The Truth About Lying

“The will of the spirit is to fulfill its own concept.”

This statement alone, said by German philosopher GWF Hegel, is reason to believe that man has some sort of innate standard, perhaps even imposed divinely, that he holds himself to and strives to achieve. Upon each of our daily, hourly, minutely, and even secondly decisions that we make, we are making steps towards – or away from – our “own concept” of what we wish to be. This self-awareness of our potential seems almost inborn and we undoubtedly are heralded in the obvious and unquestionable progressions of meeting it. Inversely, we are chastised and reprimanded by the masses in our blatant attempts to ignore it. So when we ourselves choose to ignore that we are ignoring it, where does that put us?

It brings forth the lie.

In a less comical explanation than Ricky Gervais gave, the lie is the root of wanting something that you do not deserve yet believe you should, especially as it pertains to Hegel’s quotation. When one lies, one is actively seeking to present his or herself in a manner that is inauthentic and removed from reality. By definition, this practice not only suggests that the individual is perceptive of the truth, but also aware enough to reject it.

Other than gaining an escape from a more than likely inconvenient and undesirable situation, one loses so much more. Unfortunately, these losses cannot be measured in a tangible manner that displays the damages to the pretender. Therefore, two possible outcomes ensue. The first being the aforementioned escape as well as the false notion that the ends justified the means in this scenario. The other result, which is not entirely separate but feasible, is a state of denial and the self-manipulation of what actually happened.

This contradiction of the lie and the truth proves that an individual acknowledges an embedded “concept” that it seeks to “fulfill”, otherwise why else do it? To be mistaken about a state of affairs is to be erroneous, but to consciously pay no heed to fact for fear of subsequent consequences to the point where one cannot even bring himself to accept what he knows he must clearly understand is definitively weak. The strength to salute the truth in spite of one’s own wrongdoing requires an appreciation for the moral criterion that one is capable of meeting.

Accordingly, each lie builds upon itself as the denunciation of the original concept begins to ultimately make it hollow. By continually convincing yourself that these principles are really being met through deceit, both to others and to yourself, then you lose what it is that guides you; a lighthouse’s beacon can only be seen from so far away. A harbor provides a safe place to dock a ship regardless of the tumultuous climate, but if a captain refuses to use any other navigation as guidance to get back to shore as it sails away then the ship drifts limply and with little purpose.

It is easier to believe that we are fulfilling our “own concept” rather than actually doing so. Since Hegel dissertated on this idea of a “spirit”, translators have struggled to appropriately render the German word into a suitable English equivalent. While “spirit” is still generally understood, another viable paraphrase would be “inner determination”. Stimulated and encouraged to amount to its highest capacity, the “spirit” will do so if the body that it inhabits is willing to follow its lead. Otherwise, on the surface, the body only deceives itself with each impending lie while the “spirit” remorsefully knows a truth that it cannot act upon, leaving a “concept” unfulfilled.

Rethinking Babel

This past week, our country’s brightest, prepubescent minds gathered right here in Washington DC to compete in the 83rd Scripps National Spelling Bee. Yet, what should have been a couple of days of glory-basking enjoyment for these eggheads was interrupted by a confrontation that surpasses that of the bullies that stuff them in lockers and take their lunch money.

Protestors.

Though there weren’t many and their chants may have barely been heard, their cause resonates loudly with me. Like all public demonstrations, they were looking for reform. It was not the education system that they wanted to see drastic changes in per say; these individuals wished to amend the very way the English language spells its words. What do I mean you may ask? Here’s an example from The Christian Science Monitor article:

According to literature distributed by the group, it makes more sense for "fruit" to be spelled as "froot," ''slow" should be "slo," and "heifer" — a word spelled correctly during the first oral round of the bee Thursday by Texas competitor Ramesh Ghanta — should be "hefer."

Apparently, the English language is just too difficult to spell which, to me, implies that those that take the time to learn the proper spelling have an unfair advantage in today’s world. It doesn’t make such sense to me either.

I’m not going to waste my time arguing against their demands. It’s obvious that their petition is just illogical – even the fifteen year old brother of one of the Spelling Bee contestants challenged this group’s nonsensicality. If anything, English is unique in that it is made up of words, or origins of words, from a variety of languages. English is a smörgåsbord of Nordic tongues, a bonanza of Spanish idioms, a blitzkrieg of German terms, along with cameos of Italian, and one where using French is clichéd. Even classically “American” words have surprisingly distant origins – the hokey term of “fella” comes from the Arabic word for an ordinary person.

