Yes everyone, it's been a while since I've posted. My apologies for that. It's my last semester of school, and who knew 15 credits would be this much work? Fifteen is the minimum here, and it's not like I'm taking any enormously hard classes compared to some of the others (EE, thermo, physics, etc.). I think I just managed to get two of the history profs who just love to assign ridiculous amounts of reading. Between that, the battalion staff position, and the band, it's busy busy busy. Or maybe it's because I'm a second-semester senior who just wants out. And here's me considering taking on IFS (Introductory Flight Screening...basically the prerequisite for heading down to flight school this summer) so I don't have to stick around after graduation. I went to lunch with the two people I'm planning on rooming with down in Pensacola, so we could try to hammer out what details we could until orders come down in February. We're looking to rent a small condo close to the base. Sally and I can cook, and Reeve has said he won't mind cleaning; I think we'll be well set up for the few weeks we're there. Apparently we'll only be in Pensacola for 15 weeks if we get the platform we want -- otherwise it's only 30 weeks or so (+/- depending on the flight schedule).
Well, that's it for the school update for this post. I wish I could say I had a witty or deep observation, but I'd be lying to you. Honestly, there's not a whole lot going on at the moment that's worth posting about: nothing deeply personal has happened since the incident in December when my heart was used as a scratching post for someone who chose to lead me on, willfully ignorant of the effect she was having on me. That was fun. Now she's started talking to me again, which is interesting in and of itself: she knows what she did, and got angry because she didn't think she'd done anything. If anything, it was both of us, but that's a separate discussion.
Now, I'm just kind of coasting: I'll be out of this area within six months or so, so part of me wants to just say "There's no point in trying to start something, since we both know it'll end bittersweet at best, bitter at worst." That's the part of me that knows I'm not a frivolous person, and don't start something lightly just for the sake of convenience. Then there's the part of me that's the hopeless romantic (and it's a rather sizeable portion, believe you me) that just wants to throw caution to the winds and damn the consequences.
Typical Cancer, that's me. Very home-bodied and romantic. Well, if you put any credit in that sort of thing.
Before I go, I'm just going to ask a question of you, my readers. But first, I'm going to toss something out there about myself: I know I want a family, and I know I could make a damn good husband and father (I also know I'd be the one scaring the hell out of a daughter's prospective boyfriend, but that's more of a humorous aside than anything else). Suburban housing might be all right while I'm in the service (not much choice otherwise), but at some point in life I'd like to live out in the country. Preferably somewhere with mountains. The Shenandoah Valley would be nice (since I do so love Virginia) but so would the Wyoming/Idaho/Montana area. Every time I go out to that area it just feels right. This is coming from someone who grew up in the ever-expanding sprawl of DC. Occasional visits to places like New York and Philly are nice, but I am not a city person.
I've been told that I'm one of the odd ones for knowing what I want out of life. Granted, it's the simple things, but I've never been a complicated person. What you see is what you get. I like to think it's a nice change of pace from the modern world, when everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too; they get caught up in the trappings of today's high-speed society and forget what should be most important: basic values like love (real love, not the junk that covers the popular yellow journalism rags you see at supermarket checkout lines), family, respect, and the worth of a hard day's work. To most, that's old-fashioned; to me, it's ideal.
So I'm going to ask you, my readers: what do you want out of life? Ask yourselves, ask your friends, ask a stranger sitting next to you on the bus. Don't worry if you don't know. You're all about the same age as me, and I already know I'm the anomaly when it comes to this. Far be it from me to tell you how to live your lives; that's yours and yours alone, especially in these, your prime years.
What Would You Do?
