Thursday, October 30, 2008

Just a Thought

A great majority of society has entirely given itself to be influenced by the media. Evidence provides that the media is controlled by the government, which is controlled by the people, whom are in turn, controlled by the media. The evidence - members of government are elected by the people; the government, or government controlled issues, provides the media with news; this news is then relayed to the people.

Not only do the media provide the people with news. Just as a toddler satisfies himself with a shiny new toy car after "mommy says no," the populace of America concedes to the promotion of the iPhone and cost-efficient automobile when the media proceeds to make a statement, forcing the thought of self-reliance in the public to back of their thoughts.

Human instinct confers it a natural sympathy. Likewise in nature, insecurity breeds its own sense of self-hatred upon the "well-off." For example, the Republican Party feeds off of the notion that self-determination reaps exactly what it sows for its users. Adversely, the Democratic Party contends to a Peter Pan method of economic stability, alleging to the poor that they deserve rewards, regardless of work ethic. The media feed on the strength of the two natures of insecurity, or blame, and sympathy. This leads hatred more towards self-determination, and insecurity (blame) more toward helping hand. In the same way, education, in school or out, proves to follow more of a self-determination path than what the media provides, which is the helping hand mechanism.

As society further delves into a sense of satisfaction and complies with being fostered by conformist ideals, its character and standards likewise fall.


Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Love, Hate, and the Like


Thorough analysis would be time-consuming - I could tell when I first saw this picture. Two completely different words juxtaposed on the knuckles of two mirrored fists. The dichotomy of the two is significant, but what first came to mind for me was their similarities and counterbalances.
Both change meaning in respective contexts
Love is "a profound affection for"
Hate is "extreme aversion or hostility"
"I love you" denotes passionate acceptance
"I hate you" denotes passionate dislike
To go off on a tangent...
Perhaps their connotative counterparts are more impactful. Such as Romeo's profession in Shakespeare's, Romeo and Juliet - "I am the East and Juliet is the sun." Romeo conveys his love for Juliet through a phrase other than the tired cliche "i love you."
Or a statements implication of their meaning might be more effective: "Don't ever speak to me again!" The statement is bold and implies hatred. It's impactful because "i hate you" is a term many use frequently with no affect and no intent to affect. "I hate you" is also a tired cliche and loses its effect if overused.
Well, that's my take on this photo. Perhaps someone has another idea.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Reading to Find

It’s a wonder how a fictional character can be tantamount to an existent being. That a young lost or wayward person can pick up a novel, challenge himself to a difficult read, and finish with a new understanding of self, especially when that person can’t even find a counterpart in the real world.

The fictional character, Janie, in Zora Neale Hurston’s novel, Their Eyes Were Watching God, is a perfect portrait of my character. Given a strong reliance on self-worth, independence, and responsibility as well as the image of inter-racial and “intra-racial” equality, and the implied ideal of perfection from birth, I’ve gathered similar institutions of character as Janie (whom was raised by a strict formerly enslaved grandmother with strict ideals).

Similar to Janie, I never truly recognized my race until I was nine years old and soon after (at first) I felt awkward. Just as Janie was I am a fair-skinned, long-haired, black female, still today reaping the air of racial scorn (both inter and intra) from certain people about these features. (Quite honestly, not unlike Janie, I never recognized shades of black until a couple years ago.) And reminiscent of Janie’s character, the beginning of the nature of "womanly intentions" was aroused at 16.

Aside from the racial aspect of Janie's life and her nature of womanly intentions, Hurston offers a deeper insight into her character, which better provoked my understanding of self. Perhaps it was Janie's longing for love and true acceptance as a female (for me not so much the female part since women are much more accepted in society now, for me it's a simple longing for accepteance) that sparked her endeavor to reach beyond the horizon. Her grandmother's fundamental precept was basically to be financially secure, responsible, and successful - basically furnishing Janie's mind with the thought of perfection and high expectation, wherein the "similar institutions of character" I mentioned earlier come into play. I do have high expectations for myself and sometimes these high expectations mixed with discrepancy of the "true limit of self" (that nobody can be perfect), stifle and lose voice just as Janie's was lost and just how I can't seem to find mine when it would come in handy. Janie sought to be independent but was held back by her yearning for love and the influence of her grandmother. In the novel, quite honestly, I think that God sought also to teach Janie a lesson - wanted Janie to find truth in herself before she could be involved in a dependent relationship with someone else. This is why her first and second marriages didn't work out. This is why her third marriage was fruitful until God's wrath became apparent (the hurricane). This is why her third husband died, because through these trials, Janie finally gained her understanding of self. So one simple thread of knowledge I gained from reading this piece was that we often try to hold onto something that God is trying to tear apart, in so doing, we stifle our inbred success.