But before I go on to make this a post about protecting the English language from those who don’t know any better, I will humbly stop myself at the risk of being a hypocrite. About a month or so ago, I was shocked by an article from The New York Times that pertained to prominent French figures, including President Nicolas Sarkozy and those associated with the International Organization of the Francophonie, looking to preserve the French language. They felt that something must be done.

What’s wrong with that? Why should I feel guilty about defending the English language as it stands now and be critical of the French wanting to do the same with theirs? It implies a sense of elitism that those that know it properly are, in fact, correct while those who don’t are simply wrong. While within the current confines of the grammatical and phonological structure that would be true, the extending colloquial and lexical realms might say otherwise. And who are the originators of the language to say theirs is still the “correct” way once they put it in the hands of others? For example, in regards to the French, their issue doesn’t necessarily lie within France’s borders but rather outside of them. Only 65 million out of the 200 million French language-speakers actually live in France while the rest reside in Canada, the Caribbean, Southeast Asia, neighboring European nations, and Africa. In fact, roughly half of those that speak French live in African countries such as Benin, Cameroon, and Togo (my favorite name for a country by far, by the way). After all, there’s even an African country whose name is French: Côte d’Ivoire.

Ignoring the total irony that it was through colonization that it was France that brought their language to these far-off lands, the French are now claiming that their version of fraçais is the absolute manner of speaking it, and are therefore discounting everyone from Algeria to Quebec to Vanuatu. Sarkozy even stated, “Defending our language, defending the values it represents – that is a battle for cultural diversity in the world,” arguing that the other influences seeping into French from across the globe must be dealt with, otherwise the sanctity will be forever tarnished. Yet, I have to imagine that even within France itself, there are variations of the vernacular and idiomatic expressions – I would bet it’s noticeable in Paris alone. Language is reflective of the culture, so to say that someone in Mali or Haiti is less legitimate in his or her understanding of the language than a Parisian is an unfair testament. While the foundations of the language may be shared, their varying experiences as cultures, as well as their geographical positioning, over the past several centuries, or even millennia, have lent to these adaptations that should celebrate this diversity, rather than “defend” and “battle” it.

After a semester of finally taking Italian, I was excited to watch a film in the language with my new breadth of knowledge. Netflix kindly brought me Gomorrah, an Oscar-nominated movie from just a couple of years ago. I popped it into my DVD player, eager to ignore the subtitles and just plunge straight into the language. Sadly, I was immediately lost – I even rewound it several times to match the words that I knew I was familiar with in the subtitles to match with what they were saying, but to no avail could I figure it out. I admitted defeat and read along for the next hour and a half, barely recognizing even the simple terms here and there.

Did I just not know the language? I don’t think so, since I felt I had a pretty strong, albeit basic, grasp. As I so often do, I did some research. I discovered that, since the movie dealt with organized crime in Naples, the characters spoke in the dialect of the region: Neapolitan. I then found that there are Tuscan, Venetian, Corsican, Sicilian, and many other dialects as well. It had not crossed my mind that in a country (whose area compares to Arizona, which itself balances amongst different languages) that has a history of being several independent kingdoms that were united no less than one hundred and fifty years ago, that there would be assorted localisms within its political boundaries and just assumed that taking “Italian” would be all encompassing. While some may seem the same to the untrained ear, apparently others, such as Neapolitan, are distinctly different that communication with compatrioti, or fellow countrymen, from other regions of their shared nation becomes difficult.

Frankly, I think that’s kind of cool. Even within the United States, we have similar rhetorical and syntactic situations. “Pop” and “soda”, “hotdish” and “casserole”, and “supper” and “dinner” are differences that I encounter daily in Minnesota and here at home, respectively. As influences begin to immerse themselves into a culture, one can only expect that the language will evolve - in recent decades, the isolated Basque language has begun to adopt vocabulary from its Spanish neighbors. As this evolution takes place, it becomes unique to a certain locale or society and reaches the point where it becomes an identifying trademark of a specific area. You never mistake a Southern drawl, a Boston blue-collar accent, or the tubular inflections of a Valley girl with their associations nor, to a certain degree, should you. There’s a fine line between judging and being familiar with a certain aspect of a person’s character, and as long as you can differentiate between the two and respect that it doesn’t necessarily define the individual, you can also appreciate someone’s heritage and the manner of speaking that goes along with it.

