Right out of the womb music has been my life. My father played the clarinet through high school, took piano lessons as a child, taught himself the flute, and can play the saxophone...and he still does today. So it was inevitable that I would get involved with music.
Like every other child, I sang during elementary school and played the recorder and all that jazz. Then in the 3rd grade I started playing my dad's clarinet and I have been playing ever since. In the 4th grade, I got put in the advanced band with the 5th graders. I took private lessons during middle school, played saxophone in the jazz band, and missed making the District band by 3 points. In high school I was first chair right off the bat, played with the pep band at football games, got involved in the pit band for musicals when I wasn't acting on the stage, and was in the Woodwind Quintet that went to play at a Band Director's Conference in Boston. We won many titles in high school at many competitions and they are moments I will never forget. I also played here at MCLA my first semester...but it isn't the same here. But I do still play on my own.
Being involved this much in making the music makes it quite obvious that I would love listening to it also. Every genre gets a chance with me. I don't care how obscure it is. I don't care if some people don't consider it music. I'll give it a chance. And so should everyone else.
So the point of this was to pretty much make the point that for some people, music is life. But it doesn't have to be their life. Music has been, and always will be, a major part of my life, but it doesn't fully define who I am. No one should be full defined by one thing...
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Fa la la la la?
Music is what you make it.
Amanda had wrote in her blog that a thunderstorm on CD isn't music, but rather just a thunderstorm...on CD. I disagree. Music is noise, music is different to the individual. Some consider thunderstorms music. Like the Native Americans, they dance to thunderstorms making that the music, and no one can deny them their right of believing that is music. I might not think it is music, but in some cultures it is.
Just like many say Rap isn't music, it's just people talking. But it's noise, and any noise can be construed as music to someone. Anything you can find a beat in. You can hear a beat in a jackhammer and then find other beats in the environment that go with it. This all makes its own music.
Music is in the ear of the beholder. I don't believe anyone can deny something that makes noise the right to be music.
Amanda had wrote in her blog that a thunderstorm on CD isn't music, but rather just a thunderstorm...on CD. I disagree. Music is noise, music is different to the individual. Some consider thunderstorms music. Like the Native Americans, they dance to thunderstorms making that the music, and no one can deny them their right of believing that is music. I might not think it is music, but in some cultures it is.
Just like many say Rap isn't music, it's just people talking. But it's noise, and any noise can be construed as music to someone. Anything you can find a beat in. You can hear a beat in a jackhammer and then find other beats in the environment that go with it. This all makes its own music.
Music is in the ear of the beholder. I don't believe anyone can deny something that makes noise the right to be music.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
The Succession of Success
"War does not determine who is right - only who is left." ~Bertrand Russell
Claiming success in a war does not make any sense to me. In a way, yes, we have won because we accomplished some of our goals that we went into Iraq to do. But not all, and we have hurt or killed so many people that were in our way (or even just innocent bystanders).
But who can claim success? Us? The Iraqis? The Taliban? Sadam?
The Iraqi were liberated from one government and then surpressed by ours. So can they claim success? Just because we believed they were suppressed doesn't mean that they really were. What we believe is not always right. So can they claim success?
The Taliban attacked us knowing all to well that we would attack back. They got what they wanted and they still have their real leader, Bin Laden. So can they claim success?
Sadam always said he would go down for his country...he did. So can he claim success?
Can we claim success? Can anyone?
Claiming success in a war does not make any sense to me. In a way, yes, we have won because we accomplished some of our goals that we went into Iraq to do. But not all, and we have hurt or killed so many people that were in our way (or even just innocent bystanders).
But who can claim success? Us? The Iraqis? The Taliban? Sadam?
The Iraqi were liberated from one government and then surpressed by ours. So can they claim success? Just because we believed they were suppressed doesn't mean that they really were. What we believe is not always right. So can they claim success?
The Taliban attacked us knowing all to well that we would attack back. They got what they wanted and they still have their real leader, Bin Laden. So can they claim success?
Sadam always said he would go down for his country...he did. So can he claim success?
Can we claim success? Can anyone?
5 Years
March 20, 2003.
At this point I was still in middle school, 8th grade to be exact. Near the end of 3rd quarter if I remember correctly. I was also 14 years old, a minor. At that age, we still don't really understand the concept of the world working as a whole. All that we knew at that point was people we knew were going to be sent overseas for work...
