Heartfelt Sentiments From a Man Generally Uncomfortable with Heartfelt Sentiments

This is my last blog, and the goal is to sum up what I’ve learned in my life thus far, and relay that information to other people. The problem is that I feel as if the things that I’ve learned pale in comparison with the large amount of things that I still have yet to learn. Still, having gone through high school the past four years, I think that there are some lessons I’ve learned that can apply more broadly to a general high school experience. Unfortunately, each lesson that I can think of corresponds to a worn-out cliché. I know that if someone had given me this advice before high school, I may not have taken it very seriously, but looking back I believe that these principles were behind many of my good decisions, and could have prevented some bad ones.

Try New Things

I practically embody this phrase in the realm of food. I’m very adventurous and always love to sample something I’ve never even heard of. In other aspects of my life, however, I often forget that, as some people that are not me are fond of saying, “variety is the spice of life”. In high school, I mostly stuck to activities that I’ve been doing since I was very little, like football, trumpet, volleyball, and other activities. It took me until senior year to realize that I was kind of in a rut, as far as my extracurricular activities were concerned. This year I tried to branch out, by joining the varsity bowling team and participating in the Glenbrook musical, both for the first time. Both were great experiences in and of themselves, especially the musical. I found that these were two things that I was pretty good at and that I could see myself pursuing in college, though I doubt I’ll be joining any bowling teams. More importantly, I got to meet a lot of new people, and made some good friends that I definitely would not have made otherwise.

Don't Be Afraid to Quit

I am not a quitter. Period. Honestly, until I quit playing trumpet in band second semester this year, I had never quit anything in my life (as I’m writing this, I recall that I quit going to Hebrew school, but that doesn’t really count in my book. God would probably disagree). The only reason I even quit band is because, through an arcane series of GBN rules, I was not physically able to keep it in my schedule. Previously, I have always viewed my unwillingness to quit as a positive trait, and for the most part it is. Looking back, though, I’m kind of disappointed in myself for sticking with band as long as I did. I really didn’t like it very much. I strongly disliked the teachers, as well as most band members. I made a handful of good friends through band, but it wasn’t the best experience socially. Why was I so reluctant to quit? I barely even thought about it, even as some of my best band friends decided to drop out. Why do I (and society as a whole, for that matter) view quitting as such a horrible thing in all cases? It’s not like I didn’t have other things that I wanted to do. I can say definitively that I would have enjoyed some kind of vocal music or drama activities much more than band. Also, if I was going to sit on the bench all the time in football, why not try something else? This would have been a much harder decision for me, considering that I have a lot more friends on the football team than in band, but it’s an inner dialogue that should at least have taken place.

Follow Your Passions

This one is very, very cheesy. Still, it’s the one thing that will ensure that you make the right decisions. A person’s time is extraordinarily valuable, and we all make decisions daily about how to spend our time. Whether it’s what activity to participate in, which people to hang out with, or even what to think about, I’m very conscious of making sure that I spend the maximum amount of time doing something that will bring me joy. When I discussed my band experience and how I wish I had quit earlier, it’s not because I was miserable when in band. It was fine. However, I’m sure there’s something I could have been doing that I would have enjoyed a lot more. If you continue to search for things (which often involves my first piece of advice, trying new things) that are the absolute best use of your time, it will produce a happy and healthy individual. Obviously we can’t do the things that make us happy 24/7, otherwise I would never show up for AP Physics. There’s a lot of hard work necessary in order to make high school a valuable experience. Still, I would hope that as I get older, I’ll be able to figure out where I can put that work to use doing something that is fulfilling and that I’m passionate about. It may sound naïve, but it’s definitely a good goal to set for myself. To sum it up I think the best piece of advice I could possibly give is a line I once heard: “Above all, be true to yourself, and if you cannot put your heart in it, take yourself out of it.”

More Tension for Greg Mortenson

Last year over the summer, I read the memoir Three Cups of Tea by Greg Mortenson. In it, Mortenson explains how a failed climb up the mountain K2 resulted in a chance encounter with an impoverished, uneducated village in Pakistan. This encounter, he says, inspired Mortenson to dedicate his life to philanthropic works centered around building schools for this village, and others like it. I enjoyed the book when I read it, and was inspired by the optimism and selflessness evident in the story.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I read an article claiming that Mortenson’s story may be at least partially fabricated. My initial reaction was one of disappointment. The fact that Mortenson may have (lied or at the very least exaggerated) much of Three Cups of Tea completely ruined the book for me. I felt like Oprah, who recommended James Frey’s A Million Little Pieces, only to find out that it was largely made up, and not based on Frey’s life as he had claimed. The people who had been inspired by the story of addiction and redemption in the book rejected it, along with Frey. Now, with Greg Mortenson coming under fire in much the same fashion, Three Cups of Tea risks seeing the same fate. Will Mortenson be able to prove that the book is factual?