Language represents culture. That’s why Latin is a dead language, because no one speaks it anymore. That’s why the infamous, French-speaking King Leopold II of Belgium was so reviled by the Flemish population in his country for never having bothered to learn their language. Likewise, it’s why his enforcement of French in the Congo dehumanized the indigenous population as he suppressed their tribal tongues and, ultimately, led to the loss of their cultural identity. It’s why my roommates in Spain immediately recognized that I had some kind of Latin American background based on my diction. It’s why a jagged New York accent can be intimidating and pushy while someone’s from Nebraska seems cozily inviting. It’s why ESPN hires a bunch of English and Irish commentators for their soccer coverage during the World Cup, because it just doesn’t seem fitting coming from Americans who do not typically appreciate the sport.

While I hope whoever our English equivalent is to the International Organization doesn’t given in to the protestors’ pleas, if that is truly what the people want then who am I to sit in my ivory tower and tell them they are wrong. I have a friend who is an English major who told me that she believes that adverbs will disappear from our grammatical structure in the coming decades, but if that’s how a majority of the population speaks nowadays then there is little point to mandate rules that nobody follows. I wud hate to c it happen - it wouldnt b gr8, it wouldnt b gud, but if thats wat da ppl want 2 do and reflex who we r as a sosiittee, then thats how it gos.

P.S. I couldn’t quite figure out how to work this last bit into the flow of languages evolving part, but since I did the research, I’m just going to share this paragraph with you anyways:

While “giraffe” is just the name of an animal to us in 2010, up until the nineteenth century, it was still commonly referred to as a “camelopard” – a combination of the words “camel” and “leopard” to describe its appearance. In fact, its scientific classification is still Giraffa camelopardalis, which it was called during Roman times. Anyways, the Italian word for it, giraffa, gradually started to make its way into the English language in the sixteenth century but was still not regularly used for a while. The word giraffa actually came from the Arabic word for it, which was zarafa (الزرافة), meaning “an assemblage” or “tall”. Many experts feel that the Arabic word actually derives from an African language due to its phonetics, yet specifics are hard to come by at this time. Nevertheless, it displays that proximity influences languages and how it frequently adopts and adapts from others. This process traces back to at least four recorded languages alone.

Conscious of the Subconscious

Something that I often think about is what I think about. For whatever reason, at certain moments in time, the course of my life has brought me to instances where I find myself pondering man’s deepest questions and then ranging to its most trivial follies – sometimes both within seconds. I could be contemplating a matter as profound as what is love and then all of a sudden wonder what ever happened to Chris Kattan. This type of seamless transition is the result of some obscure connection that I happen to find between two seemingly distant items yet my experiences over the past twenty-one years have found ways to make them go hand-in-hand. While my example may not be as abstract as we complex beings are capable of (and if you don’t get the joke, ask me later), our behavioral triggers beg the questions of why we as individuals react to certain things in certain ways, especially since, as human history has shown, they are not universal.

I’m not sure if there has ever been a consensus where exactly the line is between the conscious and the subconscious divide, nor do I doubt that it will ever be reached, but I will attempt to present my thoughts on it. While the former’s general definition is pretty straightforward (an awareness of your surroundings, self, etc.), the latter is a bit harder to pinpoint primarily because, in theory and by definition, we don’t fully realize what it is. We need to look no further than the very etymology of the word to describe this link – or lack thereof – between something so tangible and something else so intangible; the sub- delineates that it is something below, or rather beyond, our capabilities of consciousness.

