Why do people succumb to anger?
It feels so easy to slip into its grasp. But at the same time, from a distance, it looks quite stupid. Aren't we overreacting? What's the point of hitting one another, yelling at one another, going to war with one another? Yet when are up close, immersed in anger, we feel nothing but blissful rage, if that makes sense. Sweet revenge empowers us. Makes us feel as if we are at the top of the world. Maybe it is a survival mechanism. But I sure wish it weren't.
|
|
the strong and the weak
Isn't it so interesting to look into the past and see how stupid we were? Well, I'm looking at a book of WWII, called Hiroshima. It's by John Hershey and is an account of 6 survivors.
I'm reading it for a literary project and I realized how these people who died weren't as bad as the Americans thought. There was a mother, protecting her kids, a father trying to evacuate his family, and a doctor in his underwear on the porch. These people didn't deserve such a bad death. They were innocent.
In LD debate, our resolution is dealing with whether or not we should use economic sanctions. At first, I sympathized with the negative. After all, it prevents countries from doing nuclear stuff (for ex) that could affect even more people than in the country alone. I was talking to Mishy and she was saying, "what about the innocents?" For once, I was in the dilemma diplomats of today are in. Should I save more people and by doing so, hurt the fewer unlucky souls in the country? Or should I let the country have its rights and put the rest of the world at stake? What should we do for the best of all people?
Man, I can link everything to this problem now. xP Even Indian stuff! In Andhra, the Telangana part of the state has been considering themselves a separate state for years now. Their leader went on a hunger strike and was on the verge of death to support his cause of having a separate Telangana. The Indian governemnt consented and allowed them to form a new state. The rest of Andhra is rebelling, though, as they don't approve.
When I first heard it, I was furious. My home state split up because of a random dude fasting? Jumping to conclusions, my friend, is an easy way to blame people. But one needs to know all the facts before forming an opinion. Even though I was prejudiced against this group, I tried to learn more about them.
It turns out that they tried to separate because they felt they weren't being represented in government well. I was talking with my dad about it, and he told me that it wasn't just that. Students from Telangana have less of a chance getting into good schools in Andhra, which place priority on locals. These people had a legitimate reason to split. I didn't acknowledge that until recently.
I went to a friend's house before Christmas, and her mom was mentioning how Telangana was a good thing. I guess so. These people will get their rights. But the thing is that, most of this area is farmland, and I'm not even sure that having a separate state will ensure them rights. India, like any other country, being prone to corruption can't help all the innocents.
But I digress from my point. KCR (the dude who fasted and was the head of this party)was like Gandhi. After all, Gandhi went on strike and fasted for freedom from the British. How would it be if you denied your own citizen the right to peacefully protest as the father of your country did? I guess the Indian government had that in mind when they decided to split Andhra. [Now tons of parties in India want to be separated because Telangana got its freedom. The Indian gov't just said no more new states, which is sort of stupid in the sense that they're listening to Andhra and not to other states who're also fasting. How fair is that? If you let one split, then they all should get a chance to split, right?] However, which party should you listen to? The few willing to give their lives for a cause, or the mobs against them who want their voice to be heard too? Must we sacrifice the rights of a few for greater good? If we do, will it even be good ?
That was just going on in my mind. I know I don't want to be a politician. ;]
There are many sides to an issue. But does that make each situation a no-win one? We'll have to wait and see.
The strong and the weak
Take a rich man, with proud and arrogant,
and a farmer, humble and meek.
What do both have common?
A will to live, one may say, and equal rights.
I must scoff at you, if you are that one.
For if a war, as horrifying as the worst tempest,
were to erupt from the wells of man's greed and folly,
who would be thrown out into the battle's wicked claws?
The farmer is who.
If man's self-confidence and stupidity,
pull the stock market down into the depths of recession,
who takes the first fall?
The farmer is who.
When the poor fall, without any assistance,
how are these equal rights existing?
Where is the support the strong have, in the lives of the weak?
Where are their rights?
In the world of the strong and the weak,
there is no such thing as equality,
as brotherhood, as love, and peace.
How is life worth living in that world,
when you know that your rise is someone else's fall?
How can you have sweet dreams that turn bitter in others' minds?
How can the strong be happy,
while the weak suffer?
Will there ever be a moment,
at least one,
where our status doesn't matter,
our skin color, our race, our culture
are all accepted,
and when the strong hold hands with the weak?
If it will come,
you will see the folly of your answer,
as fairness is nonexistent in our world today,
as we live in the world of the strong and the weak.
Give me your feedback in the cbox. Cheerio!
