skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A little while ago, I went to the National Christmas Tree Lighting at the White House. My mom and I were able to win four tickets so I was able to share the experience with my mother as well as some of my new Maryland friends. It was beautiful. The holiday music and decorations definitely signaled the beginning of Christmas. Plus, I was able to share the moment with people I dearly cherish in my life. 
Someone told me recently that moments don't really mean anything unless you live them in consideration to the future. For instance, a kiss is only a kiss. It means something greater when the person your sharing the kiss with becomes your future. I understand this philosophy. When I look back at my own memories, the ones I remember most are those moments which had significant impact on my future: the birth of my little sister, the first time a boy said he liked me, my first job, my best childhood friend. However, I still hold that moments are what makes living worth while whether those seconds or minutes are held in respect to the future or not.
Those listed above are only some of my most significant memories, but the bulk of my memories consists of moments which are only that...only moments: my 21st birthday I spent in Las Vegas, my senior prom, the time my dad caught me sneaking out of the house, the first time I played spin the bottle. At the time, these moments had nothing to do with my future whatsoever, but all of them played a part in making me the woman I am today.
I had to skip one of my graduate classes in order to attend the Christmas Tree Lighting. I could have decided not to go because attending class is has more of a significant impact on my future. But what will I remember ten years from now: that night with my friends watching president Obama turn on the Christmas tree or sitting in a classroom discussing the ethics of public policy?
The moral of this story is....you should not always choose your moments by considering which will be more influential for your future. Sometimes you should live just for that moment despite its possible insignificance. The moment may be all we have.
Since last night, news sources have been telling us that the real loser in yesterday's elections was President Obama. They have been telling us that citizens voted in opposition to the Democratic Party in order to exemplify their disappointment over the lack of "change" and societal advancement since Democrats won the White House a year ago. In opposition, I do not believe that the elections were a referendum on President Obama. Instead, I believe the election results are illustrative of a general rejection of authority altogether--a trend that has gradually been developing over the last few years. We not only saw previously Democratic constituencies favor the Republican, but we also witnessed historically Republican precincts voting for the Democratic candidate.
In New Jersey, Republican Chris Christie won the race for Governor. A Republican has not won a statewide race in New Jersey since 1997. In Virginia, McDonnell, also Republican, won the gubernatorial election. McDonnell beat his Democratic opponent, Creigh Deeds, by almost 20% in a state where Democrats have won control of the office 5 out of the last 7 races.
On the flip side, in upstate New York, Democrat Bill Owens won the 23rd Congressional District--a district that has been held by republicans for over one hundred years. Some would argue against this example by saying the Democratic Party only won the seat because the Republican party was split between Diedre Scozzafava and the Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman. However, considering Scozzafava's ideology and support of the Democrat after her withdrawal from the race, if anything, she split the liberal vote.
People are simply no longer accepting the dominant authority, meaning they are rejecting those previously in office, whether that be based on a rejection of the dominant party or a rejection of other historic norms of power. Several important races included a prominent third party candidate illustrating a refusal of the dominant party authorities (both Republican and Democrat) altogether. Additionally, voters seem to be rejecting authority not only on the partisanship of the incumbent, but rejecting the authority of precedent for a particular area. For example, in Atlanta Georgia, Mary Norwood received more votes than her contenders (although a run-off election is to be held). If Norwood is to be elected, she will be the first white mayor in a 35 year history of African American incumbents. The Houston, Texas mayoral race resulted in a 5% lead for Annise Parker. If she wins she will be the first openly gay mayor in Texas, a historically conservative state. In both these examples, voters are rejecting previous authority by refusing to support the historic norms within the region.
The areas in which incumbents did win resulted in very close races. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg won his third term in office. He beat his Democratic opponent, Bill Thompson by a narrow 5 point margin. Considering Bloomberg outspent Thompson 31 million dollars in his campaign, the closeness of this race still exemplifies an extreme refusal of authority even in the presence the incumbent's win.
We are experiencing an important political wave: one described not by an excessive partisan shift due to a disappointment in the predominate party, but one classified by a rejection of existing authority simply because it is the authority. People are looking for ways to transcend external power and thus, are favoring the alternative.
Today, Wednesday October 28, 2009, President Obama signed a law that makes it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his sexual orientation or gender identity. This piece of legislation was named for Matthew Shepard, a teenage boy in Wyoming who was brutally murdered because he was gay. First, I would like to emphasize my belief that the implementation of this law is an important first step, of the many required to establish equal rights for gays and lesbians. Second, I am disheartened that a law like this even had to be passed at all.It's hard for me to understand how someone could be so angry, ashamed, disgusted (what ever the case may be) at another individual's preferences, that he would feel the need to harm that person. Why? Why would you need to assault or murder someone based on a choice they made that does not affect you in any way? I truly am unable to comprehend a reason. We live in America: the land of the free, the country of choice, the founder of personal liberty. We all know this; we all live by it. We complain if we are told what to do; we protest if we are not given options. We argue and disagree because we are free to do so; we give our opinions because we can. And for some reason, we still are unwilling to let others do the same; we wish to put limitations on our neighbor, but never ourselves.On that note, I am sad that we still have to pass laws that protect people who may look, think, or act differently. We should all be protected equally no matter the circumstance. There should be no need for this hate crimes bill, there should be no need for the 19th amendment; there should be no need for affirmative action. But, there is...there is a need and that is what distresses me most. We are passing laws to counteract our hearts....this should make us ask: "what is wrong with our hearts?"
A couple of days ago I asked myself: "Why is everyone so obsessed with preserving memories." Don't get me wrong, I am certainly no exception and adore my photo album and scrapbook. Yep, that's right, I am definitely a scrapbook girl.
