The Pen Is Mightier Than the Melancholy... Totally....

I'm not sure what you were hoping for when you clicked the link that brought you here. Perhaps you had nothing better to do. Perhaps you've never read my blog before and are just wondering what I have to say. Perhaps you're a kind soul trying to humor me, and for that, I thank you. Like most people, I do enjoy being humored.

On the off chance that you were actually expecting some sort of deep insightful commentary on life and the nature of humanity -- sorry, I've got none of that at the moment. What I do have tonight is a sort of melancholy discontent. There's no good reason for it; it's just there. And so I'm attempting to flush it out by writing. No grand thoughts tonight. Just an overactive superego and a keyboard.

Which is all a very roundabout way of saying: hey, I'm gonna write about myself. Today, this is a vanity blog. I'm sorry -- you can leave now if you like.

Now that that's out of the way, I'm going to write about misconceptions. Namely, three misconceptions that I think quite a few people must have about me, as they're misconceptions I've had about myself.

Misconception 1: I'm not content with where I am (geographically, I mean.)

I probably talk a lot about how much I want to travel. It's true that I do have a powerful sense of wanderlust, and that my greatest dream is to go abroad and live in other places and cultures. But that doesn't mean that I don't like it here. Sometimes I think people get the impression that I feel like my country isn't good enough, or something, or that I think other places must be better. That's not true at all. I'm not looking for anything "better." I don't believe in better, really. I just believe in "different."

This place is where I come from. It's ingrained within me, and I'm glad for that. In fact, if it wasn't, my wanderlust would not be so strong. My Americanness is my frame of reference -- without it, I could not see the rest of the world and think "Hey, that's different from what I know! Awesome!"

And it's not the necessarily places that I'm so eager to see. Places are awesome, but sightseeing isn't what I'm so passionate about. It's people and everything they do. Culture. Potential friends. There's a whole world of it, and that's what I love. I don't think that there's something "better" out there that I'm missing. I just know that there are things that are different out there. That's what I'm looking for.

I was going to go on, but I don't think I will. I'm really trying not to use this blog to rant on about personal things that nobody cares about anyways. I'll leave you with two parting thoughts.

First, a question: is it better to be insecure or overconfident? Obviously both are follies and have their issues. On a spectrum, I fall decidedly on the "insecure" side. In fact, my insecurity (along with my emotional immaturity, inability to make eye contact with people, and practical uselessness) is one of my biggest faults, I believe. I wonder what it would be like to have extra confidence. Would it cause more problems than it solves? Or would my life not necessarily be better or worse, but just different? What other aspects of my character would it alter?

Second, a thought: I think that most people end up hating other people due to misconceptions, misunderstandings, and the simple fact that we are all locked behind different sets of eyes. People interpret the world differently by the virtue of being different people. I think sometimes we all assume too quickly that everybody else thinks exactly the way we do, and that the reasons behind another person's actions would naturally be the same as our own.

Alright, I'm tired now and the melancholy would probably be better served by sleep. Goodnight... and till next time, when I hope I'll actually have something other than my silly old self to write about.

The Magical Metamorphosis of Opinions

Whether or not you agree with their opinions, you gotta feel bad for politicians from time to time. The media constantly digs up dirt from their past lives and throws in their faces, as though what they did when they were sixteen should affect whether or not people vote for them.

Is it fair to expect politicians to have led perfect, exemplary lives? Is it fair to expect that they knew their platform and have had their current values since they were children? I don't think so. Opinions change all the time - especially as teenagers, we explore different points of view. I, at least, would rather have someone in office who considered issues from different perspectives and then decided which one was best than someone who has been set in their ways all their life. How do they know that their opinions are best, if they've never tried anything else?

Since posting what I did last night, I've been thinking about the ramifications of saying controversial things in public places. In twenty years, I might be a writer, and make a living by asking difficult questions. Or in twenty years, I might have job at the UN, or as a diplomat.

I hope someday I can do both. But are they mutually exclusive? Do I have to give up my right to ask controversial questions in order to be liked and successful?

Everything I say, by the way, is a question. However I word things, I do not mean them to be statements of absolute truth. I'm sharing my current opinion with you, and inviting you to challenge me. There are very, very few things that I have concrete beliefs about, and I'm always open to new ideas.

If you don't like what I say, don't hate me for it. Stand up and change my mind. It's open.

Of Free Speech and Pedophiles

Warning: potentially weird/offensive/controversial subject matter ahead. Proceed with caution. Bring lots of chocolate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11731928

For those of you who are too lazy to read the news article (it's only a few paragraphs! C'mon!) I'll provide a little summary. Basically, a book called The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover's Code of Conduct is up for sale on Amazon. As you can imagine, this book isn't being published by a company - rather, the author is using Amazon's self-publishing service, which allows writers to sell their books on Amazon and and share the profits. As you can also imagine, there are a number of people who are quite unhappy that the book is being made available. Amazon does have a policy against obscene materials, but it doesn't define 'obscene.'

This is Amazon's statement on the matter:

"Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable. Amazon does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts, however, we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions."

This is a comment posted by an Amazon user:

"I have seen first hand the harm that people like the author of the book, and potential readers, do to children and to see a book like this on Amazon's 'shelves', so to speak, is very troubling to me."

