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.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Home
Where is home?
I've heard: "Home is where your heart is" and "Home is where your mom is" and even "Home is where your friends are."
But really, where is that?
My mom is in MA, my friends are everywhere from San Diego to Boston, and my heart hasn't really settled down yet. So where do I call home?
My answer: I have no real home. I am what you call "lost." Now, before I get called "emo," let me explain that this is nothing depressing. To be lost is not sad; it is simply a fact. I'm still growing, still meeting people, still bouncing around. I am happy to be lost. I like being a wanderer.
Even when I had a "certain home" when I was in high school, I still would not say I had a set home. In school, I never belonged to any real clique, and outside of school, I probably spent as much time at my best friend's house as my physical home.
So I propose a compromise of definitions. Home is a state of mind. You can be "at home" with certain people. Home is a feeling of belonging that may not be perpetual, but it sure as hell makes you happy. It can happen spontaneously or it can take time. To be at home with someone means that you're comfortable and happy around them.
Last night, I had a home- feeling. There were about six of us, some I didn't even really know, singing Disney songs around a piano. And it occurred to me- I am happy. I am happy, right here in this moment, right now, singing with semi-strangers that I will now refer to as friends. Right there, in a common room in a building I do not live in- I was home.
Cheesy, right? Well it's the cheesy truth.
Home can be a house, but it does not necessarily need to be one. Home can be a person, a moment, and of course, a place.
Home is where and when you're happiest. To some, home is wandering. To me, home is where I can hear some music and get a hug.
I've heard: "Home is where your heart is" and "Home is where your mom is" and even "Home is where your friends are."
But really, where is that?
My mom is in MA, my friends are everywhere from San Diego to Boston, and my heart hasn't really settled down yet. So where do I call home?
My answer: I have no real home. I am what you call "lost." Now, before I get called "emo," let me explain that this is nothing depressing. To be lost is not sad; it is simply a fact. I'm still growing, still meeting people, still bouncing around. I am happy to be lost. I like being a wanderer.
Even when I had a "certain home" when I was in high school, I still would not say I had a set home. In school, I never belonged to any real clique, and outside of school, I probably spent as much time at my best friend's house as my physical home.
So I propose a compromise of definitions. Home is a state of mind. You can be "at home" with certain people. Home is a feeling of belonging that may not be perpetual, but it sure as hell makes you happy. It can happen spontaneously or it can take time. To be at home with someone means that you're comfortable and happy around them.
Last night, I had a home- feeling. There were about six of us, some I didn't even really know, singing Disney songs around a piano. And it occurred to me- I am happy. I am happy, right here in this moment, right now, singing with semi-strangers that I will now refer to as friends. Right there, in a common room in a building I do not live in- I was home.
Cheesy, right? Well it's the cheesy truth.
Home can be a house, but it does not necessarily need to be one. Home can be a person, a moment, and of course, a place.
Home is where and when you're happiest. To some, home is wandering. To me, home is where I can hear some music and get a hug.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Schedule
mattpat1031 (10:24:18 PM): So how're you?
abiss x3 (10:24:51 PM): i am a human being on this planet earth, milky way, the universe and i am small
abiss x3 (10:24:57 PM): however, my mind is big.
abiss x3 (10:25:15 PM): so i survive in my controlled yet chaotic environment
abiss x3 (10:25:25 PM): you?
mattpat1031 (10:25:31 PM): ... I'm good, thanks
Now, readers (if there are any?), after a week of straight posting everyday (save Saturday and yesterday) you have an idea what I'm about. Lord What Fools These Mortals Be is, besides a stolen quote from Shakespeare, an analyzation of the foolish meanderings of mankind. Inspiration is drawn from near events (like the college newspaper), human events (like love and friendship), and world events (like the economy post I'm preparing...get pumped!).
I'll admit I'm a bit left- winged bias, but if there is anything I pride myself on it is being objective and just.
Ever read Perks of Being a Wallflower? Well I'm like Charlie. I notice things. Then I write about them.
I'm going to post every other day, save Saturday night unless I have something of great importance to say.