--Mr. NFO 2009
(comment if you like; I love hearing from you guys)
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Monday, January 5, 2009
Beauty and the Beholder
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." A common enough phrase; one that implies that each person has their own standards, and also implies (albeit much more subtly) that some people who are considered unattractive can be found "beautiful" by the right person. But what is "beauty" but a set of arbitrary standards set by society? In the U.S. and most Western European nations, those standards are set by the media (movies, TV, music stars, advertisements, etc.) for everyone else to follow. So, the "beholder" and the "beauty" are still subjected to societal norms, which largely direct their own opinions (at least in the developed world).
So, beauty is not truly in the eye of the beholder, but in the eye of society. The beholder has to be able to see beyond what society tells them to see, else he or she is likely in for a very rude surprise--and it can be very difficult to learn how, depending on just how inundated a person is with examples of what society tells them they should seek. As for a "beauty," that person must be able to believe in themselves, because not everyone can measure up to society's standards, and without society's approval, life can be a whole lot more difficult. Self-confidence (and a certain degree of empathy for others) go a long way to proving my favorite aphorism: "beauty can be only skin deep." Mere societal beauty can get by with being as shallow as a rain puddle, but it's the depth that counts. Cheerful thought isn't it?
***************************
That was the result of me philosophizing at the end of last semester instead of studying for my thermodynamics final. Maybe I was just a bit bitter at recent events...it's very possible (hence the "rude surprise"), but I find that's when I'm at my best for introspection. I really don't want to start out the new year that way, so this is me reminding myself of a fact I was sort of cognizant of before last month, but never really experienced for myself until then.
Until next time, friends!
--Mr. NFO 2009
So, beauty is not truly in the eye of the beholder, but in the eye of society. The beholder has to be able to see beyond what society tells them to see, else he or she is likely in for a very rude surprise--and it can be very difficult to learn how, depending on just how inundated a person is with examples of what society tells them they should seek. As for a "beauty," that person must be able to believe in themselves, because not everyone can measure up to society's standards, and without society's approval, life can be a whole lot more difficult. Self-confidence (and a certain degree of empathy for others) go a long way to proving my favorite aphorism: "beauty can be only skin deep." Mere societal beauty can get by with being as shallow as a rain puddle, but it's the depth that counts. Cheerful thought isn't it?
***************************
That was the result of me philosophizing at the end of last semester instead of studying for my thermodynamics final. Maybe I was just a bit bitter at recent events...it's very possible (hence the "rude surprise"), but I find that's when I'm at my best for introspection. I really don't want to start out the new year that way, so this is me reminding myself of a fact I was sort of cognizant of before last month, but never really experienced for myself until then.
Until next time, friends!
--Mr. NFO 2009
Friday, December 26, 2008
Shield and Sword
Well, I promised a new post, so here it is. It's not exactly a happy one, but it's something that's in the back of the mind of everyone who serves in the military (or it should be).
************************
I was watching a movie a few days ago, one I hadn't seen in a while. Anyone ever seen the original Planet of the Apes? The one with Charlton Heston? Well, if you haven't, one of the characters has a few good lines that speak to human nature. The movie was made back during the height of the Cold War (1968), so violence-bashing was a popular Hollywood theme. Here's one of the good ones:
"You are right, I have always known about man. From the evidence, I believe his wisdom must walk hand and hand with his idiocy. His emotions must rule his brain. He must be a warlike creature who gives battle to everything around him, even himself."
Now, given my profession of choice -- well, the profession I will enter in a few months, once I graduate -- people might find my discomfort with this observation a bit odd. Those who know me know that I don't mind a bit of violence here and there: I don't have a problem with putting terrorists in the ground where they belong, for example, and I do lack a certain degree of patience with diplomacy. I'll probably be one of those dads who teaches his kids to shoot when they're still young, because it's a fun sport (and teaching them young should instill in them a proper respect for life, not to mention safety). But I do notice a disturbing violent trend in our species. Just look at recent events: school shootings caused by bullying; drive-bys in cities related to gang warfare; just this week a man in California shot up a Christmas party over a divorce, then set the house on fire.
