Society @ MindSay 
love
I have a few pet peeves (But that's another blog), but one that reins right there at the top is when someone cuts me off while I'm saying something. Major Grrrr!
This happened 2 times yesterday! I can't understand why people do this. Why can't these people simply wait til I'm fully finished with my point to speak, instead of jumping in and abruptly cutting me off!? I just think that is both rude and in a way selfish glory. Like "Oh Glen that's nice...but hey listen to this!...." Whatever.
I didn't say anything to either of the people that did this though. I took the quiet, non confrontational route as usual. But ooooh, it made me feel so unimportant. It always does.
The first of the 2 times I was given the 'title' of stubborn was at my friends birthday. He is the type who likes a loud band, playing in a small bar, with even louder people trying to talk over the loud band. I knew this and told him and his room mate that I'd be happy to meet them at their apt. and hang out for awhile before the others went to the show. Fair enough right? I have known both the room mates and the small group going to the show for over a decade. So they know me well! The time cames to leave, and suuuure enough, as I was giving out the farewell hugs, Jay (birthday boy) says "C'mon n join us Glen!" Which is a kind gesture of course. I politely say "No, not really my scene, ya know." and hoped that would be the end of that. ..Wrong! That started about a 3 min. exchange from each person there going "Ohh c'monnn" "Glen, you can't leave" Etc. etc. Finally Delaney (who is one of my dearest and long time friends) says "Guys, Glen is THE most stubborn man on the planet, he won't go to a bar, and will just get mad if you keep asking". True! I was glad she said that (though getting called the most stubborn...was a bit much. Lol! ) I just would be so completley miserable in a crowded, noisy bar! I won't ever like that scene either. If it were a Wedding party I'd make the exception. Really. That's a once in a lifetime event. But a birthday is every year. Maybe it's selfish of me, but I don't think I should be at a place and spend moneyand be irratated, just to be there with friends. I showed up early and gave my present as well.
Ok, the other time was last night. A new friend Pete, who is super cool and we get along great, is a huge, huge movie affecianado. To the point of having a certificate from a film study program of some kind. He is the type to be able (and loves ) to break down a movie of any genre to what the 'message' of the movie was, lighting, shot type, etc. So obviously he sees a film in a different way than the average movie goer. I love that too! I have learned many neat facts and gotten a great perspective on some movies we've watched. Well here's the stubborn part. Halloween is coming up and of course that means horror films a plenty are going to be watched. Again, this is something I don't like. I have watched a handful of horror movies and I just don't enjoy the blood, gore, tension and violence in them. I actually get a bit of a upset stomach in fact. Pete invites me to watch a horror film on Halloween ("you just gotta Glen, it's Hallowen!") I say no thanks, not my thing...and BAM! "Glen your just being stubborn ya know?!" Urrr..yes. Yes I do. But again, why should I go n watch 2 hrs. of blood, tension and violence if it's going to make me sick?! He pulls the "But you only have seen a few..who knows, I bet there's one you'll like!".
I just don't get it. Why can't some people just let a person be content with their choices and not try to change that?
Current mood:unnerved
Category: Life
Did I let him know it got to me?.....
Of course not...I simply brushed it off, laughed along, merely to save myself the embarrassment of getting publicly wounded by his offhand comment. I'm better than that, but verbal stab aside, it leaves me wondering...
Beauty...
What does that mean to the general society in this era? I ponder it myself, in the truest sense of the word, what does it mean?
Mr.Webster defines it as "1: the quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit."
So, it is defined as the " quality that gives pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit"
And so I come to, pleasing to the eye, soft to the touch, a general sense pleasing "beauty"; and then , it mentions "mind or spirit" rather than the physical senses. This solid definition leaves room for choice, for one to have the option to see that there are different types of beauty. However, in this day and age, I believe people choose to ignore the latter end of that definition.
So there it is, point blank, an explanation of the word. It states that one can find beauty in things pleasing to the sense, i.e sight, sound , touch. but then iterates that one can find beauty in things such as the soul, something pleasing to the mind.
So this brings me to , what is societies standpoint on beauty?