More importantly, does it really matter if Mortenson exaggerated? Does all of the inspiration people got from his book vanish just because parts of the book are less than accurate? I don’t think so, especially in Mortenson’s case. Though the genesis of his philanthropic spirit might have been fudged, the very real changes he has helped to bring about cannot be denied. Even if the allegations against Mortenson turn out to be true, I’m not going to let that ruin what was, for me, a very good book.

Trying to Get Mo' Context about Gitmo

Recently, I read an article in my favorite magazine (at least when I want to feel intellectual), the New Yorker. The article, by Hendrik Hertzberg, detailed the drastic shift in public opinion regarding the rights (or lack thereof) of the prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay. He opens with an anecdote about the treatment of several thousand Nazis under the command of General Erwin Rommel (incidentally, one of my favorite historical figures) who were captured by Allied forces in 1943. Though most Americans rightly viewed the Nazis with a fair amount of disgust and contempt, the prisoners were treated justly, in accordance with the Geneva conventions.

Fast forward to the present, and we have a situation with Guantanamo Bay that closely mirrors that event in 1943. The similarities are obvious: the United States is has captured many enemy combatants and doesn’t really know what to do with them. The differences are more subtle: unlike in 1943, there is a good chance that many prisoners in Guantanamo are not combatants at all, and have been wrongfully imprisoned without a trial. Also unlike in 1943, the prisoners in Guantanamo are not affiliated with any country, and as such it is much less likely that the U.S. be held accountable for any human rights abuses.

In 2008, Barack Obama ran on a platform to close Guantanamo Bay and end the United States’ policy of illegally detaining and torturing prisoners. As Hertzberg points out, public opinion was overwhelmingly in support of this position. However, this didn’t last long. Though Obama signed an executive order early in his presidency to close Gitmo, it’s clear that it was never a priority. It was a priority, though, for others to exploit an easily scared public to make sure that the prisoners (or the more acceptably and vaguely termed “detainees”) were locked up indefinitely without trial.

It’s difficult for many Americans, myself included, to watch a situation unfolding that has such strong ties to a World War II moment. I’m not speaking of the German POW scenario Hertzberg mentioned; the just handling of such a demonstrably evil group of individuals is a source of national pride. I refer instead to the Japanese internment camps, a mistake that goes down as one of the greatest human rights abuses in our nation’s history. Some may claim that, while virtually all of the Japanese-Americans held in internment camps were innocent of any wrongdoing, a large number of Guantanamo detainees are terrorists plotting to destroy the U.S. If this is so, however, why not put them on trial? If they are so clearly guilty, why not lay out the evidence in a civilian court and justify locking them up for good? There are no easy answers to this question, mostly because only one side is morally justifiable. Someday Americans will look back on this event as one in which political expediency trumped morality, in which the popular position trumped the principled one. On a lighter note, this horrible betrayal of everything America stands for also gave us "Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay", a movie which, despite myself, I found very funny.

Coming into Contact with Lenses

In my English class at the moment, we are reading Shakespeare’s masterpiece Hamlet. The book is interesting and thought provoking, and I’ve been challenged and inspired reading it. I wouldn’t expect anything less from a piece of literature that’s been regarded as one of the best ever for thousands of years. What was more unexpected, for me, is how much time we’ve spent in class taking talking about different ways critics can read the same text.

Obviously, I knew before that there are many different lenses that a critic can use when viewing a piece of art. The lens a critic uses largely depends on their area of expertise. What I didn’t know, however, was how well-defined and specialized these lenses are. We learned about ways of looking at literature that I had never considered before, and some that I had considered but never really valued that much. Also, it came as a revelation that the author’s intent really doesn’t matter when choosing a lens to look at a text through. Shakespeare clearly didn’t want Hamlet to have Marxist or feminist themes, but that doesn’t mean it can be analyzed along those lines. Thought I never really understood all of the critical approaches (psychoanalysis isn’t really my thing), there are many that I will incorporate into the way I view literature in the future. While my reading of a text will never be only new historical or reader response, I will use these lenses as tools to gain a deeper understanding of whatever it is that I’m reading.

Understanding Libya through Cartoons

Cartoons have always been a medium that I’ve enjoyed. Whether I’m reading the Sunday morning cartoons in the paper, or a sharp editorial cartoon, it’s amazing how much can be said with just a couple panels of artwork. In some cases, only one picture is needed to get the point across. With the events in Libya serving as a backdrop, I recently read a fascinating article about cartoons that I think offers an interesting spin on the events from a unique point of view.
The gist of the article was this: as Moammar Gadhafi’s actions become increasingly more violent, it gets harder for cartoonists to depict him in an appropriate light. 10 years ago, Gadhafi was viewed as a clown, and could be characterized as such. His silly wardrobe and borderline insanity made it easy for cartoonists to poke fun at him. As the atrocities he’s committing against his own people come to light, though, these types of cartoons are no longer funny.
To deal with Gadhafi’s new persona, cartoonists have started drawing him a lot differently. The article showed some examples where he is not portrayed as a clown, but rather as an oblivious despot, which is what he actually seems to be. Each artist does this in a different way and in a different style, but I found the article fascinating. It highlighted something that I’d never given much thought to, which is the way in which cartoons can reflect shifts of opinion about global events.

