As the title implies, I spent the weekend volunteering at the Gospel Mission in Kelowna. Saturday I worked in the Helping Hands Thrift Store, and today, Sunday, I worked in the kitchen next door. The kitchen is located under a men's hostel, and served dinner to about 100 homeless, and poverty stricken, men, woman and even children. It was an experience I will never, ever forget.
On Saturday I saw generosity in action when people dropped off bags of unwanted clothing, toys and even furniture so that it could be sold to those who cannot afford anything else. Nice clothing for about $2 and usually not more than $10. I helped sort cloths and clean the store, and it felt good.
But nothing could have prepared me for today when I went down to the kitchen after church. I went to the back and met Janelle, who is in charge of preparing dinner this week. She's a first arts student at UBCO, and she set me in charge of cutting and buttering buns so that we could make sloppy joes.
A small group joined us, three teenagers and two ladies, who all go to Trinity as well. Together we made up a plate of cookies, Cinnamon buns, and tarts for Patrick to take out to the people who were already arriving. Janice asked if all the people coming tonight were homeless, and we were given the following answer.
"Not everyone who comes here is homeless. Some just have to chose between rent and food. They choose to pay rent, and come here for food. And some live in the hostel up stairs."
Chose between rent and food. Between being homeless and starving. How do you make that choice? I guess because of places like the Gospel Mission, the choice is a little easier, and it's the choice most make. But can you imagine having to make that choice. Think about that next time you drop $5 on a latte. "I can either have this, or a home."
So we made 150 buns for sloppy joes, made three tubs of salads, three huge trays of mashed potatoes and the meat and vegetable mix for the sloppy joes. For two hours we worked around the kitchen. At one point we were ahead of schedule and I was asked to do some cleaning in the back so that the kitchen could run more efficiently other days as well.
At 4:30 we were asked to get ready, form an assembly line and be a little quieter. Jamie was leading devotionals and prayer. Then there was a knock at the big window, which we opened, and the people started lining up. Within half an hour we had served probably 70 people. I was fighting back tears. There were men my grandfather's age, women who reminded me of my mother, young men and women who were probably no older than me. They had come here in search of what? Better lives? Money? Homes? Education? The paradise the Okanagan is supposed to be? Now they were living in constant survival mode, many on the street layered under coats, toques, mittens and boots.
A lady walked past me and asked if she could have an extra bowl of potatoes for her granddaughter. A peak over the counter suggested the little girl was no older than my sister, meaning probably 9 or 10. Of course we gave it to her. A little while later the girl came back and held up a younger girl, probably 4 or 5, who smiled brightly at us.
"She would like to know if you have any candy."
We didn't. I didn't even have any stashed in my purse I could share.
But smiles started to greet us as some of the people left. They thanked us and told us it was good. We ran out of salad and still there were people coming. They lined up and enjoyed the food and coffee. The room smelt of cigarettes and dirt, but also of a home cooked meal. Something we all too often take for granted.
Food. Real food, that we can live off of.
I saw faces I recognized from the thrift store yesterday. They smiled at me and sat down around the big plastic tables.
An atheist would ask "so, where is your God for these people?" and I think for once I know the answer. God was right there, standing beside these people, saying to them that there was hope and there were people who cared about them. God was standing in the kitchen guiding the hands, and more importantly, the hearts of all the people who were cooking, cleaning and preparing and planning. He was smiling at those who have given a huge part of their lives to helping those who need it the most.
Where is my God? He is pouring out his love on the people who need him more than anything. So he doesn't snap his almighty fingers and give them the world. Instead he moves the hearts, minds, hands and feet of willing (and sometimes not so willing) Christians to go and do their part. We are on mission here, and all over the world, loving on those who need it more than we do.
I got in my nice warm car at the end of the night, and in my rear view mirror watched people I'd served only moments before walk into the cold night. Some live on these streets.
Doug, who sometimes does dishes for the Mission, lived on the streets for years, he now lives in the hostel. I've never heard someone so happy to have gained 80 pounds. Yes, gained 80 pounds. He told me he had stopped drinking, and he'd never done coke. He was proud if that, that he hadn't done the drugs. He admitted he was apparently a bad judge of character, but he loved the people at the church he went to.
He wanted a bible from Janelle, because everyone else at the church had one.
"I wasn't sure," he told me, "if it was like AA, where you had to earn stuff, or had to go for a certain amount of time first. I'm new at this, so I didn't know. But when the guy is talking, and everyone knows what he's saying, and I want to know it too."
He told me how the church people were great. They were nice. They took care of him. He chatted on happily about going from 90lbs when he first got here, to 170 now. He had a smile that filled the room.
And the room was full. Full of life, and laughter even. But more than that it was filled with stories. The guys counted the plates as they washed them. Last I heard was 104.
One hundred and four stories in that room. Stories of lives broken, dreams shattered and hope lost.
One hundred and four stories that are all the evidence you need of a broken world. All the ammo you need to make this bleeding heart cry.
So where was my God tonight? He was feeding 104 people in the Gospel Mission.
Every man in that room is somebody's son. Every woman was once a little girl. Every person there once was, and some still are, a child. All they need is to be treated with dignity and respect, to be loved on and cared for. They are God's children now, and they always will be. He loves them, and moves us to help them. God didn't create the homeless person, he created the Christian to help them.
For the first time I'll quote my favourite verse. Micah 6:8 "He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Of count downs and snowy days
You learn some interesting things about people in several different ways. As a friend once said, "if you want to learn 23 interesting things with me, spend a day with me."
Look in their eyes, listen to their conversations (preferably with you), look at what they wear, what they eat, and what they post as their Facebook statuses.
In their eyes you will see their soul. When they say the eyes are the window to the soul, they don't lie. I look in people's eyes and see the compassion, or the stubbornness, or the joy, or the sadness that's there.
If we listen to them talk, and more importantly, we understand what they are saying, we learn so much about our friends.
What they wear and what they eat may show their morals, their upbringing, and their perspective on their self. Are they vegetarians that only wear natural fibers? Do they have a strict religious diet or clothing? Are they the kind of people who refuse to wear brand names, or wear them only? These things can speak to us.
But facebook? What could you possibly learn from facebook?
As the title of this suggests, a lot. I like reading my friend's status updates because it lets me know the current weather back in Calgary where my friends continuously complain (or rejoice) about the cold and the snow.
Then there are the countdowns too. My friends are not always considerate enough to put what they are counting down to, but just putting things like "3 days!" Usually a little research concludes that it is a trip or a birthday or something to that effect. If not, you just have to wait until the status that tells you that "the day has come! It's..." and fill in the blank.
Quite often it is exams or school that cause the most distress. I see a lot of my friends are in university now and are doing the "one down, three to go" with their exams. Although I do love the ones that talk of burning their text books now that the class is done. Might I suggest selling the text books back, and burning the homework instead? It's a little more economic that way.
So, of count downs and snowy days.
On facebook I have friends from several walks of life, and from several regions, include a few from California who would probably die of shock if they saw the temperature in Calgary right now. I have friends in New York and England who have radically different weather than we do. The couple in England tend to complain more about rain than the cold, and I often have to remind myself of the time difference when they state they are having a beer, and it's only noon here in BC.
These statuses though show a lot about a person. For example, I know some of my friends adore the snow, and some would rather it be beautiful and sunny all the time. Some don't mind the cold, and some avoid it at all costs. There is my Dad who prefers the cold to the snow because "you don't have to shovel cold".
The countdowns show what's important to people. Also, how well they can count. We all count down to monumental occasions, such as birthdays and holidays, but would everyone please stop counting down the days until Christmas? That's the one holiday we all know is coming, but are never ready for. Although I am done wrapping 50% of my presents, the other 50% are not yet purchased...
I like to think there is a purpose to this, but really it's just to make a casual observation about how much we base our knowledge of our friends off Facebook. I for one would never know when any one's birthday is if it weren't for the handy bar that tells me about up coming birthdays. Facebook sends me emails saying that in the next couple weeks these people are having birthdays and you should probably get them something.
Oh!
A quick check of facebook has granted me one more type of status I love, the quotes. I did one the other day, quoting a fictional character, but it was deep none the less. I have friends that probably 60% of their facebook status updates contain a quote or song lyrics. Want to know what TV shows your friends watch? Facebook will tell you. Their favourite movies/music/singers/songs?
What do you want people to know about you? What do you want to tell the world? Because that's what your facebook profile is, it's a window to you. It's a glimpse at who you are and what you like. So, what message do you want to send?
Look in their eyes, listen to their conversations (preferably with you), look at what they wear, what they eat, and what they post as their Facebook statuses.
In their eyes you will see their soul. When they say the eyes are the window to the soul, they don't lie. I look in people's eyes and see the compassion, or the stubbornness, or the joy, or the sadness that's there.
If we listen to them talk, and more importantly, we understand what they are saying, we learn so much about our friends.
What they wear and what they eat may show their morals, their upbringing, and their perspective on their self. Are they vegetarians that only wear natural fibers? Do they have a strict religious diet or clothing? Are they the kind of people who refuse to wear brand names, or wear them only? These things can speak to us.
But facebook? What could you possibly learn from facebook?
As the title of this suggests, a lot. I like reading my friend's status updates because it lets me know the current weather back in Calgary where my friends continuously complain (or rejoice) about the cold and the snow.
Then there are the countdowns too. My friends are not always considerate enough to put what they are counting down to, but just putting things like "3 days!" Usually a little research concludes that it is a trip or a birthday or something to that effect. If not, you just have to wait until the status that tells you that "the day has come! It's..." and fill in the blank.
Quite often it is exams or school that cause the most distress. I see a lot of my friends are in university now and are doing the "one down, three to go" with their exams. Although I do love the ones that talk of burning their text books now that the class is done. Might I suggest selling the text books back, and burning the homework instead? It's a little more economic that way.
