Category Archives: Let’s just call this one a “Deep Thinker”

Maybe I’m a Nobody

Posted on by
Reply

4th grade. California Education System.  I learned I’m unique. That’s right. There is no one in this world EXACTLY like me.

You know what this means? It means I’m a somebody. Yep. : ) I’m NOT a cookie-cutter nobody. Nope! I’m a unique somebody. And that’s pretty sweet.

Except today I heard this song on the radio that told me I’m a nobody. ( That wasn’t very nice. I really try my hardest to always listen to the things that are being sung JUST TO ME on the radio. Yeah that’s right. The songs on the radio are sung JUST FOR ME! Because I’m a somebody. ) Well – I was until TODAY.

Today I heard the Nickelback song “Gotta Be Somebody” and it told me this,

“Nobody wants to be the last one left (? ) Everyone wants to feel that someone cares. Someone blah blah blah something about having someone have your life to hold (DUMB!). Cuz nobody wants to do it on their own. Everyone wants to know they’re not alone. Somebody else who feels the same somewhere…” blah blah blah something else dumb about finding your soul mate.

The rest doesn’t really matter. What matters is that I am now officially a nobody and that sucks because I THOUGHT I was a somebody who was part of “everyone” – except I’m not.  (

BUT… BUT… BUT…

Mrs. Webster told me I’m unique!!!

Whatever. I can be a nobody.

I do like knowing I’m not alone. I do like knowing there are other people in this great big world who feel the same things I do, and laugh at the same dumb jokes. It makes me feel good inside. But I don’t need or want that in the realm of a relationship nor am I searching for a soul mate (which is what the Nickelback song is about.)

So I’m going to be a somebody nobody. Or a somebody who is a nobody. And since there aren’t very many people who are nobodies (because if we’re LOGICAL we know no one can really be a nobody) I think then that the fact that I AM a nobody means I’m EXTRA unique (though that isn’t logically possible either)

So yeah. I’m basically saying I’m an extra unique somebody who is a nobody. And that’s pretty sweet.

Who do YOU love?

Posted on by
Reply

We as humans have an instinct to survive. We are all genetically coded with an inherent interest in self-preservation. It’s that simple. In fact, those who are suicidal are deemed as chemically imbalanced. It is not “normal” for one to wish for death, (with a few possible exceptions including those who are terminally ill.)

So it would be a bit unusual to discover that two mentally healthy people had chosen to sink with an Amtrak train. (Associated Press, September 15, 1993) Why did they do this?

Because it was either save their daughter or save themselves.

Ah. You understand now.

We all understand “love” to be an overriding factor. Love has the power to make us ignore every biological instinct.

Daniel Goleman in Emotional Intelligence (the book I happen to be reading right now) acknowledges that according to evolutionary biologists this choice of the parents to save their child could be seen as the need to preserve “reproductive success” but he argues back with a big fat NO.

“Only potent love – the urgency of saving a cherished child – could lead a parent to override the impulse for personal survival. Seen from the intellect, their self-sacrifice was arguably irrational; seen from the heart, it was the only choice to make.”

What he is referring to when he says “arguably irrational” is the fact that the daughter was confined to a wheelchair with a case of cerebral palsy. But again, even with this new piece of information, most would agree that “seen from the heart, it was the only choice to make.”

And that makes me wonder about the L word. If we define love as an emotion that has the power to override the survival instinct – I wonder how many people we truly LOVE.

Love’s a big word. How many people do you think you really LOVE?

Me? I love my family and a few friends who are like family. I also love my puppies. I’d do anything to keep those little girls safe and happy.

Ok so I feel comfortable accepting that people LOVE other people. But what about being IN LOVE? How does LOVE relate to being IN LOVE?

Somewhere over the years I kinda sorta stopped believing in the whole cosmic “I love you pookie wookie” bit.

Who even says pookie wookie? NOT ME!

And this is kinda sorta why I don’t want a relationship. Relationships lead to the M word, and if there is no such thing as the L word with regard to the whole R (relationship) word – why bother?

And before you say it Mom or Dad – I know YOU TWO love each other – but you may be an exception to the rule.

Tiangia and my essay

Posted on by
Reply

Here is the article and inspiration for my essay in case anyone is interested in learning more about Tiangia.

Third of Five Reflections

In an attempt to broaden the horizons of experience from which I pull inspiration for these journal entries, I flipped through the World News online. I have chosen to use our text and in-class discussions about anger, aggression, violence and relative deprivation to analyze the attacks in Orissa. My source for information is The New York Times.

The New York Times suggests the new outburst of direct violence has roots in cultural and structural violence. The direct violence blamed for initiating the attacks against Christians was when an anti-missionary Hindu leader, in an act of proactive aggression, was allegedly killed by Maoists but suspected to have been killed by Christians. The reactive aggression from the Hindu camp was to burn down over 500 Christian homes and kill at least 16 people.

The cultural violence may be argued to be manifest within both the Christian and Hindu camps as each preaches the other is wrong. The structural violence appears to be found in the economic boom India is currently experiencing as well as the caste system. According to the article:

The violence … appears to have been fueled, at least in part, by discontent at a time when the gap between India’s haves and have-nots is growing. Orissa has long suffered from government neglect, and Christian missionaries provide services, including schooling, much better than most residents receive from the government. While that has caused friction before, the stakes are higher now that better-educated people have more of a chance of joining the economic boom.

Christian missionaries in India have focused on indigenous and lower-caste groups, including untouchables, or Dalits. Despite laws dating almost from Indian independence, Dalits are often discriminated against or worse. They are sometimes denied basic amenities, such as clean water; relegated to hazardous jobs; and raped or killed because of their social status.

… Christian education often includes classes in English, which are crucial for anyone who wants to join India’s service businesses or to break into even the lowest levels of the information technology industry fueling much of India’s growth.

Anger over the death of a beloved leader may have been a primary motivating factor in the aggressive attacks of violence by the Hindus against the Christians. Relative Deprivation may have been a latent cause as well. Hindus expect a share in the wealth of the nation yet their capability to receive an education which would increase the likelihood of their achieving their expectations is handicapped by the fact that a good education is often only offered by Christians.

If we approach the conflict as being deep-rooted and not necessarily only caused by the unfortunate murder of the Hindu leader, we are able to suggest possible evidence to support the theory of relative deprivation. Interpersonal values, of which relative deprivation may take root, include: “the sense of certainty that derives from shared adherence to beliefs about the nature of society and one’s place in it…” A deeper analysis of the anti-missionary view which many Hindus share, in relation to interpersonal values, uncovers the possibility that Hindus expect that they deserve and have the right to more than Dalits. It is their place in society. When this expectation is not met and the Dalits have more personal and societal opportunities for value-enhancing action than the Hindus, the potential for collective violence among the Hindus and the intensity of the RD increases. In addition, the prolonged frustration of not having easy access to education could also contribute to the likelihood of aggression and violence.