Kids these days, with their loud music and their scandalous outifts...

Last night (Sunday) was the Grammy awards, and I watched the majority of the telecast. The live performances were not consistently great, but pretty good in most cases. The decisions about awards, at least the ones shown on TV were odd, to say the least (for example, Lady Antebellum won what seemed like 138 Grammies for a mediocre song they put out about a year and a half ago). What captured my attention most, though, were all the crazy things performers did to capture people’s attention. From Lady Gaga’s horrible pointy shoulders to the multitudes women with hairstyles that required an impressive amount of neck strength to support, it seemed like everyone was trying too hard to be noticed. I’m all for freedom of expression, but it seems as if people are resorting to greater and greater lengths to stand out, even though they are already quite famous. This speaks to the nature of celebrity in the world today, and what is required, or what people think is required, nowadays to realize the classic “American dream”.

Nowadays, it seems as if stardom doesn’t come to those who are the most talented, attractive or intelligent. Instead, it comes to those who are the best at garnering attention. The time was when a band didn’t need outrageous outfits or flashy gimmicks to get noticed. The Beatles, arguably the best and most famous group in history, performed in suits and ties. The biggest celebrities then were talented movie stars, musicians, and athletes. Now, Lady Gaga is inexplicably climbing in and out of eggs and Cee-Lo Green is dressing up like the Froot Loops parrot. There’s nothing wrong with this per se, but it seems to me like they’re trying too hard to stir up public interest, when it shouldn’t really be necessary. Case in point: Arcade Fire’s performance near the end of the telecast featured blinding strobe lights that probably caused dozens of seizures in the audience, and also several random people riding around on bicycles. It’s as if they forgot that they would be performing onstage, and that everyone in the audience would already be looking at them. I’m ambivalent on the band and its music, but I came away from the Grammies hating them, just because the show was so ridiculously overproduced.

I don’t mean this post to be too old-geezer-esque, and I don’t mean to be overly nostalgic about the past (though looking over it, it seems to be both these things). I realize that Elton John dressed just as flamboyantly as most modern stars, and that Zsa-Zsa Gabor was probably no more deserving of fame (to the extent that anyone can be objectively judged in that manner) than Kim Kardashian. Still, the trend of people doing more and more outlandish things just to get noticed speaks to a decay, however small, in our culture and it might be nice if people could get attention simply for being good at whatever it is they do.

Shots Heard 'Round the Nation

Lately, the news has been dominated by the continuing protests in Egypt, and rightfully so. That the Egyptian people are rising up to reject quasi-dictator Hosni Mubarak is both exciting and inspiring. However, there has been another development in the Muslim world that has gotten very little coverage and that, while not as globally important, is perhaps almost as interesting.

For my history class, I’ve been closely monitoring Pakistani news, and this news often involves the United States. Last week, a U.S. official identified as Raymond Davis was arrested in the murder of two Pakistani men. A full summary of the story can be found here.

As many of the circumstances surrounding the murder are unknown, it’s hard to avoid speculation. It’s clear, though, that nationalism is playing a big role in how this crime is viewed. The U.S. government was quick to defend Davis, saying that he acted in self-defense and that he was being robbed by the two men that he shot. Pakistan, on the other hand, insists that the two men were completely innocent and that Davis is a murderer. These diametrically opposed perceptions of the same man are intriguing, especially considering that this entire case is steeped in mystery, and that no one really knows who Raymond Davis is exactly. I’m kind of curious as to why a consular official would need to walk around the streets of Pakistan packing heat, but I feel unqualified to render any further judgment on this man. It seems as though the average Pakistani has the same amount of facts as I do, but they have made up their minds to the point that there are daily protests calling for his hanging.

It’s hard to believe that nationalism can drive people to such extreme measures, but that’s really the only explanation for what’s happening in this situation. Davis is seen as a symbol of the U.S.; if he is acquitted, Pakistan’s subservience to America will be on display for the world to see. On the flip side, Americans see this man as a symbol of their government as well. Therefore, he must not be guilty; surely he had good reason to shoot and kill those two men, just as the U.S. government has good reason to launch unmanned drone attacks on Pakistani citizens.

No matter what the verdict, this trial will be huge news in Pakistan, and possibly on the global stage as well. I know that I will be following it closely. The trial will most likely say just as much about the balance of power between America and Pakistan as it does about Davis’s innocence or guilt.