Life: Final Destiantion Unknown
Wednesday, 20 January 2010 15:39
Nuria Mathog
When I was a kid, my sole ambition in life was to be the first person on Mars. I daydreamed about manning my own spaceship, completing a decade-long journey to the famous red planet, and proudly planting the U.S. flag on Martian soil. I was certain that space exploration lay in my blood—at least, until I shared my designs with my first-grade desk partner, who promptly informed me that I was an idiot. My dreams are somewhat more practical now, and I tend to relate them to more objective listeners. But the message still hasn’t changed. The great thing about America, I’m told, is its offer of unparalleled freedom, the promise that the only limit to what you can accomplish is your willingness to make it happen. Feel like opening your own records shop? Save up a bit of cash, make a few investments, and you’re all set. Dream about joining the bomb squad? Go ahead; no one’s stopping you. Want to sell homemade sodas by the side of the highway? Why not? Go for it. The window of opportunity never closes. But while our futures are unhindered by legal restrictions, they remain fraught with social consequence. We are under extraordinary pressure to make one of the Three Choices: doctor, lawyer, or businessperson. A career in any one of these areas is supposedly a golden ticket to prestige, money, and power—all the "important things" in life. As far as these options are concerned, though, I have no future whatsoever. The sight of blood makes me queasy; I freeze up while giving speeches; I can only sell my candy apples through a combination of self-purchasing and blackmail. I think I can safely assume that I’m doomed. I’ve always wondered who sets the guidelines for success. Maybe there’s a group out there responsible for creating a worthiness grading scale, a set of criteria based on annual income, profession, and Porsche ownership. In spite of my shortcomings, I think of myself as a reasonably intelligent person—certainly not someone destined for failure. But according to the current social standard, I might as well start packing my bags right now. Selecting a career may seem like an intensely individual decision, one that has minimal, if any, impact on others, but in reality it generates quite a ripple effect. Suppose that tomorrow, en route to my house, I am unexpectedly hit by a car. As I lie in the hospital, flitting in and out of consciousness, my indifferent doctor tosses me some morphine and leaves. Later, when I file a lawsuit against the driver, I’m stuck with an attorney more concerned about his next paycheck (which he’ll receive regardless of the suit’s outcome) than upholding my rights on judicial grounds. When I return to work at Corporation A, I find out that my boss let the business slide, can no longer afford to keep all his employees, and has fired me as a result. A title, sans passion, is an empty word. A diploma, without dedication, is a sheet of paper tacked to the wall. Simply having the name or the degree is not enough. Our future should not be determined by the unhappy medical students wishing they had pursued their real ambitions, but by those whose love for the subject shines through in a genuine and inspirational way. Look around, and you can easily pick out the next generation of pioneers. The FBLA officer who has been following the stock market since she was twelve. The student who, after mastering AP Biology, hopes to someday master the art of saving lives. The brilliant debater who believes with all his heart that the U.S. Constitution is the best document ever written. Maybe it’s time for us to redefine success. We’ve measured achievement in terms of social acceptability for so long that we’ve neglected the factors that really matter: sacrifice, determination, and a profound love for what you do. I admit that I’ve fallen into that trap as well. Sometimes I feel like cracking open a law book just so I won’t feel so left out. But regardless of my apparent conformity, you can be certain that when NASA starts recruiting for its first Mars mission, I’ll be first in line.
Insert Text Here
Wednesday, 20 January 2010 15:39
Nuria Mathog
Texting is taking over the world; I am completely and utterly convinced of this. It’s everywhere, stealthily infiltrating society like some sort of technological plague. Walk into virtually any room, and it’ll be filled with people glued to their cellphone screens, any attempts to strike up a friendly conversation thwarted by noncommittal shrugs and irritated jerks of the head. Sometimes it gets so quiet that if it weren’t for the faint sound of the keypads, you’d think everyone there was dead. It’s a pretty unnerving feeling. The eerie, telltale patches of light lurking beneath desks and the robotic "click click click" of hastily tapped keys will haunt me until my dying day. Now, texting does have its advantages, I’ll grant you that. If, for whatever reason, I am unable to speak and need to contact someone immediately, I can just send off a quick message to a friend and retrieve the desired information in no time at all. Click, click, done. It’s fast, it’s efficient, and it’s convenient. I have no qualms with the concept of texting. It isn’t an inherently evil practice, just a phenomenon that we’ve blown hopelessly out of proportion. When you’re incapable of setting your phone down for five minutes, you have a problem. When you act as though you’ll start bleeding profusely if severed from that connection, you have a problem. When you’d rather spend hours typing out a twenty-minute conversation with your thumbs than have a real-life discussion with your friends, you have a problem. It’s a sad sign of our times that we actually needed to pass a law prohibiting texting while driving, that this has become a common enough practice to merit governmental intervention. Really, how much common sense does it take to avoid texting and operating a high-speed vehicle at the same time? Not only is it dangerous, but it’s grossly irresponsible. You’re putting the lives of your passengers and innocent bystanders at risk for a conversation that probably wasn’t all that important anyway. But perhaps the most worrisome aspect of the texting phenomenon is how indifferent we’ve become to basic courtesy. We’re so self-absorbed in our little texting bubbles that the outside world effectively deteriorates into background noise and other useless distractions. Maybe we don’t realize the effect that our texting obsession has on others. Maybe we just don’t give a damn. At any rate, conscious or not, it’s downright rude. There is a time and a place for everything, and when people need your attention engaged, they expect you to listen. And no, that doesn’t entail absent-mindedly nodding "mhmm, mhmm," as you gaze intently at the one-inch screen in your hand. As a society, we’re becoming increasingly desensitized to this sort of blatant rudeness. Our attitude today can be summed up with a nonchalant "Well, everyone does it, so it’s not a big deal," as though this somehow justifies our behavior. Every time you blow someone off, you’re effectively saying that they are unimportant, that what they have to say couldn’t matter less. Regardless of whatever you’re typing into your cell phone, the real message you’re sending is "I don’t care."