What is it with our species that drives us to inflict pain on those around us? In less than 200 years we (at least in this country) have gone from a simplistic, honorable society with black powder rifles to self-centered affluence, with drugs, missiles, and nuclear warheads. Seriously, for all the progress we've made in science and medicine, an equal amount (if not more) has been made in efficient ways of killing other people. In fact, many advances in medicine evolved from military research: where better to practice medical procedures and treatments than a battlefield?
Around my neck I wear a medallion that I had made several years ago, when I decided to join the military. On one side is St. Michael, the patron saint of soldiers. On the other side is a thistle, which symbolizes (among other things) protection. On one side is a reminder of what I do (war); on the other is a reminder of why I do it. I have worn this medallion every single day for the last eight years to remind me of the nature of the military. We are part of a service that is meant to kill people and break things. But at the same time, we are no regime protection force, meant to keep the current leaders in power. Nor is our primary mission to conquer other countries -- whatever the idiots at MoveOn.org might say: we can do that, but we don't like to, because it just makes us look like bullies.
Speaking from my point of view, and from what I've observed, military people generally don't like going to war, but we see it as a necessary evil. We don't like it because we're the ones out there getting killed while soft-handed (and -minded) people who've never been threatened by anything more menacing than a rabid squirrel debate on the morality of war and question our conduct. Oh sure, they'll say they "support the troops," but to many who use that phrase, it's nothing more than lip service while they try to get their agendas advanced and themselves promoted to better positions of personal power. We go because we know what's out there, and we know that there are things out there far more terrible than crazy squirrels. We go because we know somebody has to do it; we go because somebody has to be the shield and sword both.
I think that's at the heart of why people feel the way they do about people in uniform: people as a whole have a deep-rooted desire for security and safety. To the common person, a man (or woman) in uniform represents the shield that keeps them safe, and engenders feelings of trust found in few other places (to say nothing of the way we comport ourselves: respect is so different between the military and civilian worlds). It's not for nothing that the military holds itself to higher standards than most civilians: we know that to slip or slack might mean someone gets killed on down the line. We tolerate far fewer mistakes because a mistake (whether it be drug use or negligence) not corrected may (due to an underlying character fault) translate into something of far greater import later on. There are reasons the military has been #1 for the "Whom do you trust the most" question on several nation-wide polls, and that's a big part of it.
That said, I don't have a huge problem with being that shield and sword, but it makes a normal family life difficult. Believe me, I do want a family, but the strain military life puts on one (between the moving, the odd hours, and that little thing about possible death in the line of duty) makes things hard to even begin, because everyone hears the stories. But I've been repeatedly told that there is someone out there for me -- she must be out there right now -- so I don't give up hope, though I take many an arrow to the heart in the meantime. And in that meantime, I feel happy knowing that I am part of the shield and sword that allows others to find that happiness.
Well, this seems a bit far from where I started, but the conclusion I draw from this is thus: mankind is warlike and is the only species on the planet that actively searches for new ways to kill itself. However, there is also great capacity for love and good. Between those two extremes there are a few who know the dangers and potential of each side, and seek to use as much as necessary from either side to keep the two separate.
Those few are the military, the police, and others who actively defend the general populace from the evil present in the world. Most of us don't eagerly await the next chance to go out and deal death in pursuit of personal gain: because we understand the value of life, which is why we've chosen to preserve it as much as we can. Seeing the smiles on the faces of our friends and families, as well as those we help abroad is enough for us. So thank you to those who truly do support the troops, and know that the phrase is not merely something to fill an empty speech with.
****************
Thoughts? I warned you this would be a deep post, and not exactly happy. I swear I'm not writing this as a means to garner sympathy or points for myself. This is what I truly believe. If you choose to believe me or not, that's up to you.