So, of count downs and snowy days.
On facebook I have friends from several walks of life, and from several regions, include a few from California who would probably die of shock if they saw the temperature in Calgary right now. I have friends in New York and England who have radically different weather than we do. The couple in England tend to complain more about rain than the cold, and I often have to remind myself of the time difference when they state they are having a beer, and it's only noon here in BC.
These statuses though show a lot about a person. For example, I know some of my friends adore the snow, and some would rather it be beautiful and sunny all the time. Some don't mind the cold, and some avoid it at all costs. There is my Dad who prefers the cold to the snow because "you don't have to shovel cold".
The countdowns show what's important to people. Also, how well they can count. We all count down to monumental occasions, such as birthdays and holidays, but would everyone please stop counting down the days until Christmas? That's the one holiday we all know is coming, but are never ready for. Although I am done wrapping 50% of my presents, the other 50% are not yet purchased...
I like to think there is a purpose to this, but really it's just to make a casual observation about how much we base our knowledge of our friends off Facebook. I for one would never know when any one's birthday is if it weren't for the handy bar that tells me about up coming birthdays. Facebook sends me emails saying that in the next couple weeks these people are having birthdays and you should probably get them something.
Oh!
A quick check of facebook has granted me one more type of status I love, the quotes. I did one the other day, quoting a fictional character, but it was deep none the less. I have friends that probably 60% of their facebook status updates contain a quote or song lyrics. Want to know what TV shows your friends watch? Facebook will tell you. Their favourite movies/music/singers/songs?
What do you want people to know about you? What do you want to tell the world? Because that's what your facebook profile is, it's a window to you. It's a glimpse at who you are and what you like. So, what message do you want to send?
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
A life to Live is a Life to Give
At the church I go to, Trinity Baptist, just finished a series called One Month To Live, based off a book by the same name. The book is written by a couple of pastors in Houston Texas, Chris and Kerry Shook. The idea is that when you find out you only have on month live, then you tend to change how you live. You make amends, patch up broken relationships, and go on those holidays you planned but never went on, and do things that you didn't do when you were waiting for life to happen to you.
So if you had one month to live what would you do?
I've spent the last 30 days with this question being the highlight of my life. Every night there was a chapter to read, questions to answer, and things to think about. Ways to change your life. From living your dreams, to spending time with those that you love. They talked about forgiving wrongs against you, asking for forgiveness for things you've done, and doing things that you love.
Live Passionately, Love Completely, Learn Humbly, and Leave Boldly.
Those were the four principles that we were to consider. And a lot changed.
I sent a facebook message after only proof reading it once. That's actually kind of a big deal for me. I never send a message without reading it until I'm pretty sure that I just shouldn't send it. If I do send it's because I really need an answer. But I had a thought, and even though it was random and not as articulate as it could have been, I sent it.
I started my application for an internship in Washington DC, to work with the International Justice Mission. It's something that seems a little unattainable, but I truly want to do this, and so I'm throwing myself into it to try and make it come true.
And today was the biggest thing. I volunteered at the Esther House in Kelowna. It wasn't a big deal, but it's one of the first times I've gone and volunteered almost by myself. It was just me and another lady, and we went down and baked cookies with these ladies, giving them some Christmas cheer, and sharing the love. It was an amazing night, and I watched several women be moved to tears when we gave them gifts from the SheLife women. The gifts were small, but useful things like mittens, toiletries and chocolates. What really moved them seemed to be the cards, written by the women at Trinity and filled with kind words, love and prayers.
So I've learned in the last month to give second chances where I usually wouldn't, reaching out when I usually couldn't, and enjoying life to a fullness I didn't know existed. I've learned to live my one life, even though it will take a lot to keep living the way I want, and it's amazing.
But the thing I learned the most was not to live for myself, or the things I can accumulate. It's not about the temporary things.
If I had a month to live, would I stay in school or would I drop out because it doesn't matter? I would, because I want to. I want to learn and fill my life with knowledge. But my learning would not be hindered by a fear of failure, or the stress of homework. I would be doing this for the love of learning.
If I had a month to live would I keep working? Of course. Even though this is not what I want to do for the rest of my life, it's a job where I can be a smiling face in someone's day. I can be the cashier that isn't hating life and customers.
If I had a month to live, I would want to give that month to others. I would want to share my joy, pour out my love, and live in such a way that I made an impact in the world.
If you had a month to live, what would you do?
You have one life to live. You have one life to give. So what's stopping you from living everyday as if it is your last, or one of the last? If you can't think of today as your last day to live, think of it as the first of your last month. What do you want to say? What do you want to do? What don't you want to take to the grave? And what don't you want to regret?
What do you want your legacy to be?
Most importantly, what's stopping you?
So if you had one month to live what would you do?
I've spent the last 30 days with this question being the highlight of my life. Every night there was a chapter to read, questions to answer, and things to think about. Ways to change your life. From living your dreams, to spending time with those that you love. They talked about forgiving wrongs against you, asking for forgiveness for things you've done, and doing things that you love.
Live Passionately, Love Completely, Learn Humbly, and Leave Boldly.
Those were the four principles that we were to consider. And a lot changed.
I sent a facebook message after only proof reading it once. That's actually kind of a big deal for me. I never send a message without reading it until I'm pretty sure that I just shouldn't send it. If I do send it's because I really need an answer. But I had a thought, and even though it was random and not as articulate as it could have been, I sent it.
I started my application for an internship in Washington DC, to work with the International Justice Mission. It's something that seems a little unattainable, but I truly want to do this, and so I'm throwing myself into it to try and make it come true.
And today was the biggest thing. I volunteered at the Esther House in Kelowna. It wasn't a big deal, but it's one of the first times I've gone and volunteered almost by myself. It was just me and another lady, and we went down and baked cookies with these ladies, giving them some Christmas cheer, and sharing the love. It was an amazing night, and I watched several women be moved to tears when we gave them gifts from the SheLife women. The gifts were small, but useful things like mittens, toiletries and chocolates. What really moved them seemed to be the cards, written by the women at Trinity and filled with kind words, love and prayers.
So I've learned in the last month to give second chances where I usually wouldn't, reaching out when I usually couldn't, and enjoying life to a fullness I didn't know existed. I've learned to live my one life, even though it will take a lot to keep living the way I want, and it's amazing.
But the thing I learned the most was not to live for myself, or the things I can accumulate. It's not about the temporary things.
If I had a month to live, would I stay in school or would I drop out because it doesn't matter? I would, because I want to. I want to learn and fill my life with knowledge. But my learning would not be hindered by a fear of failure, or the stress of homework. I would be doing this for the love of learning.
If I had a month to live would I keep working? Of course. Even though this is not what I want to do for the rest of my life, it's a job where I can be a smiling face in someone's day. I can be the cashier that isn't hating life and customers.
If I had a month to live, I would want to give that month to others. I would want to share my joy, pour out my love, and live in such a way that I made an impact in the world.
If you had a month to live, what would you do?
You have one life to live. You have one life to give. So what's stopping you from living everyday as if it is your last, or one of the last? If you can't think of today as your last day to live, think of it as the first of your last month. What do you want to say? What do you want to do? What don't you want to take to the grave? And what don't you want to regret?
What do you want your legacy to be?
Most importantly, what's stopping you?
Friday, September 18, 2009
math teachers as a sorce of infinite wisdom
I think that math teachers know a lot more than they think they do. Coming from a physics major that might not seem incredible but hear me out. Math is very much related to life, and not just because of its application. I promise not to confuse anyone with math terminology, or at least I'll try my best.
My friend Peter Hill is a math teacher at the high school I graduated from. In one of his online devotionals he talked about watching his students do algebraic equations. At the end of the problem they would simply put a number. He talked about how the number doesn't mean anything under two circumstances. 1, if they don't say what the number represents, ex:5 isn't an answer but x=5 is. Without context a perfectly good answer isn't worth anything. And 2, if you don't know how you got the answer. Any debater knows you can't just throw out facts without knowing where the facts come from and how to defend them. You need to be able to defend you position and your answer.
In our lives this translates to the never ending battle with society to defend your ideas, opinions and beliefs (or culture). If we have ideas without context (x=5) you can't begin to share them with others. They're just ideas and they only mean something to the person who thought them up. When we add context they begin to mean something to the people around us. Context is great, but if you can't prove it, or at least back it up with testimony or reference, you've hit a different wall. That's because you can know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth but if you can't defend it people won't take you seriously.
Now let's do some more advanced math and quote my math 221 prof: "don't make mistakes".
Now that sounds really ridiculously simple, but who amount us can claim to have managed this. I can't. What Dr. Broughton is talking about is a really complicated theory call Matracies, where you try to solve several algebraic equations at one time. Mistakes are like a cancer, they take over all the good work you do and make it wrong too. If you slip a negative sign into the matrix where there isn't a negative number then all your proceeding calculations will be wrong. Heaven forbid you make a second mistake.
But what I take from that isn't simply don't make mistakes. Its a bit deeper in that if you don't know you're wrong, or going about something wrong, you can do a lots of things with good intentions that are completely worthless. We need to continuously check ourselves to see if we're on the right track and haven't slipped a negative in where it doesn't belong. We also need to occasionally admit that we've made a mistake, that we might be wrong, and that we need to reevaluate or even start over.
From math we take these little lessons and if we care enough to learn them and then apply them, we might just get somewhere.
What can I say? Math teachers are a little smarter than we thought.
