A Ticket to Your Dreams (SPOILERS)

If you had a ticket to your dreams, would you follow it?

After finishing the book A Northern Light by Jennifer Donnelly, I was left with a debated thought in my mind. The book, based on a murder in 1906, ended with the main character Mattie, leaving her home to go to college in New York City. This left me confused or perhaps saddened by the fact that she left all her family behind without a true goodbye. Going to college was Mattie's dream throughout the book and was partially what the story revolved around but the ending seemed a bit depressing even though she achieved what she wanted all along. Thinking about whether or not I would do the same if I were her, this is what today's blog will be about.

Choosing between a future wanted for so long and leaving the only familiar past is a choice that seems impossible. Mattie did just that though, leaving behind her sisters, father, past fiance, childhood friend, home, and practically everything, to pursue a dream with no guarantees. For me, I would probably spend my entire life debating the two choices and at the end, would still have no idea what I should have chosen. That is because of the deadly word "if". If this...If that..., If people keep saying "if" to every choice, no answer would ever be come up with. Risk is everywhere, but to do something, it has to be taken. If a choice has no risk, it isn't worth choosing because the only reason there would be no risk, no "ifs", would be because the outcome of the choice would be as stagnant as if a choice was never given.

There is nothing wrong with thinking about "ifs" as long as those two letters don't stop someone from doing what they need to do. But what if those horrible "ifs" came true? Well, the truth is there isn't anything that can be done if something ends bad. It wouldn't be any one's fault and there would be no reason as to why it happened other than it just did. Of course, people could just forget about their dreams so there would be no "if" but what is life without overcoming "if"? People should stop thinking about "ifs" in a negative perspective and use them to help accomplish goals instead. There are always two sides, good and bad, but it is the person's choice of which way to think in and that strongly impacts the outcome of whichever choice they make.

No future is obvious (in general) but what is, is that if someone got stuck with ifs for every choice or challenge that met them in life, one sure thing will result: failure, and if one really wishes to meet no risks, failure certainly has none.

Please feel free to comment.

Yesterday Once More performed by the Carpenters

Yesterday Once More  (lyric video but spelling in the video is not completely correct)

The song I wanted to share is called Yesterday Once More sung by the Carpenters and written by Richard Carpenter and John Bettis. The song mainly has the singer, Karen Carpenter, reminiscing about the songs that she used to listen to in the past and thinking about how her past compared to her present. It is quite an old song (I would think) but is still one of my favourites because of how beautifully written the lyrics and melody is/are. It is somewhat poetic in ways such as rhythm and rhyme (like the majority of songs) and perhaps has some onomatopoeia. Overall this song is just telling the listeners that some things never change and that moments should be cherished since times cannot be relived.

In the chorus, when the words "just like before, it's yesterday once more" are sung, it shows that some things, like how she feels about the songs that were her favourite songs in the past, do not change no matter how much time separates the moments. At the same time though, when Karen Carpenter sings " lookin' back on how it was in years gone by, and the good times that I had, makes today seem rather sad, so much has changed" the listener can hear the sadness in not only her voice, but in the lyrics as well. As the listener, I could understand that though some things don't change, time still moves on and no matter how similar, even the best moments cannot be revived from the past. The whole song is very smooth and the rhythm and words fit perfectly making the song poetic in ways that other ones may not be able to achieve. The song, like the name, is somewhat happy yet stained with sorrow just like how "Once More" is on a joyful note while "Yesterday" literally is the past and when a yesterday comes once more  it is obvious that the person reliving that yesterday is either unhappy with or missing the past which in this case, is missing. Throughout the chorus that talks about the songs she listened to in the past, there is also a carefree feel to it, just like how when one is younger, there are usually less worries. This feeling can be heard from the words she uses which are more of sounds (onomatopoeia) (ex. "Every sha-la-la-la, every wo-o-wo-o still shines. Every shing-a-ling-a-ling that they're startin' to sing, so fine"). This too is a loss because the days of little worries, can no longer be retrieved.

