Change abounds all around us. Life is dull without change. Sometimes we may feel that familiarity, comfortableness is the best option. Yes, what creatures of habit we are. But all parties must end. All roads must stop. All lives must move on.
Change can take us in two directions, depending on our outlook. Change can be viewed as positive, progressive, advancing and moving us forward. It is to be admired, desired, respected, recommended. Or, change is to be viewed as negative. We can resist change, abhor it, detest it, loathe it. We can continue to look backwards with longing and nostalgia.
But how poor is he with no change! Condemned to live life the same over and over, without difference, without a rhythm. It maddens and it saddens, the thought of never having anything new, never having anything special to look forward to in life. It maddens and it saddens.
Change may be painful, but it is our greatest ally.
The king lives on.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow!
1. The little boy looks on despondently as his friend exchanges final glances. The war is going on, and his buddy has joined the volunteer army. They’ve tried their best to enjoy this final day, fishing, boating, and silently napping under the big willow tree together. But in the end, the boy can’t help but worry. He’s afraid. He’s scared. He suddenly feels all alone. What if he doesn’t come back, he wonders. What if he becomes just another casualty, another number, destined to provide so much for the sake of so little. The little one grabs the soldier-to-be’s shirt sleeve, his eyes filled with sorrow and longing. Don’t leave me, they say. Don’t leave. The young man recognizes these feelings, but he’s already made his decision. He’s always finished what he’s started, and this is no exception. He leans down and graciously hugs the boy, warmly embracing him. He senses the boy’s hot tears dripping onto his shirt, and gives him one final smile. It encourages the boy. It proudly announces that he will return. On that tender note, the gentleman walks home without looking back. “It’s better this way,” he mutters. “He must learn this fact of life. Because even if I leave, there is always someone to fill in the hole.”
2. Leaving is no doubt very painful in my mind. It involves sacrificing the old and boldly facing up to the new. As creatures of habit, leaving comfortably defined boundaries or circumstances can be especially heart wrenching. For example, when I moved to Minnesota in the fourth grade, I was devastated. But I believe that this is necessary for us to exist. Sure change is hard, and leaving is even harder. But without it, life would become boring, stale, and uninteresting very quickly. We would be condemned to a never-ending loop of monotony and boredom. Furthermore, sometimes leaving is actually beneficial for us. Looking back, living here has given me far more opportunities and happiness than back in my former hometown. Some kinds of change, especially leaving, are very hard to overcome. But all change should be warmly embraced, because that is what allows life to be spontaneous, fun, and pleasurable.
2. Leaving is no doubt very painful in my mind. It involves sacrificing the old and boldly facing up to the new. As creatures of habit, leaving comfortably defined boundaries or circumstances can be especially heart wrenching. For example, when I moved to Minnesota in the fourth grade, I was devastated. But I believe that this is necessary for us to exist. Sure change is hard, and leaving is even harder. But without it, life would become boring, stale, and uninteresting very quickly. We would be condemned to a never-ending loop of monotony and boredom. Furthermore, sometimes leaving is actually beneficial for us. Looking back, living here has given me far more opportunities and happiness than back in my former hometown. Some kinds of change, especially leaving, are very hard to overcome. But all change should be warmly embraced, because that is what allows life to be spontaneous, fun, and pleasurable.
Friday, January 15, 2010
The 10 Modes of Discourse, 2nd Abridged Version
1. Compare/Contrast
2. Classification
3. Narration
4. Example
5. Argument/Persuasion
6. Process Analysis
7. Definition
8. Description
9. Cause and effect
10. Division of analysis
So how did you do?
2. Classification
3. Narration
4. Example
5. Argument/Persuasion
6. Process Analysis
7. Definition
8. Description
9. Cause and effect
10. Division of analysis
So how did you do?
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The 10 Modes of Discourse, Abridged Version
1. Peace and war are two states of human nature. One is either at peace or war, with themselves or with others. But their similarity ends here. Peace is the state of calmness, war the state of turmoil. Peace is the state of kindness, war the state of cruelty. When peace reigns, life is beautiful. When war reigns, life is hell.
2. War as a whole is an aggressive act of one party to another, but the form in which this manifests itself varies. There is, of course, physical war, fought with guns, grenades, and bombs. But there's also economic war, or a fight to the death between businesses or national economies. And finally, and perhaps most importantly, there's cultural war, the act of destroying another culture and way of life out of sheer arrogance and stupidity.
3. The members in my brigade and I slowly and sullenly prepare for the fight. We all know it's suicide; we're fresh meat to distract the enemy. We're within sight of them; they know this as well. And so our walk becomes a trot, then a jog, then a sprint, than an all-out frenzy. Just when I'm able to discern individual faces, I ask,"What the hell have I gotten myself into?"
