Patrick,
I can't be one of those friends who tells you, "I know how you feel," because I don't. I've never lost a sibling, so I can't completely comprehend how you must be feeling. I can imagine it must be unbearable though, and I hate to see a family as great as yours have to go through something as terrible as this.
I never met Peter, but from what I had heard of him, he's was a really amazing guy. I remember last year, Jessica and I were doing a video project for English and decided to watch E.G.'s for an example. I'm pretty sure it had E.G., Peter, Kelsey, and Tony, and probably a couple others that I can't remember. We watched the uncut version, and it was undoubtedly some of the funniest stuff I've ever seen. They did some of the dumbest stuff in it, but it was great. So at least I knew he had a good sense of humor. :) And I know he also had a lot of good people for friends; people who really cared about him and are truly going to miss him.
I don't know about you're relationship with him. I don't know if you were the kind of brothers who fought about stupid things, or the kind who were best friends. Maybe you were even the kind of brothers who barely acknowledged each other. I don't know. But I don't think that matters much. Whether or not you were really close isn't important. What is important is that you loved him, even if you didn't show it. And if I know you at all, then I know you probably really loved him and always will, and you probably looked up to him in some way or another. I know that even though I don't let it show, I definitely look up to Natali. I love her and respect her, and I can't ever imagine losing her. If you and Peter had a relationship somewhat parallel to my relationship with Natali, then I know you have to be practically dead inside right now.
I'm sure you've heard this many times from a lot of different people, but I am sincerely sorry about this terrible accident. I know that apologizing for something that isn't my fault won't change what happened, but that's not why I'm saying it. I want you to know that when I tell you I'm here for you, I mean it. I don't want to see you upset, or in any kind of pain, and I would do anything for you just to make you smile. I mean that. Peter was 19. He didn't get a chance to really live his life yet, and it was unfair for that opportunity to be taken away from someone who could do so much for the world. He did nothing to deserve his life to end like this; your entire family did nothing to deserve pain like this.
Writing this to you may not make anything better for you, but I'm saying all of this with the small sliver of hope that it might. Everyone has been bothering you about this, and I know it has to be driving you insane. That's why I asked whether or not you would want me to go to the visitation. I didn't want to be one of those annoying people who has no reason to be upset. And when I saw you yesterday, I almost cried. I remembered how on Wednesday morning at school I saw you right around 8:00 and I thought about saying hi to you, but didn't. I wish I had though, even though it wouldn't make much difference to anything.
When I saw you yesterday, you weren't crying. It looked like you wanted to, but it seemed like you had cried so much already that you just couldn't anymore. Seeing Brad cry made me want to cry, but I didn't. I didn't shed a tear the entire time. And then when I saw your mom, oh gosh... I knew she would be completely devastated still. But seeing her that upset wasn't as bad as seeing you so completely frozen. You were more unsettling to me than she was, and that still bothers me a bit. Maybe I felt like if you weren't crying, I had no reason to cry either, and that might've been what kept me from it. I don't know.
What I do know, Patrick, is that you are an absolute sweetheart. I can't stand seeing you upset in any way, especially when the only way you can be is solid stone. You're tough, but I know you aren't tough enough to do this on your own. And I just want you to know that I will always be here for you. We've had our rocky past, but that's not going to change the way I feel about our friendship. Sure, we might not talk a lot like we used to. That doesn't mean I'm not going to be here to listen. My phone is always on, and if I don't pick up, keep calling until I do. Because I will eventually answer as soon as I hear it ringing. When I see you tomorrow, you can bet I will say hi this time. And every time I see you after that? I'll say hi. Not because I feel sorry for you, but because I want you to see that I really am here for you anytime you need me. I hope that if/when I need a friend, you'll be one of the first at my side, helping me through it just like I'm trying to do for you.
Best wishes, Patrick,
Love, your friend. :)
13 September 2009
08 September 2009
Shades of Gray
I find it kind of funny that today in English we talked about "shades of gray", and I had on an all-gray outfit. :P And no, we weren't literally talking about colors (hence the quotation marks!). But this whole subject got me to thinking about some other things, so this blog might seem kind of... sporadic? I think that's the word for it.
It all started with a small debate about TSL. The Puritan society Hawthorne wrote about is very small-minded. A sin is a sin to them, no matter what the situation. Adultery is adultery, whether or not they loved each other; regardless of the fact that the adulteress's husband was MIA for a long time.