Happy Reading!
abiss x3 (10:24:51 PM): i am a human being on this planet earth, milky way, the universe and i am small
abiss x3 (10:24:57 PM): however, my mind is big.
abiss x3 (10:25:15 PM): so i survive in my controlled yet chaotic environment
abiss x3 (10:25:25 PM): you?
mattpat1031 (10:25:31 PM): ... I'm good, thanks
Now, readers (if there are any?), after a week of straight posting everyday (save Saturday and yesterday) you have an idea what I'm about. Lord What Fools These Mortals Be is, besides a stolen quote from Shakespeare, an analyzation of the foolish meanderings of mankind. Inspiration is drawn from near events (like the college newspaper), human events (like love and friendship), and world events (like the economy post I'm preparing...get pumped!).
I'll admit I'm a bit left- winged bias, but if there is anything I pride myself on it is being objective and just.
Ever read Perks of Being a Wallflower? Well I'm like Charlie. I notice things. Then I write about them.
I'm going to post every other day, save Saturday night unless I have something of great importance to say.
Happy Reading!
Sunday, October 4, 2009
What is Love (Baby don't hurt me, no more!)
Since Friday was Friendship today is....
...you guessed it
...LOVE.
Love, amore, "that feeling." What is it? We have:
1.
a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
2.
a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
3.
sexual passion or desire.
Or, my personal favorite line: "Love is friendship set on fire", because I think it covers all of these emotions. Love is more than physical attraction; it is the willingness to put someone else ahead of yourself. Love, like friendship, can have many levels. You might love your roommate, but obviously she isn't as important to you as your mom.
Love is not continually hooking up, although I will not lie; some relationships have started like that. However, personally, I think the more effective root is a root seen as a little more old-fashioned. As one friend put it, love is "gardening." You start with "hi's" in the hallway, hang out in groups, then maybe hang out one on one a couple times, maybe go on a date or two, and sooner or later- bam!- you have yourself one fully fledged relationship. This is an example of what most people consider "romantic love."
This type of courting, if you will, is generally not practiced in today's fast-paced-I- want- it -now culture, but when it comes down to push and shove, if a guy/gal is willing to go through all this, chances are, you may belove.
However this isn't the only kind of love- there is family love, friend love, and even pet love. In all these categories, there is one thing in common: your life would be substansially different in you did not have this person/ animal in your life.
Love runs deep. It is not sexual attraction, or "hey let's go get lunch this one time." Love comes slow and needs to be cultivated. But one thing is for sure: all humans love being loved.
...you guessed it
...LOVE.
Love, amore, "that feeling." What is it? We have:
1.
a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
2.
a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
3.
sexual passion or desire.
Or, my personal favorite line: "Love is friendship set on fire", because I think it covers all of these emotions. Love is more than physical attraction; it is the willingness to put someone else ahead of yourself. Love, like friendship, can have many levels. You might love your roommate, but obviously she isn't as important to you as your mom.
Love is not continually hooking up, although I will not lie; some relationships have started like that. However, personally, I think the more effective root is a root seen as a little more old-fashioned. As one friend put it, love is "gardening." You start with "hi's" in the hallway, hang out in groups, then maybe hang out one on one a couple times, maybe go on a date or two, and sooner or later- bam!- you have yourself one fully fledged relationship. This is an example of what most people consider "romantic love."
This type of courting, if you will, is generally not practiced in today's fast-paced-I- want- it -now culture, but when it comes down to push and shove, if a guy/gal is willing to go through all this, chances are, you may belove.
However this isn't the only kind of love- there is family love, friend love, and even pet love. In all these categories, there is one thing in common: your life would be substansially different in you did not have this person/ animal in your life.
Love runs deep. It is not sexual attraction, or "hey let's go get lunch this one time." Love comes slow and needs to be cultivated. But one thing is for sure: all humans love being loved.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Friendship
Now it's time to get all philosophical with you....what is "friendship"?
According to dictionary.com:
–noun
1.
the state of being a friend; association as friends: to value a person's friendship.
2.
a friendly relation or intimacy.
3.
friendly feeling or disposition.
Ok, so- basically this means that the definition is really broad. According to the definition, you could consider a person you wave to on the street as someone who is in a state of friendship with you. Why, then, are people, for lack of a better phrase, "weirded out" when these street wavers try to engage in a deeper level of communication?
This is because in our culture we have deemed socially acceptable norms. For example, you don't invite one of these street wavers out drinking with you on a friday night. The reason? You don't know them. You don't know what kind of people they are- if they can be trusted.
AHA! We have been led to a different issue: trust.
We assume the worst in people. Whether consciously or subconsciously, we shun someone because we are not comfortable with them. If we feel they are awkward, it is because we don't trust the way they act. If we feel they are "creepers" it is because we did not trust their demeanor.
