Not really. If you, the reader, have been waiting for a new post, I'm sorry. I don't have a concrete reason I haven't written more, but I haven't. Now I'm back.
I don't know who all reads these. That is part of the beauty of blogging, from my perspective: I can say almost anything and it doesn't matter, partly because I don't go by my IRL name, and partly because, even IRL, I don't usually care much what people think of me. There are some things I won't say on here. Some I think are too private. Some are not mine to write. Some, and a very few are they, I won't say because I fear losing some of the few people I love.
Today has been one of my "days." "Days" in quotations are different from Days. Capitol-D Days are when nothing seems to go right. "Days" are times - not necessarily 24-hour periods - when I am completely miserable, but don't know why.
I have been having several thoughts about which I could write. Many probably deserve their own post; I do not have the energy for such things right now. I guess I'll just see how many I get done before I must sleep.
I am going back to Oregon in May. It was supposed to only be a two-ish week trip. Now I'm staying for three months. I mostly wouldn't care. I have to leave Kona here, in Ohio. Kona is my horse, for those who aren't aware. I have never been away from him for three months before. From the time we breed his mom, I have never been away from him for more that a month. Not ever. He is my baby and I am terrified that something will happen to him and I won't be here for him. Other than that, there is a significant, for me, list of people I do not want to see back in Oregon. In a way, coming to Ohio was a way to run away from them. Mostly, Ohio was chasing a future I want.
I try not to make people choose when I argue. I don't like to argue in general, but when I do, I try to minimize the emotional casualties. I'm usually rational enough to talk myself down from the brink of making someone choose. When I'm not, I don't usually tell the person that I'm making them choose. I listen and I watch, and I decide from there on what side the individual is. I did that a couple months ago. There was exactly one person from my class of 18 that I kept in touch with after leaving Oregon. Something happened and I made him choose. He did not choose me/my side. Those who know me, and those who have read much of this blog probably know I am not the type to call a cease-fire. So, now, in the entire world, I consider myself to have four friends. There are two or three with potential to become friends, but they are all likely to leave my area of the universe before I form enough of an emotional attachment to consider them true friends.
I am not a crier, but I am a topic-jumper. There is one actor that had created tides of emotion in me unmatched by pretty much anything else anywhere in my existence. That actor is David Tennant. I watched him - a character played by him - die twice in one night earlier this week. I bawled both times, even though one of them I knew his final line and the other wasn't actually David Tennant, but another actor playing th older version of David Tennant's character. Thirty minutes into one of the story lines I was already crying, which almost never happens.
I have "days," as mentioned earlier. Some are harder than others. Today was pretty bad. I know that there are people to which I matter. I do not think I should. From my perspective, the only change I have brought to their lives is negative. Some have told me that my decision made their life better, but they can't know that. Maybe their lives would have been better if I had not done what I did. These are the "days" I wish time energy would catch up to me, erasing me from existence, making it as though I never existed at all.
Those are the days I am so miserable I simply function for lack of other options. It isn't a desire to die. It is more a wager that the world, the entirety of time and space and life would be better for the lack of me. For, really, what good have I brought to the world? What can I do? I have expectations so much higher for myself than for others. One person can change the world, or begin the change, or inspire the change, or be part of the change. I, though, I must do so much more to deserve my existence. How can I look into the Untempered Schism and run or be inspired or go mad? I must do something more to accept that the universe did not make an error in allowing me to be born.
I am nothing. As nothing, I deserve no friends, no love, no support. Yet I have those things. It makes no sense to my brain. I am not intelligent enough to incite change. I am not emotional/soft/friendly enough to help or comfort. I am not calculating enough to do what must be done. I am not strong enough to save anyone. I am not strong enough to sacrifice myself. I am not objective enough to see the universe clearly. I do not have the faith to believe there is a higher purpose. I am not enough anything to be something, but I am to something to be nothing at all.
I am unarguably strange. I was working a few days ago, mucking stalls by myself. I do this on such autopilot that my mind wanders, sometimes far, sometimes not so much. This time, my mind ventured to one of the furthest points from what I would expect. It wasn't how a bicardiac system would work. No, it was what I would do, legally, for settlements, for school, for work, for Kona, for my family, if I was raped while studying abroad and was impregnated by said rapist. I was on about this in an internal conversation - yet another reason I am strange - for more that half an hour before realizing how extremely disturbed such thoughts are.