4. War is always known for its immediate destruction and collateral damage. But it shouldn't be forgotten that the pangs of war transcend the physical world and often enter the realm of souls, lasting for generations. The little boy who lost all his family in a bomb blast. The girl who's limbs are shredded off her body. The damage may be compensated or alleviated, but it can never be forgotten.
5. After witnessing two wars in my lifetime, as well as having read about countless more, I have come to the conclusion that war, at least the physical kind, must be eradicated from the world. For starters, it's expensive, and sucks away at treasured resources and wealth that could be put to more helpful use. In addition, war, more often than not, leads to animosity and hatred between nations, thus providing more fuel for war. Only by abruptly cutting off this cycle can peace enter earth. But most of all, war disrespects the sanctity and value of human life. Even just one person's demise impacts countless other people, bringing nothing but sorrow and grief.
6. The road to war is very twisted and winding, yet it's filled with many routes for escape. One stumbles into it, but runs out bare-chested. One incident, great or small, creates passions that can run high. And if those flames don't die out, it the exits aren't taken, the path becomes narrower, and the options fall one by one. In the tend, the last recourse is war. To escape out of this road, blood must be offered.
7.War can be mainly described as such. There are at least two sides, maybe even more, and each side wants to have their way no matter what. When disagreement occurs between groups, when patience and civility are abandoned, war comes in to replace their absence. War is indeed the devolution of the human soul, the epitome of failed consensus and sanity. War is the show of beasts and demons. War is the lowest of the lows.
8. Eerie shrieks pierce the sky. The souls of young men float out of their limp, decrepit bodies, freed from their horrid condition. The ground turns redder than the sunset of the horizon, and I twitch at the sight of my fallen comrades, my back hairs rising from anxiety. For the first time I've learned what war truly is. War is loss. War is suffering. War is annihilation. And there's no turning back.
9. War is caused by impatience, hatred, and stupidity. Plain and simple. A group or nation is impatient to listen to the complaints of other parties, full of hatred and ready to vent it out brutally, and stupid enough to allow its emotions to go too far, as well as risk heavy losses and suffering. In the end, war only begets destruction, vengeance, and grief. Plain and simple.
10. War, though broad in nature and definition, can actually be divided into a few main elements. War, of course, involves destruction, whether it's superficial, physical destruction or everlasting emotional scars. War also requires hatred, a cold, cruel desire to slaughter opponents. But most of all, war requires insanity, the willingness to set aside civility and life's comforts, whether for one tour, or eternity.
2. War as a whole is an aggressive act of one party to another, but the form in which this manifests itself varies. There is, of course, physical war, fought with guns, grenades, and bombs. But there's also economic war, or a fight to the death between businesses or national economies. And finally, and perhaps most importantly, there's cultural war, the act of destroying another culture and way of life out of sheer arrogance and stupidity.
3. The members in my brigade and I slowly and sullenly prepare for the fight. We all know it's suicide; we're fresh meat to distract the enemy. We're within sight of them; they know this as well. And so our walk becomes a trot, then a jog, then a sprint, than an all-out frenzy. Just when I'm able to discern individual faces, I ask,"What the hell have I gotten myself into?"
4. War is always known for its immediate destruction and collateral damage. But it shouldn't be forgotten that the pangs of war transcend the physical world and often enter the realm of souls, lasting for generations. The little boy who lost all his family in a bomb blast. The girl who's limbs are shredded off her body. The damage may be compensated or alleviated, but it can never be forgotten.
5. After witnessing two wars in my lifetime, as well as having read about countless more, I have come to the conclusion that war, at least the physical kind, must be eradicated from the world. For starters, it's expensive, and sucks away at treasured resources and wealth that could be put to more helpful use. In addition, war, more often than not, leads to animosity and hatred between nations, thus providing more fuel for war. Only by abruptly cutting off this cycle can peace enter earth. But most of all, war disrespects the sanctity and value of human life. Even just one person's demise impacts countless other people, bringing nothing but sorrow and grief.
6. The road to war is very twisted and winding, yet it's filled with many routes for escape. One stumbles into it, but runs out bare-chested. One incident, great or small, creates passions that can run high. And if those flames don't die out, it the exits aren't taken, the path becomes narrower, and the options fall one by one. In the tend, the last recourse is war. To escape out of this road, blood must be offered.
7.War can be mainly described as such. There are at least two sides, maybe even more, and each side wants to have their way no matter what. When disagreement occurs between groups, when patience and civility are abandoned, war comes in to replace their absence. War is indeed the devolution of the human soul, the epitome of failed consensus and sanity. War is the show of beasts and demons. War is the lowest of the lows.
8. Eerie shrieks pierce the sky. The souls of young men float out of their limp, decrepit bodies, freed from their horrid condition. The ground turns redder than the sunset of the horizon, and I twitch at the sight of my fallen comrades, my back hairs rising from anxiety. For the first time I've learned what war truly is. War is loss. War is suffering. War is annihilation. And there's no turning back.