|
The World in Black and White
Wednesday, 20 January 2010 15:38
Andrew Chang
We distinguish between objects through sight. Initially, this might seem the most obvious thing in the world, but if you really think about it—the only way we can even see is through our ability to know the differences between colors. That’s how I know that my pen is right next to me—because it’s blue and because I can see it against my black desk. And if you look at it that way, the world wouldn’t be our world without the capability of visual comparison. Now to the point—the importance of color distinction isn’t limited to our ability to see and make sense of objects. On a more important level, we ought to apply this concept to intellectual discourse and the way we look at the world. In other words, it would be asinine to see the world in black and white given the availability of our worldly spectrum. The conceptualization of seeing the world in black and white can be awfully pervasive. Humans by nature are both good and bad, and so without a middle ground we can contend that it’s logically impossible to understand ourselves. From this premise, we can move on to see that the greatest mistakes in the world’s history were made through either lionization or demonization: Nazi Germany, the Red Scare, the Salem Witch Trials. And let us not delude ourselves for a second that this crippling ideology is confined to the historical sphere of the past. Take politics for example: we have the Republicans and the Democrats. It would be an overarching generalization to say that every member of a party is a close-minded bigot when it comes to the policies of an opposing party, and vice-versa—but with some people it wouldn’t be too far from the truth. We get it—that you didn’t vote for Obama and that you’re not pleased with his policies—but do you really have to insist that he’s a socialist and that every single facet of his policy is anti-America? And we also understand that Republican policy tends to favor the welfare of big business—but do you really have to insist that they’re against the very concept of a working family? The absolute stupidity of black-and-white arguments is a leading killer when it comes to the legitimacy of political arguments. The lengths to which we go to prove our beliefs in an ideal can sometimes destroy that ideal in and of itself: for when a country divides itself through bigotry and sophomoric name-calling, it forgets its initial hope for unity and freedom in solidarity. So, please, please, let’s just remember that we have the power to compromise. Let’s not limit ourselves to two colors when the painting that is life requires so much more. It is critical to remember our ability to understand the necessity of approaching everything, even our most hated enemies, with an open mind, and ultimately to add color to black and white and see the shades of grey which the world has to offer.
There's Something Fishy About PETA
Wednesday, 20 January 2010 15:36
Kaitlyn Jeong
First it was the flying fish. Then it was just the fly. PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, has always spoken on behalf of those who could not speak for themselves: chimpanzees forced to smile in commercials, seals being clubbed to death, abused turkeys, you name it. In recent months, they’ve even taken it upon themselves to stand up for those who couldn’t speak for themselves even if they wanted to, namely Pike Place Market of Seattle’s dead fish and the lucky fly President Obama swatted (Lucky in what sense, you ask? Well how many of you can say that you’ve been slapped by the President of the United States of America?). Seattle, Washington is known mainly for two things: Starbucks and guys in wet aprons heaving fish over the heads of customers at Pike Place Market. PETA’s senior campaigner, Ashley Byrne, says that PETA’s main problem with the famous fish flingers is that she believes that "killing animals so you can toss their bodies around for amusement is just twisted." Just imagine how those fish must feel, how much pain they must be in when they are tossed into the air, how much…oh wait, they’re dead. The customers and fishmongers both agree that the fish aren’t killed for entertainment; they’re killed for some good eatin’! Well, think of it this way: the fish, even though they are dead, are able to get a bird’s eye view of the world for the first time without actually being in a hungry bird’s beak dangling over the earth below. PETA argues that if gutted lambs and kittens were being heaved over the crowd, people wouldn’t find it as amusing. Um, maybe that’s because lambs and kittens are way too heavy to throw and the fact that they are gutted means that the animals will drip all over the customer’s head, and that means complaints which are accompanied by the arrival of a poor soul with a bucket, mop, and a bright yellow CAUTION: SLIPPERY WHEN WET sign with a little stick figure that looks like it is about to fall down a flight of stairs. It is understandable that PETA wants to protect all living creatures big and small and every size in between, but why are they speaking out for the feelings of dead fish that ultimately will end up being consumed? Isn’t the fact that the fish will be eaten more disrespectful than how the fish are transported from display to wrapping sheet? Fish aren’t the only organisms weighing on PETA’s mind. It seems as if house flies are also able to tip the "scales of injustice," as the LA Times put it. In the middle of a CNBC interview, President Obama was interrupted by a fly, and after several attempts to shoo it away, swatted it and swiftly brought it to its death. Instead of focusing on how our commander-in-chief calmly and coolly handled the situation in order to return to more serious matters or opening up a debate about whether President Obama leads a double life as a ninja so that he may perform radical stunts such as these during interviews, the media’s coverage is centered on PETA’s disapproval of the situation. They say that this incident only proves that everyone makes mistakes and that President Obama is only being human. Because of this, I’m waiting for them to go and chase after the person who wrote the "Shoo Fly" song. I can just see it now: "It’s morally wrong, and yet they’re teaching children to treat smaller animals as lesser beings. It’s just not right." Don’t worry; it’ll come along soon enough and you’ll know when it happens. Although PETA may be overreacting to situations that aren’t really a big deal, there is a lesson to be learned: asdfkoija;lksjd foq;oweiur kdqhdlfnmskms x,009398dslfjxa; sijzxcvbnm. Sorry, there was a spider on my keyboard. Please don’t tell PETA.
|