This message is something that many people forget about in their lives. Though not all moments are worth reliving or cherishing, people should still keep in mind that the minute that just passed, or the day one just spent, won't reappear and will never be a "today" or "tomorrow" but instead, a "yesterday". In Yesterday Once More, though the songs Karen listened to may be found again, can the moments spent next to the radio and singing along be as well? (You have to hear the song to understand what I'm talking about). The pain that one may go through at times of hardship or the bitterness in times of emotional struggle, many may want to wipe those moments off completely but though the times won't come back, nor will the support from loved ones or the joy of overcoming those battles. The past doesn't come back and the future doesn't wait which leaves only the present to cherish as it slowly becomes the past as well.

Time doesn't stop for anyone so instead of frowning and hating life, why don't we smile and embrace the seconds that pass making every one worth living. 

"I hope you're not just telling me what you think I want to hear"

Right now I have almost finished reading a book called Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children by Ransom Riggs. It is about sixteen year old Jacob who discovers the "world" of "peculiar children" (children with strange abilities) which included his grandfather who was killed in the beginning of the story. After befriending many of these peculiar children and finding out that he is also a peculiar child, he is faced with challenges not only for his well being but for the entire existence of peculiars as well. What I'm writing about today is about a simple statement said by Jacob's psychiatrist when he questions the honesty of some of Jacob's words. My blog doesn't necessarily do with the situation of the piece of dialogue but more of what the words say.

The piece of dialogue that is also my title for this blog says “I hope you're not just telling me what you think I want to hear” and it made me think about how often I (and I’m sure many other people as well) actually do that. How often it is that I tell people things that are perhaps partially true but mostly fabricated from facts that I think the listener would want to hear. In my opinion it’s not a good thing to do but I don’t consider it a bad thing either.  Sometimes we hear about things and want to know more but the truth is that once you know something, you can’t forget it. Do we really always want to know what something may be even if it may hurt us?  I’m not sure what I would choose for sometimes, no matter how naive it may seem, the things that sound good to our ears are way better than what may not. Still, even with the potential harm that the truth may be, should people still try to tell it or give it a chance to be listened to?  

What I asked was an actual question and not a philosophical statement. I can’t choose, both for whether or not to give truths a chance or to tell them fully to others. As people, we have feelings but if they get in the way at times, should we dismiss them and say “GO FOR IT”? Maybe some of you might think so but for me, I would say not. My answer (or what is closest to an answer) for the question that I asked would be to accept our feelings and move on. Acknowledge that they may get hurt and then steel ourselves for what we need to hear.

Though I’m not sure that my answer is the best or good at all, I do believe that one cannot let their emotions get the better of them all the time.  What are your opinions or answers as to whether or not one should listen to the truth or stay safe but in the depths of the unknown? Please comment!

The Struggles of Disabled Athletes That Exceed Their Disability.

Today I read an article Forging Path to Starting Line for Younger Disabled Athletes by Mary Pilon on the New York Times that talked about disabled athletes trying to beat sports officials in the topic of whether they could compete with able bodied athletes. There are many challenges for these athletes, especially ones in school (which seems to be the focus of this article) when it comes to competition such as accommodations, safety, and also, the fairness of specific things (ex. wheelchair vs. average human runner). For example, Ariz Mesa, a tennis player deaf since birth, felt discrimination against her when her interpreter who told her the scores was taken away, resulting in the loss of a tournament during her sophomore year. Though some states have already ensured that disabled students are included in sports and extracurricular activities, some sports officials still seem to be conflicted and unsure. With regards to safety and accommodation, many coaches have already begun to explore this new idea of accommodating and including disabled students in different areas of sports (even contact sports) and though this struggle has only just begun, the first steps have at least been taken. 

Seeing that the author has used many ways to show the sides and struggles of disabled athletes, I would say that she is definitely trying to get people to understand why they (disabled people) too should be included in the sports that we can do with ease. There is one specific quote that she used that I think shows her point very clearly and it is said by a 17 year old girl who uses a wheelchair when people told her that she, using a wheelchair, had an advantage. She said "I just didn't get the fact that they [sports officials] were saying I had an advantage because I was in a wheelchair. How do I have an advantage because I can't use half of my body? It didn't make any sense to me".  This quote showed the athlete's anger (and perhaps the anger of the author as well) that Pilon may have wanted the readers to feel. Overall I would believe that Pilon wanted the readers to think about the unfair and harsh circumstances that disabled athletes must face. Not only was playing the sport already more difficult than it would be for able bodied people but getting to play it is harder for them as well and that point is what the author, Mary Pilon, wanted the readers to think about. 

