There's Writing!

I wrote a poem! Read please.

~~~

There's writing in the Women's Restroom

On the first floor of the Wilson Library

If I were to postulate on its genesis

I would posit that

Someone was bored

Undoubtedly the Janitor attempted to wash it off

But the damage had been done

Someone else attempted to be profound

And it almost worked

At least, in the form of a

Regurgitated trite

There was also a poem

Which looked like it belonged on a Myspace

Or in the shiny black book of

An eyeliner'd teenager of androgynous nature

On the stall door

Stretched before me

A kind of physical forum

Where these porcelain philosopher's

Bandied advice regarding alcoholic ex-boyfriends

For one who probably never returned

Assuming she wasn't run over by said douchebag

There's writing on the walls of the Women's Bathroom

On the first floor of Wilson Library

And as I read the scrawled words

(Admittedly better than my handwriting on paper

Perhaps tile is easier, must investigate)

I pondered possibilities of joining these

Thinkers on the fundamentals of life

While performing...

One of the fundamentals of life

Adding my mark to those

Digesting these distressing problems

While distressing about digestive problems

And while considering how I would want

To be read and remembered for

As long as it takes to wash your hands

(If you do it right, it should take

as long as it takes to sing Happy Birthday twice.

You just tried it, didn't you?

Well, it should have taken 40 seconds, you weirdo)

I cam to a conclusion

While I am against the defacing of public property

There should be more respect within college students

There is something to be said for how

Much less pretentious than other means of

Expressing opinions

Than what I or most people do

What with blogs and Facebook messages

And other passive aggressive slanderings

Maybe that's why no one has erased the pen yet

To remind us that wisdom can be withdrawn from

Places where most just deposit

There's writing on the door and walls

In the Women's Restroom

On the first floor of the Wilson Library

There were juvenile rhymes

Of love and loss

Happened several times

Some, a comment toss

Some offered words of advice

On matters of friends and life

A kindly word, free of price

For a pants-down stranger's strife

There's writing on the doors and walls

Of the first stall on the left of the Women's Restroom

On the first floor of the Wilson Library

I probably sat there far too long

My elbows welted my knees

Someone whistled an off-key song

And I think I felt a breeze

And as I thought of what to write

My mind went blank as glass

Now I realize that I

Am fifteen minutes late to class.

The Devolution of Punditry

Everyone probably knows by now that I love the Daily Show. As someone who hates politics and comedy, it's a beautiful juxtaposition of sarcasm and news that resonates with me far better than either stand-up or the news could. I "get" it, essentially, making it more enjoyable than most other programs, which is probably why I watch little tv.

Now, before the Daily Show comes on, sometimes I watch Countdown with Keith Olberman. I know, I can hear the mix of cheers and hisses already. Whatever your view of Keith, it's probably pretty polarized. I don't know many people who are apathetic towards him, you either love him or hate him. Much like his Conservative counterpart, Bill O'Reilly. Recently, a friend of mine said they hated Olberman cause his hate speech was exactly the same as O'Reilly, just on the opposite side.

I disagree, but I can see not only why he thought that, but how it could become the case.

So this post is to 1) Defend my love of Keith, despite my conservatism, as well as 2) offer a warning against becoming the thing he hates most.

~~~

I watch very little news. I either find it really depressing or boring. Time is a bit at a premium for me so it's not like I have a lot of time to keep up anyway. Normally, I look to Andrew to help fill me in for the most part. He's also my own personal pundit.

Punditry is a new notion for me. I never thought you could get away with blasting your opinion at people, but apparently not only are you allowed to, people get paid to. Pundits are the in between of the News and the Daily Show. They comment, but normally in all seriousness, which is probably why John has such an easy time making fun of them. And I think they SHOULD take themselves seriously, and take what they say seriously becasue people are LISTENING. It's somewhat depressing, but true. People are usually sheep, and need someone to tell them what to think. Even if that's not why they watch, it's good to get different perspectives, so the argument should be presented well so as to not misrepresent your view.

Which brings me to the comparison. It's no secret Olberman hates O'Reilly and probably the other way around, too. So here's my view on both:

I respect Bill O'Reilly because when he started, there were very few people doing what he did and no one as vocally. He stood up for what he believed in when it was not a popular view and he stuck to it. Kudos for that. Now though, I don't know which would be sadder: If he didn't really believe everything that flies out of his mouth...or if he did.

I appreciate when people are consistent with their beliefs. Walkin' the walk, as it were. But when, in defense of your beliefs (which may not necessarily be wrong), you present arguments that are factually innacurate and use purposefully inflammatory language to illicit an emotional response...to me, you've already lost the fight. Because at that point, you're not trying to convince someone, you're trying to piss them off. Now I know, different methods work with different people, and sometimes a little bit of shock treatment helps the medicine go down, but...to put it mildly, I think he overdoes it. It's not longer shock treatment it's 'I get paid to be loud, obnoxious and aggravating, because that's what gets us more ratings'. Do I think he got into it for the money? Absolutely not. Do I think that he's figured out that being explosive gets him mroe ratings and therefore higher pay? Yes.