So who am I – some kid who couldn’t even really tell you what year I am in school – to suddenly come to these realizations that has eluded philosophers, psychologists, and neuroscientists for millennia? By evaluating my credentials and aptitude to tackle such an subject plays perfectly into what I’m trying to express: our personal subconscious is most elusive to ourselves because it is the very framework of how we perceive the world through our life’s experiences. For example, questioning and discussing a topic such as this is viewed as ordinary to me. “Why wouldn’t one examine this type of matter,” I ask myself. Well, I do that because I see this “type of matter” as a standard food for thought that would be commonplace for anyone to consume due to the way in which I was raised and the unique opportunities it presented me with. In fact, what I deem as a “unique opportunity” would even be subjective to my experiences. Meanwhile others, perhaps yourself included, might sit in front of your computer screen, speculating what must have gone wrong in my life to waste my time on this kind of thing. There are bigger, better, and more important issues such as the economy, family, politics, sports, or when the next season of Jersey Shore starts that people should be spending their waking moments on. Or at least that’s what you think based on the results of your past.

The subconscious is what we prescribe meaning to without recognizing that we are doing so. In some ways, we are not even really recognizing it since we may have not done it before – when it is brought to our attention for the first time, we are, in fact, cognizing it. Recently, I had a strong difference of opinions with someone after, what I felt, a very bold statement was expressed. To this individual though, there was nothing that was the least bit controversial with what had been said. Our varying realities of what we each considered normal was the consequence of our distinct backgrounds. I saw the issue from one standpoint that affected me on an emotional level, while the opposite point of view struggled to grasp my sensitivity towards it. For this person, the subconscious “truth” on this matter was so rooted in their perception of “truth” and therefore carried such meaning that it, almost incongruously, carried no meaning because it was believed to be a basic fact. In the meantime, my reaction is prompted by my notion of an indisputable “truth” that is defied in just a mere statement. I prefer to think that what we say is deeper than a simple utterance of thought. It is a testament to our past and the values that we have developed over that process where a certain moment inspired us to express ourselves in that manner. Maybe that’s overly semiotic of me, but I can only hope that our lives are filled with such meaning and purpose that everything that we do is a reflection of who we are.

Going back to my situation, was either of us wrong or right? Political correctness aside (which is another example of conscious and subconscious, by the way), within our concepts of morals and ethics, chances are that both our responses would contradict each others. While these types of debates always seem to end with something along the lines of “I get where you’re coming from,” I’m not sure we fully do. We may comprehend their argument on a structural level, but we are in no way aware of the earlier happenings that formed this stance. While we may be conscious of our opinions, where that opinion comes from is what lies in the subconscious. It comes to be through a series of events and experiences that reinforce a belief that affects how we see the world; as English author Fay Weldon wrote, “Only one thing registers on the subconscious mind: repetitive application – practice. What you practice is what you manifest.” We often times don’t realize what we stand for or who we are until someone challenges us with an alternative that breaks that routine because we believe that there is only that one option, and even then we may not initially acknowledge it.

Does this mean that our subconscious perspective is the victim of our past? Yes and, in a way, no. It is in that we can only observe the world in what we already know – and that’s why when we encounter something that we don’t, we have trouble understanding it. In fact, we often try to associate it with something that we’re familiar with to compare it to. When anthropologists study a culture, in order to articulate their thoughts and impressions, they make judgments and observations based on their own culture. In one of my classes this semester, we videoconferenced with a Mexican student from a university in her country. She was so jealous that we were fortunate enough to attend school in Minnesota. We were confused. For locals, it was just where they were from. For me, it was just the unglamorous Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area combined with frigid torment. To her though, it was the birthplace of Bob Dylan, a winter wonderland, and everything associated with the American college experience rolled into one. Our deviating portraits of this state exemplified how one person’s home is someone else’s exotic location.

The reason why our subconscious isn’t forever stuck in the ways of our past is because, fortunately, our past constantly extends itself with each new day and allows for a new experience to shape, and sometimes even transform, who we are. Imagine if you had been born and raised in one of these medieval fortress-cities with mammoth walls and an impenetrable gate and you had never seen anything beyond your trapped population. Your assessment of life and reality would be centered around everything you knew within your city – as far as you know, there is nothing else past those walls and, if there is, it’s probably the exact same since you can’t conceive of anything else. Suddenly though, someone with completely foreign and unknown ideas and values than your populations manages to sneak in. Whatever differences lies between you and this new person, you cannot help but rethink what you already knew, even though you had spent an entire lifetime under one impression. It’s very similar to Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” sans the smugness that I’m all-knowing and chastised for my freethinking. Anyways, sometimes these challenges strengthen your position, other times they change them, whether it be slightly or dramatically. If you look at spirituality and religion, these types of situations have turned atheists into believers, and vice versa, after life altering moments, or just reinforced their previously held beliefs. I share this scenario because it displays how your subconscious outlook can be adjusted if the opportunities present themselves since it is the product of your various life experiences. “Not me though, Andrew,” some of you might say, “I’m already open-minded so I don’t really get how this applies.” It is those that claim to be open-minded that are often the most narrow-minded; they have subconsciously acknowledged that they have already reached the limits of understanding and don’t allow room for growth.