But I hear people complain all the time about how they missed the entirety of their own wedding reception or were unable to interact during the birthday party because they were so focused on taking dozens of pictures. So why do we keep doing it? Why do we consume our time during these exciting events with taking pictures, running a camcorder, or writing down the funny things your drunk uncle said?
I realize the importance of memories and the remembrance of past events. It is important to apply our past experiences to today, learn from our mistakes, grow from our strengths, and recall the good times we shared with one another. Nevertheless, the obsession of preserving these images, words, or events by a medium other than our own minds can actually have an opposite and detrimental affect. Instead of actually living and experiencing the moment, we are only witnessing it from the lens of a camera. Only experience gives us something to grow by.
Never stop taking pictures; everyone needs something to look back on. We should just start living more for the moment when its happening rather than for the moment five years down the road when we actually get two minutes to flip through that old album. So next time your at a 4th of July party, set down your camera, grab the one you love, and just soak it in. Fireworks are always better now than their carbon copies later.
I was on the beach the other day. The tide was far out and because of the storm that recently passed over the east coast, the waves had made a sand bank the week prior. That morning, the waves were breaking a hundred yards from the shore and the tide was amazingly swallow. All these elements--last week's storm, the calm tide, the swallow water, the sand bank--created the perfect conditions for a beach full of seashells. I spent the entire morning hunting for the perfect one. I kept my head down for several hours, so much so that by mid-afternoon I had a headache originating at the base of my neck. I found a few good shells: one that was gold and well-polished, another which was a rare purple color that I could easily make into a necklace, but in several hours of searching I did not find one that absolutely took my breath away. I wasn't satisfied. It was not until well in the afternoon when I sat down near the water's edge to take a break, when I noticed how beautiful the day was. The waves were gently crashing on the freckled sand. The sky was cloudless and a hazy pink color that was gently reflected on the surface of the ocean. I had spent the entire morning looking down. I had devoted several hours looking for the perfect specimen, while the entire time I was missing it because I never looked up. I missed the big picture when ironically, it was exactly what I was looking for. . . something to take my breath away.
This happens to everyone, all the time. Unfortunately, many times we never realize it. We spend our lives searching for the perfect job, the perfect boyfriend, the perfect vacation, the perfect outfit, the perfect date. We pass up many of these because they have a flaw: they are too weak or brittle, their shape or color isn't unique enough, or their edges are rough. While the entire time, perfection is right in front of us. Near the ocean, I found some good possibilities but nothing perfect. I was focusing on the tiny flaws--only pieces--of the beach rather than looking at the beauty of the entire picture...this is why I was unable to find perfection. Is this why we are so often disappointed? During our search for ideal--marriage, career, pair of shoes--do we focus only on the inadequate pieces, the pieces that are only disappointing when unassociated with the flawless entirety? The seashells were beautiful; they were all perfect when I saw them for what they were...a mere portion of the whole picture. We must remember to look up more often.
I was reading a philosophical book on ethics and started to question: "Is there some point, possibly indeterminable, at which an individual has done all she is required to do? At this point, does she have the option to decline to do more and is still morally affable?" If a person responds "yes" to these questions, then she is giving up on a better tomorrow. She has determined that she has done her best to help those she can. She has decided that she no longer has an obligation to help feed the hungry or promote the end of human trafficking. She believes it is not her job to give a portion of her wealth to her neighbors whom cannot afford their basic bills. She reasons that because she has given ten percent of her wages to her congregation, she has no responsibility to support the local charity. Her choices and actions are no longer aimed at promoting the general good.But if a person believes that there is no such point, then it seems she is setting herself up for a life of disappointment and failure. The world will never be perfect nor will every individual be happy. Therefore, one's work for a better world will never be finished. Furthermore, every minute she takes to watch her favorite TV show, every penny she spends on a mere disposable desire will be in opposition to her moral requirement. That minute could have been used to volunteer at a soup kitchen; that penny could have been spent on aids research.Is there some kind of moral limit? And if so, how do we determine where it is?
One of the biggest questions surrounding Christianity is "How could an all-powerful, loving God allow suffering?" Logic tells us that God is either all-powerful and cruel, or loving and weak. The main response to this is that God allows suffering because "everything has a reason" and "something good will eventually come from it." But doubters will say, "How about all the things that happen and exist that have no conceivable silver lining?" I never have known exactly how to reply; I simply believe and for some that's not enough. So I have considered this question probably a thousand times, in light of the fact that we shouldn't always know God's plan or comprehend why things happen. I have considered it because I want to be able to say something other than the traditional response that they commonly receive.
The other night I had an experience that developed new thoughts. I wish to caution any readers that I do not study theology nor am I a pastor or a priest. These are simply some thoughts that I wished to share.
I woke up three nights ago in a panic. I had a nightmare in which my little sister, mother, and father had died. It was one of those dreams on which upon waking, for a split second, you still believe that it is real. Finally, a sense of, not only relief, but of appreciation sank into my stomach. I woke up from that nightmare loving my family even more if possible, realizing how much I take their being for granted, and accessing all the blessings that make me so lucky.
The next morning, I surmised that this could be another reason explaining earthly suffering. Maybe God allows suffering not only because it possesses a silver lining (hidden or visible) but because it leads to a greater good incomprehensible until we face our final hour. People will be more thankful, more blessed, more loving, less regretful, and less selfish in the heavenly end if they once have suffered earthly pains. It's similar to when people say, "You can't be truly happy, if you have never experienced sadness...you have nothing to compare it to."
My nightmare made me think that we suffer today to experience a greater appreciation for God and his love tomorrow. In the end, everything sad will suddenly become untrue; and eternity will be greater because life was once broken or lost.