One girl in the class compared the two lovers' adultery to murder. "If you kill someone because you hate them, that doesn't make it right." No, it doesn't. But things aren't always black and white. Very rarely will you find things in life that way. There's always different degrees of sin; some sins are worse than others, and the degrees depend on the situation. Argue all you want about a sin being a sin, but even Dante believed there were different levels of sin. Why else would he have made all those different levels of Hell in The Inferno?
This whole "right is right, wrong is wrong" argument? Definitely not true. Hypothetical situation: I stole money from someone's wallet that was just lying around. Is this wrong? Ethically, yes, it is. But what if I told you I was poor? That I didn't have a dime to my name? What if I told you that I had two children to feed, with no food to give them? Would it be considered just as wrong as it would if I were to steal just out of greediness? No, it wouldn't. Committing a sin for selfish reasons is worse than doing so for logical reasons.
Yes, I know in adultery is selfish. But I think it should make some sort of difference in the degree of wrongness to know that they were in love, and her husband was dead for all anyone knew. That's not the point I'm trying to bring out though. What I'm trying to show you is that even though her sin is still a sin, that doesn't mean everything is like that.
Some of my classmates were trying to prove that no matter what unlawful act you commit, it's equally bad no matter what the situation is. What was said before, about killing someone because you hate them? That is a completely unparallel comparison. You can't try to show the similarities between two situations that are nowhere near being on the same level. Yes, they are both sins. But adultery is wrong no matter what the reason is. Of course, if the two were in love, you will have more sympathy for them. Humans are sensitive and understanding, as able to relate more easily with a situation such as that, than we are able to connect with murder.
And murder is a sin on many different levels and degrees. What if you killed someone because of self defense? Or because of a car accident? That is definitely not equally as bad as killing someone out of hate.
Alright, I've rambled off subject a little... Where was I heading with this? Oh, yeah. This belief of everything being laid out in black and white makes me think of why I don't go to church anymore. I'm not trying to criticize anyone's religion here, but I quit going to church because everyone was so judgmental. I'm not going to say which church I went to, because I don't want to offend anyone on a personal level. It's just that, they say they're open-minded and that they welcome everyone with open arms. But that's not true. They criticize others for sinning and look down upon those who have sinned and don't come to God for forgiveness. They think they are better than others because they go to church and follow the Bible.
Whatever. That's the one thing that bothers me right there. The Bible. Who wrote it? They say it's truth, but how do they know it is? When the Catholic Church in Europe first began, the Pope and other church leaders decided what to share and what not to share through the Bible. They told the people what God wanted them to do, because most of the people were not educated enough to read. How do we know that what is written in The Bible is the truth? How do we know that the Catholic Church didn't change and rewrite parts of The Bible to fit their beliefs? Exactly- we don't.
Sure, The Bible has a lot of interesting stories in it. Sure, there's a lot of inspiring messages. But what about what's preached between the lines? What about the fact that they say you can only have one of two fates: (a) you accept Jesus Christ into your heart, and repent your sins, and worship God until you die, which leads you to Heaven. Or (b) you don't do all of part a, and you go to Hell. No. That can't be true. Things can't be written black and white that way. There has to be gray areas in between all of that. If God is as great and forgiving as they say, then why would he send so many people to Hell because of that? What about all those who believe in other religions? What about those who lived an atheist or agnostic life, but were wonderful people? Would God just send them to Hell? I don't think He would. If He really exists, if Christianity really is the "right" religion, He would not be so cruel.
And who's to say Christianity is the "right" religion? What makes it so right? It might be the religion followed by the majority of the U.S., but it doesn't have the most world-wide believers. Why do we have to just have one "right" religion? Aghh, all this spiritual thinking is giving me a headache. Plus, I've still got English homework to do. I'll save that rant for another day.
So, what was my major reason for this rambling today? Things can't be just right or wrong. There is always room for argument and judgment between the two. If there wasn't, most of our court laws would not exist. Shades of gray can be found easily; you never have to look hard for it. End of discussion.
It all started with a small debate about TSL. The Puritan society Hawthorne wrote about is very small-minded. A sin is a sin to them, no matter what the situation. Adultery is adultery, whether or not they loved each other; regardless of the fact that the adulteress's husband was MIA for a long time.
One girl in the class compared the two lovers' adultery to murder. "If you kill someone because you hate them, that doesn't make it right." No, it doesn't. But things aren't always black and white. Very rarely will you find things in life that way. There's always different degrees of sin; some sins are worse than others, and the degrees depend on the situation. Argue all you want about a sin being a sin, but even Dante believed there were different levels of sin. Why else would he have made all those different levels of Hell in The Inferno?