I believe in love. I have seen examples, people so much in love after decades that romantic comedies are pathetic by comparison. I do not believe in love for me. I am to too and not to enough at the same time. I am too rational and not emotional enough. I do not want to fall in love, nor do I expect to, end. There is no blue french horn in my future, not even temporarily.
I have an idea, sparked by something I found on StumbleUpon. I may start another blog documenting this project. It feels so raw and honest that I find it extremely appealing. I may link to it, if I do this. If I don't, I will link to what inspired me.
I must sleep.
Adieu,
-Genni
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Friday, March 2, 2012
Considerations
Duh, duh, dun da da duh! The Hunger Games movie is released in less than a month!
I liked the entire trilogy, parly because of the story line, partly because - though not great literature - the writing was good, and, mostly, because it made me think.
I shall try to avoid any spoilers, but I make not promises. Readers have been duly warned.
I spent a good bit of time considering of what I am capable. I think that is a pretty natural reaction to books or movies such as these. I do not mean I spent an hour, or even a day, thinking about me, about where I stand and how strong the biological imperitive is to survive. No, I've considered such topics since I read the first book back in November and haven't stopped yet.
I generally don't get involved in political debates or conspiricy threories. I find, by my own reconning, that most people are either willing to believe anything anyone with any semblance of authority says or find conspiricy at every turn, even in the middle of the road. I am a combination. I like to consider myself an analytical individual. If something doesn't add up to me, it doesn't matter who said it; it has to make sense.
The idea of being part of a rebellion/revolt/riot/coup is utterly foriegn to me at this point. Yes, I believe many parts of the government need to be changed. I believe people need to change, both how - or if - they speak and how they act. Maybe it is how I was raised, maybe it is just my personality, maybe it is both, but I don't understand the idea of attacking people when the issue is seperate. "You can't kill an idea," I don't remember from where that is, but I agree. An idea does not belong to one person; it is a shared concept of reality and how to incite change.
Overthroughing a government, at this stage, in the first world countries, I find extremely premature. Yes, the govenmental systems aren't particularly efficient, at least in the U.S.A.; I can't comment on other countries. War is unnecessary; there are other solutions. If everyone would think, truely think for his or herself, one may find that the issues are not so difficult.
For instance, same-sex marrige has been, is, and will continue to be a sensitive issue for many people. I don't think it needs to be. The arguements against seem to be 1) the system will be abused and 2) "it's wrong in the eyes of the Lord." The arguement for, is, of course, that if two people "love" eachother, they should be able to recieve the benifits of a long-term, legally recognized union, no matter the orientration, gender, race, etc., provided both parties are legally able to make the choice: of legal age, not under duress or bribery, of sound mind, etc.
Here is how the situation is resolved. It would not take much at all. Marrige becomes a religious union. Civil unions are filled with the state. Those currently "married" are automatically filled for a civil union after the passing of this hypothetical law. Then, persons desiring a legal union file for a civil union. Those with a civil union can be married by the religious habits/beliefs if allowed by the religious group. For those not yet married/civil-unioned, a civil union must be in place to reciece the benefits of a legal union; if those so choose, they could also be married. After all, church and state are supposed to be seperate; why does religion apply at all to who should be legal tied to whom? It wouldn't take much to change it, and the sancity of religions could be maintained. I would suggest, though, that the number of people in each civil union be limited to two.
As for the "abuse of the system" idea, anyone can abuse the system; it is extremely incorrect to imply that any couple is more likely to abuse to system than any other couple based upon those involved with the union. In other words, a male-female couple is just as likely to abuse the system as a couple composed of (pick any two, each choice may be picked twice): male, female, trans-sexual, post-op, pre-op, and whatever other ones need to be included so as to not leave out any varity of human.
If people in general stopped nit-picking at opinions and started looking at a resolution instead of a fight, how many "social issues" could be resolved?
Anyway, the point is, one of my favorite things about the trilogy is how it made me think about where I would be in a rebellion, what I would do.