I call bull.
Now, I'm not saying to make friends with someone carrying around a machete and wearing a Jason-esque hockey mask, but we often let our judgements get the better of us, myself included. And when it comes to picking friends, we all do it.
Now, how do we fix it?
Be friendly. Be a street waver. Smile at random people you pass...I actually met one of my really good friends that way. Smiling at people makes them feel better about themselves and hey, you might meet someone interesting. If someone smiles at you when you pass, it could be a subtle way of saying "Oh hey, you exist. You're a human. I dig that."
AND DON'T BE AFRAID OF A DEEPER LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION.
Ok, realistically, the chances of you becoming best friends with a street waver is kind of slim, but that doesn't change the fact that you might become lunch buddies, or hang out every few weekends or something.
The point is: we are all people. Whether you like it or not, we all exist on this little green planet and it would behoove us to get along and be friendly with each other.
So smile! Wave! Be pleasant! Who knows, the next person you smile at could be a new friend.
According to dictionary.com:
–noun
1.
the state of being a friend; association as friends: to value a person's friendship.
2.
a friendly relation or intimacy.
3.
friendly feeling or disposition.
Ok, so- basically this means that the definition is really broad. According to the definition, you could consider a person you wave to on the street as someone who is in a state of friendship with you. Why, then, are people, for lack of a better phrase, "weirded out" when these street wavers try to engage in a deeper level of communication?
This is because in our culture we have deemed socially acceptable norms. For example, you don't invite one of these street wavers out drinking with you on a friday night. The reason? You don't know them. You don't know what kind of people they are- if they can be trusted.
AHA! We have been led to a different issue: trust.
We assume the worst in people. Whether consciously or subconsciously, we shun someone because we are not comfortable with them. If we feel they are awkward, it is because we don't trust the way they act. If we feel they are "creepers" it is because we did not trust their demeanor.
I call bull.
Now, I'm not saying to make friends with someone carrying around a machete and wearing a Jason-esque hockey mask, but we often let our judgements get the better of us, myself included. And when it comes to picking friends, we all do it.
Now, how do we fix it?
Be friendly. Be a street waver. Smile at random people you pass...I actually met one of my really good friends that way. Smiling at people makes them feel better about themselves and hey, you might meet someone interesting. If someone smiles at you when you pass, it could be a subtle way of saying "Oh hey, you exist. You're a human. I dig that."
AND DON'T BE AFRAID OF A DEEPER LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION.
Ok, realistically, the chances of you becoming best friends with a street waver is kind of slim, but that doesn't change the fact that you might become lunch buddies, or hang out every few weekends or something.
The point is: we are all people. Whether you like it or not, we all exist on this little green planet and it would behoove us to get along and be friendly with each other.
So smile! Wave! Be pleasant! Who knows, the next person you smile at could be a new friend.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Quotes
Some people collect toy figurines, some collect stamps, but I personally think the best thing you can collect is some quotes.
Quotes do not start as something tangible you can collect; they are thoughts and feelings that are versed from the human mind. Not to sound cheesy or anything, but a harboring a well-said quote is almost like getting a glimpse at that author's soul.
Quotes, to me, are like pocket life lessons. They are little pithy pieces of advice. Some quotes are sad, some quotes are motivational, some are happy. You can take a quote anywhere, you can memorize it, and you can re-use it to keep the lesson going- it's a no-lose situation.
The best part about quotes is that they don't discriminate. Quotes can come from poems, stories, song lyrics, or even just simply be a sentance someone once said. They can come from anywhere or from anyone and still produce a fantastic message.
My favorite quotist of all time is Mark Twain. He has the gift of humor; he is able to be profound and have good lessons in his quotes while still being witty and humorous.
Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first.
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.
I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.
Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
and one of my all time favorite Twain quotes:
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.
Ah, the lessons we learn.
Quotes do not start as something tangible you can collect; they are thoughts and feelings that are versed from the human mind. Not to sound cheesy or anything, but a harboring a well-said quote is almost like getting a glimpse at that author's soul.
Quotes, to me, are like pocket life lessons. They are little pithy pieces of advice. Some quotes are sad, some quotes are motivational, some are happy. You can take a quote anywhere, you can memorize it, and you can re-use it to keep the lesson going- it's a no-lose situation.
The best part about quotes is that they don't discriminate. Quotes can come from poems, stories, song lyrics, or even just simply be a sentance someone once said. They can come from anywhere or from anyone and still produce a fantastic message.