This whole "right is right, wrong is wrong" argument? Definitely not true. Hypothetical situation: I stole money from someone's wallet that was just lying around. Is this wrong? Ethically, yes, it is. But what if I told you I was poor? That I didn't have a dime to my name? What if I told you that I had two children to feed, with no food to give them? Would it be considered just as wrong as it would if I were to steal just out of greediness? No, it wouldn't. Committing a sin for selfish reasons is worse than doing so for logical reasons.
Yes, I know in adultery is selfish. But I think it should make some sort of difference in the degree of wrongness to know that they were in love, and her husband was dead for all anyone knew. That's not the point I'm trying to bring out though. What I'm trying to show you is that even though her sin is still a sin, that doesn't mean everything is like that.
Some of my classmates were trying to prove that no matter what unlawful act you commit, it's equally bad no matter what the situation is. What was said before, about killing someone because you hate them? That is a completely unparallel comparison. You can't try to show the similarities between two situations that are nowhere near being on the same level. Yes, they are both sins. But adultery is wrong no matter what the reason is. Of course, if the two were in love, you will have more sympathy for them. Humans are sensitive and understanding, as able to relate more easily with a situation such as that, than we are able to connect with murder.
And murder is a sin on many different levels and degrees. What if you killed someone because of self defense? Or because of a car accident? That is definitely not equally as bad as killing someone out of hate.
Alright, I've rambled off subject a little... Where was I heading with this? Oh, yeah. This belief of everything being laid out in black and white makes me think of why I don't go to church anymore. I'm not trying to criticize anyone's religion here, but I quit going to church because everyone was so judgmental. I'm not going to say which church I went to, because I don't want to offend anyone on a personal level. It's just that, they say they're open-minded and that they welcome everyone with open arms. But that's not true. They criticize others for sinning and look down upon those who have sinned and don't come to God for forgiveness. They think they are better than others because they go to church and follow the Bible.
Whatever. That's the one thing that bothers me right there. The Bible. Who wrote it? They say it's truth, but how do they know it is? When the Catholic Church in Europe first began, the Pope and other church leaders decided what to share and what not to share through the Bible. They told the people what God wanted them to do, because most of the people were not educated enough to read. How do we know that what is written in The Bible is the truth? How do we know that the Catholic Church didn't change and rewrite parts of The Bible to fit their beliefs? Exactly- we don't.
Sure, The Bible has a lot of interesting stories in it. Sure, there's a lot of inspiring messages. But what about what's preached between the lines? What about the fact that they say you can only have one of two fates: (a) you accept Jesus Christ into your heart, and repent your sins, and worship God until you die, which leads you to Heaven. Or (b) you don't do all of part a, and you go to Hell. No. That can't be true. Things can't be written black and white that way. There has to be gray areas in between all of that. If God is as great and forgiving as they say, then why would he send so many people to Hell because of that? What about all those who believe in other religions? What about those who lived an atheist or agnostic life, but were wonderful people? Would God just send them to Hell? I don't think He would. If He really exists, if Christianity really is the "right" religion, He would not be so cruel.
And who's to say Christianity is the "right" religion? What makes it so right? It might be the religion followed by the majority of the U.S., but it doesn't have the most world-wide believers. Why do we have to just have one "right" religion? Aghh, all this spiritual thinking is giving me a headache. Plus, I've still got English homework to do. I'll save that rant for another day.
So, what was my major reason for this rambling today? Things can't be just right or wrong. There is always room for argument and judgment between the two. If there wasn't, most of our court laws would not exist. Shades of gray can be found easily; you never have to look hard for it. End of discussion.
04 September 2009
Cheating
Normally I'm completely opposed to cheating. It's obviously wrong, no doubt about that. But at lunch today I was talking to my friend about an English test the next period, and we ended up on the subject of cheating. Last Friday for our first Lit Terms test, he said there was a lot of kids that hid the paper with the definitions right under their test. What an obviously stupid way to cheat, right?
Well, I was thinking about how worried I was because I didn't know two or three of the terms. I mean, it's bad enough I just lost 20 points for not bothering to do that summer reading book review, but I didn't want to lose another 6-12 points, depending on how she scores it. So i took out a mini Post-It note (~1.5"x2") and scribbled down short notes on the few I figured I'd forget. I stuck the Post-It under my test.
Now, like I said, we all know cheating is wrong. And we've all done it at some point. Maybe it was on a test and maybe it wasn't. But that's not the point. The point is, it's immoral, and selfish. All those people who work so hard to get the answers right, and here someone else comes along, cheating their way to the top. It's unfair to them, and it's unfair to their teachers who try so hard to teach it to them. Maybe they'd learn something if they'd study or pay attention.