My friend Peter Hill is a math teacher at the high school I graduated from. In one of his online devotionals he talked about watching his students do algebraic equations. At the end of the problem they would simply put a number. He talked about how the number doesn't mean anything under two circumstances. 1, if they don't say what the number represents, ex:5 isn't an answer but x=5 is. Without context a perfectly good answer isn't worth anything. And 2, if you don't know how you got the answer. Any debater knows you can't just throw out facts without knowing where the facts come from and how to defend them. You need to be able to defend you position and your answer.
In our lives this translates to the never ending battle with society to defend your ideas, opinions and beliefs (or culture). If we have ideas without context (x=5) you can't begin to share them with others. They're just ideas and they only mean something to the person who thought them up. When we add context they begin to mean something to the people around us. Context is great, but if you can't prove it, or at least back it up with testimony or reference, you've hit a different wall. That's because you can know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth but if you can't defend it people won't take you seriously.
Now let's do some more advanced math and quote my math 221 prof: "don't make mistakes".
Now that sounds really ridiculously simple, but who amount us can claim to have managed this. I can't. What Dr. Broughton is talking about is a really complicated theory call Matracies, where you try to solve several algebraic equations at one time. Mistakes are like a cancer, they take over all the good work you do and make it wrong too. If you slip a negative sign into the matrix where there isn't a negative number then all your proceeding calculations will be wrong. Heaven forbid you make a second mistake.
But what I take from that isn't simply don't make mistakes. Its a bit deeper in that if you don't know you're wrong, or going about something wrong, you can do a lots of things with good intentions that are completely worthless. We need to continuously check ourselves to see if we're on the right track and haven't slipped a negative in where it doesn't belong. We also need to occasionally admit that we've made a mistake, that we might be wrong, and that we need to reevaluate or even start over.
From math we take these little lessons and if we care enough to learn them and then apply them, we might just get somewhere.
What can I say? Math teachers are a little smarter than we thought.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
No really, you can afford it
Driving home from church today I saw, for the millionth time, a sign along the highway outside of Dockside Marina.
"You CAN Afford it"
Usually I think to myself, "no I can't."
They're selling boats, and I know full well I can't afford a boat. I can hardly afford everything I already have. Like my car and it's gas and insurance, or my phone bill, or the speeding ticket I still have to pay, or...the list goes on and on.
The fact of today's market is that we are bombarded with sales and people telling us what we need.
We need a new car, because right now they're getting cheap.
We need a house/apartment/condo/ect. Because now is THE time for first time buyers.
We need it to be bigger, faster, better, with more memory, storage, RAM, ect.
Mostly, we apparently need "New". Because old is, well...old, and new is new.
Do we really need new? More and more the answer is yes, because a consumeristic culture has been created and things are actually designed to break. Ask any kid who owns an XBox 360 and has gotten the "red rings of death". That is a fundamental flaw with the system, and if you're unfortunate enough to have this happen after the warranty expires, guess what, you're getting a new XBox and it won't be compliments of Microsoft.
The generation of today is referred to as the age of entitlement. We think we've done something to deserve all this stuff we suddenly own or have the potential to own. We want the newest toys, the nicest cars, and the luxuries our parents worked hard for, and we want them now, and we want them cheap.
We fully accept that absolutely everything is disposable, replaceable and upgradeable. We will spend money we don't have for things we don't need. We want it. And if we want it, we think we have the right to have it. Money doesn't need to grow on trees because it exists in the form of debit and credit cards. Many of us have no clue the damage we are doing to ourselves economically because we really can't see it. It's computerized and it's taken care of.
A lot of my generation comes from homes with families that have worked hard to be well off, and so they never had to work. This doesn't describe me as much, because I've been working since I was 14, and I do pay for all my own stuff.
But the fact is that I too have been sucked into the "must have" way of thinking where I make a purchase without thinking of the financial consequence of it. I realize several days later that I no longer have money for other things I might actually need, like food or gas.
Because of all the things in our lives today we have the attention span of a goldfish, and almost as soon as we have something we're focused on something better, newer and, dare I say it, shinier. We have a million options, and a million things vying for our attention. We're torn by bright ads that claim to offer happiness in a box.
The fact is, they don't.
We can't always have the newest, shiniest, most expensive toy. The world doesn't work like that. An honestly the world shouldn't work like that! Sometimes we should actually have to make do with what we have and be happy with that. But on that note, products shouldn't be designed to break, or need replacing/upgrading in six months.
I'm not sure what the point is, or if there is a lesson to be learned somewhere in here, but the choice is actually out there.
You can choose not to be the blind consumer, buying whatever you're told to buy. You can choose to get by on a little, or a lot. But the fact is you need to make that choice, and it needs to be a conscious decision.
The first thing we all need to do, not just the "age of entitlement", is look at our lives face on and see just how much stuff we have filling up our lives, and how much of it we don't actually need. Then we need to make an effort to change that lifestyle.
Sometimes you need to go through everything you have, clean out the bad, the useless, the unnecessary and get rid of it. If someone else can use it, give it away. Donate it. Just remember that if you don't need it you don't need to hold on to it. Having stuff doesn't fulfill you.
Free yourself from the chains of marketing and having.
Money doesn't buy happiness.
And I was hoping not to end this blog with a cliche.
"You CAN Afford it"
Usually I think to myself, "no I can't."
They're selling boats, and I know full well I can't afford a boat. I can hardly afford everything I already have. Like my car and it's gas and insurance, or my phone bill, or the speeding ticket I still have to pay, or...the list goes on and on.
The fact of today's market is that we are bombarded with sales and people telling us what we need.
We need a new car, because right now they're getting cheap.
We need a house/apartment/condo/ect. Because now is THE time for first time buyers.
We need it to be bigger, faster, better, with more memory, storage, RAM, ect.
Mostly, we apparently need "New". Because old is, well...old, and new is new.
Do we really need new? More and more the answer is yes, because a consumeristic culture has been created and things are actually designed to break. Ask any kid who owns an XBox 360 and has gotten the "red rings of death". That is a fundamental flaw with the system, and if you're unfortunate enough to have this happen after the warranty expires, guess what, you're getting a new XBox and it won't be compliments of Microsoft.
The generation of today is referred to as the age of entitlement. We think we've done something to deserve all this stuff we suddenly own or have the potential to own. We want the newest toys, the nicest cars, and the luxuries our parents worked hard for, and we want them now, and we want them cheap.
We fully accept that absolutely everything is disposable, replaceable and upgradeable. We will spend money we don't have for things we don't need. We want it. And if we want it, we think we have the right to have it. Money doesn't need to grow on trees because it exists in the form of debit and credit cards. Many of us have no clue the damage we are doing to ourselves economically because we really can't see it. It's computerized and it's taken care of.
A lot of my generation comes from homes with families that have worked hard to be well off, and so they never had to work. This doesn't describe me as much, because I've been working since I was 14, and I do pay for all my own stuff.
But the fact is that I too have been sucked into the "must have" way of thinking where I make a purchase without thinking of the financial consequence of it. I realize several days later that I no longer have money for other things I might actually need, like food or gas.
Because of all the things in our lives today we have the attention span of a goldfish, and almost as soon as we have something we're focused on something better, newer and, dare I say it, shinier. We have a million options, and a million things vying for our attention. We're torn by bright ads that claim to offer happiness in a box.
The fact is, they don't.
We can't always have the newest, shiniest, most expensive toy. The world doesn't work like that. An honestly the world shouldn't work like that! Sometimes we should actually have to make do with what we have and be happy with that. But on that note, products shouldn't be designed to break, or need replacing/upgrading in six months.
I'm not sure what the point is, or if there is a lesson to be learned somewhere in here, but the choice is actually out there.
You can choose not to be the blind consumer, buying whatever you're told to buy. You can choose to get by on a little, or a lot. But the fact is you need to make that choice, and it needs to be a conscious decision.
The first thing we all need to do, not just the "age of entitlement", is look at our lives face on and see just how much stuff we have filling up our lives, and how much of it we don't actually need. Then we need to make an effort to change that lifestyle.
Sometimes you need to go through everything you have, clean out the bad, the useless, the unnecessary and get rid of it. If someone else can use it, give it away. Donate it. Just remember that if you don't need it you don't need to hold on to it. Having stuff doesn't fulfill you.
Free yourself from the chains of marketing and having.
Money doesn't buy happiness.
And I was hoping not to end this blog with a cliche.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Societies Expectations and A Healthy Life
I joined a gym.
That was a couple weeks ago actually, but I went today and it got me thinking about why I was there. The fact is that I enjoy going. I feel significantly better after I go. Its not just because I've over come my laziness, or because I'm slowly working towards a thinner, healthier me. I feel better because the blood is pumping and my heart is pounding, and my brain has released the collection of hormones that make me feel happy.
But it got me thinking about our desire to be skinny. Not healthy, but skinny.
Working at a grocery store I see an assortment of goodies pass through my till everyday, and an assortment of magazines. You shouldn't be surprised to find out that the people who buy three tubs of gummy bears are also the people who buy the magazines that promise to help you lose 15 pounds in a week. My guess is that the first thing in the magazine involves not eating three tubs of gummy bears.
So we've been told that we need to look a certain way. We keep seeing these diets that promise to help us lose 'x' amount of pounds over a given period of time, usually a very short period of time. They are quick fixes to a serious problem with society.
We don't want to be healthy. We want to be society's version of pretty.
When I joined my gym I was asked why I wanted to join. The lady informed me that I didn't need to lose weight, which made me feel pretty good about myself. I told her that I wanted to be fit and I wanted to be healthy.
Being healthy has less to do with your actual weight than we are led to believe. It has a lot to do with what you eat, and what you eat has a lot to do with how much you weigh.
But let's look at two examples.