9. War is caused by impatience, hatred, and stupidity. Plain and simple. A group or nation is impatient to listen to the complaints of other parties, full of hatred and ready to vent it out brutally, and stupid enough to allow its emotions to go too far, as well as risk heavy losses and suffering. In the end, war only begets destruction, vengeance, and grief. Plain and simple.
10. War, though broad in nature and definition, can actually be divided into a few main elements. War, of course, involves destruction, whether it's superficial, physical destruction or everlasting emotional scars. War also requires hatred, a cold, cruel desire to slaughter opponents. But most of all, war requires insanity, the willingness to set aside civility and life's comforts, whether for one tour, or eternity.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
The UN Security Council, a Blight on the United Nations
For over 50 years now, the United Nations has consolidated nearly all its power in one organization, the UN Security Council, and its five “permanent” members, the US, Russia, China, France, and the UK. In addition to holding permanent status on the powerful board, they also hold the often-abused “veto” to remove any resolution that threatens their interests. The UN Security Council must remove its permanent member status and remove the veto from all its members if it is to be respected as a world organization.
The five permanent members of the UN Security Council all represent the victorious powers of WWII; it’s no coincidence that Germany and Japan are absent. The fact that the permanent members happened to be on the winners’ side is an unfair and unjust criterion for deciding who gets such a great power. In addition, the veto power gives these five nations humongous power and influence. Many resolutions that question evil actions are often shot-down because criticism would be counter to the permanent member nation’s interests.
A prime example of this is Israel. Despite the fact that it has committed abuses to the Palestinians and its own citizens, it continues to get away with its crimes no doubt due to the influence the US has on the UN Security Council. Indeed, since 1990, the US has made more vetoes than all of the other permanent member nations, many of these involving Israel. Such abuse and misuse of power can only be removed by the removal of said power itself.
The UN professes to be an international organization set up to defend the interests of all nations. But the UN Security Council, with its permanent members and the veto, is clearly at odds with its professed “ideals.” Only reform of the UN Security Council will enable the UN to pursue its noble and praiseworthy goals.
The five permanent members of the UN Security Council all represent the victorious powers of WWII; it’s no coincidence that Germany and Japan are absent. The fact that the permanent members happened to be on the winners’ side is an unfair and unjust criterion for deciding who gets such a great power. In addition, the veto power gives these five nations humongous power and influence. Many resolutions that question evil actions are often shot-down because criticism would be counter to the permanent member nation’s interests.
A prime example of this is Israel. Despite the fact that it has committed abuses to the Palestinians and its own citizens, it continues to get away with its crimes no doubt due to the influence the US has on the UN Security Council. Indeed, since 1990, the US has made more vetoes than all of the other permanent member nations, many of these involving Israel. Such abuse and misuse of power can only be removed by the removal of said power itself.
The UN professes to be an international organization set up to defend the interests of all nations. But the UN Security Council, with its permanent members and the veto, is clearly at odds with its professed “ideals.” Only reform of the UN Security Council will enable the UN to pursue its noble and praiseworthy goals.
Winning Isn't Everything, Especially For Cartoon Characters
What do Tom Cat, the Trix rabbit, Chip the Wolf, and Plankton all have in common? They’re all “perennial losers,” destined by the hands of fate to be pitted in a losing war. But while this may seem all fun and games, deeper analysis into this phenomenon reveals a darker picture. If you don’t believe me, then perhaps an inside scoop might change your opinion.
First, because these guys can’t get the upper hand, we are starving four innocent souls to death. It should be noted there is another common theme to these characters; they all desire food. How can we talk about feeding children in Africa when we fail to address dietary needs in our own nation? This isn’t just hypocritical; it’s downright cruel and inhumane.
Second, think of the damage to their self-esteem. The fact that these characters continuously fail at life means that society is imposing a great psychological burden on them. Their tales of persistence and fortitude are beautiful lessons that should be admired and reflected upon to prevent others from suffering a similar fate.
Third, what becomes of the “perennial winners” when they always succeed? They become a bunch of nasty scumbags of course! Jerry Mouse, Mr. Krabs, and the seemingly “innocent” kids of Cereal and Yogurt Land epitomize the spirit of insensitive braggarts. By allowing this behavior to go unnoticed, we not only cause undue injustice on others, we also encourage future generations to believe that winning is everything.
What I have stated before you is the true fate of “perennial losers”. My views and others of the like have long been suppressed by those who attempt to portray a twisted picture of characters “who started it” and “deserve what happens to them.” But together, we can make a difference to insure that the perennial losers may be tormented no more.