So what’s the point of this? Why take precious time out my summer to write this discourse and expect you to read the entire thing? I could be somewhat irritating and leave you with some sort of thought-provoking ending that basically says “You figure what it means to you” in a worldly tone and then disappear into the mystic. I lack both the scholarly standing and supernatural ability to do justifiably go through with such a conclusion. What my aim is goes back to the very definitions of these two words: conscious and subconscious. If we are going to stick with that the conscious is your awareness, I’m asking you to just be more aware of your awareness. Are you driven by logic or emotion? Perhaps you’re constrained by them. What makes one relationship more meaningful than another? Why does one instance matter to you more than the other? Conduct a self-examination of who you are – not just after reading this, but constantly. Extend it to others, and then realize what from your perspective of “normal” are you applying to your evaluation of them. Realize that where you stand, both physically and in your values, is perhaps just the happenstance of a series of decisions, actions, and interactions and take in which one of those have molded you into the person that you are, have been, and will be.

This wouldn’t be a proper psychoanalytical paper if I didn’t quote Freud, so here it goes: “The conscious mind may be compared to a fountain playing in the sun and falling back into the great subterranean pool of subconscious from which it rises.” Well put, Sigmund – he’s managed to articulate what I’ve tried to express in nearly 2,000 words into one sentence. Like I mentioned earlier, I know these thoughts aren’t original or novel and that minds much more brilliant than mine have disserted on this for much longer than I have and ever will. Evidently, their works have inspired and influenced me to consider this type of approach to thinking and even, to take it one step further, humanity. I guess I’m just hoping that, by reading this, I’ve done the same for you, whether you consciously realize it or not.

Scaling the Wall to NBA Success

While trying to suppress the memories of Kwame Brown, we Washington Wizards fans are ecstatic that the NBA Lottery’s ping pong balls have divinely bounced our way after a miserable and embarrassing season. There seems to be little doubt that John Wall will be trading his Kentucky Wildcat blue from the Wizard’s slate blue as he makes the nation’s capital his new home after his dorm room in Lexington. I must say though, I like his dance and have nothing against the player himself but I’m not sure that I’m the biggest fan of having the first overall pick.

Unlike any other American professional sports league, the NBA draft seems to have this notion among its fanbase that the top pick is an automatic savior for his team. Because of the nature of the NFL and its sport, there are so many components of a team that a top pick is just another piece of the puzzle while the MLB and NHL draft go almost unnoticed in mainstream circles. In the NBA though, if he is fortunate enough to be a superstar in the league (remember Kwame), the player alone is thought to be able to bring his franchise from the bottom of the standings to the championship. If he pans out, he is anointed a liberator of from barren arenas and little to none nationally televised games and a redeemer of the city. It’s the putting-all-your-eggs-in-one-basket kind of mentality with a top pick that deflates an organization once the reality fails to meet the expectations. I have a hard time believing that one player out of the ten players on the court, as well as the rest of the bench, is really that influential in determining the entire course of the NBA. If history - and even the current playoffs - tells us anything, that is not the case.

The immediate thought is that the first pick will bring a championship to the city. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Wizards’ front office has already started searching for the parade route from the Redskins’ 1991 Super Bowl celebration, buried deep in the city archives. Yet, since that very year, only one player has brought the Larry O’Brien Championship Trophy back to the city that he was drafted in and that was Tim Duncan. A few of them have made it to the Finals with their original team but never won it, and the only other player to have rings on his fingers is Shaquille O’Neal, who had to leave Orlando in order to do so. Interestingly, both of them played against teams that featured another Number One pick in those series. What’s important to note though is that on none of these championship teams were Duncan nor Shaq considered the sole star that the team had to look to for in order to obtain that glory. They were part of a lineup that included other quality stars as well.