My favorite quotist of all time is Mark Twain. He has the gift of humor; he is able to be profound and have good lessons in his quotes while still being witty and humorous.
Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first.
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.
I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.
Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
and one of my all time favorite Twain quotes:
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.
Ah, the lessons we learn.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
You don't like it? DO SOMETHING.
Yesterday in the Mirror, my campus's college paper, there was in article that unleashed a pandora's box of rage and protest.
This is the article link: http://www.fairfieldmirror.com/coffee-break/he-said-the-walk-of-shame-1.1932761
Basically, the He Said (an opinion piece written by Chris Surette) went over the line from humor to cruel vularity. The article was describing what the Walk Of Shame is like for Fairfield students, which it a piece that has a lot of potential for awkward humor.
But Surette did not choose this path.
No, instead, Surette took this oppurtunity to degrade women. He spoke of how "her walk of shame is your induction to the hall of fame", of how hooking up is only for the lay and the story, and, worst of all, he referred to the girl walking back to her room as a "victim...with a disgraceful look on her face as if she was robbed of her dignity."
THIS IS NOT OKAY.
It's bad enough that he objectifies women in this piece. It's horrible that his tone implies that all the power is in the man's court; that a girl cannot be sexually liberated without being called a slut.
But the worst thing of all is that one word- victim.
By using this word, Surette has eluded to rape. Whether he meant to or not, by calling a woman a victim, he is essentially saying that the girl in the situation was violated and used as a sex tool.
Rape is not a joke.
Victimization is not funny.
Women are not objects.
We are people.
I am not your victim.
Needless to say, some people were enraged. And what do angry, just people do? They protest.
I was astonished and happy to see this protest go into action. During religion class, I heard there was a sit-in at the campus center, so I ran down after class. Basically, the students were taking copies of the Mirror, cutting out the He Said/ She Said article, highlighting words and phrases used to objectify women, and taping these cut-outs on the outside walls of the Mirror Office. Then, we would put together the rest of the newspaper, and put it back where we got it from. The event snowballed into putting statistics about Rape up, and writing some of those stats outside the Campus Center with chalk.
It was genius.
Although some people were not happy with the minor destruction of the Mirror, I think the protest was an overall success. I generally don't believe in property destruction as a form or protest, but as we weren't destroying the article and we were putting the rest of the paper with all its other articles back, I found it acceptable, even encouragable. I was glad to be a part of it.
The evening ended with a circle talk where we discussed how we felt about the article. All was well until there was an exchange between the protesters and the few Mirror staff that came to the protest at this junction. This quarrel was small, and we came to the agreement that there will be a meeting on Monday in order to discuss what actions the Mirror can take to put a more positive spin on their paper.
I do believe there needs to be a change. Printing an article like that is just bad taste. Yes, there is free speech- HOWEVER there is also an ethics code our school has set for out paper, and this paper did not cut it. It violates 21 and 22 I believe it was, about using vulgar language and violent sexual vulgarities. Furthermore, as someone who wants to pursue a career in Journalism, I was appalled that someone on a college level would even write that. Not only is it unprofessional, one has to think of the context one is writing in. Yes, it is an opinion piece. But whatever piece is printed in the paper becomes a representation of that paper, and in turn of the school. I found out the Mirror is technically independent; however it is still distributed around campus and bears the university seal. Imagine being a parent, a mother, a sister and picking up that paper to read about how you daughter's school is doing. After reading that article would you want to send your kid here? Of course not!
If this were a legit paper, like the New York Times, would something of that caliber be printed?
NO.
Every He Said I've read since I've transferred here has made me a bit angry, but this put me over the top. But in a way, I'm glad it came out. There is a problem at this school and there is no denying it: women are objectified by some (note: some, not all) men. What's worse, some people were totally apathetic about the article, and some even laughed. We have an attitude problem here, and it needs to be adjusted.
I refuse to be your victim.
I am a woman.
I am a person.
I am strong.
This is the article link: http://www.fairfieldmirror.com/coffee-break/he-said-the-walk-of-shame-1.1932761
Basically, the He Said (an opinion piece written by Chris Surette) went over the line from humor to cruel vularity. The article was describing what the Walk Of Shame is like for Fairfield students, which it a piece that has a lot of potential for awkward humor.
But Surette did not choose this path.
