi citizen spoke up in the Q&A session and noted that even though Saddam Hussein was a dictator and authoritarian, he felt safe. Now, with the Army running every which way, he was afraid to walk the streets.
I'm not saying that the US should step out of the Human Rights Arena; I'm actually proposing a more human right- friendly route. Perhaps America could separate itself from the narrow minded belief that democracy is the end all be all for everyone RIGHT NOW.
Democracy takes time, and unless done by its own people, democracy will surly not last. Would America be as strong if France fought the whole revolution for us, rather than being back up?
Of course not!
Democracy is great when it comes about naturally; when the people of a country stand up to a corrupt leader. It does not happen when larger countries see the developing country as a potential trade source or Allie, and thus then forces its system upon the small country. America should be a resource for those small countries that wise to pursue Western Democracy, rather than a nuisance that gives an excuse for unnecessary warfare.
Democracy is a wonderful vehicle; but not everyone drives a Volkswagen. Some people need BMW's or Chryslers. Some people need to lease a car, but in the end will buy it as their own.
SO. Democracy.
I've made a case that the two party system is fallible and that our electoral system is flawed. So then I ask:
Why do we impose this flawed system on to nations that do not want it?
Back in the hay-days of the Communist vs. Capitalist battle, America and other leading democracies tried to impose their system of government on developing nations, fearing if they did not, the big bad Communists would. There were 1st world countries (capitalism), 2nd world (communism) 3rd (neutral/ developing), and 4th (very, very underdeveloped) countries. Not much criss-cross; very black and white.
But America was petrified of Communism gaining power. For example, look at the China situation right around WWII. During that time period, before the rise of Mao, the Nationalist Party was at it's height of corruption. Since the 1850's, the Nationalist Party was renown for bureaucratic corruption that resulted in peasantry and lower class exploitation. Yet, when there arose a dispute in China after Japan's surrender of which government system would take over China, the US backed the Nationalist Party without a second thought. The US did not consider that perhaps the China Communist Party might bring some ideological balance; they sided with the party that would benefit their wallets in the free trade society, not necessarily the side that would feed their moral fiber.
**Disclaimer*** I am in no way advocating the violence and injustice that ensued during Mao's Great Leap Forward or Cultural Revolution; I am merely stating that the US did not consider that the Communist ideals in China were worth weighing*****
In more modern times, even though the Communist battle is over, the US and other big Capitalist countries still try to impose their brand of democracy on developing countries. In the Latin America's, in Central America, and in the Middle East- nearly every time the US or a similar country tries to impose democracy, there is blood, warfare, and only limited success.
Karl Rove spoke at the college I transferred from (Goucher). I was telephoned and told that apparently an Iraqi citizen spoke up in the Q&A session and noted that even though Saddam Hussein was a dictator and authoritarian, he felt safe. Now, with the Army running every which way, he was afraid to walk the streets.
I'm not saying that the US should step out of the Human Rights Arena; I'm actually proposing a more human right- friendly route. Perhaps America could separate itself from the narrow minded belief that democracy is the end all be all for everyone RIGHT NOW.
Democracy takes time, and unless done by its own people, democracy will surly not last. Would America be as strong if France fought the whole revolution for us, rather than being back up?
Of course not!
Democracy is great when it comes about naturally; when the people of a country stand up to a corrupt leader. It does not happen when larger countries see the developing country as a potential trade source or Allie, and thus then forces its system upon the small country. America should be a resource for those small countries that wise to pursue Western Democracy, rather than a nuisance that gives an excuse for unnecessary warfare.
Democracy is a wonderful vehicle; but not everyone drives a Volkswagen. Some people need BMW's or Chryslers. Some people need to lease a car, but in the end will buy it as their own.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Democracy (Part 2 of 3)
Now, in my last post I brought up how our system is flawed- one of the main flaws being the electoral system. Another flaw in my mind in the duel-party system.
Yes, two parties (in theory) create a balance. Right against left, liberal against conservative; both pitting their views against one another in order to create a moderate compromise.
This does sound good in theory. However, the problems seem to outweigh the good. The problems with this system is that a compromise is rarely reached. People are biased to an extreme; to be moderate is becoming synonymous to "one who never gets elected." Party loyalties run deep- too deep to make compromises.
Look at the Health care debacle. Currently, we're in a standstill. Democrats are trying to keep the bill as is, and the Republicans refuse to pass it. This is a sticky situation; health care is complicated enough without having 1,000 amendments attached to it. In this case, it seems even when a Republican is leaning toward the passing of the bill, he restrains himself due to his party alliance.
Party favors will not help this country. Generally, competent national leaders tend to hold utilitarian (greatest good for greatest number) or common good sort of ethics. It has come to a point in our country where the party allegiance is interrupting the ability to make bills that benefit a great amount of people. .
As a result, congress argues, nothing gets done, and hundreds- millions- of people go one without something as (bias alert!) fundamental as health insurance. This is a sign of weak government; if America wishes to keep here hemogenic status, she must try to support her people.
