Gives Me Hope

Unknown
0 Comments »

Recently, it seems surfing websites like FML and Texts From Last Night has become a common hobby for teenagers and twentysomethings everywhere. These user-submitted microblogs are flourishing: the former receiving about 1.7 million views a day and the latter about 4 million. Heck, I'd be happy if this blog reached 1.7 thousand in my entire lifetime. FML has already published a book and TFLN is on the way to doing so.


While hilarious, many of the jokes on these websites are crude and catered to a specific age group. Recently, though, I came across a very different kind of microblog, one that almost anyone can read: Gives Me Hope. It's a sort of online suicide hotline, packed full of inspiring and uplifting stories, including hundreds of testimonials that the website prevented a suicide attempt. The website brags that it is "Like FML, but for optimists!"It's become one of my favorite blogs and it's one of the first feeds I check out each day. Hopefully, with enough support, a GMH book will be published soon. Here's a few of my favorite posts on the website:




Feel free to post your favorites as swell.


Share |

, ,

Unlimited Potential

Unknown
0 Comments »




Just when I feel as if I'm beginning to understand what exactly humans are capable of, people like those in the video come along and show that the limits of the human potential have not yet been discovered. And these limits are not necessarily physical either. With constant new developments such as the Large Hadron Collider, smaller and smarter phones, and intelligent clothes, it seems that humans will never stop inventing. Is there a limit, though? Will we ever level off?

People argue that there is no "better" homo species, simply one better adapted to a particular environment. It is clear, though, that our brains have been developing throughout evolution, regardless of changes in environment. If the environment was to stay relatively constant, would humans continue to develop? It is impossible to know when, or if, evolution will ever cease to affect us. It may be primitive or haughty to propose that we have reached the pinnacle of evolution, and, in fact, I don't think we have. But it's possible we have.

This makes me wonder, then, what humans are capable of. How far will we go? How much better will we develop? We have not even determined the limits of Homo sapiens yet. There are tons of stories of mothers lifting cars to save their children. In these times of extreme stress, we reach newer and higher levels of capability. Where, then, is the limit? Is there a highest level of achievement a human can gain? Honestly, I don't think it is possible to determine what the limits of potential are. In order to do so, we would have to make the human genetically and physically superior to all other humans. Additionally, they would have to be raised perfectly. I do think, though, that you can set upper bounds. For instance, I personally believe a human could never fly without assistance. The challenge, then, is to find the lowest upper bound, the very highest thing a human can accomplish.

Feel free to suggest what YOU think humans are capable of.


Share |

, ,

My Dad's Name? Superman

Unknown
1 Comment »


I remember exactly when it happened. I was sitting in my summer dorm room doing my reading for class that night when my cell phone rang. My nonchalant method of picking it up proved how incredibly unprepared I was for the news that would change my life forever.

My textbook lay unread on my bed alongside my unfinished homework for the next morning. I was too absorbed with the words I had just heard to focus on anything else. My mother’s soft and hesitant voice echoed in my head: Dad needs cardiac surgery.

Two days earlier, my mother had explained that they were going to be going to Mayo for their annual check-up, but I doubted that a check-up would reveal anything major. I brushed off my father’s recent reoccurring dizziness as mere symptoms of aging. The results of the check-up were shocking. His condition was so serious that a heart attack could have occurred at virtually any moment. 

Perhaps the news stunned me so because my whole life I had naïvely considered my father invincible. He could scare away monsters from underneath my bed and battle through difficulties as if they were never there. He could cure cancer and work twelve-hour shifts without signs of weariness. Even at the age of sixteen, I felt my dad would be there forever. 

And then the truth rushed at me like an unstoppable avalanche. Thanks to some amazing doctors, my dad, though requiring a definite change in lifestyle, turned out fine. The experience, though, made me think quite a bit about heroes. As long as I could remember, I had strived to be my father in each and every way. His life was a true rags-to-riches story, from the slums of a third-world country to a successful physician. This, it seems, may have been why I viewed my father as invincible. When we look up to someone enough to want to be that someone, we completely ignore their flaws; we refuse to believe our Superman has a kryptonite. After all, why would we want to be someone with flaws?

So, what do we do? Do we acknowledge our hero’s flaws? Should we analyze our heroes to determine what makes them fall? To this, I say absolutely not. We NEED mentors to be successful. It is incredibly reassuring to know that someone has accomplished what we aim to accomplish. Knowing something is possible gives us hope, reassurance. Flaws, once acknowledged, are hard to ignore. After we realize someone is flawed, the flaw seems amplified: it’s all we can think about. If we refuse to acknowledge our heroes’ flaws, we gain perseverance. We gain hope. Ever seen how determined a child is to be Spiderman or Batman? It’s because they see no flaws, only success. I felt the same with my father. I neglected his slightly opinionated nature and his obsession with his work simply because that is not the type of person I wanted to be when I grew up.

