|
Musical Memories
We all have them – songs that have
such memories for us that when we hear them we are automatically transported back to the time and place when we remember the
song best. Here’s a few of mine categorized first by band/artist, and then by song:
Pearl Jam
Black – When hearing this song I still go back to the early 90s when my brothers Ben and Brad and I would
play the Super Nintendo game “Final Fight.” I am not sure if Ben or Brad still have the game or not,
but I can specifically remember playing the game (or more often, watching them play) while the Ten album played in the background.
They must have really liked Black, too, cause that’s the song that stuck out the most in the memory :)
Yellow Ledbetter – I have two awesome memories of Yellow Ledbetter. The first would have been listening to it (perhaps
my first time listening to it?) on a trip from Utah to Portland, Oregon. Mom, Dad, Brad, and I were taking one of our
fairly common trips to Portland to see family (90% of my parents' immediate family lives in the Portland/Vancouver area).
I remember we were on the tail end of the trip (driving alongside the Columbia River in Oregon) and listening to the radio
and Yellow Ledbetter came on. Brad identified it to me, and I've been in love ever since.
Yellow Ledbetter quickly became my favorite song of ALL time. The combination of the music and
the lyrics is just amazing! And so, I always had a wish to see Pearl Jam in concert and hear Yellow Ledbetter live!
Well...the first concert I saw them in (in Portland) did not end with Yellow Ledbetter, but instead with Rockin' in the Free
World. Great song, but not as good as Yellow Ledbetter. So, I went to see Pearl Jam up in Seattle. Drove
up to Seattle (about a 2.5 hr drive) without even a ticket. I bought a ticket when I was there (not a bad deal
for $40) and, sure enough, the concert ended with Yellow Ledbetter! I'll never forget driving home at 1am with the song
stuck in my head the whole drive home. It was awesome!!!
Ten Album – Even Pearl Jam's first album has it's own memories for me! When I was in high school, my religious education
class sponsored what's known as a 30 hour famine. A 30 hour famine is, basically, a way for a high schooler to fundraise
some money while also learning what it feels like to go 30 hours without being able to eat. A small little glimpse into
seeing what it would be like to live in a third world country and not be able to eat just whenever you want. Anyway,
during the 30 hour famine, I had gotten to know some of my fellow religious education classmates a little more than just the
hour or so we'd spend together each week. As a way to pass time, we would read or listen to music (I know, not something
the average "third world inhabitant" gets to enjoy) and one of my classmates was listening to the Ten album (which I brought)
and was looking over the CD cover. For those who don't already own the Ten album (and, P.S. shame on you! hehe) the
album "booklet" actually unfolds to become one big sheet with lyrics and information on it (instead of your typical stapled
mini-book). I don't remember exactly what happened (I think him and someone else might have gotten into a verbal argument
that turned physical), but the album sheet ended up getting torn really badly right down the middle. I wasn't too happy,
but took it surprisingly well. The guy felt REALLY bad (and I believe it was sincere) and he said that I could, more
or less, take a few free shots (punches) as a form of payback. My first reaction was to take him up on his offer, but
I quickly realized that it would accomplish NOTHING. I realized that no matter how much I beat him up, my Ten album
cover would still be ripped. And even worse, it was an accident so all it would do is mean two people would be hurting,
instead of just one. So I let it go...and it was one of the best feelings in the world to know I had the power to take
a few free shots but was big enough to realize that it would be unwise to do so...
Norah Jones
Tennessee Waltz –
driving to WaMu
Come Away With Me
Stroke 9
Tail of the Sun – Bellingham
, WA
Mr Big – first single purchased
Vanilla Ice / MC Hammer – first album ever owned (bought for me)
The above quote is from Tom Lehrer. When I first heard this quote I just thought it was kind of "cute" and ironic.
People who hate others just because they don't love everyone. Little did I know that this quote would resonate in my
head years later...
I remember coming across this quote a long time ago (I believe it was when I was in my phase of life where I thought it
would be cool to gather a whole bunch of quotes and categorize them, much like a lot of websites do now). A political
science teacher I had the opportunity to study under would soon repeat it a good half dozen more times for me. He obviously
understood both the irony and truth behind it.
One thing Professor Carr taught the class was the irony of free speech and freedoms. Most people would say free
speech is a wonderful thing. Some would say free speech has it's limits (such as not allowing those who support
the Nazi party to share racist thoughts), and others would rather fight to the death to make sure that anyone can say
or print anything without any limits. And, of course, it is difficult to find out where exactly to draw the line.