Any of my brother's friends know that he is really tall and really skinny. I'm pretty sure he's somewhere between five-seven and five-nine , and he can't possibly weigh more than 110 pounds. Which means he has a BMI (Body Mass Index) of somewhere between 17.2, and 16. Both fall under the recommended 18.5 meaning he is severely underweight and at an increased risk of health problems.
That might be because he lives on Energy drinks and junk food. At 17 years old he lives on a steady stream of sugar and caffeine. He can eat 3 bowls of pasta a night and not gain weight. He has the kind of metabolism that anyone else would kill for.
Meanwhile your average football player in the NFL is classified as being somewhere between overweight and obese by the BMI because they're all muscle. They live a significantly healthier lifestyle than most of America. Vancouver Canucks Assistant Captain, Ryan Kessler is 6'2" and 205 lbs (courtesy of the Vancouver Canucks Website), meaning BMI of 26.3, which is listed as overweight and having increased health risks.
But that's because the BMI is very limited. It doesn't consider extra muscle acquired by spending your life on skates, working out every day of your life. If you are a certain weight and a certain height, you are overweight.
Society, mostly the media, but a huge portion of society, has created a standard image that people should fit into. Its the one reason I actually feel bad for celebrities, especially the women. Their bodies are so closely monitored by the press, to the point where they must fit into a very specific look. If they slip below a certain weight they're anorexic. If they start to gain weight they're rumored to be pregnant. Heaven forbid they actually get fat.
So we starve ourselves and push our bodies to the point of collapse to get to the perfect weight. But what are we then? Are we healthy? Crash diets don't work because there is no lifestyle change. We simply get to the weight we want and go back to the way we were before, or worse.
We have models whose bodies are splashed across hundreds of magazines for our teenagers and preteens to read, who are so severely underweight some of them might actually make my brother look fat. They aren't healthy. The things they have to do to their bodies to look a certain way are imposed on our children and society starts to suggest that this is how we're supposed to look.
So while the average weight of a person in America goes up, the preferred weight goes down. We don't aim for healthy, we aim for skinny. We end up with the pendulum swinging too far the other way, with girls as young as 12 and sometimes younger, dealing with issues like starving themselves and even bulimia.
So what kind of image do we set out? Here's where I'm actually a little lost.
You cannot impose a healthy lifestyle on someone. They have to want it. It can be encouraged by participating in one yourself and encouraging those around you to do the same. But forcing a child to do something they don't want to, like join a sports team they aren't interested in, or go on long hikes that simply tire them out, is counter productive. They start to hate physical activity and retreat back to their virtual worlds. A required gym class only helps if students don't decide to make it a spare by not going, and it only encourages you to participate if you feel you are doing well, and actually enjoy it. Otherwise you end up hating that it's forced upon you. As a teenager I hated gym class, and it took a long time to change my attitude physical activity.
You could try to scare people into it. If you don't take care of yourself you'll die of heart disease and Cancer and all sorts of terrible things. But fear is a terrible way to do things. It leads to people being obsessed with the result and not the way of achieving them. It is what causes anorexia in teenagers who fear being seen as fat or ugly by their peers. Fear leads to destructive behaviours, crash diets, binge and purge lifestyles, and other unhealthy ways of achieving a goal.
Somehow we actually have to find a way to make physical activity an important part of our lives, and healthy eating an easier choice, and the desire to simply be skinny less desirable. Because a person who is skin and bones because of an eating disorder is not as attractive as someone who is healthy because of good choices in life, and can be less healthy than someone who is overweight.
We need to encourage our children, and ourselves, to choose to be healthy. Eating right, exercising and drinking lots of water can make us feel better every day. It's the difference between how you feel when you have a cold and how you feel when the virus starts to go away. When we eat junk and do nothing, we have less energy, less motivation, and we likely to get sick more often. When we eat healthy food, exercise frequently and choose healthy options like going outside and drinking water, we have more energy and are less likely to get sick.
When we encourage each other, we help each other to live better. We need to make personal choices, and share those choices with each other. That way everyone can live better.
That was a couple weeks ago actually, but I went today and it got me thinking about why I was there. The fact is that I enjoy going. I feel significantly better after I go. Its not just because I've over come my laziness, or because I'm slowly working towards a thinner, healthier me. I feel better because the blood is pumping and my heart is pounding, and my brain has released the collection of hormones that make me feel happy.
But it got me thinking about our desire to be skinny. Not healthy, but skinny.
Working at a grocery store I see an assortment of goodies pass through my till everyday, and an assortment of magazines. You shouldn't be surprised to find out that the people who buy three tubs of gummy bears are also the people who buy the magazines that promise to help you lose 15 pounds in a week. My guess is that the first thing in the magazine involves not eating three tubs of gummy bears.
So we've been told that we need to look a certain way. We keep seeing these diets that promise to help us lose 'x' amount of pounds over a given period of time, usually a very short period of time. They are quick fixes to a serious problem with society.
We don't want to be healthy. We want to be society's version of pretty.
When I joined my gym I was asked why I wanted to join. The lady informed me that I didn't need to lose weight, which made me feel pretty good about myself. I told her that I wanted to be fit and I wanted to be healthy.
Being healthy has less to do with your actual weight than we are led to believe. It has a lot to do with what you eat, and what you eat has a lot to do with how much you weigh.
But let's look at two examples.
Any of my brother's friends know that he is really tall and really skinny. I'm pretty sure he's somewhere between five-seven and five-nine , and he can't possibly weigh more than 110 pounds. Which means he has a BMI (Body Mass Index) of somewhere between 17.2, and 16. Both fall under the recommended 18.5 meaning he is severely underweight and at an increased risk of health problems.
That might be because he lives on Energy drinks and junk food. At 17 years old he lives on a steady stream of sugar and caffeine. He can eat 3 bowls of pasta a night and not gain weight. He has the kind of metabolism that anyone else would kill for.
Meanwhile your average football player in the NFL is classified as being somewhere between overweight and obese by the BMI because they're all muscle. They live a significantly healthier lifestyle than most of America. Vancouver Canucks Assistant Captain, Ryan Kessler is 6'2" and 205 lbs (courtesy of the Vancouver Canucks Website), meaning BMI of 26.3, which is listed as overweight and having increased health risks.
But that's because the BMI is very limited. It doesn't consider extra muscle acquired by spending your life on skates, working out every day of your life. If you are a certain weight and a certain height, you are overweight.
Society, mostly the media, but a huge portion of society, has created a standard image that people should fit into. Its the one reason I actually feel bad for celebrities, especially the women. Their bodies are so closely monitored by the press, to the point where they must fit into a very specific look. If they slip below a certain weight they're anorexic. If they start to gain weight they're rumored to be pregnant. Heaven forbid they actually get fat.
So we starve ourselves and push our bodies to the point of collapse to get to the perfect weight. But what are we then? Are we healthy? Crash diets don't work because there is no lifestyle change. We simply get to the weight we want and go back to the way we were before, or worse.
We have models whose bodies are splashed across hundreds of magazines for our teenagers and preteens to read, who are so severely underweight some of them might actually make my brother look fat. They aren't healthy. The things they have to do to their bodies to look a certain way are imposed on our children and society starts to suggest that this is how we're supposed to look.
So while the average weight of a person in America goes up, the preferred weight goes down. We don't aim for healthy, we aim for skinny. We end up with the pendulum swinging too far the other way, with girls as young as 12 and sometimes younger, dealing with issues like starving themselves and even bulimia.
So what kind of image do we set out? Here's where I'm actually a little lost.
You cannot impose a healthy lifestyle on someone. They have to want it. It can be encouraged by participating in one yourself and encouraging those around you to do the same. But forcing a child to do something they don't want to, like join a sports team they aren't interested in, or go on long hikes that simply tire them out, is counter productive. They start to hate physical activity and retreat back to their virtual worlds. A required gym class only helps if students don't decide to make it a spare by not going, and it only encourages you to participate if you feel you are doing well, and actually enjoy it. Otherwise you end up hating that it's forced upon you. As a teenager I hated gym class, and it took a long time to change my attitude physical activity.
You could try to scare people into it. If you don't take care of yourself you'll die of heart disease and Cancer and all sorts of terrible things. But fear is a terrible way to do things. It leads to people being obsessed with the result and not the way of achieving them. It is what causes anorexia in teenagers who fear being seen as fat or ugly by their peers. Fear leads to destructive behaviours, crash diets, binge and purge lifestyles, and other unhealthy ways of achieving a goal.
Somehow we actually have to find a way to make physical activity an important part of our lives, and healthy eating an easier choice, and the desire to simply be skinny less desirable. Because a person who is skin and bones because of an eating disorder is not as attractive as someone who is healthy because of good choices in life, and can be less healthy than someone who is overweight.
We need to encourage our children, and ourselves, to choose to be healthy. Eating right, exercising and drinking lots of water can make us feel better every day. It's the difference between how you feel when you have a cold and how you feel when the virus starts to go away. When we eat junk and do nothing, we have less energy, less motivation, and we likely to get sick more often. When we eat healthy food, exercise frequently and choose healthy options like going outside and drinking water, we have more energy and are less likely to get sick.
When we encourage each other, we help each other to live better. We need to make personal choices, and share those choices with each other. That way everyone can live better.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Let's Talk About How Rotten I Am
So this has a vaguely religious undertone to it, mostly because it took place at my weekly Bible study.
So, we're talking about the brokenness of humanity and how terrible we are, and how we don't even know it. Depressing yes? Well, it's all better because we have Grace.
Example:
Tom Rush, our leader, tells us that we work with seven other people, who apparently hate you. In fact they hate you so much they petition to get you fired.
Wow, by now I'm thinking I must be a pretty terrible person. But the truth is, maybe I'm not and they just don't like me.