April 17, 2008. (5 years and 28 days later)
At this point I am a freshman in college, ending my first semester. I'm 19 years old, an adult by American standards. But now I understand more about how the world works. That we share it and it must be unified in some ways. But I still don't understand why we (as Americans) think we are the higher power. Makes no sense. 5 years ago we went into Iraq and made the decision that we were going to "liberate" those people. 5 years ago. This was supposed to be an in and out job. 5 years. A whole different set of soldiers are over there than the ones who were there in the beginning. I see no point for us to have such a presence over there anymore. No matter when we pull out, there is going to be conflict. The bad groups of people will just keep holding off until we go...maybe in another 5 years...but the second we're gone, they will try and regain their power. So we should start to just pull out.
5 years
4,038 American Casualties
21 people missing or captured
29,628 people wounded
112 journalists dead
40 media support workers dead
500 US troops had ambutations (toes and fingers don't count)
At this point I was still in middle school, 8th grade to be exact. Near the end of 3rd quarter if I remember correctly. I was also 14 years old, a minor. At that age, we still don't really understand the concept of the world working as a whole. All that we knew at that point was people we knew were going to be sent overseas for work...
April 17, 2008. (5 years and 28 days later)
At this point I am a freshman in college, ending my first semester. I'm 19 years old, an adult by American standards. But now I understand more about how the world works. That we share it and it must be unified in some ways. But I still don't understand why we (as Americans) think we are the higher power. Makes no sense. 5 years ago we went into Iraq and made the decision that we were going to "liberate" those people. 5 years ago. This was supposed to be an in and out job. 5 years. A whole different set of soldiers are over there than the ones who were there in the beginning. I see no point for us to have such a presence over there anymore. No matter when we pull out, there is going to be conflict. The bad groups of people will just keep holding off until we go...maybe in another 5 years...but the second we're gone, they will try and regain their power. So we should start to just pull out.
5 years
4,038 American Casualties
21 people missing or captured
29,628 people wounded
112 journalists dead
40 media support workers dead
500 US troops had ambutations (toes and fingers don't count)
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Big Deal? Really?!
Ok, so there are a few reasons why I am bloggin so much lately.
1. I really enjoy this topic
2. I'm trying to make up for my lack of participation out loud in class (I haven't had the most attractive voice lately)
3. And I'm trying to make up for my lack of blogging for a couple of weeks this semester...with everything it is very easy to lose track of this thing...
But on to what matters.
Why is it such a big deal whether someone is "patriotic" or not? And I am using the stereotypical definition of patriotism involving the War in Iraq and supporting the troops and all that good stuff. And seriously, that's what it is...stuff.
I support the war. From beginning to end. We were all convinced falsely of their being WMD over there...so we went for it. A lot of people were behind it then. But now that we know the truth, there is a faint support system. I don't necessarily support the cause (but I do support the spread of democracy), but I support the war and everyone involved. I have had way too many people that are close to me get sent over there. But no matter the reason, I am going to support them and what they are doing. They support the war and believe that what they are doing is right and that they are helping somone. If the people doing the actually fighting support it, shouldn't we support them?
But people bash them. This apparently makes them unpatriotic. But they have a point where they are coming from. Patriotism talks up defending your country...we are no longer really defending our country anymore. Come on. You know it. We are there because it is a situation we can't back out of or all hell is going to break loose. We are defending ourselves. We might have in the beginning...a little bit...but definently not now.
But does it really matter? Why does EVERYONE have to support the war. Why does EVERYONE have to be patriotic. Some people, as much as we don't want to think about it, are stuck here. They can't go anywhere else. They don't support what we are doing. They have that right...it's called free will. It's a human right. And we are all humans. But not all humans are patriotic.
1. I really enjoy this topic
2. I'm trying to make up for my lack of participation out loud in class (I haven't had the most attractive voice lately)
3. And I'm trying to make up for my lack of blogging for a couple of weeks this semester...with everything it is very easy to lose track of this thing...
But on to what matters.
Why is it such a big deal whether someone is "patriotic" or not? And I am using the stereotypical definition of patriotism involving the War in Iraq and supporting the troops and all that good stuff. And seriously, that's what it is...stuff.