--Mr. NFO 2009
************************
I was watching a movie a few days ago, one I hadn't seen in a while. Anyone ever seen the original Planet of the Apes? The one with Charlton Heston? Well, if you haven't, one of the characters has a few good lines that speak to human nature. The movie was made back during the height of the Cold War (1968), so violence-bashing was a popular Hollywood theme. Here's one of the good ones:
"You are right, I have always known about man. From the evidence, I believe his wisdom must walk hand and hand with his idiocy. His emotions must rule his brain. He must be a warlike creature who gives battle to everything around him, even himself."
Now, given my profession of choice -- well, the profession I will enter in a few months, once I graduate -- people might find my discomfort with this observation a bit odd. Those who know me know that I don't mind a bit of violence here and there: I don't have a problem with putting terrorists in the ground where they belong, for example, and I do lack a certain degree of patience with diplomacy. I'll probably be one of those dads who teaches his kids to shoot when they're still young, because it's a fun sport (and teaching them young should instill in them a proper respect for life, not to mention safety). But I do notice a disturbing violent trend in our species. Just look at recent events: school shootings caused by bullying; drive-bys in cities related to gang warfare; just this week a man in California shot up a Christmas party over a divorce, then set the house on fire.
What is it with our species that drives us to inflict pain on those around us? In less than 200 years we (at least in this country) have gone from a simplistic, honorable society with black powder rifles to self-centered affluence, with drugs, missiles, and nuclear warheads. Seriously, for all the progress we've made in science and medicine, an equal amount (if not more) has been made in efficient ways of killing other people. In fact, many advances in medicine evolved from military research: where better to practice medical procedures and treatments than a battlefield?
Around my neck I wear a medallion that I had made several years ago, when I decided to join the military. On one side is St. Michael, the patron saint of soldiers. On the other side is a thistle, which symbolizes (among other things) protection. On one side is a reminder of what I do (war); on the other is a reminder of why I do it. I have worn this medallion every single day for the last eight years to remind me of the nature of the military. We are part of a service that is meant to kill people and break things. But at the same time, we are no regime protection force, meant to keep the current leaders in power. Nor is our primary mission to conquer other countries -- whatever the idiots at MoveOn.org might say: we can do that, but we don't like to, because it just makes us look like bullies.
Speaking from my point of view, and from what I've observed, military people generally don't like going to war, but we see it as a necessary evil. We don't like it because we're the ones out there getting killed while soft-handed (and -minded) people who've never been threatened by anything more menacing than a rabid squirrel debate on the morality of war and question our conduct. Oh sure, they'll say they "support the troops," but to many who use that phrase, it's nothing more than lip service while they try to get their agendas advanced and themselves promoted to better positions of personal power. We go because we know what's out there, and we know that there are things out there far more terrible than crazy squirrels. We go because we know somebody has to do it; we go because somebody has to be the shield and sword both.
I think that's at the heart of why people feel the way they do about people in uniform: people as a whole have a deep-rooted desire for security and safety. To the common person, a man (or woman) in uniform represents the shield that keeps them safe, and engenders feelings of trust found in few other places (to say nothing of the way we comport ourselves: respect is so different between the military and civilian worlds). It's not for nothing that the military holds itself to higher standards than most civilians: we know that to slip or slack might mean someone gets killed on down the line. We tolerate far fewer mistakes because a mistake (whether it be drug use or negligence) not corrected may (due to an underlying character fault) translate into something of far greater import later on. There are reasons the military has been #1 for the "Whom do you trust the most" question on several nation-wide polls, and that's a big part of it.
That said, I don't have a huge problem with being that shield and sword, but it makes a normal family life difficult. Believe me, I do want a family, but the strain military life puts on one (between the moving, the odd hours, and that little thing about possible death in the line of duty) makes things hard to even begin, because everyone hears the stories. But I've been repeatedly told that there is someone out there for me -- she must be out there right now -- so I don't give up hope, though I take many an arrow to the heart in the meantime. And in that meantime, I feel happy knowing that I am part of the shield and sword that allows others to find that happiness.