If you're not careful, the government could easily justify restricting any speech (verbal or written) that involves untruth
or, even worse, restrict any speech that goes against the "norm." The opposite problem, however, was the problem that
arises from allowing others to say absolutely whatever they want. They might defend themselves by saying "as long as
they are just using words and not physical violence, then no one gets hurt." The old "sticks and stones" defense.
But what if I decide to publish my thoughts on how much I hate a particular group of people simply because of their skin color
and how "stupid" they are, etc and someone else reads it and acts physically upon those thoughts? Kind of like writing
a book that influences the next Adolf Hitler. Should I at that point feel any guilt? I know I would feel guilty,
but should the "average" person feel guilty?
Alright, well let me get back to the point of all of this: those who want everyone to love everyone and if they don't,
they hate them. Kind of ironic isn't it? Yet I've come across far too many people like that. They obviously
don't come out and quote this phrase and admit to agreeing to hating people who don't love their fellow man. But they
certainly have shown hatred towards me whenever I've shared my opinion that differed from theirs.
Case in point: homosexuality. Now before I go any further I want you to know that I don't hate homosexuals.
I love everyone equally. I believe that God created us all to love and be loved. Doesn't matter if we are black,
white, Jew, Christian, male, or female, we deserve to be loved. Regardless of how many limbs we are born with, whether
we ever learn how to walk, or whether or not our bodies are covered in boils, we deserve to be loved. Fact
of the matter is, every one of us is a sinner. Whether you believe in God or not, you can't deny that each person is
unable to be "perfect" in the traditional Christian sense (i.e. free of sin). Even the Pope himself sins.
So, if we are all sinners than who amongst us should be "casting stones" right? But, just becuase we are all sinners
doesn't mean we should just accept everyone else for their faults right? To do so would lead to chaos in our society.
I mean, can you imagine someone using the "well sure he murdered that person, but we all sin right?" excuse?
As far as homosexuality is concerned, I just disagree with the typical stance in society on homosexuality being
just a choice and society's treating it as "let's just accept it" or even worse, calling anyone who disagrees with homosexuality
as a "homophobe." Nothing bothers me worse than someone ignorantly calling me, or anyone who believes homosexuality
is a sin, as a "homophobe." Under that logic I would be a "murder-aphobe" or "rape-aphobe." I am not claiming
homosexuals as equivalent to murderers or rapists, I am merely just comparing different levels of sinful behavior. If
you disagree that homosexuality is wrong, then that's fine. You can simply say, "I disagree." But what good does
ignorantly claiming I'm afraid of homosexuals do? It will just cause me to tend to discredit everything else you
have to say.
So, as you read that I'm willing to bet you disagree with me on homosexuality. That's fine. You may even think
I'm prejudice or stupid or ignorant, or whatever. But would you ever fight to sensor what I have said? And, furthermore,
would you show hatred towards me for my thoughts? Keep in mind, "hatred" means going beyond just disagreement and usually
involves general distate for me as a human being. I think when someone goes beyond just disagreement and ventures
into "hatred" they act just as Tom Lehrer mentioned. They hate others for not doing exactly what they wish for:
to love everyone.
As I've stated,
I don't hate homosexuals. I just disagree with their actions. “But
they were born that way” you might say. Well, even though there is no evidence
to prove that (it’s just a hypothesis at this point) it still doesn’t matter.
What if murderers or thieves or liars are born “that way?” Does
that make what they do suddenly ok?
I read an amazing
short story my freshman year of college titled, “Torch Song.” For
those who don’t know, a torch song is a song about unrequited love; made popular in the mid-1900s. Anyway, half of the people in the class refused to read the story at first, and I was with the other half
that didn’t really want to read it, but did anyway. It wasn’t that
the story was boring or too weird: it was because the story was written by a child sex crimes reporter about cases he worked
on and how it affected his life. Nobody wants to hear or read about sex crimes,
not to mention sex crimes involving children. I read things in that story that
will stick with me the rest of my life. The author mentioned one conversation
with an accused father:
“He said
all he did was kiss the boy. The boy had gonorrhea of the mouth. The father said all he did was kiss the boy.”
If reading
things like that startled and disturbed you, you can only imagine what the rest of the story was like. So what does any of this have to do with the topic of homosexuality, you ask?
Well, there
was another line from the book that I’d never forget. The author talked
about his relationships with women and having to deal with these scumbag child rapists and child murderers and how much it
was affecting his personal life. The more he studied about these criminals the
more he realized…
“These
guys love children, completely, just like I love adult women.”