In the NBA, going deep into the playoffs and eventually winning a championship is dependent on an ensemble cast, and not necessarily one superstar. Does a superstar help? Of course, just look at Kobe and the Lakers’ success, but he’s not doing it alone – he is one of three All-Stars on his team along with Pau Gasol and Ron Artest. Before he was teamed up with this dynamic squad, we all remember how mediocre the Lakers were and how frustrated Kobe was with his supporting cast. He had good reason. In fact, there is no team in the playoffs right now that has less than trio of All-Stars; the Boston Celtics alone have six! Sure, one of them may be a grizzled Michael Finley from his Maverick days almost ten years ago, but it still says something about his athletic caliber and basketball IQ and how the Celtics recognize its value when it comes to compiling a team. There’s a reason these teams are perennial contenders: they’ve recognized the formula for competing at the highest level and its through multiple contributors rather than just one.

This brings me back to John Wall. Let’s go ahead and assume that Gilbert Arenas is sent somewhere else and this allows for Wall to be an absolute stud and immediately become one of the top point guards, if not players, in the league. Now take a look at the Wizards’ roster – are you sold on any of them being able to be a reliable and worthy partner in a quest for a championship? The next best player, Josh Howard, is constantly facing injury and conduct issues while Andray Blatche isn’t any better. With Al Thornton, Nick Young, and Javaris Crittenton, I see a collection of talented athletes rather than skilled players. Athleticism can sometimes get you far, but it very rarely gets you all the way. Just ask the Hawks, they know all about that.

I wish the best for John Wall and our beloved organization. To those that would prefer Evan Turner, myself included, the past remains the same and is irrefutable. This does not mean automatic success for your team, whether it is instant or eventual, but just that you made the first decision on a night of sixty others. Although Wall will probably look extremely excited and optimistic (and hopefully less ridiculous than Jalen Rose when he was drafted) when David Stern calls him up on stage later next month, it may be because he’s, along with most of the NBA family, is unaware of what being the top overall pick entails. Choose wisely.

P.S. I would like for it to be noted that I wrote this entire article without mention LeBron. Oh wait… D’oh!

Prospera Pascha sit

Let me start of by saying, happy Easter to all. On what should be a joyous occasion for the Catholic Church, it is sadly marred with the recent sex abuse scandals that haunt the Vatican. There’s no denying the validity of these accusations; they seem irrefutable and based in some level of truth. What I want to advocate here is two separate points though. The first being that a couple drops of oil doesn’t mean the whole ocean is contaminated – the misguided actions of these individuals and their conduct does not negate the works nor the beliefs of the Church in its entirety. Secondly, and concurrently, this recent tribulation should not deter current believers away from the faith because the basis of Catholicism does not lie in castigation but in forgiveness and repentance – the very reason Jesus rose from the dead.

For critics that complain that the Church is not progressive enough, it is interesting to see these very same people holding Pope Benedict XVI in his past for decisions that were made over twenty years ago. There has been acknowledgment of poor judgment on his behalf and several of his supporters and their deepest regrets for the ultimate outcome are undoubtedly sincere. Yet, when does the slandering reach a level that inversely puts the Church in the position of a victim despite the good that it brings the world?

The unparalleled amount of good that the Church has brought the world over the past two millennia does not permit for us to look the other way on these abuses yet the media, and those that support this type of coverage and defamation, seem more intent on tearing down the Church one figurative and literal brick at a time rather than the actual matter of the abuse itself.

Those with complaints of a lack of change are uninformed. Dioceses all over the world take deliberate steps to prevent these sorts of situations from taking place, such as bringing awareness to the problem, rehabilitation, and even removal. In fact, before taking the position a campus peer minister for my church, I had to go through a training session regarding appropriate behavior when around children, a requirement for all employees of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis – and I was only going to be interacting with college-aged students. Even as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger “made entirely clear efforts not to cover [sexual abuses cases] up but to tackle and investigate them. This was not always met with approval in the Vatican.” The problem is identified and measures are continually made to put an end to this pedophiliac exploitation.