No, instead, Surette took this oppurtunity to degrade women. He spoke of how "her walk of shame is your induction to the hall of fame", of how hooking up is only for the lay and the story, and, worst of all, he referred to the girl walking back to her room as a "victim...with a disgraceful look on her face as if she was robbed of her dignity."
THIS IS NOT OKAY.
It's bad enough that he objectifies women in this piece. It's horrible that his tone implies that all the power is in the man's court; that a girl cannot be sexually liberated without being called a slut.
But the worst thing of all is that one word- victim.
By using this word, Surette has eluded to rape. Whether he meant to or not, by calling a woman a victim, he is essentially saying that the girl in the situation was violated and used as a sex tool.
Rape is not a joke.
Victimization is not funny.
Women are not objects.
We are people.
I am not your victim.
Needless to say, some people were enraged. And what do angry, just people do? They protest.
I was astonished and happy to see this protest go into action. During religion class, I heard there was a sit-in at the campus center, so I ran down after class. Basically, the students were taking copies of the Mirror, cutting out the He Said/ She Said article, highlighting words and phrases used to objectify women, and taping these cut-outs on the outside walls of the Mirror Office. Then, we would put together the rest of the newspaper, and put it back where we got it from. The event snowballed into putting statistics about Rape up, and writing some of those stats outside the Campus Center with chalk.
It was genius.
Although some people were not happy with the minor destruction of the Mirror, I think the protest was an overall success. I generally don't believe in property destruction as a form or protest, but as we weren't destroying the article and we were putting the rest of the paper with all its other articles back, I found it acceptable, even encouragable. I was glad to be a part of it.
The evening ended with a circle talk where we discussed how we felt about the article. All was well until there was an exchange between the protesters and the few Mirror staff that came to the protest at this junction. This quarrel was small, and we came to the agreement that there will be a meeting on Monday in order to discuss what actions the Mirror can take to put a more positive spin on their paper.
I do believe there needs to be a change. Printing an article like that is just bad taste. Yes, there is free speech- HOWEVER there is also an ethics code our school has set for out paper, and this paper did not cut it. It violates 21 and 22 I believe it was, about using vulgar language and violent sexual vulgarities. Furthermore, as someone who wants to pursue a career in Journalism, I was appalled that someone on a college level would even write that. Not only is it unprofessional, one has to think of the context one is writing in. Yes, it is an opinion piece. But whatever piece is printed in the paper becomes a representation of that paper, and in turn of the school. I found out the Mirror is technically independent; however it is still distributed around campus and bears the university seal. Imagine being a parent, a mother, a sister and picking up that paper to read about how you daughter's school is doing. After reading that article would you want to send your kid here? Of course not!
If this were a legit paper, like the New York Times, would something of that caliber be printed?
NO.
Every He Said I've read since I've transferred here has made me a bit angry, but this put me over the top. But in a way, I'm glad it came out. There is a problem at this school and there is no denying it: women are objectified by some (note: some, not all) men. What's worse, some people were totally apathetic about the article, and some even laughed. We have an attitude problem here, and it needs to be adjusted.
I refuse to be your victim.
I am a woman.
I am a person.
I am strong.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
It's all about the Body Language
Ursala, from the Little Mermaid:
[You'll have your looks]
[Your pretty face]
[And don't underestimate the importance of]
[Body language, Ha!]
As we've all heard from movies like Hitch and the Little Mermaid: there is no greater form of communication than body language. A year ago, if someone had said this to me, I would have said that you were full of it. However, this year, not so much.
Last year, I had a friend with whom I shared all my "boy secrets." I would ask her to analyze how the boys I liked acted arounded me, and if she thought there was some chemistry between us that was more than the imagined chemistry in my head.
She was ridiculously good at this. Why? She talked about our body language.
"If a guy was facing towards you, good. Face-to-face shows openness and interest. He talked mostly to you. Engaged expression. Casual touch."
or
"He didn't seem that engaged in your conversation. He sat straightforward, only turning his head to you when you asked a question he needed to answer. He talked to you only when promted and there was no touching"
Obviously these are two extremes, but you get the point. The body, the face, the arms, everything (!) gives indication as to what a person is internally feeling. And, sometimes, people don't even mean to give an indication- it just happens.
Like at a dinner table. You're seated between two people, and the one on your left is a person you're trying to get to know better. So you swivile in your chair, face them and engage with them. However, while you are doing that, you are inadvertantly blocking out the person on your right. They may misinterpet your languare- they don't see it as you being more interested in the other peron, but as being disinterested or annoyed with them.
