Blog About Anything.

I am not sure if one should feel good or bad about loving the holidays. The fact is, most people do not love them because of a celebration of our freedom and religious equality or as the celebration of a savior's day of birth.  Is it wrong to love holidays if that is not why you celebrate? The fact is, I love to be around my family on holidays, because at one of two of the those mentioned above, my family takes the time to engourge themselves with food and not try to kill each other, for once. And obviously, that is not what the holidays are about. But that is exactly why I appreciate them and look forward to them. 

There is something about spending time with your family that guilts everyone into behaving and acting coordially, even when you really don't like them at all. That's fine with me, because I need that down-time, regardless of how uncomfortable that makes everyone else. Even though it may not really be the best way to celebrate, I think that it is a clear representation of that all the same. We participate, we express gratitude, we pass the stuffing. Despite the falsehood that may appear through expressing grace, I think that it brings out the best in even the worst people. The bottom line is that the credit given to a person in expression of your gratitude for them is probably true, even if it is hard to say.

But the best part of all is that I don't see my family much. Even the ones I live with. So the holiday lives on even after everyone has left the table, because we leave with that gratitude. I savor the fact that no one is around each other long enough to explode with frustration and spread the truth. Because I don't speak with the negations the next day. No one high tails after me in their car to confront me about the lies told in between smacking jaws across the dinner table. The holidays go to sleep and re-appear a year later. That is how I celebrate them, and I am grateful none the less.

There are parts of all of us that will always stay the same. Sometimes we hate these characteristics that are our nature, and sometimes they are what make up the best of us. Either way, there are some parts that we carry for our entire lives. Some people are born thoughtful writers: people who know how to express themselves in a colorful way from early childhood and keep that skill. Some develop this is adolescence or adulthood. Regardless, defining characteristics such as those are what make us up eternally.

Not to say that we are everything that we once were forever. As O'Brien says, “I was Timmy then; now I'm Tim.” (O'Brien, 236) The little things change. We grow older, and perhaps, more mature. But envy is still envy if it is over a new toy or a new washer and dryer. Being a jealous person is the same no matter how old you are, and the like. People will change how they look and how they dress, but that can't change the basics. Of course, a lot of things change, but it seems that most of important values and characteristics that we gain in life are from kindergarten and first grade- everyone is still somewhat those curious little faces finger painting and making friends and asking where babies come from.

It seems that instead of really changing, we gain more instead. Whether it's knowledge or just more baggage, such as O'Brien, “a twenty-three-year-old infantry sergeant, a middle-aged writer knowing guilt and sorrow.” (236) For better or for worse, the core of a person will generally stay the same, even if the outside influences of the individual's life change them outwardly. Shy individuals could find a reason to be more outward and become more social, but they could also become calloused and anti-social because of being mistreated or neglected due to their coy nature. Although our outsides may be adulterated by personal life experiences, our insides are conclusive, or as O'Brien eloquently puts it, “ Inside the body, or beyond the body, there is something absolute and unchanging.” (236)

There are parts of all of us that will always stay the same. Sometimes we hate these characteristics that are our nature, and sometimes they are what make up the best of us. Either way, there are some parts that we carry for our entire lives. Some people are born thoughtful writers: people who know how to express themselves in a colorful way from early childhood and keep that skill. Some develop this is adolescence or adulthood. Regardless, defining characteristics such as those are what make us up eternally.

Not to say that we are everything that we once were forever. As O'Brien says, “I was Timmy then; now I'm Tim.” (O'Brien, 236) The little things change. We grow older, and perhaps, more mature. But envy is still envy if it is over a new toy or a new washer and dryer. Being a jealous person is the same no matter how old you are, and the like. People will change how they look and how they dress, but that can't change the basics. Of course, a lot of things change, but it seems that most of important values and characteristics that we gain in life are from kindergarten and first grade- everyone is still somewhat those curious little faces finger painting and making friends and asking where babies come from.

It seems that instead of really changing, we gain more instead. Whether it's knowledge or just more baggage, such as O'Brien, “a twenty-three-year-old infantry sergeant, a middle-aged writer knowing guilt and sorrow.” (236) For better or for worse, the core of a person will generally stay the same, even if the outside influences of the individual's life change them outwardly. Shy individuals could find a reason to be more outward and become more social, but they could also become calloused and anti-social because of being mistreated or neglected due to their coy nature. Although our outsides may be adulterated by personal life experiences, our insides are conclusive, or as O'Brien eloquently puts it, “ Inside the body, or beyond the body, there is something absolute and unchanging.” (236)