If I were to answer simply from what I observe in everyday life, I would say that societies definition has become drastically disfigured. They glorify physical beauty; they tell you how to look, what to wear, what is acceptable in the public eye. I question who are they to tell me what is "beautiful" or judge me against a mass of conformist clones, comparing every flaw as if they have none of their own. If only everyone knew their secrets, if everyone were to see what is really on the dark grisly interior of these so called socially acceptable " beauties". What would they find? Envy , jealousy, lies, deceit, hate, backstabbers?
Is that "beauty"?
Is ones exterior the sole base of what makes them beautiful?
Or has ones character become something completely ignored when it come to that particular judgment? I ponder when will the eyes of this misguided society be opened. Honestly, I must sadly admit, never. Beauty has been cut short , leaving only the half of the definition that speaks of it being "things that please the senses".
It just doesn't sit well with me, to think of existing in a world that has forgotten true emotion, character, kindness, compassion, love,the things that make someone truly beautiful. People have placed their ability to have an opinion or be an individual into the hands of a society that is should have their eyes taped shut.
Case in point:
It makes me sick, maybe you should actually think about the words you spew "inadvertently" at others. Get off your high horse and take a look at your unsightly ravaged opinions, fed solely from a general twisted definition.
Your not so perfect yourself... all looks aside.
Just something to think about. :)
By Daniel C. Maguire
People should be judged by the ideals they most loudly profess.
O.K., "Pro-Lifers," here goes.
Archbishop Tutu (would that we had even one bishop like him in the United
States!) writes: "Some 2 million children have died in dozens of wars
during the past decade...This is more than three times the number of
battlefield deaths of American soldiers in all their wars since
1776...Today, civilians account for more than 90 percent of war
casualties."
Children are the prime casualties of modern war. As Professor Jeffrey
Sachs of Columbia University writes: "Children in urban war zones die in
vast numbers, not just due to violence, but also from diarrhea,
respiratory infections and other causes, owing to unsafe drinking water,
lack of refrigerated foods, and acute shortages of blood and basic
medicines in clinics and hospitals." Pregnant women and their fetuses
suffer from these same lethal deprivations and pregnant women and their
fetuses are being bombed in their homes.
If you who sanctimoniously wear the "pro-life" banner were really
pro-life-and pro-fetus--- that would bother you and we would be hearing
your voices raised powerfully in peace protests around the world. We
don't. Therefore we must conclude that you are not "pro-life" and that if
you say you are, you are liars. (Those who disapprove of all abortions
and also oppose war must find another motto: "pro-life" has been coopted
on the American scene by right wing militarists.)
American military leaders in Iraq have been quoted as saying "we don't do
body counts." (Interesting, since even "the mob" does body counts.) The
respected British journal The Lancet does do body-counts; they counted
the bodies of civilians killed in Iraq. They concluded that there are
more than 100,000 civilians deaths, most due to U.S. military action.
President Bush is responsible for those murders because he entered this
war without the Declaration of War that the constitution (Article one,
Section 8) requires. A cowardly Congress in a week of infamy (October
3-10, 2002) limply handed over their war-declaring rights to him, giving
the president open-ended authority to use unrestricted power, which could
mean nuclear weapons, whenever he alone deemed it appropriate.
How did those who call them selves "pro-life" respond to this appalling
assault on the Constitution and on life. They voted en masse for George
W. Bush, the slaughter-master of Iraq, the killer of civilian men, women
and children, including pregnant women and their fetuses in a war that
Pope John Paul called a "defeat for humanity." Mr. Bush said he saw their
vote as an endorsement of his war. He was right. The election was a
chance to vote against that war, but, overwhelmingly the so called
"pro-life" vote was for war.
Can you understand why we call you liars?
Sister Joan Chittister writes of a front page, large four-color picture
in The Irish Times. It showed a small Iraqi girl. "Her little body was a
coil of steel. She sat knees up, cowering, screaming madly into the dark
night. Her white clothes and spread hands and small tight face were
blood-spattered. The blood was the blood of her father and mother, shot
through the car window in Tal Afar by American soldiers while she sat
beside her parents in the car, her four brothers and sisters in the back
seat."
Indifference to this and to all those war crimes like it, on the part of
anyone is criminal and sinful in the extreme. Indifference to it by those
who canonize themselves with the "pro-life" insignia shown by their
recent vote for more of it, is even worse. Such hypocrisy should be
called by its name. Its name is fraud. Its name is lying, lying under the
very banner of "life."
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]