Body language can be powerful, but it also can lead to misconceptions. To interput body language, it helps to know something about the person. Myself, for example. I am a very physical person, and I give hugs often. Hugs can be seen as a select interest, and yes, even with me they still are; I don't often hug strangers. However, if someone who is much more introverted than I am gave someone a hug, the hug itself wouldn't necesaily mean more, but it would be more out of the ordinary and a bigger signpost of "OH HEY THIS KID LIKES YOU LOTS."
Basically, the body sometimes can speak for itself. Though I'm a big believer in verbal communication as a way to strengthen all sorts of relationships, there's no denying that there is truth found in your body language.
[You'll have your looks]
[Your pretty face]
[And don't underestimate the importance of]
[Body language, Ha!]
As we've all heard from movies like Hitch and the Little Mermaid: there is no greater form of communication than body language. A year ago, if someone had said this to me, I would have said that you were full of it. However, this year, not so much.
Last year, I had a friend with whom I shared all my "boy secrets." I would ask her to analyze how the boys I liked acted arounded me, and if she thought there was some chemistry between us that was more than the imagined chemistry in my head.
She was ridiculously good at this. Why? She talked about our body language.
"If a guy was facing towards you, good. Face-to-face shows openness and interest. He talked mostly to you. Engaged expression. Casual touch."
or
"He didn't seem that engaged in your conversation. He sat straightforward, only turning his head to you when you asked a question he needed to answer. He talked to you only when promted and there was no touching"
Obviously these are two extremes, but you get the point. The body, the face, the arms, everything (!) gives indication as to what a person is internally feeling. And, sometimes, people don't even mean to give an indication- it just happens.
Like at a dinner table. You're seated between two people, and the one on your left is a person you're trying to get to know better. So you swivile in your chair, face them and engage with them. However, while you are doing that, you are inadvertantly blocking out the person on your right. They may misinterpet your languare- they don't see it as you being more interested in the other peron, but as being disinterested or annoyed with them.
Body language can be powerful, but it also can lead to misconceptions. To interput body language, it helps to know something about the person. Myself, for example. I am a very physical person, and I give hugs often. Hugs can be seen as a select interest, and yes, even with me they still are; I don't often hug strangers. However, if someone who is much more introverted than I am gave someone a hug, the hug itself wouldn't necesaily mean more, but it would be more out of the ordinary and a bigger signpost of "OH HEY THIS KID LIKES YOU LOTS."
Basically, the body sometimes can speak for itself. Though I'm a big believer in verbal communication as a way to strengthen all sorts of relationships, there's no denying that there is truth found in your body language.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Toto, I don't think we're in Baltimore anymore!
New School, New jeans, New blog. Makes sense, right?
Anyway. Sophomore year. The year of the wise fool. And I can honestly say I am a wise fool. Why? Because I transferred on a whim. Let me explain:
No one place ever has everything you want. Generally, with college anyway, it's taken as a 50/50 ratio: 50% is academic, 50% is social. When you're a serious student, the scales tip to something more like 70-80 : 30-20. I won't go into the nitty gritty of it, but essentially my old college, Goucher, was unable to give me the education I needed. So I moved. Smart, simple and easy, yes?
No. Wrong.
Goucher had it's problems, but when it comes down to the line, I know there are people in Baltimore who would throw themselves into running traffic for me, and vice versa. In a year I had made connections I had never thought possible. Don't get me wrong, I had friends in high school- close friends I still love and talk to on a daily basis. However, I went to school with those kids for about six years. I was able to make just as strong connections in a mere one year at Goucher. Maybe it was the hippie-esque, open-minded, love everyone mind-set of the place or maybe I just got lucky. Regardless, I miss them. A lot.
Not to say I don't like Fairfield! Here, I just got plain lucky.
When I first got here, I was ridiculously nervous. All I could think was, "Shit, did I make the right decision?" The people here are very different than Goucher folk, and I was mentally prepared to be a loner for a week or two until activites started, but I just wasn't sure about the vibe of the place. I'm a friendly person. I like hugs over handshakes, shouts over whispers, and if you've ever had the pleasure of seeing me drunk, I enjoy holding hands, violent hug-tackling, and the occasional frolic. But people here seemed more interested in clothes than philosophy, and more interested in getting laid then making friendly human-to-human connections.
Or so I thought, anyway.