Well, this seems a bit far from where I started, but the conclusion I draw from this is thus: mankind is warlike and is the only species on the planet that actively searches for new ways to kill itself. However, there is also great capacity for love and good. Between those two extremes there are a few who know the dangers and potential of each side, and seek to use as much as necessary from either side to keep the two separate.
Those few are the military, the police, and others who actively defend the general populace from the evil present in the world. Most of us don't eagerly await the next chance to go out and deal death in pursuit of personal gain: because we understand the value of life, which is why we've chosen to preserve it as much as we can. Seeing the smiles on the faces of our friends and families, as well as those we help abroad is enough for us. So thank you to those who truly do support the troops, and know that the phrase is not merely something to fill an empty speech with.
****************
Thoughts? I warned you this would be a deep post, and not exactly happy. I swear I'm not writing this as a means to garner sympathy or points for myself. This is what I truly believe. If you choose to believe me or not, that's up to you.
--Mr. NFO 2009
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Sending Holiday Cheer
Merry Christmas to all!
That said, please remember those who are spending this Christmas far from home and loved ones (I know I'm going to be in that situation relatively soon): at sea, overseas, and otherwise deployed, allowing you to enjoy your holidays with your family; they are not so lucky, but they're an all-volunteer force. Please keep them in mind as you go about your day.
Short post again, because it's time to head for my aunt's (she's the only one with a house big enough for the whole family). I've got a good topic for the next post though, I promise. Today just isn't the day for it.
Happy holidays again!
--Mr. NFO 2009
That said, please remember those who are spending this Christmas far from home and loved ones (I know I'm going to be in that situation relatively soon): at sea, overseas, and otherwise deployed, allowing you to enjoy your holidays with your family; they are not so lucky, but they're an all-volunteer force. Please keep them in mind as you go about your day.
Short post again, because it's time to head for my aunt's (she's the only one with a house big enough for the whole family). I've got a good topic for the next post though, I promise. Today just isn't the day for it.
Happy holidays again!
--Mr. NFO 2009
Friday, December 19, 2008
Photo Memories
Please pardon the jealousy-inducing photos I'm putting up here. Since I wrote that entry last night, the thought of travel has been growing larger and larger in my mind. I don't know if I'm going to get a chance to do much traveling over spring break (last year would be hard to top), but if I do, it's going to be going back to Florida for more snorkeling/SCUBA in the Keys. I wish I had photos from the last time I did that, but I'll have to be content with Wyoming and Italy.
Short post, I know, but it's been a busy day, cleaning and cooking for a family dinner; everyone got to pitch in (my job was mostly picking up the grandmothers and decorating the tree). Enjoy the photos! I know I enjoyed taking them, and wish I was back there! I promise I'll try to have my next post be one of my deep insights into the human psyche. But for now, all I can focus on is the memories behind the trips contained in those photos.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
To See the World
I want to travel. Everyone says I'll be doing plenty of that once I'm commissioned in May, but once that happens, I'll have very little freedom. Sure, there'll be the chance at seeing some far-off places (garden spots like Bahrain and Guam come to mind), but I won't have much of a choice in where I'd be going. "Needs of the service" and all that fun stuff. Well, I suppose Pensacola will be fun (Gulf Coast of Florida and all that) while I'm there for flight school. After that though, who knows?
I've had a deep-rooted urge to see the UK--specifically Scotland--for several years now. I'll most likely have the opportunity to travel come summer, when I get 30 days of basket leave. I really, really want to do a little bit of irresponsible spending to see the world while I have the chance (but how is traveling abroad irresponsible when it doesn't become a habit?), but I don't want to do it by myself. I'm terrible at meeting new people, so I want to be able to enjoy the sights with somebody, rather than having nobody to talk to but myself the whole time. One person, a few people, whomever.