The other consideration I have been paying mind to since reading the books, is of what I am capable. If I were placed in a situation where my choice was kill or be killed, what would I do? Would I even try to survive? Would I be able to actively try to end someone else's life? I am pro-capitol punishment; some might say that is on par with murdering someone. I honestly do not know. I do know that I would hunt if that is what it took to survive. I prefer not to eat meat, but I have that choice right now and it doesn't affect how much food is available to me. I'd rather eat meat than die.
I suppose I just wanted to make the point that any book, even a fully fictional, non-propaganda book can make one think if he or she chooses.
Adieu,
-Genni
I liked the entire trilogy, parly because of the story line, partly because - though not great literature - the writing was good, and, mostly, because it made me think.
I shall try to avoid any spoilers, but I make not promises. Readers have been duly warned.
I spent a good bit of time considering of what I am capable. I think that is a pretty natural reaction to books or movies such as these. I do not mean I spent an hour, or even a day, thinking about me, about where I stand and how strong the biological imperitive is to survive. No, I've considered such topics since I read the first book back in November and haven't stopped yet.
I generally don't get involved in political debates or conspiricy threories. I find, by my own reconning, that most people are either willing to believe anything anyone with any semblance of authority says or find conspiricy at every turn, even in the middle of the road. I am a combination. I like to consider myself an analytical individual. If something doesn't add up to me, it doesn't matter who said it; it has to make sense.
The idea of being part of a rebellion/revolt/riot/coup is utterly foriegn to me at this point. Yes, I believe many parts of the government need to be changed. I believe people need to change, both how - or if - they speak and how they act. Maybe it is how I was raised, maybe it is just my personality, maybe it is both, but I don't understand the idea of attacking people when the issue is seperate. "You can't kill an idea," I don't remember from where that is, but I agree. An idea does not belong to one person; it is a shared concept of reality and how to incite change.
Overthroughing a government, at this stage, in the first world countries, I find extremely premature. Yes, the govenmental systems aren't particularly efficient, at least in the U.S.A.; I can't comment on other countries. War is unnecessary; there are other solutions. If everyone would think, truely think for his or herself, one may find that the issues are not so difficult.
For instance, same-sex marrige has been, is, and will continue to be a sensitive issue for many people. I don't think it needs to be. The arguements against seem to be 1) the system will be abused and 2) "it's wrong in the eyes of the Lord." The arguement for, is, of course, that if two people "love" eachother, they should be able to recieve the benifits of a long-term, legally recognized union, no matter the orientration, gender, race, etc., provided both parties are legally able to make the choice: of legal age, not under duress or bribery, of sound mind, etc.
Here is how the situation is resolved. It would not take much at all. Marrige becomes a religious union. Civil unions are filled with the state. Those currently "married" are automatically filled for a civil union after the passing of this hypothetical law. Then, persons desiring a legal union file for a civil union. Those with a civil union can be married by the religious habits/beliefs if allowed by the religious group. For those not yet married/civil-unioned, a civil union must be in place to reciece the benefits of a legal union; if those so choose, they could also be married. After all, church and state are supposed to be seperate; why does religion apply at all to who should be legal tied to whom? It wouldn't take much to change it, and the sancity of religions could be maintained. I would suggest, though, that the number of people in each civil union be limited to two.
As for the "abuse of the system" idea, anyone can abuse the system; it is extremely incorrect to imply that any couple is more likely to abuse to system than any other couple based upon those involved with the union. In other words, a male-female couple is just as likely to abuse the system as a couple composed of (pick any two, each choice may be picked twice): male, female, trans-sexual, post-op, pre-op, and whatever other ones need to be included so as to not leave out any varity of human.
If people in general stopped nit-picking at opinions and started looking at a resolution instead of a fight, how many "social issues" could be resolved?
Anyway, the point is, one of my favorite things about the trilogy is how it made me think about where I would be in a rebellion, what I would do.
The other consideration I have been paying mind to since reading the books, is of what I am capable. If I were placed in a situation where my choice was kill or be killed, what would I do? Would I even try to survive? Would I be able to actively try to end someone else's life? I am pro-capitol punishment; some might say that is on par with murdering someone. I honestly do not know. I do know that I would hunt if that is what it took to survive. I prefer not to eat meat, but I have that choice right now and it doesn't affect how much food is available to me. I'd rather eat meat than die.
I suppose I just wanted to make the point that any book, even a fully fictional, non-propaganda book can make one think if he or she chooses.
Adieu,
-Genni
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)