When I first
read that I had to go back and re-read it even. I remembered thinking to myself,
“What the hell does he mean by that?” After I got over this crazy
concept that these scumbags might actually have feelings for these children, I realized how true it was. That’s not to say that every time someone sexually abuses a child (or an adult for that matter) that
they automatically love them like heterosexual adults might care for each other, but the possibility is there. And the author definitely saw it in the cases of the guys who abused the children he dealt with. If you set aside the immediate distaste you have for people that do these things to children, it’s
not impossible to contemplate that perhaps they are doing something that they subconsciously feel is “good” or
“right” for them.
Now of course
there is a huge difference between sexual acts between a grown up and a child and sexual acts between two grown adults but
the author raises a very good point. Aside from the fact that what they are really
doing is raping these children, the fact of the matter is that any sexual relations between an adult and a child (even if
the child “consents” to it) is against the law and (most would argue) is morally wrong. But you can’t ignore the fact that this adult may feel deep inside the same feelings you feel towards
your significant other.
What we have
with homosexuality is along those same lines. Society used to overwhelmingly
see homosexual sex acts as immoral (and in some places, illegal). If you were
to ask someone 100 years ago about two adults of the same sex having sexual relations, chances are they would be as disgusted
by what you said as you were in reading about the child with gonorrhea of the mouth.
You might say,
“Oh, well back then they were just…” (fill in your choice of ignorant, bigoted, self-righteous, religious
zealots, etc)
If you were
thinking something along those lines, would you argue the same thing about the people of today and their thoughts on sex with
minors? Chances are, I doubt it. But
why not? If two people care about each other and want to do sexual things together,
should age really matter? Don’t get me wrong, I definitely say yes. I think homosexuality is a sin; you better believe I think that sex with minors is
even worse. I just had to play a little “devil’s advocate”
there…
Nowadays, we
have people, both homosexual and heterosexual, fighting to change the minds of society.
And, slowly but surely, they are beginning to chip away at the notion that homosexuality is immoral.
“If two
adults, regardless of their sex, love each other and care about each other and want to make each other happy, why would you
want to stop that?” Why would you want to stop it for an adult and a child
who really care about each other? Cause it’s immoral, that’s why.
I may sound
heartless when I say things like that, but it’s how I (and many others) see things.
We draw the lines at different places than others. One may say “sexual
acts between people of the same sex are ok as long as they are __ years old” or “sexual acts between people of
the opposite sex are ok as long as they are __ years old” and I say, “it’s all immoral.”
When some people hear my stance they automatically think I either hate
homosexuals, or am afraid of them or their actions. I've known far too many people who are so pro-homosexuality
that my mere mention of my beliefs caused their heads to almost pop off. That wasn't just from simple disagreement from
me...
Most people probably do not know who Margaret Sanger is. Even those who have heard of her name and think they know
who she is, probably still don't know who she is. Knowing that she was the founder of Planned Parenthood is not enough
to "know" who she is. Not even close. That's like saying you know all about Gandhi's philosophy on life simply
because you knew he had non-violent protests. Doesn't even come close to understanding the person.
Just to clarify, I mention Gandhi simply for analogy; not to try to imply that he has any correlation to Margaret whatsoever.
Anyway, Margaret Sanger was the woman primarily responsible for introducing American's to birth control and the concept
of women being liberated from "sexual slavery." Before I get into it any further, however, I'd like to show you some
quotes from her. You'll notice each one is cited...
"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."
--Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.
"Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.
--"The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda", Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.
"The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims
of eugenics."
--"The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda", Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.
"The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind."
--Margaret Sanger, quoted in Charles Valenza. "Was Margaret Sanger a Racist?" Family Planning Perspectives, January-February
1985, page 44.
"Give dysgenic groups [people with 'bad genes'] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization."
--Margaret Sanger, Birth Control Review, April 1932
Wikiquote - more quotes of Margaret Sanger
War...what is it good for?
I am not sure what you call my "thoughts" or "beliefs" on war, but I am of the type that believes war should be avoided
whenever possible.
However, I am also not so naive as to think that war can be always avoided. Unfortunately war is even needed.
Case in point: tyrants and dictatorships.
Anyone who thinks Saddam Hussein should have been left in power or could have been "reasoned with" obviously never
studied his character.
You would have to practically have had your head in the sand for the last two months to not have heard about the hurricanes
that hit the United States golf coast. Here is how the hurricanes affected me and my family...