"Why I Write" by Ishmael Beah

I did not believe in my youth that I would be one to write a book. There was little that concerned me aside from survival for a long time. Even after I had gone through rehabilitation and left Sierra Leone, my experience there was not something that I was able to discuss, even with people in my life that I was closest with. However, it was not something that I could leave to dredge in the desert sand of my home land. Seeing the faces of the other children at the UN conferences, I knew that I was not like them. I knew that they had not seen what I had, nor could they understand it. But it was not just the children that made me want to share my story; they were not the only ones that did not understand. Adults everything viewed my story as surreal- as if it couldn't be true. Most did not want to believe that children and civilians could be caught up in the middle of such madness. The children in Sierra Leone are the ones who suffered the most. Most of us were not saved by the expected end of death, but forced to go on, and stare it in the face. In writing A Long Way Gone, there were many times in which I felt as if I were 12 years old again, the cold dead feeling of drugs and hate. We no longer cried as children, we were not afraid. We wanted to bathe in blood. It was long before I finally understood what the nurses and rehabilitation workers were trying to tell us all: “it's not your fault.” At first I hated this. Sometimes I can feel the courage of a young warrior fighting to say that I fought for my family, for my country. In reality, neither side was right. We were twelve year old boys, brainwashed by drugs and loss. I do not write because it does my existence any kind of justice to do so. I write because I want people to understand : my story is not the only one.  There are many others crying out to be told, others who want the world to never forget, and never let it happen again. I am not the only one. 

Memoir: A Long Way Gone

"You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you." Eric Hoffer

It is undoubtedly hard for a child, even one who witnesses and experiences war, to deeply understand it. Ishmael is a twelve year old boy in Sierra Leona. Despite the fact that he endures and lives war every second of his life for a period of years, there is never a point in which he really understands what goes on around him until after the war.  Fear is what allowed him to survive; fear of being killed or tortured, and fear of being recruited by the opposite side. Essentially, seeing and feeling endless fear is what drove him to stay alive, “Their eyes still showed fear, as if death hadn't freed them from the madness that continued to unfold” (Beah, 49). Watching people tortured and having their lives as well as their families destroyed is also what allowed him to become a great soldier. When he is recruited to the government army, his lieutenant encourages the young boys to fight by forcing them to see that the rebels fighters are the people that killed their families and caused them constant fear and poverty. This anger may have been the source of courage and purpose to the fighting and killing, but what made Ishmael a warrior was having to see the casualties on his side, those who were fighting for his freedom, lie dead on the ground. Immediately he went numb, and the killing was easy. He had the power of the gun, and therefore the power to get revenge for his family members killed and the childhood that he had lost because of what the rebel fighters had done. Now that he had power, he could evoke pain and fear right back upon these fighters. After Ishmael suffered a bullet wound in his foot, he shot every soldier that he captured in the foot and let them bleed and suffer for days before shooting them in the head. His torture ended in fearlessness by gaining leverage over his enemies. As a child, he did not understand this killing as killing, but rather snubbing the enemy for wronging him. He caused the enemy to have the same suffering and fear that he once had, and therefore became powerful to himself as well as his comrades.

Sensitivity and Politics

Ok, so this is my response for my POW but I thought that the discussion would be useful for everyone to enjoy. 

(Link to the article: http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2079871/stasi-tactics-from-camp-obama.thtml)

Melanie Phillips makes an unconscious effort to make her extreme right-wing doctrine of beliefs through this article to defend Sarah Palin. She begins by stating that “the joke is on them” in reference to the media for attacking Palin on her lack of (any) knowledge (whatsoever) about foreign affairs. Later on in the article, Phillips poses the question about Obama's reaction (intimidation) to Sarah Palin, “Is Obama a man or a moose?” What is interesting about this is Obama's lack of reaction to Sarah Palin, mostly because the media has taken care of it. Obama's “attack” on Sarah Palin is nothing different than what two politicians may argue about in running a campaign. Secondly, I find her points to be quite defensive, as well as incorrect. Obama is not the one who is “falling to pieces”, as she says; in fact, Palin is the one who has become the butt of everyone's jokes, liberals and conservatives alike. Third of all, Phillips states that, “the biosphere is shredding the smears being hurled at Palin as fast as they are being produced.” I also find this to be an extremist opinion, since, at least in the U.S., everything being “hurled” at Palin is being recycled over and over again in the media: t.v., internet, newspapers, magazines, etc. Despite all of these facts, Phillips still insists that the left is becoming weaker and weaker, “the totalitarian left is terrified of argument because it knows itself to be on very weak ground.” When, in fact, Obama has generally been ahead so far on the polls. Lastly, not only are Phillips' attacks on the left-wing democrats weak and defensive, she clearly has no proof of them. In her attacks she uses words such as “apparently” to “prove” what the left is doing. As often I say when something is so ridiculous that it actually frustrates me, that's just a bunch of crap. Phillips seems to have a genuine problem understanding politics, as is recognizable in the last paragraph of her article, “That is why her interview is at this very moment being misreported and distorted even though millions of people watched it and heard it.” Thanks for the news flash, Melanie Phillips, but just curious.. have you ever watched a political campaign? That IS politics. Another issue that Phillips touches on that also IS politics is the democrats “insult and smear” is calling Palin a fundamentalist. Just to make sure that I wasn't acting irrationally, I researched to be sure of what the definition of fundamentalism is:

3.	strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.