The worst part of all? Like all the teachers say, it really is just cheating yourself. Cliche, I know. But true. You don't learn anything by cheating, and you'll just continue to fall farther behind. When you ace the class, what will you tell your parents when they praise you? "Oh, I cheated the whole time."? No. You won't. You'll hide it inside and fake a proud smile, pretending to be modest about your "accomplishments" when you didn't even earn it. You're going to feel guilty.
Or maybe you won't. Maybe you aren't as conscience about your deceit. Maybe you're one of those kids who is so selfish, you couldn't care less about how you affect others. As for me? Do I feel guilty about cheating today? No, I don't. I didn't even look at those answers I wrote down. I didn't really even need them; I got a 100%.
Well, I was thinking about how worried I was because I didn't know two or three of the terms. I mean, it's bad enough I just lost 20 points for not bothering to do that summer reading book review, but I didn't want to lose another 6-12 points, depending on how she scores it. So i took out a mini Post-It note (~1.5"x2") and scribbled down short notes on the few I figured I'd forget. I stuck the Post-It under my test.
Now, like I said, we all know cheating is wrong. And we've all done it at some point. Maybe it was on a test and maybe it wasn't. But that's not the point. The point is, it's immoral, and selfish. All those people who work so hard to get the answers right, and here someone else comes along, cheating their way to the top. It's unfair to them, and it's unfair to their teachers who try so hard to teach it to them. Maybe they'd learn something if they'd study or pay attention.
The worst part of all? Like all the teachers say, it really is just cheating yourself. Cliche, I know. But true. You don't learn anything by cheating, and you'll just continue to fall farther behind. When you ace the class, what will you tell your parents when they praise you? "Oh, I cheated the whole time."? No. You won't. You'll hide it inside and fake a proud smile, pretending to be modest about your "accomplishments" when you didn't even earn it. You're going to feel guilty.
Or maybe you won't. Maybe you aren't as conscience about your deceit. Maybe you're one of those kids who is so selfish, you couldn't care less about how you affect others. As for me? Do I feel guilty about cheating today? No, I don't. I didn't even look at those answers I wrote down. I didn't really even need them; I got a 100%.
03 September 2009
First is the Worst
My head hurts. My hands are cramped from spending so much time writing notes, balancing equations, and pretending to translate German when I'm really just copying off of one of the seniors in class. My eyes are sore from staring at this computer screen for the past hour (okay, maybe a couple more than that). If I get off the computer now, maybe I'll actually get my English homework done. But I really don't want to. I'd rather sit here and complain to an unexistent audience about how stressed out I am.
I spent my first class of the day doing practically nothing. Chemistry isn't so bad, but we just took a chapter 3 test yesterday and apparently Mr. Wonderful (no, that's not his real name) thinks we should've already read through chapter 4 so we can have a full chapter discussion. Uhh, no? I spent yesterday copying three paragraphs of The Scarlet Letter for AP English. Okay, so I did that in German class. But I still got my German assignment done! And after I got home from that IU Preview Day "conference" at Holiday Inn at 9 p.m., I was not about to spend the next three hours of my night studying chemistry.
And why exactly did I have to copy three paragraphs verbatim for English? Because today we had to "Describe Hawthorne's diction in TSL". Pointless, if you ask me. And when I volunteer to read what I write, of course it's wrong. I don't know why, but I can't seem to do anything right in that class. Don't get me wrong- I love English. It's my favorite subject. I've been writing poetry and prose since I was 9, and I intend to continue doing that for the rest of my life. But for some reason, I can't stand that class.
Maybe it's because there's around 30 kids in there. Maybe it's because I'm not so fond of half the people that sit right around me. Maybe it's because nobody in that class knows how to shut their mouths and keep it that way. I'm so tired of hearing non-stop chatter in there. The people around me are the worst. Granted, some of them that sit right near me are really good friends of mine. Still, though, I absolutely hate all the nonsense that goes on in there. And to top all of that annoyingness off, tonight I'm supposed to "Examine Hawthorne's use of detail in TSL". Yeah, right. Just like I'm going to write that summer reading book review that's due tomorrow for 40/20 points. Whatever. I'm not writing some stupid book review about a book I didn't even bother to read. Just because teachers don't have a life during summer, doesn't mean kids aren't doing things to stay busy. I did a musical in June, and went to a Summer Honors program at ISU in July. The rest of that time was filled with softball games, practices, and tournament. Like I actually had time to read The Joy Luck Club, Invisible Man, or The Glass Menagerie.