Fairfield is bigger than Goucher by about 2/3rds. So the chances of finding my niche were good. However, actually locating them was a different story. I remember texting to one of my Goucher friends: "Abi, I think all the weird kids are hiding from me! I must go on a quest!"
Well, the quest wasn't that eventful. In fact, it ended before it really began. Like I said, I got lucky. I met a girl, we'll call her A, in the most random of places: the gym. I NEVER go to the gym; i prefer running outside. Regrdless, I met her at the gym one of the two times I've gone this semester (no lie). Basically, she more or less adopted me and brought me around her dorm and I met her friends. They are fantastic people and I'm so happy I've met people who see life as an adventure. They are good people; concerned about others' feelings and willing to go out on a limb for their friends. They accepted me right away and I don't think they have any idea how greatful I am; I'm really happy to be in co-houtes with them.
Since then, I've made it a point to join an obscene number of things to meet people, and jump out of my comfort zone to introduce myself to random people. It seems to be working ok; some are weirded out by my forwardness, but hey- go big or go home.
It will take awhile to get used to Fairfield. I got lucky, but it's still hard to leave part of yourself behind- to have two homes to miss. Everyday I meet new people, and I'm slowly learning that behind the general Fairfield "polite but distant" stereotype, there are exciting and interesting people. In the end, I think I did make the right decision. Who knows, maybe I'll even convince a Goucher Gopher or two to come visit me in Connecticut.
Anyway. Sophomore year. The year of the wise fool. And I can honestly say I am a wise fool. Why? Because I transferred on a whim. Let me explain:
No one place ever has everything you want. Generally, with college anyway, it's taken as a 50/50 ratio: 50% is academic, 50% is social. When you're a serious student, the scales tip to something more like 70-80 : 30-20. I won't go into the nitty gritty of it, but essentially my old college, Goucher, was unable to give me the education I needed. So I moved. Smart, simple and easy, yes?
No. Wrong.
Goucher had it's problems, but when it comes down to the line, I know there are people in Baltimore who would throw themselves into running traffic for me, and vice versa. In a year I had made connections I had never thought possible. Don't get me wrong, I had friends in high school- close friends I still love and talk to on a daily basis. However, I went to school with those kids for about six years. I was able to make just as strong connections in a mere one year at Goucher. Maybe it was the hippie-esque, open-minded, love everyone mind-set of the place or maybe I just got lucky. Regardless, I miss them. A lot.
Not to say I don't like Fairfield! Here, I just got plain lucky.
When I first got here, I was ridiculously nervous. All I could think was, "Shit, did I make the right decision?" The people here are very different than Goucher folk, and I was mentally prepared to be a loner for a week or two until activites started, but I just wasn't sure about the vibe of the place. I'm a friendly person. I like hugs over handshakes, shouts over whispers, and if you've ever had the pleasure of seeing me drunk, I enjoy holding hands, violent hug-tackling, and the occasional frolic. But people here seemed more interested in clothes than philosophy, and more interested in getting laid then making friendly human-to-human connections.
Or so I thought, anyway.
Fairfield is bigger than Goucher by about 2/3rds. So the chances of finding my niche were good. However, actually locating them was a different story. I remember texting to one of my Goucher friends: "Abi, I think all the weird kids are hiding from me! I must go on a quest!"
Well, the quest wasn't that eventful. In fact, it ended before it really began. Like I said, I got lucky. I met a girl, we'll call her A, in the most random of places: the gym. I NEVER go to the gym; i prefer running outside. Regrdless, I met her at the gym one of the two times I've gone this semester (no lie). Basically, she more or less adopted me and brought me around her dorm and I met her friends. They are fantastic people and I'm so happy I've met people who see life as an adventure. They are good people; concerned about others' feelings and willing to go out on a limb for their friends. They accepted me right away and I don't think they have any idea how greatful I am; I'm really happy to be in co-houtes with them.
Since then, I've made it a point to join an obscene number of things to meet people, and jump out of my comfort zone to introduce myself to random people. It seems to be working ok; some are weirded out by my forwardness, but hey- go big or go home.
It will take awhile to get used to Fairfield. I got lucky, but it's still hard to leave part of yourself behind- to have two homes to miss. Everyday I meet new people, and I'm slowly learning that behind the general Fairfield "polite but distant" stereotype, there are exciting and interesting people. In the end, I think I did make the right decision. Who knows, maybe I'll even convince a Goucher Gopher or two to come visit me in Connecticut.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