So, while we know deep down that everyone is mortal, the misconceived perceptions of invincibility and perfection help us succeed. Submit to your childish misconceptions every once in a while; they may be just what you need.

Watch out, Clark Kent, my dad’s got you beat. And so do seemingly invincible heroes everywhere.


Share |

, , , ,

Does reason always prevail?

Anonymous
1 Comment »

(*Warning*: this post may trigger the allergic reactions some have towards science... Those with a liking for philosophy may be quite intrigued though. However, Wikiphiliac warns you: Read at your own risk.)

At least in theory, I would say yes. Our understanding of the universe is entirely dependent on the assumption that a certain logic holds true throughout everything, everywhere, and through all time. In fact, it is the foundation of the scientific method is -- a systematic method, grounded in reason, of uncovering knowledge about our universe. So what if that's not the case? What if the reason, or logic, that is so rooted in the human brain, that just seems to make so much sense, is not precisely how the universe works? What if, in fact, our reason is deeply flawed? What if reason is not so... reasonable?

Well, that's a hella deep existential question, but let it suffice to say for now that there's a load of circumstantial evidence that speaks otherwise. Reason, in its incarnation as the scientific method, is a self-correcting method. It seems very highly unlikely that this reason, and which has been verified by test after test, time after time, is anything but true.

But in real life, can we always trust reason to get us through tough decisions or confusing situations? I've always said with confidence, YES. I've always been one of those people to make decisions through systematic reason, not by following my gut. But lately, I've begun to question that. My unwavering faith in reason has begun to falter, just a bit.

Looking back at the past year, I've noticed that I've found myself many times in confusing situations, torn between conflicting paths and motivations. My paradigm of approaching these challenges has always been "Write down the options, and weigh the pros and cons. Reason it out." I've always been warying of submitting to my gut feeling, because, as we all know, our gut is not always "reasonable."

But now that I have the experience and time to reflect, I am beginning to see the pitfalls of reason. Often in real life (unlike when, say, solving a physics problem), there is so much uncertainty and grayness, that there is no one, correct way to reason out a situation. Instead, there could be a million ways to reason out the same situation. So trying to reason it out may at best, just be inneffective, and at worst, drive you crazy.

This is why as of late, I have begun to respect my gut a lot more. We all know our gut instinct is invaluable in certain situations -- like when sensing how people feel, or whether a situation is dangerous. But, now I have begun to see it's worth much more. Many times, when faced with a tough, or difficult situation, at work, or in academics, or elsewhere, our gut can tell us what's really good for us, and what to stay away from. On the other hand, reason, while in theory perfect, in practice, can fail miserably and confuse us.

So what do you think? When faced with a tough decision, what do you trust -- reason or your gut? And why? I feel those of us who are strict believers in reason and those who faithfully follow their gut ought to learn a little from each other.

At the end of the day, here are my two cents: Sometimes, you just gotta go with your gut.


Share |

, , , ,

Worst I Ever Heard

Unknown
2 Comments »

Know you got a roommate, call me when it's no one there
Put the key under the mat, and you know I'll be over there
I'll be over there, shawty, I'll be over there
I'll be hitting all the spots that you ain't even know was there
Ha and you all ain't even have to ask twice
You can have my heart or we can share it like the last slice
Always felt like you was so accustomed to the fast life
Have a nigga thinking that he met you in a past life
Ah, the eloquent, charming lyrics of today's popular music. What's so cool about using different words to rhyme when you can just use the same word at the end of every line? Heck, that's originality at its best! Plus, the word "there" is so complex and forceful! And who ever knew that sharing a slice of pizza could be oh so romantic? And the last line, it seems to fit so well. Very sentimental and not completely or utterly random at all. And don't even get me started on the chorus.
But, wait, how could we forget
Baby are you down, down, down, down, down
Dooooown, Doooooown
(This continues for half an hour)
...
Down like her temperature, ’cause to me she zero degree,
She cold, overfreeze
Honestly, how "down" can you be? I think I understood the purpose after the first "down;" the 256th one was unnecessary. And can someone PLEASE explain what the heck the last two lines mean? So, if I understand correctly, a girl can be hot, which is good. But apparently, if she's got some kind of a viral cold, (and not just a cold, but an overfreeze) she's really got it going on. Glad that's clear.

The point I'm trying to make is that lyrics, it seems, are becoming less and less important in determining popularity of a song. Now I agree, there are songs, like Numa Numa, that I have no idea what in the world the musician's saying yet I still find entertaining. Even these two songs above are pretty catchy. As a whole, though, the current generation is looking only at superficial components of music, ignoring the deeper meaning and feelings evoked by music. Immerse yourself in the lyrics of Journey and you'll instantly notice the difference.