Dammit, even if I can't make it to the UK, I still want to do something for my last summer of my free life--once I'm done, I'm done. Even if it's just a road trip back to Wyoming to see mountains again, I want to do something. But it doesn't look like anyone else would be able to: either financial or temporal conflicts--usually both. I've talked with some friends who did a week in the UK a couple of years ago: London, Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Cork, for around $2000 ($1000 travel, the rest spending money). They said their problem was that they tried to do too much too fast. If I end up going, I want to fly into London, spend a day or two there, then hit Edinburgh. Maybe a day trip or something to Loch Ness, but that's it--I don't want the whole thing to be one giant road trip, I want to see more than just the M1 and other highways.
Oh yes readers, I've been to 40 states (including Hawaii), Italy, Mexico, several Caribbean islands, and a brief stop in England, but Italy was the only foreign country I spent any length of time in. I want to go to Scotland and see the castles and the highlands; I want to go to England and see the history there. I want to go back to Wyoming and stand on a ridge with a view again; I want to go to Alaska and see the beauty of Nature undiminished. Here's hoping I get the chance to see something like this again:
(I took this out my tent's door one morning in the Wyoming backcountry; the one at the beginning was taken...atop a ridge on the same backpacking trip).
Oh to feel the mountain wind on my face again! That's some of the stuff dreams are made of!
--Mr. NFO 2009
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Old Post
This is an edited version of a prior post I put up elsewhere. To give you some background, I'd been led on by someone in a romantic sense, only to be dropped like a hot rock when it suited her. I had to find out from a mutual friend just what was going on, so that was not so good. But it gets so much better than that (can you feel the sarcasm in there?). I recently tried "going green" as I've heard it put: trying to date the same person again. Except this time I was used (again) and started to be ignored (again), except this time I recognized it for what it was. I was being used to make her feel good, while she had no emotional attachment; I doubt she has any deep attachment to anyone.
When I asked her about it, she tried to push it off on me, saying I was reading too much into things. I guess I took hearing "I love you" directed at me a little too seriously. The way that phrase is casually bandied about these days causes me to really hesitate before I utter it -- too many people have forgotten the meaning. In any case, I was unable to get her to see what she was doing -- what she had been doing for the entire time I've known her. The fact is, she's right in her own mind, it's what makes her happy that matters, and the rest of the world can burn for all she cares.
Bah, enough of this. You're here for learning, not to hear me complain. On to the old post! It's largely still applicable today.
******************
Most people in my age bracket are content to play the social butterfly, both because they're having too much fun to settle down, and because they're of the "never trust, never get hurt" mentality. The problem with being a social butterfly is that while they might have a wide circle of friends, deep-rooted friendships are few and far between, which is just begging for a world of hurt should life come along and give the butterfly a reality check. Well, I suppose this is supposed to be the time of life that's about exploration and figuring out what you want. But that's not an excuse for treating someone else's emotions as playthings.
There's a reason a significant other is often referred to as a "better half." That reason is that without someone else with which you can share the world and life's experiences, how can you ever truly be a whole person? In addition, life is people. And though acquaintances are all well and good, someone who goes beyond even the level of "really good friend I've known all my life" is the rarest and most precious of gems.
There's a problem with looking for love: everyone's definition of love is different. Some (like me) are looking for it, and know what it is, while others (most of my age group) seem to be afraid of it. But if you put up walls, it invites people to try to batter them down: some for good reasons, some for ill. And the ones who want to do good are rarely strong enough because they see the hurt it will cause. The sad thing is, Truth is something few want to hear, so more often, the good are shut out to be a voice in the wilderness, while the wicked are admitted with a smile.
People love their fears. They are familiar things that can be clung to. That's what prompts them to keep their walls up. But keeping the walls up keeps only the good out. The wicked will find their own way in. Hence, the danger with "never trust, never get hurt." That is a lie, made all the more painful and dangerous, because it is a lie to oneself. To quote The King's Buccaneer:
"Fear holds us and binds us and keeps us from growing. It kills a small piece of us each day. It holds us to what we know and keeps us from what is possible, and it is our worst enemy. Fear doesn't announce itself; it's disguised, and it's subtle. It's choosing the safe course; most of us feel we have 'rational' reasons to avoid taking risks. The brave man is not the one without fear but the one who does what he must despite being afraid."