While we're on the subject of classes... Orchestra sucks. I love playing viola, I honestly and truly do. But I can't stand it when 96% of the class is freshmen. Cadet orchestra is the worst possible class to take, ever. I still don't understand why they had to switch the hours for cadet and concert orchestra. If they hadn't, I'd be able to be in concert both trimesters that I'm in orchestra. And that's something I just can't seem to let go. Everyday it gets worse and worse. Freshmen won't listen. Freshmen won't play correctly. Freshmen just suck in general. I do admit, there are some exceptions though.
And my last class? US History. I like US. Way more than I like World or European. Since I already had two AP classes, I didn't want to pile on a third that I wouldn't be able to handle. So I didn't. And now I'm in a regular history class with mostly retarded kids. I hate being one of the smartest persons in a regular class, because once they know I am, they harass me constantly for answers to everything. At least in an advanced class, everyone is somewhat smarter, and they know enough to figure things out themselves. But just like in English, all the kids in my US class just want to talk the entire time. It drives me insane. :/.
Well, as much fun as this was, I have to end this here. "So soon?" Sadly, yes. My parents need the internet or something like that. I don't get online much anymore, so I'm not sure how often I'll be able to rant on here. I do know that this weekend I'll definitely be online at some point. And hopefully I'll have more to say then. Later.
I spent my first class of the day doing practically nothing. Chemistry isn't so bad, but we just took a chapter 3 test yesterday and apparently Mr. Wonderful (no, that's not his real name) thinks we should've already read through chapter 4 so we can have a full chapter discussion. Uhh, no? I spent yesterday copying three paragraphs of The Scarlet Letter for AP English. Okay, so I did that in German class. But I still got my German assignment done! And after I got home from that IU Preview Day "conference" at Holiday Inn at 9 p.m., I was not about to spend the next three hours of my night studying chemistry.
And why exactly did I have to copy three paragraphs verbatim for English? Because today we had to "Describe Hawthorne's diction in TSL". Pointless, if you ask me. And when I volunteer to read what I write, of course it's wrong. I don't know why, but I can't seem to do anything right in that class. Don't get me wrong- I love English. It's my favorite subject. I've been writing poetry and prose since I was 9, and I intend to continue doing that for the rest of my life. But for some reason, I can't stand that class.
Maybe it's because there's around 30 kids in there. Maybe it's because I'm not so fond of half the people that sit right around me. Maybe it's because nobody in that class knows how to shut their mouths and keep it that way. I'm so tired of hearing non-stop chatter in there. The people around me are the worst. Granted, some of them that sit right near me are really good friends of mine. Still, though, I absolutely hate all the nonsense that goes on in there. And to top all of that annoyingness off, tonight I'm supposed to "Examine Hawthorne's use of detail in TSL". Yeah, right. Just like I'm going to write that summer reading book review that's due tomorrow for 40/20 points. Whatever. I'm not writing some stupid book review about a book I didn't even bother to read. Just because teachers don't have a life during summer, doesn't mean kids aren't doing things to stay busy. I did a musical in June, and went to a Summer Honors program at ISU in July. The rest of that time was filled with softball games, practices, and tournament. Like I actually had time to read The Joy Luck Club, Invisible Man, or The Glass Menagerie.
While we're on the subject of classes... Orchestra sucks. I love playing viola, I honestly and truly do. But I can't stand it when 96% of the class is freshmen. Cadet orchestra is the worst possible class to take, ever. I still don't understand why they had to switch the hours for cadet and concert orchestra. If they hadn't, I'd be able to be in concert both trimesters that I'm in orchestra. And that's something I just can't seem to let go. Everyday it gets worse and worse. Freshmen won't listen. Freshmen won't play correctly. Freshmen just suck in general. I do admit, there are some exceptions though.
And my last class? US History. I like US. Way more than I like World or European. Since I already had two AP classes, I didn't want to pile on a third that I wouldn't be able to handle. So I didn't. And now I'm in a regular history class with mostly retarded kids. I hate being one of the smartest persons in a regular class, because once they know I am, they harass me constantly for answers to everything. At least in an advanced class, everyone is somewhat smarter, and they know enough to figure things out themselves. But just like in English, all the kids in my US class just want to talk the entire time. It drives me insane. :/.
Well, as much fun as this was, I have to end this here. "So soon?" Sadly, yes. My parents need the internet or something like that. I don't get online much anymore, so I'm not sure how often I'll be able to rant on here. I do know that this weekend I'll definitely be online at some point. And hopefully I'll have more to say then. Later.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