This the view of the book's author:

"The author, listed as Philip R Greaves II, argues that paedophiles are misunderstood and purports to offer advice to help them abide by the law."

---

So, what's the deal with all this? Well, it reminded me of our lesson on free speech in Government class today. In the United States, according to the First Amendment's free speech clause, words cannot be censored before they are spoken and deemed to be harmful. If words are censored before they are expressed, the law would be making an assumption in regards to exactly what the content of those words would be.

Obviously, seeing a book proclaiming itself to be a guide for pedophiles rests well with no one. The word 'pedophile' automatically brings this image of a creepy forty-year-old man stealing children away from playgrounds, or twisted day care workers abusing their positions for their own pleasure. But are we making assumptions?

The definition of 'pedophile' is "someone who is sexually attracted to children.' Is there contained anywhere within that definition 'someone who rapes children?' Or 'someone who takes indecent pictures of children?' Or 'someone who exploits children for their own pleasure?'

Human sexuality is quite possibly the most demented and incomprehensible thing that ever existed. I, at least, firmly believe that none of us can help who or what turns us on, and that there's not a thing in the world that doesn't turn someone on. (Rule 34, my friends.) Can you imagine being a perfectly good and honest person, and one day realizing that you're sexually attracted to children? You haven't done anything - you haven't harmed a child in any way - but already, you're a monster in society's eyes, because the actions of other people like you have driven us to feel immense disgust towards all of your kind.

Now, of course, there are pedophiles out there who've done horrible, horrible things to children. Please don't misunderstand me - I'm not denying that. All I'm saying is that we, as humans, do tend to make assumptions. I'm sure that there are quite a few pedophiles out there who have never acted on that impulse, and are therefore perfectly respectable people.

Is it right for us to assume that this book up on Amazon is written by and for cruel, demented people who act on their pedophilia? What if this book has been written, as the author claims, for the people who know they have this urge, but want desperately not to act on it? Then, wouldn't allowing them access to advice on how to control their feelings make children safer?

I have no idea what the content of this book is - I haven't read it and never will. All I'm saying is, before these people who are threatening to boycott Amazon criticize, they should at least read the damn thing they're protesting against. There are things in life like escargot - they sound like a terrible idea, but if you look closer, hey, they might actually not be so bad.

Bottom line: Torches and pitchforks are fun and sometimes necessary, but let's get informed and think through all the possibilities before we reach for them.

Life is Beautiful, and I'm Analyzing That!

Is it wrong to analyze something beautiful?

I answered a question about grammar during Knowledge Bowl yesterday, and the kid next to me asked "What use is grammar? It's language! Why would you want to analyze that?"

On one hand, I agree with him. I love the freeness and beauty and pliability of language. 'Grammar nazis' annoy me to no end - language evolves because we use bad grammar, and the most correct sentence isn't always the most powerful one. But on the other hand, grammar fascinates me. There's actually rhyme and reason behind something we do without thinking, and to me, that's an interesting concept.

So, is language not meant to be analyzed? Is it wrong of me to want to analyze it?

I was reminded of English class. Everybody hates having to analyze what we read. For many of us, all the enjoyment is taken from the book by being forced to hunt between the lines for hidden meaning that we doubt is there.

Our English teacher this year sympathises with us. The author didn't write the book for us to tear it apart, he says. But I remember that one girl in my class wasn't happy when he told us this. She enjoys looking for the possible significance behind each word, and wanted to know if that meant she was missing the point of reading.

Our English teacher then asked us if you had to know all the parts of a flower to enjoy it. We said no, obviously. Then he asked us if there weren't types of flowers - Venus flytraps, for example - that were more interesting once we had studied them and knew how they worked.

Yesterday afternoon, my sister returned from her music lessons super excited. Her teacher had taught her a little bit of music theory, and my sister had become so fascinated with it that they'd spent the rest of the lesson on that subject.

Does my sister love music any less because she thinks music theory is interesting? Somehow, I doubt it.

My conclusion from all of this was that anything beautiful can be enjoyed on two levels. Most people enjoy it for what they can see from the surface. That's totally fine. That's how the people who created the stuff want you to see it, anyways. But some people want to dig deeper, and when they do, they appreciate the thing even more.

And that's not wrong either. What is wrong - what makes people lose their appreciation for something they should think is lovely - is when people who want to see something from the surface are forced to dig deeper against their will.

And that, my dear sirs and madams, is my two cents for the day.

Thinking About the Rain

Y'know, in a way I'm sort of happy that summer's ending. I mean, I love being off from school as much as the next person, but I'm really not one for the heat or the sun.

Right now, I'm sitting on the floor in my room, with a blanket, my dog, and a dim light next to me, listening to the sound of the rain on my roof. And it's lovely.

I love rain. To me, it's like the ultimate symbol of cleansing and renewal. It washes away all the dust and heat and turns the brown grass green. It makes the formerly ugly pavement sparkle under the streetlights. It forms puddles on the sidewalk that are perfect for splashing in. I remember that in elementary school, I used to love to walk through the rivulets that ran down the street to the storm drains. I've never minded getting wet - in fact, I love the feeling of raindrops seeping through my hair.

And while waking up in the morning and seeing a gray sky may be depressing sometimes, it only makes it that much more special when you wake up and see the sun.

I'm probably prejudiced because I've grown up in a very rainy area. But still.