Too many people subscribe to the "never trust, never get hurt" idea. It should in fact be "never trust, never laugh, never love, never live." Without trust, there might be laughter, but it is hollow, for there is nothing deeper than the surface. There might be lust, but never love. And that is not life.
Yes ladies, there are sensitive men out there. We're not all grunting, snorting barbarians. All you have to do is look, and have the courage to accept what you find instead of running from it. If you want a "nice guy," find him; but don't go leading them on, only to run off with someone who's going to make you unhappy, just because you're afraid.
**************
I got some interesting responses to that last time. I wonder what this one will garner?
--Mr. NFO 2009
When I asked her about it, she tried to push it off on me, saying I was reading too much into things. I guess I took hearing "I love you" directed at me a little too seriously. The way that phrase is casually bandied about these days causes me to really hesitate before I utter it -- too many people have forgotten the meaning. In any case, I was unable to get her to see what she was doing -- what she had been doing for the entire time I've known her. The fact is, she's right in her own mind, it's what makes her happy that matters, and the rest of the world can burn for all she cares.
Bah, enough of this. You're here for learning, not to hear me complain. On to the old post! It's largely still applicable today.
******************
Most people in my age bracket are content to play the social butterfly, both because they're having too much fun to settle down, and because they're of the "never trust, never get hurt" mentality. The problem with being a social butterfly is that while they might have a wide circle of friends, deep-rooted friendships are few and far between, which is just begging for a world of hurt should life come along and give the butterfly a reality check. Well, I suppose this is supposed to be the time of life that's about exploration and figuring out what you want. But that's not an excuse for treating someone else's emotions as playthings.
There's a reason a significant other is often referred to as a "better half." That reason is that without someone else with which you can share the world and life's experiences, how can you ever truly be a whole person? In addition, life is people. And though acquaintances are all well and good, someone who goes beyond even the level of "really good friend I've known all my life" is the rarest and most precious of gems.
There's a problem with looking for love: everyone's definition of love is different. Some (like me) are looking for it, and know what it is, while others (most of my age group) seem to be afraid of it. But if you put up walls, it invites people to try to batter them down: some for good reasons, some for ill. And the ones who want to do good are rarely strong enough because they see the hurt it will cause. The sad thing is, Truth is something few want to hear, so more often, the good are shut out to be a voice in the wilderness, while the wicked are admitted with a smile.
People love their fears. They are familiar things that can be clung to. That's what prompts them to keep their walls up. But keeping the walls up keeps only the good out. The wicked will find their own way in. Hence, the danger with "never trust, never get hurt." That is a lie, made all the more painful and dangerous, because it is a lie to oneself. To quote The King's Buccaneer:
"Fear holds us and binds us and keeps us from growing. It kills a small piece of us each day. It holds us to what we know and keeps us from what is possible, and it is our worst enemy. Fear doesn't announce itself; it's disguised, and it's subtle. It's choosing the safe course; most of us feel we have 'rational' reasons to avoid taking risks. The brave man is not the one without fear but the one who does what he must despite being afraid."
Too many people subscribe to the "never trust, never get hurt" idea. It should in fact be "never trust, never laugh, never love, never live." Without trust, there might be laughter, but it is hollow, for there is nothing deeper than the surface. There might be lust, but never love. And that is not life.
Yes ladies, there are sensitive men out there. We're not all grunting, snorting barbarians. All you have to do is look, and have the courage to accept what you find instead of running from it. If you want a "nice guy," find him; but don't go leading them on, only to run off with someone who's going to make you unhappy, just because you're afraid.
**************
I got some interesting responses to that last time. I wonder what this one will garner?
--Mr. NFO 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)