My point in writing this blog is to share an interesting find I made while reading a novel set completely in a different time period and how it could still relate to me, or issues that still go on now.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Opportune Oprah

How does a person decide between the pursuit of economic stability and the pursuit of happiness? Is there no happy medium? In global society the fortuity of life offers "the pursuit of ..." It seems to me a cosmopolitan misconception...

Before I began to type up this blog, I switched on Oprah, grabbed a cup of green tea, and sat down. Earlier today and for quite some time I'd been considering my career path. I love writing. However, the type of writing careers suitable for my taste offers contingency and little economic stability. Now, it's understandable that adults want what is best for you. They don't want to see you leave their presence without a firm understanding of the dangers of the real world. Having brought up my predicament to certain authorities, I've been told that to pursue happiness over economic stability would be move that a loser would make.

The point is, as soon as I switched on Oprah her comment was basically, "every conference I've been t on leadership and every seminar I've ever spoken to or been spoken to, the message is exactly what you're talking about, 'find out how to get paid for doing what you love. Following your passion, allowing yourself to be paid for doing what you love, will give you a meaningful life."

It's true...

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Speaking With Conviction: TALK LESS AND SAY MORE

After reading a poem by Taylor Mali, wherein the lack of conviction was reflected upon, I stumbled over the credibility as to my saying that I speak with conviction. The hesitance was due in part to my recountenance of an event that took place a few weeks ago. While discussing a political matter with one of my friends in the presence of my conveniently distracted teacher and his lovely wall of George W. Bush's "Bushisms" I happened to mention the name "Obama." All of a sudden, my teacher's head perked up. I felt tension from the beginning and anticipated the ensuing interrogation. Moments after babbling about my reasons for mentioning the candidate, I mentioned that I was Republican, which turned out to be a big mistake on my part. (My teacher was a Democrat through and through.) He asked me, "why are you a Republican, what views do you agree?" The question preceded moments more of babbling to the point where I realized - I wasn't making any sense. I could NOT tell my teacher why I was Republican. It was embarrassing. Of course, the inferred reason for most would have been "because her parents are," which is one of my biggest "no-nos." And of course, another presence in the room simply had to stress just that. It's my own fault, however. I didn't speak with conviction because I didn't know what I was talking about. This must be the reason for the decline of conviction in conversation.

People, for the most part, reinforced by media and influential approval, will attest to a cause and defend it,
without a firm background knowledge of the subject.

Luckily, I caught this flaw me from early on - I still have a chance to fix it.
As soon as I arrived at home, I got on my computer and researched both the
Democratic and Republican Parties and now hone a firm understanding as to the
Party of my choice (we'll just leave it that). If you'd like to read the poem:

http://www.taylormali.com/index.cfm?webid=21

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Political Incorrectness Must Be Politically Correct

By now, most of us have heard the story of Bill Maher and the cancellation of his show "Politically Incorrect." You'd think that the title is forewarning, providing that viewer discretion is advised because the hosts of this show just might say something politically incorrect. Bill Maher merely responded to one of his guests statements, approving the fact that the terrorists of the September 11 attacks were not at all cowardly in their approach. We in fact are the cowards, he said, we shoot missles from miles away whereas the terrorists actually stayed in the plane. The profession may have been poorly timed (just 6 days after the attack); however, the truth of the matter is that not one of the terrorists backed out of their cause - they literally stuck with it until the end. So the condoling designation of the terrorists as cowardly was just that, a condolence to the victims of the attacks in America. The affects of politcal correctness are not only contradictory to America's first amendment, which hones the right to free speech, it also provides false pretenses. Of the darker race, for example, I would rather be called black than an African American. But because the term "black" was used during periods of racial divide and is also associated with sundry other nefarious terms, African American is the most "inoffensive"