I support the war. From beginning to end. We were all convinced falsely of their being WMD over there...so we went for it. A lot of people were behind it then. But now that we know the truth, there is a faint support system. I don't necessarily support the cause (but I do support the spread of democracy), but I support the war and everyone involved. I have had way too many people that are close to me get sent over there. But no matter the reason, I am going to support them and what they are doing. They support the war and believe that what they are doing is right and that they are helping somone. If the people doing the actually fighting support it, shouldn't we support them?
But people bash them. This apparently makes them unpatriotic. But they have a point where they are coming from. Patriotism talks up defending your country...we are no longer really defending our country anymore. Come on. You know it. We are there because it is a situation we can't back out of or all hell is going to break loose. We are defending ourselves. We might have in the beginning...a little bit...but definently not now.
But does it really matter? Why does EVERYONE have to support the war. Why does EVERYONE have to be patriotic. Some people, as much as we don't want to think about it, are stuck here. They can't go anywhere else. They don't support what we are doing. They have that right...it's called free will. It's a human right. And we are all humans. But not all humans are patriotic.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Freedom of American
"Seems as though I should drink coffee all day without spilling it inside my Chevy as I drive around without knowing my First Amendment freedoms." - Nick Raby
Is this really where our country is going? We care about food and cars more than the freedoms people have fought for? Really people? Is this truly what an "American" is?
I guess I'm a horribe American then.
(1) I don't like coffee. I'm a hot chocolate kind of gal.
(2) I don't drive a Chevy truck. Yes, I drive a Chevy, but not the same connotation.
(3) I know my First Amendment Right
- Freedom of Religion
- Freedom of Speech
- Freedom of the Press
- Freedom of Assembly
- Freedom of Petition
and no, I did not just google all of those.
Is this what some consider Americans? Is this the view we are giving the rest of the world?
Is this really where our country is going? We care about food and cars more than the freedoms people have fought for? Really people? Is this truly what an "American" is?
I guess I'm a horribe American then.
(1) I don't like coffee. I'm a hot chocolate kind of gal.
(2) I don't drive a Chevy truck. Yes, I drive a Chevy, but not the same connotation.
(3) I know my First Amendment Right
- Freedom of Religion
- Freedom of Speech
- Freedom of the Press
- Freedom of Assembly
- Freedom of Petition
and no, I did not just google all of those.
Is this what some consider Americans? Is this the view we are giving the rest of the world?
America, America...
"Are we truly internationalist? Can we get beyond patriotism? Or, in the end, are we just Americans?"
Or, in the end, are we just Americans? Let us consult urbandictionary.com for a second.
American (n) -
(1) Technically, an American is someone from the Americas - i.e. North or South America
(2) An American is someone who lives in the USA. Not all americans are overweight, ignorant pricks with an addiction to burgers and flag waving. Some of them are actually friendly, intelligent people!
(3) legal resident of the United States; not really a nationality since everybody came here from somewhere else
(4) Probablly the most bashed on country in the world.
(5) Denotation: Someone living in the Americas, North or South, more commonly refering to those in the US.
Conotation(neg):arrogant, proud (of nothing), stupid, hick, redneck, bible thumpers, etc
Conotation(pos):hardworki ng, proud (of their actions), loyal, dedicated, etc
Conotation(neutral): god-fearing, christian, melting-pot-people, etc
(6) An American is a fat arrogant bastard - usually armed to the teeth with guns and hamburgers - who hates everything and everyone who doesn't hate everything and everyone. Also he may be inbred.
(7) Someone who loves mock other countries, act, talk, and look incredibly tacky and/or cheesy, and who loves to pervert the english language.
(8) Cultureless, mindless bastards who for the most part have no idea about the rest of the world...
Can anyone be "just American" if no one truly knows what American is? Some of these defitions say "we" are kind, caring people...others say we are mindless bastards...some just say it means we are residents. Which are we supposed to believe? At times, I guess we can say we fit all of these definitions. But does that make us "just American"? If we are orignally from all over the place, can we really be just one thing?