Now, another thing that frustrates me is how many people only watch one side of the story. I literally want to weep when I hear "I get all my news from Bill O'Reilly". Same with Olberman, no one should get ALL their news from them. I personally get all my news from the Daily Show ^.^. (Kidding)

So there's my problem with Bill O'Reilly...he's loud and very often, he's WRONG. Some things are matters of perspective and belief, and in that, I don't count him as right or wrong. He believes X, even if I don't, I can understand his point of view. But when he gives evidence, there's so many times where he's talking out his hat...which is apparently resting on his rear. And he makes people like me look bad.

Flip to the other side. I like Olberman because he's eloquent and verbose. I feel smarter for listening to all the big words ;) Often, I think when he waxes sarcastic, it's hilarious and there is something to be said for the humor of seeing someone so full of hate. I don't think he's as far left as O'Reilly is far right, though obviously, he's not central. I agree with a lot of his ideas in theory, though not always in execution and like when O'Reilly was doing it, I appreciate someone being critical of those in power.

Yet, I sense a danger here, and to explain it, we are going to dip into history.

For the first two centuries (AD), Christianity was a persecuted religion. To even say you were a Christian was to invite torture, and often death. But in 300 AD onward, it moves from an underground movement to the licensed and sponsored church of the state. This is one of the reasons tat about 350 we see the rise of monostaries. Before, to show your devotion to God/Jesus, you just had to say what you believed, but that wasn't enough anymore. Quite literally "everyone was doin' it". So to go farther, to prove just how zealous you were, you would join a monostary.

I think something like this happened with BillO. When he started, he was in the minority, he was radical for saying what he did. But with the hyperconservatism of the Bush administration, he found himself being in the mainstream, now in the 'safe zone'. So to show just how conservative he was, he 'right-wing', when it was popular to be right-wing, he went farther and farther to the right. Now, I think he's being a showman.

Now, he'll be in the minority again and hopefully be coming up with better, more reasoned arguments because he'll be fighting the not-popular side again. Which goes back to Keith. Keith is now in BillO's shoes, which gives him a great deal of power...and also sets him up to make the same mistakes.

He can afford to get sloppy now because less people need convincing. I think he's gone to great lengths to build up his credibility, and I'd hate to see him spend it unwisely. So while at the moment, I'm still more inclined to listen to Keith than Bill, but I'm wary of what the future will bring.

Thoughts, fellow philosophers?

The poetry of Gaelic in terms of Life

I've heard it said
That people come into our lives for a reason
Bringing something we must learn
And we are led
To those who help us most to grow
If we let them
And we help them in return
Well, I don't know if I believe that's true
But I know I'm who I am today
Because I knew you...

Like a comet pulled from orbit
As it passes a sun
Like a stream that meets a boulder
Halfway through the wood
Who can say if I've been changed for the better?
But because I knew you
I have been changed for good

It well may be
That we will never meet again
In this lifetime
So let me say before we part
So much of me
Is made of what I learned from you
You'll be with me
Like a handprint on my heart
And now whatever way our stories end
I know you have re-written mine
By being my friend...

Like a ship blown from its mooring
By a wind off the sea
Like a seed dropped by a skybird
In a distant wood
Who can say if I've been changed for the better?
But because I knew you

Because I knew you

I have been changed for good
-Wicked

Human interaction is complicated. We are naturally social beings, literally speaking, humans NEED each other. Those who try to get away from this, or are forced away are almost always miserable. Loneliness is one of the greatest tragedies in life and the bed mate of Despair.
Most people have moments of loneliness, but truly pervasive constants are either self-inflicted, imposed by others or a mix of both (which is the most common...at first it is brought on by others, but soon it is maintained by the individual out of fear or habit). As such, we should be sensitive to the needs of others when it comes to our friendship and company because you can never be sure how much they need you.

Yet for all this, there is another side that I feel most people don't understand. While I believe souls are forever, humans change. We change physical form, mental state and we develop. Human interaction is as linked and affected by this as our height. The most dramatic and easiest to understand case is that of boyfriend/girlfriend relationships that aren't entered into with the immediate 'oh yes, we're totally getting married after X months' understanding (and those are silly anyway). I'm of the opinion (and I have to assume you're interested, as you're reading this), that no one should ever regret 'being' with someone else. Regret what you did, regret how it turned out, regret some decisions, yes, all of those are valid. But unless it was a completely shallow relationship, it changed you, it made you into who you are now and unless you completely hate yourself, you should be glad for the experiences or at least grow from them.

At the same time, I think people have the wrong idea about 'moving on'. I've seen this with numerous friends, as well as from my own experience and I think it's something many people know, at least unconsciously, but don't really allow to affect them.