Anyways, we're talking, and I suggest that it doesn't matter because what they think doesn't change what God thinks of you. (This is the correct answer, I know because I wrote it down last week when Tom told us)
Tom and I argue about it a little, because he wants everyone to understand the meaning of this. He tells me that these people think I'm terrible, and totally rotten.
Vidal tries to get in on our argument (in front of 35 other people) and Tom says "Not now, I want to talk to Marissa about how Rotten she is."
Everyone laughs.
The thing is, and I told him this later, when I returned to church I honestly thought that about myself. Some people look at me, like "You're 19, how terrible could you be?" But I have done things I really do regret.
And then people go "Yeah, but they can't be that bad. You're a good kid."
And I say thanks. But really...
Let's move away from the religious, we're all broken and life kind of sucks except we've been saved by Grace and because of that life is actually pretty good.
One of my favourite modern issues (and I say modern because once upon a time it wasn't a big deal, or it was only for a different reason) is Self Esteem.
I have terrible self esteem, but that's really okay, because it pushes me to work harder. It means that I consider what I eat because I don't want to be fat, it means I work hard in school because I don't want to fail, and it means I try extra hard in everything because I aim to impress.
Everything in my life has been driven by the desire to succeed, not because I have a good image of myself, and am sure I can do it, but because I have a terrible self esteem and need to boost it up with accomplishments.
I can honestly say that I have earned everything that can be achieved by hard work. My grades, my University acceptance, my spot in every play, and the respect of the people around me.
Sure, if I return to my religious idea from the top I have to admit that there is nothing I can do to earn God's love, and there is nothing I can do to lose it either.
That really changes your perspective on self esteem.
But I still think it's really stupid the way we spend all our time inflating people's egos. Society works so hard to make everyone feel good, when occasional failure and the prospect of brokenness is so freeing.
If I am already broken, and terrible, and rotten, what worse can I do? I can only go up! I need to change the way I look at things and I need to put in the effort.
Examples:
you don't get the part in the play, you try harder next time.
You fail a course in school, you do the homework next time.
It's kind of a cause and effect thing, and society is taking away the cause so the effect disappears. Why is my generation the generation of entitlement? Because the previous generation handed us everything on a silver platter and made us think we could do no wrong.
Oh? Wait a minute, that would mean our parents are to blame? Not really. We took everything that was spoon fed to us and decided that his is how real life is.
It's a problem that's going to get exponentially worse, and if that's the case, the next generation is doomed not because of Global Warming and Nuclear Warfare, but because they'll expect that they are some sort of mini royalty that deserves nothing but the absolute best. Humanity is slowly destroying itself.
Wow, and that's just our self esteem issues. And their backwards from my grandma's generation where it was practically a crime to have to high an opinion of yourself.
So lastly, my friends, I leave you with this.
What would you do if you couldn't fail?
But more importantly, why is it so hard to use failure as motivation instead of hindrance?
What will you risk failing at a million times for the chance to succeed once? If it's really important to you, failure shouldn't matter, it should make you want it that much more.
Also, if you're reading this on Facebook, I think you should follow me on Blogger. Check out my page!
http://mlhmissy.blogspot.com/
~Marissa
So, we're talking about the brokenness of humanity and how terrible we are, and how we don't even know it. Depressing yes? Well, it's all better because we have Grace.
Example:
Tom Rush, our leader, tells us that we work with seven other people, who apparently hate you. In fact they hate you so much they petition to get you fired.
Wow, by now I'm thinking I must be a pretty terrible person. But the truth is, maybe I'm not and they just don't like me.
Anyways, we're talking, and I suggest that it doesn't matter because what they think doesn't change what God thinks of you. (This is the correct answer, I know because I wrote it down last week when Tom told us)
Tom and I argue about it a little, because he wants everyone to understand the meaning of this. He tells me that these people think I'm terrible, and totally rotten.
Vidal tries to get in on our argument (in front of 35 other people) and Tom says "Not now, I want to talk to Marissa about how Rotten she is."
Everyone laughs.
The thing is, and I told him this later, when I returned to church I honestly thought that about myself. Some people look at me, like "You're 19, how terrible could you be?" But I have done things I really do regret.
And then people go "Yeah, but they can't be that bad. You're a good kid."
And I say thanks. But really...
Let's move away from the religious, we're all broken and life kind of sucks except we've been saved by Grace and because of that life is actually pretty good.
One of my favourite modern issues (and I say modern because once upon a time it wasn't a big deal, or it was only for a different reason) is Self Esteem.
I have terrible self esteem, but that's really okay, because it pushes me to work harder. It means that I consider what I eat because I don't want to be fat, it means I work hard in school because I don't want to fail, and it means I try extra hard in everything because I aim to impress.
Everything in my life has been driven by the desire to succeed, not because I have a good image of myself, and am sure I can do it, but because I have a terrible self esteem and need to boost it up with accomplishments.
I can honestly say that I have earned everything that can be achieved by hard work. My grades, my University acceptance, my spot in every play, and the respect of the people around me.
Sure, if I return to my religious idea from the top I have to admit that there is nothing I can do to earn God's love, and there is nothing I can do to lose it either.
That really changes your perspective on self esteem.
But I still think it's really stupid the way we spend all our time inflating people's egos. Society works so hard to make everyone feel good, when occasional failure and the prospect of brokenness is so freeing.
If I am already broken, and terrible, and rotten, what worse can I do? I can only go up! I need to change the way I look at things and I need to put in the effort.
Examples:
you don't get the part in the play, you try harder next time.
You fail a course in school, you do the homework next time.
It's kind of a cause and effect thing, and society is taking away the cause so the effect disappears. Why is my generation the generation of entitlement? Because the previous generation handed us everything on a silver platter and made us think we could do no wrong.
Oh? Wait a minute, that would mean our parents are to blame? Not really. We took everything that was spoon fed to us and decided that his is how real life is.
It's a problem that's going to get exponentially worse, and if that's the case, the next generation is doomed not because of Global Warming and Nuclear Warfare, but because they'll expect that they are some sort of mini royalty that deserves nothing but the absolute best. Humanity is slowly destroying itself.
Wow, and that's just our self esteem issues. And their backwards from my grandma's generation where it was practically a crime to have to high an opinion of yourself.
So lastly, my friends, I leave you with this.
What would you do if you couldn't fail?
But more importantly, why is it so hard to use failure as motivation instead of hindrance?
What will you risk failing at a million times for the chance to succeed once? If it's really important to you, failure shouldn't matter, it should make you want it that much more.
Also, if you're reading this on Facebook, I think you should follow me on Blogger. Check out my page!
http://mlhmissy.blogspot.com/
~Marissa
Friday, May 1, 2009
The End of Twilight
A week ago, I finished Twilight. I did not intend to stay up until 2 in the morning finishing the last 200 pages of a book I swore I would never read, but that's what happened. Anyone who has read the book knows why I did. The last 200 pages are filled with a lot more action than the first 200+ pages. The storey suddenly turns from an intense description of daily life to an action story of Bella becoming hunted by a crazy vampire intent on killing her, and then on killing Edward.
I struggled in the middle of the book to convince myself to even finish reading it for 2 reasons, one of which is really shallow.
Edward sparkles.
Yes, for those of you who haven't read the book, you read that right. Edward is a vampire, and he sparkles. Someone find me some sort of historical or mythical proof that somewhere other than in Stephanie Meyer's bizarre and twisted reality Vampires aren't just unaffected by the sun, but sparkle in it. SERIOUSLY! That just bothered me slightly.
Now to the thing that bugs me most. And it bugs me because it romanticizes a very serious problem in the modern world.
Edward stalks Bella. Not just following her around and knowing her every movement, although he does that too. He actually goes into her room and watches her sleep basically every night for a month (at least). I was horrified! Not only that Meyers would write something like that, but that Bella suggests that she not only doesn't share my horror, but is flattered by it!
To me that seems like a slap in the face to every victim of stalking. The idea is that this is Edward's way of protecting her. If he never leaves her, he never has to fight to stay in control around her and he never has to be at the point of not being able to control his lust for her blood. He is, in effect, her protector, watching her and watching out for her. Which would be kind of romantic if he wasn't protecting her from himself.
But here's the problem. Every girl who has ever read Twilight seems to find this romantic. This idea that he dedicates his every moment to Bella and never leaves her is the new chivalry. But I would like them all to consider what they would think if some guy, even a guy that they were in love with, followed them around all the time.
He always knows what the people around you are thinking, and therefore knows everything you do, say and feel.
He sits in your room and watches you sleep, listening to the things you might subconsciously say in your sleep.
He gets insanely jealous every time some other guy talks to you, and then cryptically tells you that you shouldn't be together because he's dangerous.
He shows up at your house at all hours, "taking care of you", and he knows the floor plan of your house without you ever having let him in to it.
I'm suddenly missing the vampires of the Buffy and Angel days that couldn't enter your house unless you told them they could. The ones that went 'poof' in the sunlight and you knew they were super evil when they followed you around without your permission.
Do you still think it's romantic? The sheer dedication might be, but the stalking I could definitely do without.
Moving on.
The last couple hundred pages have the beautiful descriptions of the the Cullens playing baseball in a thunderstorm. Meyers brilliantly describes their lightning quick movements, the sound of their collisions, and the intensity of the moments leading up to the arrivals of the other vampires. The animal like reactions of Edward and the Cullens as Bella is in danger, and the urgency of the entire situation is so vivid that you feel like you're there and you are genuinely afraid for Bella.
You hurt along with her father as she screams that she doesn't want to be trapped in Forks, and you worry about her mother when James calls Bella in the hotel. The plan seems so brilliant.