Maybe different people are looking for different things in music. I, however, definitely value meaningful lyrics. As generations pass, it seems lyrics seem to play a smaller and smaller role. So take a minute to analyze the lyrics of the music you listen to and maybe, just maybe, we can bring expressive music back.


Share |

, , , ,

Four Dead in Ohio

Unknown
1 Comment »

Tin soldiers and Nixon coming,
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming …


Four dead in Ohio. Today’s college students—and even some of their parents—had not been born when Neil Young’s lyrics became an anthem of a generation. But for those who do remember the tragedy at Kent State, there’s a nagging fear that college students and armed law enforcement officers are still a deadly mix.

In my hometown—where hot topics usually range from the annual carnival to changing traffic patterns on State Street—this atypical issue has recently reared its head. In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, as college administrators nationwide ask themselves one question—“Could this happen here?”—they are also looking at solutions to make sure the response is “No.”

Locally, the current debate has focused on whether campus police officers should be allowed to carry guns. This headline issue has caused widespread discord throughout town. The classrooms, hallways, and lunch tables at my high school were not immune from the arguments.

Some, who speak out against the arming of campus guards, have cited Kent State as a warning to heed. They note that college students and campus security guards often hail from disparate socioeconomic and educational backgrounds or hold opposing values and goals. Students, they insist, can be passionate to the point of insolence; they can be impetuous and thoughtless. Security staff who resent student privilege or arrogance may overreact with force.

Those in favor of weapons for campus guards maintain that the death toll in Virginia would have been reduced with faster armed intervention. Some even suggest that the perpetrator might have been derailed from his murderous plans if campus guards were visibly equipped with weapons.

The guys who gathered at my lunch table back in high school were surprised to find me in that latter camp. Those who know me well have often heard me spout off on the Second Amendment. They've endured my diatribes on why this amendment is obsolete. In my opinion, it was first formed in order to help develop a "well-regulated militia." In a time when war depends on weapons other than handguns and where drafts are rare, the Second Amendment is unnecessary and statistics on accidental shootings in private homes are ominous, as are violent crimes resulting from the “heat of passion.” However, I would support a loose interpretation of the Second Amendment where the “right to bear arms” would include self-defense weapons such as stun guns, but not lethal ones.

So, how is it possible that someone with such strong opposition to the Second Amendment favors the arming of campus guards? One of the main reasons lies in the level of training. Campus police have far more in-depth training and are better able to handle guns than the average citizen. Also, campus officers go into dangerous situations fairly frequently, where students rarely face that level of danger. Thus, those responsible for campus security need firearms as their primary line of defense. Even the strongest TASER would lose a fight against a handgun. Also, people tend to feel more secure around police officers. Their visible, armed presence serves as a kind of passive first line of defense.

This issue continues to unfold across the state as politicians and university faculty voice their opinions. As the debate rages on, I will continue to voice my stand: Armed guards, not harmed students.


Share |

, , , , , ,

Haughty Humans

Unknown
0 Comments »

Yesterday, I went to the grocery store to buy some things. As I was waiting in line, I got a call from a friend I hadn't seen in a while. We got to talking and it was my turn to check out my groceries. After scanning all my groceries, the cashier just stared at me for a minute or two. I ended my call and asked her what was wrong. She replied that she simply wanted to ask "cash or credit?" but didn't want to interrupt my phone call. I was shocked. No, not because I had encountered a polite cashier for the first time in my life. It was because I had suddenly realized that my whole life, though I had considered myself a strong proponent of equal treatment no matter what race, ethnicity, gender, or social class (as most people consider themselves), I had been dehumanizing cashiers. And don't lie, I'm sure you've done it as well. Ever walked through a check-out line without ever looking the cashier in the eye? Would you do this to any of your friends or elders? Surely not. It seems to me that there are several potential reasons why people are so impolite to cashiers:

1) People have had bad experiences with cashiers and the common stereotype is that cashiers are rude. You are much more likely to remember a discourteous cashier than a courteous one. Thus, people associate cashiers with impoliteness and are therefore impolite to them as soon as they walk up to the register.

2) People view cashiers as lower than themselves since they are working a service or retail job. Therefore, they look and talk down on them.

3) People are having a bad day and know that they won't encounter the cashier for long so they take it out on the cashier.

Whatever the reason, it is imperative that people recognize that they are being inconsiderate to cashiers. I, myself, did not even notice until just recently. What I have decided, though, is that I will now be more proactive and conscious-minded about being nice to cashiers. I request you to do the same.

Thanks to that grocery store cashier, who in two minutes, has made me a better person (It took my mom something along the line of 10 years to teach me to be polite so extra kudos).

Feel free to post any cashier stories or reasons people are impolite to cashiers you have.


Share |

, ,