Hurricane Katrina hit land in Louisiana in late August. Before the hurricane even landed I spoke with my brother,
Ben, who lived in Covington (about 30 to 40 miles north of New Orleans). I offered to house him and his family at my
apartment. He said 'thanks but no thanks' and instead insisted that they were going to ride out the storm. Well,
that's exactly what they did.
My other brother, Brad, and his wife and child fled to drier ground. They lived in New Orleans and evacuated to Ben's
house. When they were unsatisfied with the preparations at Ben's place, they drove northwest. Eventually
they made it to Mesquite, TX (near Dallas) and stayed the night there. The following night they stayed at a friend's
house in Dallas.
As for Ben: they lived out the hurricane with minimal damages. The trees around their house collapsed and their power
lost, but no major damage was done. A few days after the hurricane passed they found themselves still without electricity
in a climate that was constantly hitting 90 degrees. So Ben and the family took up my offer and came and stayed with
me and my girlfriend for a week while power (and sanity) was restored in their city.
Meanwhile, Brad asked me for some help finding him a college/job in Dallas. Ok, so first he asked for help finding
a college (since he didn't have internet access) and when I asked if he was staying their (in Dallas) he basically said it
depended on whether or not he could find work. So I suggested he at least apply to WaMu (where I work) and he did just
that. Long story short, that job (and another working for Bank One / Chase) fell through, so he and the family drove
back to Portland, Oregon where mom and dad live, as well as our sister and her family.
Then came Hurricane Rita. What can I say about this one...? Well there was talk that we were going to get hit
hard with stormy rainfall, but by the time the hurricane approached it headed just a little north and northwest and missed
Austin altogether. We didn't even get a drop of rain. Instead, we got a HUGE gust of hot air that gave us record-breaking
100+ degree days in late September.
My pet peeves...jeez...where do I start?
Driving
I suppose the
first driving pet peeve would have to be slow drivers in the fast lane (and you KNOW who you are)! I'll admit, I'm not
always the fastest in the fast lane...if someone is coming up behind me driving faster than me, I'll pull into the next lane
over, or (if the case calls for it) I will speed up in order to get into the next lane, then slow back down to the speed I
was at.
The absolute
WORST is when you're on a highway/freeway with only two lanes in one direction and BOTH lanes are blocked by slow drivers,
driving side by side. There should be a law that allows other drivers to chuck something at their vehicles. It's
just inconsiderate, un-called for, and just plain wrong!
And what's
the deal with people who drive down a road wide enough for two cars, yet decide to be as far left in the lane as possible
when taking a right turn?
Work
1. I work in a call center (where I just answer incoming calls) and my biggest pet peeve there would have
to be the members who call who act like they know what they are talking about, but really don't. Case in point: a member
pays for something with his Visa card and changes his mind. Rather than call the merchant and resolve the issue through
them (and, assuming he/she purchased a product, return the merchandise) he/she calls us and simply says "I no longer want
this product, please credit my Visa card." When I explain to them that they first need to contact the merchant they
get all poopy on me as if I run the Visa company or as if I just made the rule up. Why they can't just ask how something
works rather than assume they know and stick to their guns I will never know...
2. And speaking of work...what's the deal with people who call up, hear the recording that says "Welcome to…[Company
Name]"...then they press 5 to get a hold of the call center, to which I answer the phone and they ask "Is this [Company Name]?"
Ummm...yeah...why else would it say "Welcome to..."?
3. Or...people who call and when I answer they ask, "Are you open today?" Ummm...yeah...do you think
they'd pay someone just to answer phones and say, "we're not open"? Wouldn't it just be cheaper to use the same recording
to say "Welcome to...unfortunately we're not open today"?
4. Not to mention, people who call to get me to help them balance their checkbook only to find out they don't
even know when they balanced it last. Then they insist that our records are wrong and just want me to give them whatever
amount they are off. It isn’t the job of customer service representatives
to help you balance your checkbook any more than it is their job to help you clean your house.
If you find a discrepancy, you can ask to see if a few things have or have not cleared; any more than that and you
need to either get online to look at your account or get a copy of your statement. If
you ever wonder why your bank might charge you to speak with someone on the phone, this is exactly why.