We are who we are for a short time. In that time, there is someone who fits us at the time. But when we change, sometimes his/her place is disrupted. Or to be more specific:

A young woman gets a boyfriend. They are happy and it is a good learning experience for both. But girl gets older, more mature and finds that she doesn't need guy anymore. Not only does she not need him like she (kind of) use to, but she doesn't have at all the same affection for him. What should she do? She isn't who she was when they got together. She's someone new and therefore needs something new.

This does not mean:
What they had didn't matter. It helped change her into who she is now, and it was/is important to her
He is a bad/unworthy person. Again, she was with him to begin with, she has just moved on to another circle of life
She doesn't care about him. Many times she goes on caring about him for the rest of her life, it just isn't in the same way because he doesn't fit the same place.

This is especially prevalent in 'first' relationships, and those that happen in high school and early college. When people are in the middle of transitioning between child and adult, they are especially needy emotionally. Once they know more about who they are, then tend to not need those connections anymore. So, while this sounds callous, people shouldn't take breakups so personally. It happens, sometimes messily and that's unfortunate but it doesn't mean there's something inherently wrong with them, it is just how life works.

This happens with friends as well. I have friends I've known since I was 8. I love them to death, they will always be special to me. But with some of them, our friendship didn't develop past us being 16. They are still friends, but I don't treat or think about them the same way I do with close friends I have now. Sometimes we mature faster than our friends and because they're not on the same level we are in some ways, we don't view them as perfectly equal. That doesn't make them less, it just means that they fit somewhere specific. It is especially difficult when someone you fit somewhere doesn't change with you like you thought they would and in some ways, you leave them behind. They may still fit, but their 'space' isn't in the same location. I'm sorry for being so vague, that probably doesn't make a lot of sense. Think of it as circles, the smallest being the one closest to your hard, the largest encompassing vague acquaintances. Friendship isn't fixed. People move between smaller and larger circles. We'd like them to only get closer, but it doesn't always work that way.

This is something that a lot of people, I think especially guys don't understand. We, humans, can NEVER replace anyone. No one fits exactly the same place exactly the same way. It isn't about finding someone better, it's finding someone that fits someplace else. Yet, they feel the need to compare.

The kind of people we need...and the kind of relationships we need with them...change over time. Look at what you do with your best friend now and what you did when you were 6. Maybe somethings are the same (I don't know about you, but I like laughing), but for the most part, you don't think the same way you did before. It's the same with SigFigs. It's ironic that you actually *need* him/her less to complete you as an individual as you get closer to the age where you're looking towards Forever.

Which brings us to our next point. As we get older, we need people to fill fewer and fewer empty holes in ourselves. We become more whole, partially through the help and intervention of others, but in the end, we only have to live with ourselves. Our actions are solely our own responsibility.

Does that mean there's no constants? I don't think so. I absolutely believe in 'The One'...though I also believe love is a choice and just because you don't feel some magic spark doesn't mean you should just dump who you're with to go look for it.
There are friends we will always have because they fit portions of our very soul and we will never stop needing them. Someday, you may find someone who fits your being in ways no one else ever can or will to such extent that you almost can't live without them. Like you can't be yourself without them. This isn't creepy stalker obsession, it is that kind of love where you are so connected, you don't know where you start and he/she ends.

In Gaelic, there is a phrase...Anam Cara. Directly translated it means "Soul Friend", though it is often used as an engagement ring in Ireland because it can also translate to "Soul Mate". This is an obviously important distinction, but there are strong implications for both. I believe that souls are eternal and that the essence of who we are doesn't change but goes with us for all time. This is why we are so often in conflict with outselves, especially when in despair and loneliness. We want to be something other than we are. Sometimes...and it is asad, but common occurence...we want to be angry, hateful...we think being strong means rejecting the need for anyone else because needing people is a "sign of weakness"...yet we are not naturally angry or hateful and we DO need other people and it isn't weakness...but this dischordance in our soul causes unbearable pain and makes things unspeakably worse. I've seen this in a dozen friends. They may trick themselves into saying they are one way, but you can see it in their eyes, the constant battling between Themselves and Their InnerSelves. I'm sure you have too, it is something we all go through at some point, but often, people get stuck in an endless self-destructive cycle.
I digress. The point is that part of who we are is eternal and therefore, there are connections that are eternal as well.
You shouldn't enter a relationship thinking "this is just fora little, then I'll move on" because that isn't fair to anyone. This is a purely retrospective philosophy. And it doesn't mean there's no such thing as permanence. I believe almost everyone has an Anam Cara, a soul forged with just the right folds and creases to fit a single other person.

But life doesn't always work out where all the right decisions are made and there's never any deviation from plans. So I hope to offer some perspective.

And for the record, I think one person can be both a Soul Friend, as well as a Soul Mate, in fact, I believe that's how it should be. All Soul Friends will be with you, always. But your Soul Mate...you have to be careful with, because not only will he/shealways be with you, but if you lose him/her...he/she takes much of you with him/her that you will never get back.

It is both exhilirating and terrifying to contemplate.

Again, sorry for all the vagueness, and I doubt this will really change anyone's mind on anything, but it was what I was thinking of and felt like sharing.

~Peace, all.