Things I'm grateful for:
-nonfiction
-history
-classical music
-fungus fair on Sunday <3
-love and peace. And GTA that doesn't mean I'm a hippie.
|
|
|
the strong and the weak
Isn't it so interesting to look into the past and see how stupid we were? Well, I'm looking at a book of WWII, called Hiroshima. It's by John Hershey and is an account of 6 survivors.
I'm reading it for a literary project and I realized how these people who died weren't as bad as the Americans thought. There was a mother, protecting her kids, a father trying to evacuate his family, and a doctor in his underwear on the porch. These people didn't deserve such a bad death. They were innocent.
In LD debate, our resolution is dealing with whether or not we should use economic sanctions. At first, I sympathized with the negative. After all, it prevents countries from doing nuclear stuff (for ex) that could affect even more people than in the country alone. I was talking to Mishy and she was saying, "what about the innocents?" For once, I was in the dilemma diplomats of today are in. Should I save more people and by doing so, hurt the fewer unlucky souls in the country? Or should I let the country have its rights and put the rest of the world at stake? What should we do for the best of all people?
Man, I can link everything to this problem now. xP Even Indian stuff! In Andhra, the Telangana part of the state has been considering themselves a separate state for years now. Their leader went on a hunger strike and was on the verge of death to support his cause of having a separate Telangana. The Indian governemnt consented and allowed them to form a new state. The rest of Andhra is rebelling, though, as they don't approve.
When I first heard it, I was furious. My home state split up because of a random dude fasting? Jumping to conclusions, my friend, is an easy way to blame people. But one needs to know all the facts before forming an opinion. Even though I was prejudiced against this group, I tried to learn more about them.
It turns out that they tried to separate because they felt they weren't being represented in government well. I was talking with my dad about it, and he told me that it wasn't just that. Students from Telangana have less of a chance getting into good schools in Andhra, which place priority on locals. These people had a legitimate reason to split. I didn't acknowledge that until recently.
I went to a friend's house before Christmas, and her mom was mentioning how Telangana was a good thing. I guess so. These people will get their rights. But the thing is that, most of this area is farmland, and I'm not even sure that having a separate state will ensure them rights. India, like any other country, being prone to corruption can't help all the innocents.
But I digress from my point. KCR (the dude who fasted and was the head of this party)was like Gandhi. After all, Gandhi went on strike and fasted for freedom from the British. How would it be if you denied your own citizen the right to peacefully protest as the father of your country did? I guess the Indian government had that in mind when they decided to split Andhra. [Now tons of parties in India want to be separated because Telangana got its freedom. The Indian gov't just said no more new states, which is sort of stupid in the sense that they're listening to Andhra and not to other states who're also fasting. How fair is that? If you let one split, then they all should get a chance to split, right?] However, which party should you listen to? The few willing to give their lives for a cause, or the mobs against them who want their voice to be heard too? Must we sacrifice the rights of a few for greater good? If we do, will it even be good ?
That was just going on in my mind. I know I don't want to be a politician. ;]
There are many sides to an issue. But does that make each situation a no-win one? We'll have to wait and see.
The strong and the weak
Take a rich man, with proud and arrogant,
and a farmer, humble and meek.
What do both have common?
A will to live, one may say, and equal rights.
I must scoff at you, if you are that one.
For if a war, as horrifying as the worst tempest,
were to erupt from the wells of man's greed and folly,
who would be thrown out into the battle's wicked claws?
The farmer is who.
If man's self-confidence and stupidity,
pull the stock market down into the depths of recession,
who takes the first fall?
The farmer is who.
When the poor fall, without any assistance,
how are these equal rights existing?
Where is the support the strong have, in the lives of the weak?
Where are their rights?
In the world of the strong and the weak,
there is no such thing as equality,
as brotherhood, as love, and peace.
How is life worth living in that world,
when you know that your rise is someone else's fall?
How can you have sweet dreams that turn bitter in others' minds?
How can the strong be happy,
while the weak suffer?
Will there ever be a moment,
at least one,
where our status doesn't matter,
our skin color, our race, our culture
are all accepted,
and when the strong hold hands with the weak?
If it will come,
you will see the folly of your answer,
as fairness is nonexistent in our world today,
as we live in the world of the strong and the weak.
Give me your feedback in the cbox. Cheerio!
Things I'm grateful for:
-nonfiction
-history
-classical music
-fungus fair on Sunday <3
-love and peace. And GTA that doesn't mean I'm a hippie.
|
|
tagboard.
|
archives.
By post:
8 minutes
All is Well
On a Hamster Wheel
Avatar: Not the Last Airbender ;]
Tick tock tick tock
Joyeux Noël ou pas?
C'est moi!
By month:
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
November 2010
March 2011
February 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
August 2013
|
affiliates.
Just Koe
Thought of Life
Credits
Layout: Mary
Colours: refuted
Host: blogger
|