5. Another one that has gotten worse lately is people wanting to change their address over the phone. We have a strict policy where I work not to change the address over the phone (short
of any extreme situations) because of the amount of fraud out there. Even after
I tell members it is to protect their own accounts, they get pissy with me. How
would you like it if you hadn’t received statements in the mail for some time and when you call your financial institution
they inform you that your address has changed? Once investigated, you come to
realize that when someone stole your checkbook recently, they fraudulently called impersonating you and changed your address
to theirs (or to a PO Box perhaps). Wouldn’t feel so good would it? I bet you wouldn’t like the fact that the financial institution would change
your address simply from a verbal request over the phone from some imposter, right?
So what exactly
do we require members to do? Not much: all you really need is a signature to
go along with your name and address (and preferably account number). We don’t
ask them to fill out crap loads of paperwork or jump through hoops; just a signature with the new address and something to
pinpoint which account it is for. Freakin’ KoKo the monkey could do that
even…
Shopping
One of the biggest pet peeves of shopping, of course, is the
person who goes into the “Express Lane – 15 items or less” line with more than 15 items. If you have 16 or 17 or something that’s one thing…but I saw the absolute WORST when I was
at Wal-Mart in Covington, Louisiana (and in a hurry to buy orange juice mind you). A lady with a full cart – not half full but completely full – was at the Express Lane piling up all of her items. And keep in mind
the express check out lanes at Wal-Mart are designed to not hold much. There’s
maybe 1 square foot of space on this counter, and the lady just kept adding more and more and more to the counter trying to
purchase all of her goods. And of course the checkout person is too nice (as
would I be) to say anything to her. “The customer is always right,”
right? Just because the Wal-Mart employee has to be considerate and kind, doesn’t
mean I, as a fellow consumer, can’t think she’s wrong as hell and an inconsiderate ass though.
Sports
My biggest pet peeve for sports would have to be when a “play/player of the game” or “player of the week”
is chosen before the end of the game/week. This may be very minor, but time and time again I have seen someone named
player of the game when there is still upwards of 5 minutes left in the game. If the game was a complete blowout and
the team currently ahead is guaranteed to win, then that wouldn’t be so bad. But when the game is still close and
there is plenty enough time for a game-winning play, I suddenly don’t think that a touchdown in the first quarter or
a diving catch to end the 4th inning should be considered the best play of the game. Seriously, why can’t
they just be patient enough to wait until the game is over (or at least far enough along that there is no way the losing team
could catch up) before calling the best play/player of the game?
And about the player of the week: case in point this weekend. The player of the NCAA football player of the week was
giving to a running back for, if I remember correctly, the University of Wisconsin. The running back had 295 yards rushing;
certainly a VERY difficult and amazing thing to do. However, quarterback Vince Young of the University of Texas ran for
267 yards AND threw for 239 yards. He had over 500 yards as compared to “just” 295 (I say “just”
because, again, 295 yards IS still amazing). But regardless of how rare it is to run for 295 yards, is it fair for him
to get the “player of the week” standing when during the same week someone else gets 500+ total offensive yards? Of
course not.
I’m currently reading a really interesting book called “Basic Economics.” What interested me in getting
the book was first off the price (I got it for 40% off of a “membership price” at a bookclub I belong to; it ended
up being like $7 or so). Secondly, though, was the concept of the book: to explain a complex subject such as economics into
something “basic” (as the name implies).
I have only read about 80 pages into the book, and aside from the author repeating himself a little bit, it is a very interesting
and informative read. The first few chapters deal mostly with supply, demand, and pricing. Considering I love to teach others,
and I majored in Economics, I feel the need to share what I’ve learned. :)
The difficult thing with economics is that a lot of it is theory. Some economists, for instance, believe that the price of
a particular product displays its worth. For example, say you have two objects: object A and object B. Object A sells in
stores for $50 and B sells for $100. Those of one philosophy would say that object B is worth twice as much as object A.
Pretty simple right? Well, not so fast…
Others have a different philosophy. They believe that the time spent producing the product (i.e. the amount of labor it takes
to produce it) displays its worth. Continuing with the same example, if object A took 2 hours to produce, and object B took
only 1 hour to produce, then object A is worth twice as much as object B. They would go further to argue that the reason
A is worth more is because it takes more effort and energy to produce. So which is it?
Well those of the first philosophy would say that price should reflect the costs of production. In other words, if object
A takes twice as long to produce as object B, then it should cost twice as much. The other side might counter argue that
there may be something holding the company back from charging more for object A. To which the counter-argument would be that
there should be government regulation (or deregulation) to prevent that. And on and on the arguments go.
So which economic belief system is “correct” in this case? Well, the answer to that will probably be solved sometime
after the “chicken and the egg” dilemma is answered.
|