And again the only flaw is found in the fact that it is entirely narrated from Bella's point of view and so you miss the most exciting action scene ever, although you still know all her thoughts of how amazing Edward is. I would have loved to read the way in which Meyers could have described Edward bursting in and ripping James away from the woman he loves, and the way Emmet would have absolutely destroyed the other vampire. This would have made the whole thing worthwhile. But alas, Bella is unconscious, so she cannot narrate it, and we don't get to hear it.
My last complaint and final words on the book comes from Bella's desire to be a vampire, which in effect led to a cult of teenage and preteen girls wanting to be Vampires as well. Ignore the fact that these girls decided that vampires were the new prince charming and focus on this for a second. Bella has known Edward for one full school year at the time that she decides that she wants to throw away her life and join his. As alluring as immortality is all I have to say is "THINK!"
Yes, Edward is supposedly the most amazing, gorgeous, caring, dedicated, and protective man a girl could ask for, and if you chose to ignore the hundred year age gap, he seems perfect. But so do most guys when you start dating. You can be so blinded by love that you don't see the flaws, and you think that you want to spend your life with this person. But they've only known each other for a matter of months and she wants to give everything for him. And I do mean everything! She wants to die for this man.
I will suggest that it is her admitted lack of dating experience that leads her to not know what it means to fall out of love, but her parents are divorced, and her mother left for the sole reason of not wanting to live in Forks anymore. She blatantly disregards the idea that that could happen to her. That there is the slight possibility that she might regret this rash decision in ten or twenty or a hundred years. Maybe someday she'll look back and say "I wish I could have done all these things but I wanted so bad to spend eternity with Edward that I gave it all up".
Grrrr.
Its possible that I'm just not the kind of person who understands giving everything up for someone else. Having moved around as much as I did, and grown up in the environment I did, and have the amount of ex-boyfriends I do, it just doesn't make sense to me to abandon any goals you might have, any dreams you might want, for a life completely devoted to another person. And the fact that Edward doesn't want to turn her, suggests he doesn't exactly feel the same for her. And the life she wants is devoid of dreams, because she will never sleep, or eat, or be able to stand in the sunlight again (refer to the comments on sparkling. Sunlight is what causes that). She lived in Pheonix for years! She likes the sun. But she will give up absolutely everything for one guy that she's known for 'x' amount of months.
It is a brilliant book. I'm glad that I read it. I have obtained a copy of the second one from a friend and will likely start reading it with in the week. Maybe even tonight. But there are certain things that make me think that this entire series isn't worth the hype that it has been given. It doesn't deserve the kind of reputation it has received, because there are very drastic flaws in the story, and things about it that bother me a lot! The thing that bothers me the most is that everything I hate about the book, millions of young women love because they love Edward. They love his stalkerish tendencies and his sparkling and they all think that vampires are the new prince charming.
This bothers me! This is the boyfriend role model that Meyers has given an entire generation of women. And they age from the very young to the young adult. These girls who suddenly want their boyfriends to sparkle and be entirely devoted to them and who think that they should throw their lives away for a guy the barely know.
Maybe I'm blowing the whole thing out of proportion, and please don't kill me if I am, but it worries me that Edward is being heralded as the sexiest man in the world, and the perfect guy. He isn't. In fact, he is probably a very dangerous model to find in real life. My experience suggests that in real life the end scene wouldn't have been Edward saving Bella from someone else, but Bella in desperate need of saving because she tried to do something Edward didn't approve of, and he did something that is definitely not romantic.
The End
I struggled in the middle of the book to convince myself to even finish reading it for 2 reasons, one of which is really shallow.
Edward sparkles.
Yes, for those of you who haven't read the book, you read that right. Edward is a vampire, and he sparkles. Someone find me some sort of historical or mythical proof that somewhere other than in Stephanie Meyer's bizarre and twisted reality Vampires aren't just unaffected by the sun, but sparkle in it. SERIOUSLY! That just bothered me slightly.
Now to the thing that bugs me most. And it bugs me because it romanticizes a very serious problem in the modern world.
Edward stalks Bella. Not just following her around and knowing her every movement, although he does that too. He actually goes into her room and watches her sleep basically every night for a month (at least). I was horrified! Not only that Meyers would write something like that, but that Bella suggests that she not only doesn't share my horror, but is flattered by it!
To me that seems like a slap in the face to every victim of stalking. The idea is that this is Edward's way of protecting her. If he never leaves her, he never has to fight to stay in control around her and he never has to be at the point of not being able to control his lust for her blood. He is, in effect, her protector, watching her and watching out for her. Which would be kind of romantic if he wasn't protecting her from himself.
But here's the problem. Every girl who has ever read Twilight seems to find this romantic. This idea that he dedicates his every moment to Bella and never leaves her is the new chivalry. But I would like them all to consider what they would think if some guy, even a guy that they were in love with, followed them around all the time.
He always knows what the people around you are thinking, and therefore knows everything you do, say and feel.
He sits in your room and watches you sleep, listening to the things you might subconsciously say in your sleep.
He gets insanely jealous every time some other guy talks to you, and then cryptically tells you that you shouldn't be together because he's dangerous.
He shows up at your house at all hours, "taking care of you", and he knows the floor plan of your house without you ever having let him in to it.
I'm suddenly missing the vampires of the Buffy and Angel days that couldn't enter your house unless you told them they could. The ones that went 'poof' in the sunlight and you knew they were super evil when they followed you around without your permission.
Do you still think it's romantic? The sheer dedication might be, but the stalking I could definitely do without.
Moving on.
The last couple hundred pages have the beautiful descriptions of the the Cullens playing baseball in a thunderstorm. Meyers brilliantly describes their lightning quick movements, the sound of their collisions, and the intensity of the moments leading up to the arrivals of the other vampires. The animal like reactions of Edward and the Cullens as Bella is in danger, and the urgency of the entire situation is so vivid that you feel like you're there and you are genuinely afraid for Bella.
You hurt along with her father as she screams that she doesn't want to be trapped in Forks, and you worry about her mother when James calls Bella in the hotel. The plan seems so brilliant.
And again the only flaw is found in the fact that it is entirely narrated from Bella's point of view and so you miss the most exciting action scene ever, although you still know all her thoughts of how amazing Edward is. I would have loved to read the way in which Meyers could have described Edward bursting in and ripping James away from the woman he loves, and the way Emmet would have absolutely destroyed the other vampire. This would have made the whole thing worthwhile. But alas, Bella is unconscious, so she cannot narrate it, and we don't get to hear it.
My last complaint and final words on the book comes from Bella's desire to be a vampire, which in effect led to a cult of teenage and preteen girls wanting to be Vampires as well. Ignore the fact that these girls decided that vampires were the new prince charming and focus on this for a second. Bella has known Edward for one full school year at the time that she decides that she wants to throw away her life and join his. As alluring as immortality is all I have to say is "THINK!"
Yes, Edward is supposedly the most amazing, gorgeous, caring, dedicated, and protective man a girl could ask for, and if you chose to ignore the hundred year age gap, he seems perfect. But so do most guys when you start dating. You can be so blinded by love that you don't see the flaws, and you think that you want to spend your life with this person. But they've only known each other for a matter of months and she wants to give everything for him. And I do mean everything! She wants to die for this man.
I will suggest that it is her admitted lack of dating experience that leads her to not know what it means to fall out of love, but her parents are divorced, and her mother left for the sole reason of not wanting to live in Forks anymore. She blatantly disregards the idea that that could happen to her. That there is the slight possibility that she might regret this rash decision in ten or twenty or a hundred years. Maybe someday she'll look back and say "I wish I could have done all these things but I wanted so bad to spend eternity with Edward that I gave it all up".
Grrrr.
Its possible that I'm just not the kind of person who understands giving everything up for someone else. Having moved around as much as I did, and grown up in the environment I did, and have the amount of ex-boyfriends I do, it just doesn't make sense to me to abandon any goals you might have, any dreams you might want, for a life completely devoted to another person. And the fact that Edward doesn't want to turn her, suggests he doesn't exactly feel the same for her. And the life she wants is devoid of dreams, because she will never sleep, or eat, or be able to stand in the sunlight again (refer to the comments on sparkling. Sunlight is what causes that). She lived in Pheonix for years! She likes the sun. But she will give up absolutely everything for one guy that she's known for 'x' amount of months.
It is a brilliant book. I'm glad that I read it. I have obtained a copy of the second one from a friend and will likely start reading it with in the week. Maybe even tonight. But there are certain things that make me think that this entire series isn't worth the hype that it has been given. It doesn't deserve the kind of reputation it has received, because there are very drastic flaws in the story, and things about it that bother me a lot! The thing that bothers me the most is that everything I hate about the book, millions of young women love because they love Edward. They love his stalkerish tendencies and his sparkling and they all think that vampires are the new prince charming.
This bothers me! This is the boyfriend role model that Meyers has given an entire generation of women. And they age from the very young to the young adult. These girls who suddenly want their boyfriends to sparkle and be entirely devoted to them and who think that they should throw their lives away for a guy the barely know.
Maybe I'm blowing the whole thing out of proportion, and please don't kill me if I am, but it worries me that Edward is being heralded as the sexiest man in the world, and the perfect guy. He isn't. In fact, he is probably a very dangerous model to find in real life. My experience suggests that in real life the end scene wouldn't have been Edward saving Bella from someone else, but Bella in desperate need of saving because she tried to do something Edward didn't approve of, and he did something that is definitely not romantic.
The End
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Ambiguity in a Box
So, I didn't think it was possible, but apparently there was a box around the vary ambiguous essay we had to write for English 150 this year. Unfortunately for me there was a box and being the brilliant first year student I am, I found it. And then jumped out of it, and kept running.
I was under the impression that the only thing we needed to do was research, and write on something we did in class. Which I did. The only thing was that I also wrote on several pieces of literature we didn't study in class. That seems okay, right? I mean, I'm taking the initiative to work with not just the stuff presented in class, but also work from the last three years of my life.