After reading this article I felt a deeper understanding of the struggles that disabled people have to face. It is horrible that people discriminate against them while at other times, treat them like they have too many advantages to be equal.  There is no advantage to being disabled and it should be painfully obvious how hard life is for them already so why can't people take the step to make it easier for them? I very much agree with the author for even with their disabilities, disabled people are the same as us and deserve the same privileges as we do. If sport is something we enjoy (and it is) then they should be able to enjoy it too.

What are your opinions? Please feel free to comment.

 Pilon, Mary. "Forging Path to Starting Line for Younger Disabled Athletes." The New York Times 15 Jan 2013 : (online) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/sports/disabled-athletes-suit-up-raising-questions-of-logistics-and-fairness.html?_r=0

The Greatest Manipulator (spoilers)

Being manipulated can cause rage but rage itself is the greatest manipulator. 

I finished reading To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee and it was an absolutely beautiful book with an incredibly deep story line of an even deeper  message. Continuing from my last post, the African American man (named Tom Robinson) accused of rape is (basically) revealed as innocent but is still made guilty and got killed when he tried to escape to his family.  The man who was the "victim's" father (his name was Bob Ewell), had actually beaten his daughter and blamed it on the African American man which costed both their lives. This happened when Bob Ewell  became extremely angry at Atticus for almost proving that he had beaten his daughter and near the end of the book, attempted to kill Jem and Scout. While doing so, he broke Jem's left arm, and while struggling, fell on his own kitchen knife (that he planned to use for killing Jem and Scout), killing himself. So who is the real enemy?

Technically Bob Ewell would be but in a way, wasn't rage? If anger had not consumed him he would not have beat his daughter, he would not have hated Atticus or his family, and he wouldn't have attempted to kill Jem and Scout. Of course, this is still his fault for you cannot blame anger. It is purely an emotion but when one chooses to let anger be their drive, that becomes a fault of that person with deep consequences. It is hard though, shielding yourself from the temptations and want of rage, revenge, anger, and all those negative but powerful feelings. We have to stay strong though, and resist this want to get angry for anger can become a weakness and blind ourselves.

I am not a hypocrite so yes, I have been and still get extremely angry sometimes. So angry that all the reason and sense in my mind is replaced with hate and flames of fury. Can we see behind flames though? Can we see those trying to make us understand or those who care about us? Anger will only grow, infecting its victims with the destruction it can cause, like a wildfire destroying the trees and forests that were once serene. If one does not put out the flames, it will become an inferno that can only destroy, and when the day comes that the fire goes out, they will realize that the burns would be too severe to heal.

You never know what one may do when blinded by anger. Offend someone, injure someone, kill someone...kill themself. I don't want to know and nor do I wish for others to. It is alright to get angry, we are only human and anger is a part of us but what we do need to know is when to calm down and let things be.

Rage is the greatest manipulator but that doesn't mean that manipulators have to win.

Please feel free to comment and share your opinions or experiences.

It makes me sick, it makes Dill sick, and doesn't it make you?

Today, as I was reading To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, the emotions of three pages hit me like an avalanche. The book, set in a Southern town in the 1930s, revolved around a girl named Jean Louise (but usually called Scout), her older brother Jem (Jeremy), and (sometimes) their friend Dill. The father of the two siblings, Atticus, was a lawyer who in the book fought a case where his client, an African American man, was accused of rape (Atticus is the defendant). Many things, emotional and surprising, unraveled as the case and depth of it all, revealed itself. The three pages I'm writing about today occur when Dill and Scout exit the courtroom due to Dill feeling sick, after watching a long period of the trial.