Arguing number 8: Are we really cultureless? I think not. You cannot live without culture. We may not be the same culture as the person who wrote that definition, but we have a culture of our own. It may be quite messed up at times, but it is a culture nonetheless. You cannot deny this. And I have a mind of my own...I don't listen to everything the media or the government tells me...so I cannot be mindless...and I'm not a bastard. And I like to think that I know a relative amount of information about international relations and the status of other countries. This is all assuming I am "American".
Concuring with 1: Why do we think of just ourselves as American? The people from Mexico trying to come into our country are Americans too. They are from North America. Why do we get to take this title and they do not? Is it just because we weren't creative enough to come up with a better name that we had to use the name that was also to continent which we were on?
Concuring with 3: The only true Americans are Native Americans, correct?
Or, in the end, are we just Americans? Let us consult urbandictionary.com for a second.
American (n) -
(1) Technically, an American is someone from the Americas - i.e. North or South America
(2) An American is someone who lives in the USA. Not all americans are overweight, ignorant pricks with an addiction to burgers and flag waving. Some of them are actually friendly, intelligent people!
(3) legal resident of the United States; not really a nationality since everybody came here from somewhere else
(4) Probablly the most bashed on country in the world.
(5) Denotation: Someone living in the Americas, North or South, more commonly refering to those in the US.
Conotation(neg):arrogant, proud (of nothing), stupid, hick, redneck, bible thumpers, etc
Conotation(pos):hardworki ng, proud (of their actions), loyal, dedicated, etc
Conotation(neutral): god-fearing, christian, melting-pot-people, etc
(6) An American is a fat arrogant bastard - usually armed to the teeth with guns and hamburgers - who hates everything and everyone who doesn't hate everything and everyone. Also he may be inbred.
(7) Someone who loves mock other countries, act, talk, and look incredibly tacky and/or cheesy, and who loves to pervert the english language.
(8) Cultureless, mindless bastards who for the most part have no idea about the rest of the world...
Can anyone be "just American" if no one truly knows what American is? Some of these defitions say "we" are kind, caring people...others say we are mindless bastards...some just say it means we are residents. Which are we supposed to believe? At times, I guess we can say we fit all of these definitions. But does that make us "just American"? If we are orignally from all over the place, can we really be just one thing?
Arguing number 8: Are we really cultureless? I think not. You cannot live without culture. We may not be the same culture as the person who wrote that definition, but we have a culture of our own. It may be quite messed up at times, but it is a culture nonetheless. You cannot deny this. And I have a mind of my own...I don't listen to everything the media or the government tells me...so I cannot be mindless...and I'm not a bastard. And I like to think that I know a relative amount of information about international relations and the status of other countries. This is all assuming I am "American".
Concuring with 1: Why do we think of just ourselves as American? The people from Mexico trying to come into our country are Americans too. They are from North America. Why do we get to take this title and they do not? Is it just because we weren't creative enough to come up with a better name that we had to use the name that was also to continent which we were on?
Concuring with 3: The only true Americans are Native Americans, correct?
Patriotic Patriotism
"Are we truly internationalist? Can we get beyond patriotism? Or, in the end, are we just Americans?"
Can we get beyond patriotism?
patriotism (n) - devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty.
Again, no. I don't think we can get past patriotism. Having a devotion to something as strong as something such as a loyalty to a country is very hard to get over. Unless something radical occurs like an American Revolution Part Dos, then I think we won't be able to overcome this.
We have a strong urge to protect and defend our country. (Ex. see war we are in that started right after we were attacked) Everyone wants to defend what is theirs and this country is, in essence, ours. Even to take it down a notch, just think of a family. Someone attacks your little sister and you are going to defend them, no matter what it takes. That is a form of patriotism within your family.
Within any community there is patriotism. High school rivalries have patriotism. Just think of the Red Sox and the Yankees. Their is patriotism to each respective team.
People try to put the lable on patriotism that is has to deal with just a nation, when in fact it is just an ordinary human emotion that no one can truly surpass.
Can we get beyond patriotism?
patriotism (n) - devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty.
Again, no. I don't think we can get past patriotism. Having a devotion to something as strong as something such as a loyalty to a country is very hard to get over. Unless something radical occurs like an American Revolution Part Dos, then I think we won't be able to overcome this.
We have a strong urge to protect and defend our country. (Ex. see war we are in that started right after we were attacked) Everyone wants to defend what is theirs and this country is, in essence, ours. Even to take it down a notch, just think of a family. Someone attacks your little sister and you are going to defend them, no matter what it takes. That is a form of patriotism within your family.