For my effort in adding in additional works by the same author I got penalized 10% for including work we did not study in class that was not a secondary source.
In my own opinion my essay was pretty good, although maybe a bit on the wordy side. I didn't think that would matter instead I was informed: "your answer was vague and hard to understand." Again I would like to point out that I somehow managed to find the box around a completely ambiguous topic that she described basically as "write whatever you want".
Walls! I have found walls! Limitations to untold creativity and intense potential! She is trying to sabotage me! *Confetti*
Yes, I tore the essay up, all ten pages of it, and threw it out without concerning myself too much about what she thought of my writing. The point for me was that she had written 65% on it as my final grade. Then she crossed that out and put 55% on it instead. So I passed. That's really all that matters because I am NEVER taking English again so long as I don't have to.
Let me take a moment to clarify something. I love ambiguity. I love when things are vaguely worded and I am given free reign to discover and explore. That's how I came up with the topic. I was flipping through the extravagantly large book of poetry going "what am I going to write about?" when I landed on a collections of Shakespeare's sonnets.
I will write about Shakespeare! I love Shakespeare! I thoroughly enjoyed reading the sonnets, and several of the plays and there is a lot of similarities in both works. So I wrote and wrote and wrote, and a week later, just in time for the due date, I had my essay. It was pretty good. Not my best, but that's what I get for doing it completely last minute.
So, if she doesn't like it, that's fine by me. I put her evaluation where I think it belongs.
In the trash.
I was under the impression that the only thing we needed to do was research, and write on something we did in class. Which I did. The only thing was that I also wrote on several pieces of literature we didn't study in class. That seems okay, right? I mean, I'm taking the initiative to work with not just the stuff presented in class, but also work from the last three years of my life.
For my effort in adding in additional works by the same author I got penalized 10% for including work we did not study in class that was not a secondary source.
In my own opinion my essay was pretty good, although maybe a bit on the wordy side. I didn't think that would matter instead I was informed: "your answer was vague and hard to understand." Again I would like to point out that I somehow managed to find the box around a completely ambiguous topic that she described basically as "write whatever you want".
Walls! I have found walls! Limitations to untold creativity and intense potential! She is trying to sabotage me! *Confetti*
Yes, I tore the essay up, all ten pages of it, and threw it out without concerning myself too much about what she thought of my writing. The point for me was that she had written 65% on it as my final grade. Then she crossed that out and put 55% on it instead. So I passed. That's really all that matters because I am NEVER taking English again so long as I don't have to.
Let me take a moment to clarify something. I love ambiguity. I love when things are vaguely worded and I am given free reign to discover and explore. That's how I came up with the topic. I was flipping through the extravagantly large book of poetry going "what am I going to write about?" when I landed on a collections of Shakespeare's sonnets.
I will write about Shakespeare! I love Shakespeare! I thoroughly enjoyed reading the sonnets, and several of the plays and there is a lot of similarities in both works. So I wrote and wrote and wrote, and a week later, just in time for the due date, I had my essay. It was pretty good. Not my best, but that's what I get for doing it completely last minute.
So, if she doesn't like it, that's fine by me. I put her evaluation where I think it belongs.
In the trash.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Another hundred pages of Twilight
So, I'm another hundred pages into Twilight, and I will confess that it is not a bad book. I don't have a lot to rant about, except the continued over description of Edward and the fact that I don't think any girl would actually tell a guy that he dazzles her, let alone do it twice. But the conversation flows a lot better than in some stories. The description of the more tedious moments in Bella's day seem to act only as padding for the story to bump it over 400 pages. We hear about eating, and homework, and falling asleep and class and all the stuff that is distinctly not interesting.
But Bella is a character that you can relate to, especially if you're as much of a klutz as I am. The tense discussions between her and Edward could be any girl and the guys he likes so much she doesn't want to tell him in case he doesn't feel the same and she ruins the friendship. I've reached the point where Edward is talking about the reason he can't go out in the sun. One would expect something that has ANY context to actual vampire myth. I already know that he sparkles in the sun and I am mentally preparing myself to groan and roll my eyes when I get to that point of the story. I refuse to fall in love with Edward and my vampire hero is still Angel from the Buffy/Angel series. I still think that, although Robert Pattinson is very attractive, he was significantly better looking in Harry Potter as Cedric.
Also, the stalking thing is worrisome. This guy is fast becoming every girl's knight in shining armor. From pre-teens onwards, it seems like Edward is becoming the role model for boyfriends everywhere. But his basically admits to stalking her, following her through the thoughts of others. Stalking is one of those things you don't need to experience to know it's not romantic or in anyway acceptable. No girl would want a guy to follow her around all the time, calling her continuously, or knowing her every move. Yet everyone loves Edward, despite he seems to be verging on creepy stalker status. So, it shall be seen whether or not he redeems himself or gets worse with this not so appealing tendency.
So far, actually enjoying the book, but it's not so good I can't put it down and do something else, or HAVE to read it all the time.
But Bella is a character that you can relate to, especially if you're as much of a klutz as I am. The tense discussions between her and Edward could be any girl and the guys he likes so much she doesn't want to tell him in case he doesn't feel the same and she ruins the friendship. I've reached the point where Edward is talking about the reason he can't go out in the sun. One would expect something that has ANY context to actual vampire myth. I already know that he sparkles in the sun and I am mentally preparing myself to groan and roll my eyes when I get to that point of the story. I refuse to fall in love with Edward and my vampire hero is still Angel from the Buffy/Angel series. I still think that, although Robert Pattinson is very attractive, he was significantly better looking in Harry Potter as Cedric.
Also, the stalking thing is worrisome. This guy is fast becoming every girl's knight in shining armor. From pre-teens onwards, it seems like Edward is becoming the role model for boyfriends everywhere. But his basically admits to stalking her, following her through the thoughts of others. Stalking is one of those things you don't need to experience to know it's not romantic or in anyway acceptable. No girl would want a guy to follow her around all the time, calling her continuously, or knowing her every move. Yet everyone loves Edward, despite he seems to be verging on creepy stalker status. So, it shall be seen whether or not he redeems himself or gets worse with this not so appealing tendency.
So far, actually enjoying the book, but it's not so good I can't put it down and do something else, or HAVE to read it all the time.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
What I think so far
So, I started reading Twilight today, and I can say by the fact that I'm already over a hundred pages in that it's not nearly as bad as I thought. Stephanie Meyers is not a bad writer, but please note I said 'not bad' instead of 'good'. She completely over describes Edward, and in my opinion it gets pushy, like you MUST believe that Edward is truly and wonderfully amazing and beautiful, and it quickly gets irritating. I got it the first time that Bella said that he was perfect, I don't need it reiterated every couple sentences. It doesn't help that she's obviously got a thesaurus handy so she can find every possible synonym for Beautiful there is and avoid simple repetition in her description. She over describes everything about him.
But I do get, to a point, where Bella is coming from with her obsession for Edward. I'm also glad that she points out how stupid and pitiful it is. I have, on occasion, found myself obsession over guys. I get caught up in their looks and their charm, but Bella becomes down right stupid around him. Again, Meyers takes great lengths in pointing this out, and describing the breathless sensation that over comes Bella every time she looks at Edward, even though he pisses her off.
And we're back to his impossible good looks. He's SO handsome that he makes Bella forget that she's pissed off at him. I don't know, but no matter how good looking a guy is, he becomes instantly less attractive if he's an asshole. In a lot of the situations where Bella says that her anger "faded into awed gratitude (70)" I just roll my eyes. If he's going to be a jerk about it, it would take longer than over night for me to stop being pissed at him.
I'm only a hundred pages in, so we'll see how my opinion forms, but so far its not nearly as bad as I thought it would be. Although, the first time Edward sparkles I might just give up.
But I do get, to a point, where Bella is coming from with her obsession for Edward. I'm also glad that she points out how stupid and pitiful it is. I have, on occasion, found myself obsession over guys. I get caught up in their looks and their charm, but Bella becomes down right stupid around him. Again, Meyers takes great lengths in pointing this out, and describing the breathless sensation that over comes Bella every time she looks at Edward, even though he pisses her off.
And we're back to his impossible good looks. He's SO handsome that he makes Bella forget that she's pissed off at him. I don't know, but no matter how good looking a guy is, he becomes instantly less attractive if he's an asshole. In a lot of the situations where Bella says that her anger "faded into awed gratitude (70)" I just roll my eyes. If he's going to be a jerk about it, it would take longer than over night for me to stop being pissed at him.
I'm only a hundred pages in, so we'll see how my opinion forms, but so far its not nearly as bad as I thought it would be. Although, the first time Edward sparkles I might just give up.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Disgusted by Literature and Intolerance
It takes a lot to offend me. Honestly it does. Even things that bother me a little will escape without a flinch. I don't gasp at the horror of using politically incorrect words, or because someone called someone else a bad name. Gratuitous use of words I find questionable, but yes, sometimes say myself, does not bother me. I may clench my teeth and curiously wonder if you think swearing like a sailor makes you sound mature, because in all honesty it doesn't. I will read, watch and listen to the most profane things without too much concern, and over use of violence, sex and language does not, for the most part, bother me.
Then there is stupid funny, where potty humour, and foul language is used to stimulate the interest of what I believe to be humanity's immaturity. There is a lot that I won't watch, because I simply don't care for the way the characters talk, interact and behave. To me it is ridiculous and shamelessly inappropriate. I know intelligent and sophisticated people who enjoy these, and I hold nothing against the people who find this kind of crude humour entertaining, but I personally do not.