America's people are diverse; they deserve diverse representation. Say, for argument's sake, the electoral election process is finally abolished. Now, it would make sense to have a proportional system (more than one winner per district; seats allotted by percentage won) with multiple parties. There would be more debate, yes, things would get done.
Look at Britain. They have several parties and they still manage to keep first world status. They have fiery debate and- main point here- they come to a decision! Imagine that- something concrete in politics. Now, Britain is different because they lack a separation of powers, so the Prime Minister's party runs everything.
However, imagine a hybrid.
Take the separation of powers (so the President's party doesn't rule everything). Now add a dash of Democrat, a rinse of Republican, a glob of Green, a little bit of Libertarian and some assorted spices, and we have a very, very representative body. With so many opinions, it would be physically IMPOSSIBLE to get anything done correct?
No. Incorrect.
If people (and I have enough faith in people to believe this) realize that we have such low autonomy and need compromises, then having a multiparty system would discourage party alliance (there are too many parties) and people would vote for what was right for the country, not for the party. In order to survive, people would NEED to compromise, lest America fall off the face of the international stage.
Let's keep the party favors for the next birthday party, shall we?
Yes, two parties (in theory) create a balance. Right against left, liberal against conservative; both pitting their views against one another in order to create a moderate compromise.
This does sound good in theory. However, the problems seem to outweigh the good. The problems with this system is that a compromise is rarely reached. People are biased to an extreme; to be moderate is becoming synonymous to "one who never gets elected." Party loyalties run deep- too deep to make compromises.
Look at the Health care debacle. Currently, we're in a standstill. Democrats are trying to keep the bill as is, and the Republicans refuse to pass it. This is a sticky situation; health care is complicated enough without having 1,000 amendments attached to it. In this case, it seems even when a Republican is leaning toward the passing of the bill, he restrains himself due to his party alliance.
Party favors will not help this country. Generally, competent national leaders tend to hold utilitarian (greatest good for greatest number) or common good sort of ethics. It has come to a point in our country where the party allegiance is interrupting the ability to make bills that benefit a great amount of people. .
As a result, congress argues, nothing gets done, and hundreds- millions- of people go one without something as (bias alert!) fundamental as health insurance. This is a sign of weak government; if America wishes to keep here hemogenic status, she must try to support her people.
America's people are diverse; they deserve diverse representation. Say, for argument's sake, the electoral election process is finally abolished. Now, it would make sense to have a proportional system (more than one winner per district; seats allotted by percentage won) with multiple parties. There would be more debate, yes, things would get done.
Look at Britain. They have several parties and they still manage to keep first world status. They have fiery debate and- main point here- they come to a decision! Imagine that- something concrete in politics. Now, Britain is different because they lack a separation of powers, so the Prime Minister's party runs everything.
However, imagine a hybrid.
Take the separation of powers (so the President's party doesn't rule everything). Now add a dash of Democrat, a rinse of Republican, a glob of Green, a little bit of Libertarian and some assorted spices, and we have a very, very representative body. With so many opinions, it would be physically IMPOSSIBLE to get anything done correct?
No. Incorrect.
If people (and I have enough faith in people to believe this) realize that we have such low autonomy and need compromises, then having a multiparty system would discourage party alliance (there are too many parties) and people would vote for what was right for the country, not for the party. In order to survive, people would NEED to compromise, lest America fall off the face of the international stage.
Let's keep the party favors for the next birthday party, shall we?
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Democracy (Part 1 of 3)
I just finished my Comparative politics midterm, so I have democracy in the brain. One of our questions was something like "compare democracy to authoritarianism."
No brainer right? Democracy = good, authoritarianism= bad. In one system people have a say, in the other they are controlled. For the sake of a shorter blogpost, let's say we all like having the ability to have a voice in government, thus we all prefer democratic government.
However, this answer would not suffice for a midterm. There must be an elaboration. What is democracy, and why is it good? And is it really that good, or is it over-romanticized?
Now, I like having freedom as much as the next American, but I will not hesitate to say that our system is flawed. Presidential Democracy, like any other government system, has its evils. One of the reasons a lot of other nations frown upon America is because of the arrogance many citizens have about the "awesomeness" of the American government. What people do not realize, however, is the many other democratic options.
I love the separation of powers; that makes sense to me. No one has too much power, everyone has a specific job, and ambition is checked.
What I don't get is our electoral system. It's indirect and even if candidate wins by a slight electorate mark, they still "represent" the whole state. We could have a good 40 percent of a state underrepresented in an given presidential election.
Take a look at the 2000 elections. Al Gore won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote to Bush. How can you call that fair? Political biases aside, it is ridiculous that the majority of the nation can want one leader, and another is elected. That is not democratic. Our combination of Single Member District (winner take all) and electoral system creates a misrepresentation of our nation.
Basically, when we are in grade school and are being taught about the wonders of American democracy, we have a right to be proud. Proud to be trail blazers, proud to be revolutionaries, proud to be rebels with a cause. But we are socialized to think we are the best, flawless government that this world has ever seen. And that simply is not true. Our government has its flaws, and yes it has worked for us, but it still lacks. It lacks true representation, and takes power away from the general public. And are we not "Of the people, for the people, [and] by the people"?