Oh boy, that must be a very insulting term for an extreme conservative.

Not only does Phillips ragingly defend Sarah Palin, but also attacks the democratic party as a whole. In the second paragraph, in reference to Palin's baby, Phillips states, “When they look at Trig, they don't see a small and vulnerable human being; they don't see the power of triumphing over adversity; all they see is a handicapped thing that should never have been allowed to live.” Woah, Phillips, people who believe that they should have a choice with their own bodies aren't Satan, they just happen to think differently than you. And again, where are the sources to such a serious accusation? I'm not sure that this could even be called “defensive” anymore, but rather conservative paranoia. No one cares about Sarah Palin's choice to keep her baby. The great defiance that leftists are leading is an opposition to Palin's POLITICAL campaign concerning this. It seems like a pretty weak sales pitch for Sarah Palin to make the variety of her options very public, but her campaign to advertise “Look at all the options that I had with my baby! If you elect me as your vice president, I'll be sure to make sure you don't have any of the same options.” This doesn't make liberals unmoral baby-eaters, but people who want to have choices for their bodies and their futures. A low blow for the conservative party.

Lastly, to further demonstrate Phillips' conservative bias, there are several points in which she cleverly hides her political beliefs in repetition of her favorite word. In the third paragraph, Phillips references social conservatives as “people who prefer truth over lies, right over wrong, morality over anarchy”. What is the truth? What is right? Apparently, “the right” is. In the rest of the article, Phillips references “the right” in quotations, as if to say that the right is right in their beliefs, that they are moral and always truthful. Again, this is NOT, right and wrong, it's politics. Finally, her political beliefs rear their ugly head in the last paragraph, “That is why her entire family is being turned over while the media is totally silent on the genuinely disturbing questions about Obama's connections and views.” One last time, to prove how “wrong” the “right” is: both sides always think they're right and can never be wrong. This is a repeating theme in any political jargon, in any race, at any time. Obama's views may be “genuinely disturbing” to those who disagree with them. The fact is, most people always think they're right and have their heads shoved so far up the behind of their own personal dogmas that they will never see the light of day. This makes neither reality of either side much more frightening than the other.  

Note, MLA has not yet been incorporated.

.

THE THINGS WE FEAR THE MOST HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED TO US

It's late

I think that hurt becomes much more intense when you really understand where it's coming from.

whew

I'm glad mosquitos don't have bird wings.

What about the bruises?

Ok, so this is kind of weird for a first blog. However, it seems that Oskar gives himself bruises at times when he feels the most upset, the most anxious, etc. I don't know if this is one of the things "which I know about" for Oskar, or if it's compulsive behavior, but it isn't uncommon for people who are depressed to cause themselves harm. Such as with cutting yourself (which is different, I guess), the brain releases endorphins when you harm yourself. Hence, perhaps this is something that makes Oskar feel better when he is upset, whether he is aware of it or not.

On the other hand, because this behavior is compulsive, he may be suffering from Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. It is not uncommon for individuals oppressed by the disorder to have impulsive thoughts about hurting oneself as well as others, a theme that is somewhat common for Oskar throughout the novel. Lastly, it is not uncommon for these impulsive thoughts to cause an individual to be ridden with anxiety; he often seems anxious when he gives himself the bruises. it is also fairly common for depression and anxiety to go hand in hand. Either way, it is obvious that Oskar is overwhelmed by his own thoughts, almost smothered by them. In very simplified terms, those who suffer from panic and anxiety have too full of a plate. It comes from feedback in the brain that says "this is too much", causing a fight or flight response, and panic. But unlike most, he never gives up, despite all of that. He continues to suffer through the stress in an attempt to make things make sense; to try and find anything at all that could bring closure to his father's departure. Lastly, all of these symptoms and possible disorders could be tied to one thing that many suffered from after the events of 9/11: Post-Tramatic Stress Disorder. Even some who didn't lose a loved one are plagued by this illness; my sister lived so close to the buildings that concrete broke through her window, a likely cause of her PTSD.