Within any community there is patriotism. High school rivalries have patriotism. Just think of the Red Sox and the Yankees. Their is patriotism to each respective team.
People try to put the lable on patriotism that is has to deal with just a nation, when in fact it is just an ordinary human emotion that no one can truly surpass.
Internationally Ignorant
"Are we truly internationalist? Can we get beyond patriotism? Or, in the end, are we just Americans?"
Are we truly internationalist? No, not at all. We could very easily be a self-suficient nation and we know it. Because we have that thought in the back of our mind, then we don't seem to be a concious about international affairs as we should be. We only care about other nations when we need them...once we have accomplished what we need, we let them be. We may leave them in a worse state than we started, but who cares? We got what we want, right? We don't need them anymore.
I am not saying this is the right mentality to have in any way. By importing, we are helping those nations around us. I completely support this. Granted, I think we should be producing within our own country more than we import, but we can still help those around us. If we cared more about the countries we use, maybe then we can really consider ourselves internationalists, but not until then.
Are we truly internationalist? No, not at all. We could very easily be a self-suficient nation and we know it. Because we have that thought in the back of our mind, then we don't seem to be a concious about international affairs as we should be. We only care about other nations when we need them...once we have accomplished what we need, we let them be. We may leave them in a worse state than we started, but who cares? We got what we want, right? We don't need them anymore.
I am not saying this is the right mentality to have in any way. By importing, we are helping those nations around us. I completely support this. Granted, I think we should be producing within our own country more than we import, but we can still help those around us. If we cared more about the countries we use, maybe then we can really consider ourselves internationalists, but not until then.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Riddle Me This
"After you've heard two eyewitness accounts of an auto accident, you begin to worry about history." ~Author Unknown
You know, I never thought of this. Two peoples' realities could be so different that what they saw may be the same, but in the end they are explained differently. Each person may have picked out different details and explained the same actions two different ways...bring about two different emotions or imaginations within the person this situation is being explained to.
How are we supposed to decipher this? Maybe, with history, there is really a different outcome than what we have all learned. Maybe World War II wasn't as bad as we thought, but because we imagined it the way one person explained it to us, it has been turned and twisted.
You know, I never thought of this. Two peoples' realities could be so different that what they saw may be the same, but in the end they are explained differently. Each person may have picked out different details and explained the same actions two different ways...bring about two different emotions or imaginations within the person this situation is being explained to.
How are we supposed to decipher this? Maybe, with history, there is really a different outcome than what we have all learned. Maybe World War II wasn't as bad as we thought, but because we imagined it the way one person explained it to us, it has been turned and twisted.
Judging the Judged while being the Judge
Either way, who am I to judge anyone based on what they consume into their bodies? We each can choose what we want to take in, this is based off of free will and human nature. Just because I have made the decision to eat the cooked flesh of an animal doesn't mean that everyone has to. If we had to do everything everyone else did, there would be no time in the day...or nothing to do because everything would contradict itself.
I guess this just brings up the whole topic who why judge anyone in the first place. Some say God is the only one who can judge...then why do we have a court system with people called "judges" if we are a country founded under God? (Yes, that was extreme...but still, you catch my drift?) Judging takes too much time and energy in my opinion. First you have to form your own opinion in the first place, then figure out the person's opinion whom you are going to judge. From there you must observe their behavior and then, after a long mental process, speak or write the words to judge them. Seems a little annoying doesn't it?
If you are going to judge me or anyone else, keep it to yourself. Kind of goes with the saying, "If you don't have anything good to say..."
You know the rest.
I guess this just brings up the whole topic who why judge anyone in the first place. Some say God is the only one who can judge...then why do we have a court system with people called "judges" if we are a country founded under God? (Yes, that was extreme...but still, you catch my drift?) Judging takes too much time and energy in my opinion. First you have to form your own opinion in the first place, then figure out the person's opinion whom you are going to judge. From there you must observe their behavior and then, after a long mental process, speak or write the words to judge them. Seems a little annoying doesn't it?
If you are going to judge me or anyone else, keep it to yourself. Kind of goes with the saying, "If you don't have anything good to say..."
You know the rest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)