First, because these guys can’t get the upper hand, we are starving four innocent souls to death. It should be noted there is another common theme to these characters; they all desire food. How can we talk about feeding children in Africa when we fail to address dietary needs in our own nation? This isn’t just hypocritical; it’s downright cruel and inhumane.
Second, think of the damage to their self-esteem. The fact that these characters continuously fail at life means that society is imposing a great psychological burden on them. Their tales of persistence and fortitude are beautiful lessons that should be admired and reflected upon to prevent others from suffering a similar fate.
Third, what becomes of the “perennial winners” when they always succeed? They become a bunch of nasty scumbags of course! Jerry Mouse, Mr. Krabs, and the seemingly “innocent” kids of Cereal and Yogurt Land epitomize the spirit of insensitive braggarts. By allowing this behavior to go unnoticed, we not only cause undue injustice on others, we also encourage future generations to believe that winning is everything.
What I have stated before you is the true fate of “perennial losers”. My views and others of the like have long been suppressed by those who attempt to portray a twisted picture of characters “who started it” and “deserve what happens to them.” But together, we can make a difference to insure that the perennial losers may be tormented no more.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
One "Inner Ring" to Rule Them All
I just read C.S. Lewis' lecture "The Inner Ring" this week, and I was very impressed at both the message and literary techniques Lewis made and utilized. It seems that the guy can do more than write fantasy books after all! But jokes notwithstanding, I respect the claim Lewis was trying to get across, "Be with others for the sake of enjoyment and fulfillment, not to be 'in'". It is a lesson I find applicable in all eras, from Lewis' to our own.
In terms of actual writing, what I found to be the most helpful was Lewis' frankness and bluntness. His lecture was very straightforward and to the point in terms of tone, and he clearly showed this in his interactions with the audience. Which leads me to my second point; Lewis was very involved with his audience. He constantly referenced them, discussed their possible fates, and spoke very casually to them. His first line was "May I read you a few lines from Tolstoy's War and Peace?" almost as if he actually needed their approval before proceeding. Such techniques, along with simple but clever diction choices and the usage of allusions contemporary to his time, helped to make the piece both intellectual and enjoyable to read.
As I have already mentioned, Lewis' main claim was this, "Be with others for the sake of enjoyment and fulfillment, not to be 'in'". Throughout the piece, Lewis uses his essay's title, "The Inner Ring", as a metaphor for inclusion and belonging. And while he makes the point that the rings are necessary, and sometimes actually good, he also makes the distinction that "the desire which draws us into Inner Rings is another matter. A thing may be morally neutral and yet the desire for that thing may be dangerous." Near the end of the piece, Lewis reemphasizes this when he describes a fictional scenario about joining a musical quartet. While he argues that there's nothing wrong for participating if it's for the sake of "some wholesome reason", he does claim that "if all you want is to be in the know, your pleasure will be short lived...By the very act of admitting you it has lost its magic."
I found "The Inner Ring" to be both quite enlightening and fun. I can only wonder if his audience at King's College in 1944 felt the same. Regardless, I believe that Lewis' message is one for all ages, all societies, and all times. "The quest of the Inner Ring will break your hearts unless you break it. But if you break it, a surprising result will follow." Well said Mr. Lewis.
In terms of actual writing, what I found to be the most helpful was Lewis' frankness and bluntness. His lecture was very straightforward and to the point in terms of tone, and he clearly showed this in his interactions with the audience. Which leads me to my second point; Lewis was very involved with his audience. He constantly referenced them, discussed their possible fates, and spoke very casually to them. His first line was "May I read you a few lines from Tolstoy's War and Peace?" almost as if he actually needed their approval before proceeding. Such techniques, along with simple but clever diction choices and the usage of allusions contemporary to his time, helped to make the piece both intellectual and enjoyable to read.
As I have already mentioned, Lewis' main claim was this, "Be with others for the sake of enjoyment and fulfillment, not to be 'in'". Throughout the piece, Lewis uses his essay's title, "The Inner Ring", as a metaphor for inclusion and belonging. And while he makes the point that the rings are necessary, and sometimes actually good, he also makes the distinction that "the desire which draws us into Inner Rings is another matter. A thing may be morally neutral and yet the desire for that thing may be dangerous." Near the end of the piece, Lewis reemphasizes this when he describes a fictional scenario about joining a musical quartet. While he argues that there's nothing wrong for participating if it's for the sake of "some wholesome reason", he does claim that "if all you want is to be in the know, your pleasure will be short lived...By the very act of admitting you it has lost its magic."
I found "The Inner Ring" to be both quite enlightening and fun. I can only wonder if his audience at King's College in 1944 felt the same. Regardless, I believe that Lewis' message is one for all ages, all societies, and all times. "The quest of the Inner Ring will break your hearts unless you break it. But if you break it, a surprising result will follow." Well said Mr. Lewis.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