Having said that, I will read or watch anything for a class, and not utter a sound against it because someone deems it fit to show in a class room, but that doesn't always make it right. I find the overuse of racism to prove a point about how intolerant the people being portrayed were, to be down right vulgar, and I don't want to read that kind of trash.
Yes, I will reduce myself to calling what some might deem a work of literature to be trash because it stereotypes and over uses the downfalls of certain people. In this case, it is The Englishman's Boy by Guy Vanderhaeghe. I have to write an essay on it for English, but after Damon Ira Chance's last monologue about how Indians are basically the filth of the Earth, and enemy to be treated as something other than human, and how the Jews will never be true Americans, the only Essay I want to write is this rant, and while there is a slim chance that it might become long enough to qualify, I doubt I'd get a reasonable grade for it.
If I have to write an essay, any essay, especially one about a book, don’t make it about crap. Don’t make it about horrid people who spew profanity and racism. Don’t force me to sit and read the ramblings of an idiotic rich man talking about the pain and the fear of the American Cowboy, while blatantly telling lies to bolster the imagination and exemplify a stereotype he knows to be false. This book is supposed to be some sort of masterpiece, but I find it disrespectful and it takes all my willpower to read every page.
If it is not the blatant use of racial labelling, or the overt profanity for no other reason but to swear, it is the characters craving evil schemes and the destruction of Indians. Chance wants to paint them all as savages and it disgusts me the detail with which he describes this fantasy so that he can paint not a physical truth, but a "psychological truth; a poetic truth! (252)". He basically says that he wants to write and sell lies with the intent of painting them as real and honest truth so that all these post WWI Americans, no matter where in Europe the come from, can believe themselves true "rawhide frontiersman (255)", so that he can "convert all those that can be converted -damn the rest (253)". From a man living in a mansion in Hollywood, the imagery of "the lonely hunter on the plain, naked in solitude (253)" or even more intense, "the fired roof, the women taken captive, the lurking painted nightmare, (253)" is simply one of a vivid imagination with the money to paint his own version of history and truth. This is a man so bent on getting Indian Blood on to the big screen that he is willing to twist a beautiful story told with all earnest from the heart of a Real American Cowboy into his own story of Good Americans vs. Evil Indians. He wants to make a heroic story, convert it to lies and falsehoods and pass it off is genuine history.
It is literally enough to make you ill, and if there were anyway to get out of this essay and still pass the course I would. But alas, 30% of my grade depends on a paper I claimed to have started already, so I won't be worming out of this. But my opinion will be vivid in it's destruction of how Hollywood, but especially the egomaniacal Damon Ira Chance, created a monster out of those fighting to defend their homes, and heroes out of vicious men with the desire for blood and to be known as the one to kill the most Indians.
Excuse me while I cry.
Then there is stupid funny, where potty humour, and foul language is used to stimulate the interest of what I believe to be humanity's immaturity. There is a lot that I won't watch, because I simply don't care for the way the characters talk, interact and behave. To me it is ridiculous and shamelessly inappropriate. I know intelligent and sophisticated people who enjoy these, and I hold nothing against the people who find this kind of crude humour entertaining, but I personally do not.
Having said that, I will read or watch anything for a class, and not utter a sound against it because someone deems it fit to show in a class room, but that doesn't always make it right. I find the overuse of racism to prove a point about how intolerant the people being portrayed were, to be down right vulgar, and I don't want to read that kind of trash.
Yes, I will reduce myself to calling what some might deem a work of literature to be trash because it stereotypes and over uses the downfalls of certain people. In this case, it is The Englishman's Boy by Guy Vanderhaeghe. I have to write an essay on it for English, but after Damon Ira Chance's last monologue about how Indians are basically the filth of the Earth, and enemy to be treated as something other than human, and how the Jews will never be true Americans, the only Essay I want to write is this rant, and while there is a slim chance that it might become long enough to qualify, I doubt I'd get a reasonable grade for it.
If I have to write an essay, any essay, especially one about a book, don’t make it about crap. Don’t make it about horrid people who spew profanity and racism. Don’t force me to sit and read the ramblings of an idiotic rich man talking about the pain and the fear of the American Cowboy, while blatantly telling lies to bolster the imagination and exemplify a stereotype he knows to be false. This book is supposed to be some sort of masterpiece, but I find it disrespectful and it takes all my willpower to read every page.
If it is not the blatant use of racial labelling, or the overt profanity for no other reason but to swear, it is the characters craving evil schemes and the destruction of Indians. Chance wants to paint them all as savages and it disgusts me the detail with which he describes this fantasy so that he can paint not a physical truth, but a "psychological truth; a poetic truth! (252)". He basically says that he wants to write and sell lies with the intent of painting them as real and honest truth so that all these post WWI Americans, no matter where in Europe the come from, can believe themselves true "rawhide frontiersman (255)", so that he can "convert all those that can be converted -damn the rest (253)". From a man living in a mansion in Hollywood, the imagery of "the lonely hunter on the plain, naked in solitude (253)" or even more intense, "the fired roof, the women taken captive, the lurking painted nightmare, (253)" is simply one of a vivid imagination with the money to paint his own version of history and truth. This is a man so bent on getting Indian Blood on to the big screen that he is willing to twist a beautiful story told with all earnest from the heart of a Real American Cowboy into his own story of Good Americans vs. Evil Indians. He wants to make a heroic story, convert it to lies and falsehoods and pass it off is genuine history.
It is literally enough to make you ill, and if there were anyway to get out of this essay and still pass the course I would. But alas, 30% of my grade depends on a paper I claimed to have started already, so I won't be worming out of this. But my opinion will be vivid in it's destruction of how Hollywood, but especially the egomaniacal Damon Ira Chance, created a monster out of those fighting to defend their homes, and heroes out of vicious men with the desire for blood and to be known as the one to kill the most Indians.
Excuse me while I cry.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
The Speed of Dark
As the first post of a new blog I want to take a moment to introduce myself and explain the origin of the name "The Speed of Dark".
First the name.
The other night I was talking about physics with a new friend of mine. specifically we were talking about wave-particle duality, the theory of light and electron waves. This alone is interesting since he has no education in physics, and therefore a very limited understanding of those topics, but he was interested in what I was studying in school. I was talking about light, when he asked me; "what is darkness then?"
Science says that darkness is just the absence of light. Philosophers, of course, have other ideas. Everyone has different ideas. As we talked about what darkness was scientifically, he asked me, "since there is a speed of light, is there was a speed of dark?"
I told him I didn't think there was, at least not in the sense of there being a physical constant of it. (If there was I think it would be -2.99x10^8 m/s, or the negative of the speed of light.)
But the thought just stuck with me. What is darkness? Is it just the absence of light? It's amazing the way simple questions stay with you, especially when you don't know the answer.
I'm a scientist. I majored in physics with a minor in psychology. It's the physics part that usually shocks people though. Sometimes they get a stunned look on their face. Some have choked on food that they're eating. Most just ask "why?"
The reason is I love physics. It's stupidly hard, but you can actually see it working. The fact that your computer is not floating in the air is physics. The fact that we don't spontaneously combust is physics (and a little chemistry, but that's just applied physics). Every step we take, everything we do, and every sport we play is directly impacted by physics. The simple idea that the Earth doesn't spiral off into the sun is physics.
You get the point.
Physics is a beautiful thing. I know most people don't see it that way, but I do. Even at it's hardest there are amazing things to learn about the universe. From the reason that black holes are bright when you look at pictures of galaxies, to the existence of the smallest particles, there is an intricate beauty in the way our world is formed. From the force of friction, to the speed of light we discover the meaning of time, and space.
To some the thought of tracing everything back to the equations that make up the universe demeans the value or the beauty of the world. To me the world becomes an even more amazing place because of the complexity that we haven't even began to understand.
To quote the great and well loved scientist, Bill Nye the Science Guy:
"Science rules!"
First the name.
The other night I was talking about physics with a new friend of mine. specifically we were talking about wave-particle duality, the theory of light and electron waves. This alone is interesting since he has no education in physics, and therefore a very limited understanding of those topics, but he was interested in what I was studying in school. I was talking about light, when he asked me; "what is darkness then?"
Science says that darkness is just the absence of light. Philosophers, of course, have other ideas. Everyone has different ideas. As we talked about what darkness was scientifically, he asked me, "since there is a speed of light, is there was a speed of dark?"
I told him I didn't think there was, at least not in the sense of there being a physical constant of it. (If there was I think it would be -2.99x10^8 m/s, or the negative of the speed of light.)
But the thought just stuck with me. What is darkness? Is it just the absence of light? It's amazing the way simple questions stay with you, especially when you don't know the answer.
I'm a scientist. I majored in physics with a minor in psychology. It's the physics part that usually shocks people though. Sometimes they get a stunned look on their face. Some have choked on food that they're eating. Most just ask "why?"
The reason is I love physics. It's stupidly hard, but you can actually see it working. The fact that your computer is not floating in the air is physics. The fact that we don't spontaneously combust is physics (and a little chemistry, but that's just applied physics). Every step we take, everything we do, and every sport we play is directly impacted by physics. The simple idea that the Earth doesn't spiral off into the sun is physics.
You get the point.
Physics is a beautiful thing. I know most people don't see it that way, but I do. Even at it's hardest there are amazing things to learn about the universe. From the reason that black holes are bright when you look at pictures of galaxies, to the existence of the smallest particles, there is an intricate beauty in the way our world is formed. From the force of friction, to the speed of light we discover the meaning of time, and space.
To some the thought of tracing everything back to the equations that make up the universe demeans the value or the beauty of the world. To me the world becomes an even more amazing place because of the complexity that we haven't even began to understand.
To quote the great and well loved scientist, Bill Nye the Science Guy:
"Science rules!"
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)