In those pages, Dill, who was crying, talks a lot about feeling sick when the (white) prosecutor talked in an incredibly disrespectful way to the African American man accused of rape, even though the one accused was very mannerly. What struck me so powerfully were the words spoken to Dill about him crying and being sick, by Mr. Raymond, a man from their town . As he talked about how Dill would no longer cry about specific things when he grew older, these were his words (mind the language) "Cry about the simple hell people give other people- without even thinking. Cry about the hell white people give colored folks, without even stopping to think that they're people, too." I found these two sentences sadly true. Remembering that this book was published in the 1960s, I understood why Harper Lee's book included such a strong quote. One of the strongest I've ever heard in fact, and perhaps it was because she had written what the problem for over a hundred years was.

To be honest, it should be that she wrote the problem of a hundred years and counting.  In my opinion, that quote in the book applies to all. Before people start being rude (or worse) to whatever something may be, they should think. They should acknowledge that though that person, or plant, or animal, or any living thing, isn't us, may not be someone/something we know, may not be at all related to us, that they STILL deserve respect. They still have feelings, emotions, joy, anger...pain, just like each and every one of us. Scientists may not be able to prove it but do we really need proof to live? Can't we for once, access the world with not only our brains, but our hearts as well?

It is the utter most self conceited and ignorant thing to say that we are superior because we are humans.  It is just as bad when people say they are superior for more specific categories such as race, colour, etc. Nothing is superior and everything deserves respect, whether its a person or tree or even a bug. You may ask why a bug would deserve as much respect as humans but the question from me is why not? Respect does not discriminate, it is not selfish, nor is it cruel but unfortunately, those who are capable of showing respect, are also capable of doing all those things. Maybe that's why Dill was sick and maybe that's why I feel like that too.

I feel sick, Dill feels sick, and really, shouldn't we all?

Please feel free to comment

About to go too far...or already too far gone?

Over the week I read three picture books, "Freedom Summer" by Deborah Wiles about two friends, one white and one black, facing the challenges of racism, "The Lorax" by Dr. Seuss about cruelty to the environment, and "Fox" by Margaret Wild and Ron Brooks about the friendship between a maimed magpie and dog being tested to the limits by temptation. In all three of these books I found unfortunate truths for the reality of these "children's" books are quite evident. It hit me hardest though when I thought about how the situations of each book may have already passed the point of no return.

When I say point of no return I mean it as in things will never be erased. The pains and wrongdoings of people can never ever be erased. The cruelty done to African Americans will not suddenly vanish. The trees so brutally cut will never grow back, and as for Dog and Magpie in "Fox", the scars on their friendship won't ever go away. Even if things are mended, the "mending" can only fix the problem, not turn back time and make it non existing. What can people ever do to make things right again since the majority of things cannot become right but just less wrong. Of course, mistakes can help one learn and in "Fox", may actually strengthen the friendship between Magpie and Dog, being that Magpie decided to return to Dog knowing that she would have to face the guilt of her betraying him,  but that does not mean that the trust between them will be as strong as it were before. The wounds will still be there and perhaps in moments may sting even more than when they were fresh.

Even more depressing is the fact that many are still doing such horrible things even if it already passed that point where things cannot be truly fixed. Emotions and hearts are not like machines where you can just fix it with some tools. We, as in all living things, are living but why can't this being of life be respected as it should always be? With the situations of the Truffula trees in "The Lorax", yes, the boy did get a seed, the last seed of all those trees but will the forests look the same as it were before it was all cut down? The animals will not come back and even if they did, their sufferings are irreversible. Don't people think before they act?  Apparently we are the smartest of all animals, but I do not see how, for we cannot even see that doing something wrong cannot be undone and are the ones who have actually caused the greatest damage. Actually, we are the ones who are causing the greatest damage because people have not stopped. We are way passed the point of no return but do not even see that humans, as in ALL of us, are the cause for all these unnatural and horrendous issues that have blossomed into deaths, sufferings, and hearts that will forever have a long, jagged, and ugly crack. It seems that perhaps even the heart of our planet will one day be broken when it too can no longer stand such abuse.

While things cannot be erased, at least we can make the effort to have less things that cannot be so. Doing the pathetic action of making issues seem invisible is not one of those options. As for whether or not we are too far gone, yes we have gone too far but not so far gone that we cannot stop these actions if we really try.

Please feel free to comment.