More internal ponderings/rambles...
Nov. 11th, 2004 08:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatSpent most of the day playing with contractual language, figuring out what language to insert, what not to, how best to advise the attorneys involved, and at the same time not piss off the vendor. The majority of my life has been spent being able to see other's points of view, even if they veer sharply from my own. Actually especially if they veer sharply from my own.
While working away at my desk, head-phones on to concentrate (I tend to listen to Mozart or classical while doing contracts, I'd listen to Lobi Traore, a Brazillian Jazz musician, but cjlasky still has my tape.), one of my co-workers returned from watching the Veteran's Day Parade on 5th Avenue. She paused on her way past my cubicle to comment: "They are just babies." I lowered my head-phones. "Babies?" I asked. "The soliders marching, they are just kids. So young. I didn't cheer. I just stood. Feeling very sad." "Did Anyone cheer?" I asked. "A few. Not many. People just watched them pass by, somber."
This morning on the news they announced that Yassir Arafat died. President Bush's comment was "now that he's dead, we might have a chance for peace." I found myself cringing at this comment for some reason. Almost as if President Bush was celebrating the man's horrible death at the age of 75. Depending on who you are - you may be celebrating. Just as if the US President died tomorrow, there would be people somewhere in the world, celebrating his death.
Celebrating death.
Which brings me back to that question posed in my last post: how to define "we"? After reading some of the responses, I've decided to redefine it.
"We" basically encapsulates everyone and anyone who agrees with "I" or "me".
Them is basically everyone who agrees with the other party or "you". Ex: Everyone who voted for George Bush is "we" and Everyone who voted for John Kerry is Them. (Or vice versa.) Or a less political view? Everyone who loves BTVS is We, Everyone who hates or could care less BTVS is Them.
Most of my life I've been hunting ways to get two parties to compromise. Not on big things. Actually very small, rather inconsequential ones. Nothing earth shattering. I've learned how to put myself in someone else's shoes. I see what they want and why, in order to figure out a way of giving it to them without losing what I want or the other party wants. I hate conflict and don't enjoy games that can be won or lost, because I have a tendency to feel sorry for the losing party, also the game is more or less over. (Which may explain why most team/spectator sports hold relatively no interest for me.) The problem with finding a way to give both parties what they want - is they have to both give up something. They need to sacrifice something to get it. People don't like paying for stuff. So the trick is determining what they are willing to give up to get what they want.
For some people - death is a better alternative, death of others, death of themselves. And, to be honest, I would rather die than give up certain freedoms or rights. But I believe there is a better way than death to get these things. There has to be. And I struggle with my anger of the people fighting a 4000 year old war over dry and difficult soil in the middle east, wishing they'd stop celebrating death and start celebrating life. I fear their battle over who owns what and whose religious doctrine rules will destroy us all.
While working away at my desk, head-phones on to concentrate (I tend to listen to Mozart or classical while doing contracts, I'd listen to Lobi Traore, a Brazillian Jazz musician, but cjlasky still has my tape.), one of my co-workers returned from watching the Veteran's Day Parade on 5th Avenue. She paused on her way past my cubicle to comment: "They are just babies." I lowered my head-phones. "Babies?" I asked. "The soliders marching, they are just kids. So young. I didn't cheer. I just stood. Feeling very sad." "Did Anyone cheer?" I asked. "A few. Not many. People just watched them pass by, somber."
This morning on the news they announced that Yassir Arafat died. President Bush's comment was "now that he's dead, we might have a chance for peace." I found myself cringing at this comment for some reason. Almost as if President Bush was celebrating the man's horrible death at the age of 75. Depending on who you are - you may be celebrating. Just as if the US President died tomorrow, there would be people somewhere in the world, celebrating his death.
Celebrating death.
Which brings me back to that question posed in my last post: how to define "we"? After reading some of the responses, I've decided to redefine it.
"We" basically encapsulates everyone and anyone who agrees with "I" or "me".
Them is basically everyone who agrees with the other party or "you". Ex: Everyone who voted for George Bush is "we" and Everyone who voted for John Kerry is Them. (Or vice versa.) Or a less political view? Everyone who loves BTVS is We, Everyone who hates or could care less BTVS is Them.
Most of my life I've been hunting ways to get two parties to compromise. Not on big things. Actually very small, rather inconsequential ones. Nothing earth shattering. I've learned how to put myself in someone else's shoes. I see what they want and why, in order to figure out a way of giving it to them without losing what I want or the other party wants. I hate conflict and don't enjoy games that can be won or lost, because I have a tendency to feel sorry for the losing party, also the game is more or less over. (Which may explain why most team/spectator sports hold relatively no interest for me.) The problem with finding a way to give both parties what they want - is they have to both give up something. They need to sacrifice something to get it. People don't like paying for stuff. So the trick is determining what they are willing to give up to get what they want.
For some people - death is a better alternative, death of others, death of themselves. And, to be honest, I would rather die than give up certain freedoms or rights. But I believe there is a better way than death to get these things. There has to be. And I struggle with my anger of the people fighting a 4000 year old war over dry and difficult soil in the middle east, wishing they'd stop celebrating death and start celebrating life. I fear their battle over who owns what and whose religious doctrine rules will destroy us all.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-12 10:18 am (UTC)I suppose it just means I am getting old, but I am routinely horrified when I see casualty reports of 22 or even 32 year olds (not that the death of older soldiers is meaningless, but young deaths are just so awful) on the news and keep muttering to the husband, "When I was 22 I didn't know a damned thing, what the hell are they doing in the military....?" and the soldiers interviewed in the field all seem so young and earnest, determined to do their duty and risk their lives without somehow knowing the fullness of what that means. It's just awful.
Agreed. It is horrifying. Not only do these poor young people get killed, but the ones who manage to survive are forever imprinted by the horrors they witnessed. They've been taught to kill. They've witnessed others blown to pieces. They've seen things most of us have only witnessed on a tv or movie screen or between the pages of a book.
That changes you and I fear for those who have to return with those memories.
I think Human beings have become very accomplished at finding new ways to kill, maim, and destroy one another - yet continue to fail miserably at finding ways to avoid it. As long as we continue to seek violence as a means of resolving our differences - we remain barbaric, no matter how technologically advanced or educated we become.