I say it's time we take a good hard look at the American government and realize we aren't perfect, and we should stop acting like it.
No brainer right? Democracy = good, authoritarianism= bad. In one system people have a say, in the other they are controlled. For the sake of a shorter blogpost, let's say we all like having the ability to have a voice in government, thus we all prefer democratic government.
However, this answer would not suffice for a midterm. There must be an elaboration. What is democracy, and why is it good? And is it really that good, or is it over-romanticized?
Now, I like having freedom as much as the next American, but I will not hesitate to say that our system is flawed. Presidential Democracy, like any other government system, has its evils. One of the reasons a lot of other nations frown upon America is because of the arrogance many citizens have about the "awesomeness" of the American government. What people do not realize, however, is the many other democratic options.
I love the separation of powers; that makes sense to me. No one has too much power, everyone has a specific job, and ambition is checked.
What I don't get is our electoral system. It's indirect and even if candidate wins by a slight electorate mark, they still "represent" the whole state. We could have a good 40 percent of a state underrepresented in an given presidential election.
Take a look at the 2000 elections. Al Gore won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote to Bush. How can you call that fair? Political biases aside, it is ridiculous that the majority of the nation can want one leader, and another is elected. That is not democratic. Our combination of Single Member District (winner take all) and electoral system creates a misrepresentation of our nation.
Basically, when we are in grade school and are being taught about the wonders of American democracy, we have a right to be proud. Proud to be trail blazers, proud to be revolutionaries, proud to be rebels with a cause. But we are socialized to think we are the best, flawless government that this world has ever seen. And that simply is not true. Our government has its flaws, and yes it has worked for us, but it still lacks. It lacks true representation, and takes power away from the general public. And are we not "Of the people, for the people, [and] by the people"?
I say it's time we take a good hard look at the American government and realize we aren't perfect, and we should stop acting like it.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Best Friends
So this was Columbus Day weekend, and needless to say I spent a great part of it acting like a bum on my best friend's couch.
What is a best friend? Well, if I were to use today as an example: it is someone that you can watch hours of television with, make random funny jokes with, color Disney coloring books with and, most importantly, just sit in silence with.
I remember once reading a quote that went along the lines of "You know you're best friends when you sit on the porch together for an hour, not saying anything, and leave feeling like it was the best conversation you've ever had."
I've been blessed to have four such people in my life, that I know even though I don't see or talk to all of them on a regular basis, they'll always be there for me. They've always been there for me. I know that if I called one of them right now, at 11:51 pm, they'd pick up the phone and actually give a damn. It's a nice feeling.
Being some one's best friend, or one of their best friends, is not a label you put on a friendship once you've been friends for a certain amount of time or if you go to the same school. It's a promise to stick by that person through thick and thin; to be there with a hug, a kind word of advice, and (probably most useful) an open couch to crash on.
Some people just "click." My Biffle and I just clicked when we met at dance years and years ago and it developed into a best friendship in high school. The same can be said for my other closest friends: one clicked while playing school in her front yard, one in homeroom on the first day of high school, and one in a movie theater when we were introduced by mutual friends.
Some relationships take time to grow. There were those people in high school I knew for years and years but only became good friends with as of late. Trust and loyalty can be hard to earn, and can take weeks, months, or even years to blossom into something great.
Recently, I've been able to click with some people at my new school, and have been able to spot a few people with whom I think I will develop close relationships over the next 2 and a half years.
Friendship can start with a click and can take awhile to develop. But no matter where or how you find friends, one thing is for sure: everyone can do with a few good friends.
What is a best friend? Well, if I were to use today as an example: it is someone that you can watch hours of television with, make random funny jokes with, color Disney coloring books with and, most importantly, just sit in silence with.
I remember once reading a quote that went along the lines of "You know you're best friends when you sit on the porch together for an hour, not saying anything, and leave feeling like it was the best conversation you've ever had."
I've been blessed to have four such people in my life, that I know even though I don't see or talk to all of them on a regular basis, they'll always be there for me. They've always been there for me. I know that if I called one of them right now, at 11:51 pm, they'd pick up the phone and actually give a damn. It's a nice feeling.
Being some one's best friend, or one of their best friends, is not a label you put on a friendship once you've been friends for a certain amount of time or if you go to the same school. It's a promise to stick by that person through thick and thin; to be there with a hug, a kind word of advice, and (probably most useful) an open couch to crash on.
Some people just "click." My Biffle and I just clicked when we met at dance years and years ago and it developed into a best friendship in high school. The same can be said for my other closest friends: one clicked while playing school in her front yard, one in homeroom on the first day of high school, and one in a movie theater when we were introduced by mutual friends.
Some relationships take time to grow. There were those people in high school I knew for years and years but only became good friends with as of late. Trust and loyalty can be hard to earn, and can take weeks, months, or even years to blossom into something great.
Recently, I've been able to click with some people at my new school, and have been able to spot a few people with whom I think I will develop close relationships over the next 2 and a half years.
Friendship can start with a click and can take awhile to develop. But no matter where or how you find friends, one thing is for sure: everyone can do with a few good friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