These priests that committed these perverted actions were put in positions of trust and, sadly, they took advantage of that trust. If the necessary steps were taken, what more can one do? These things just happen. That doesn’t make me insensitive or coldhearted; it makes me realistic about the state of the world today. There are misguided people out there with erroneous souls, which is all the more for the need of the moral culture that an establishment such as the Church provides and cultivates.

French philosopher Blaise Pascal said, “Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid that it might be true.” Avoiding the countless theological debates that can emerge from that statement alone, it seems that the critics’ agenda regarding these stories is not one of concern but of detestation and opposition towards anything that Church represents. Interestingly, they equate that those following the beliefs are the very same as the beliefs themselves. Therefore, if one of these followers has flawed, then the entire faith must be flawed. Coming from critics that allegedly oppose generalizations of any sort, that type of perspective is hypocritical. Are the countless charitable deeds inspired by the Church and its past automatically discounted based on the minimal errors of those who happen to be associated with it? Should we ignore Mother Theresa’s efforts in Kolkata, Monsignor Richard Albert’s in Jamaica, the YMCA’s in your local community, and any other aid that is to follow from this point on? If encountering a few bad apples really does tarnish your impressions of a good harvest, perhaps it is not the Church that is being too “righteous” but yourself.

The amount of harsh publicity that Pope Benedict, the Vatican, and the entire Church have received over the past weeks should be viewed as old news by now. The Church has been under fire for as long as it has been around yet, despite the best efforts of vilifiers, it continues to thrive. In fact, just last year in 2009, Catholicism experienced a slight increase as a percentage in world religions. Those believers that feel lost and confused by these recent events and face the pressures of opposing and even hostile perspectives must not forget what Jesus told his disciples before his arrest, “‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also.” (John 15:20). Although this may not fit the conventional views of “persecution,” this malicious commentary by the press has aims of subjugating the Church and those affiliated with it, rather than just the perpetrators.

Lastly though, it ultimately comes down to forgiveness. Mistakes were made on many levels and they are past the point of defense; the Vatican had to admit responsibility and acknowledge its wrongdoing, which it did. For some, the apology did not suffice. Why? I don’t know. For those who don’t support the faith, they seem to expect more from these men and almost liken them to God, but they are not divine beings – they are human beings. They are just as capable of transgressing as you or me, and that goes for the abusers as well. If one makes a mistake, what good does it do to dwell on that misstep forever? Is it not best to recognize the fault, absolve it, and take the necessary steps to prevent it from happening again? The late John Paul II did so when he “pardoned” his would-be assassin and gave him his “complete trust” after meeting with him in prison. Appropriately named English satirist and poet Alexander Pope once wrote, “To err is human, to forgive divine.” By freeing the Church of this spiteful reporting and exposure, perhaps they will not only rid themselves of that malevolence but also experience true compassion.

My dad once told me that what amazes him most about religion is that it is not so much a story of God, but a story of man. For thousands of years, men and women have overcome and gone through so much on the basis of faith alone – not proof or concrete evidence, but faith. Whatever unexplainable force was inspiring them, these followers were humble enough to swallow their pride and live out a life according to the calling. Ridicule, punishment, torture, and even death awaited some of these individuals yet they stood strong enough in their convictions to face it with the utmost belief that what they were doing was right. I have no doubt that the Church will continue to grow as it always had, even when those in control choose to reject it and its teachings. This latest heartbreaking episode deserves notice and attention, but it also deserves reconciliation. On this day that observes resurrection, perhaps recent events will allow us to revive the strength in our faith and further our understanding for its value.

I'm Baaaaaaaaaack!!! (again)

After a prolonged sabbatical for something called “actually doing your homework in a timely fashion and getting involved in extracurricular activities”, I’ve learned two things: what stress feels like and that I now need some outlet to keep my sanity.

Voilà, the revival of my blog.

Don’t worry, I understand the pain that you have had to go through over these past few months. You somehow had to find pointless ramblings elsewhere. My opinion on random human interest stories was absent from your weekly mindless Internet surfing done solely out of procrastination. And how in the world did you further education yourself on micronations?! It’ll be okay, “The Best of What’s Around” is here for the long haul.

Keeping with this blog’s age-old tradition, I’ve provided you with the usual Wednesday video. I’ve chosen Vanessa Carlton’s performance of her song “White Houses” on Saturday Night Live way back in 2006 and I’ll explain why.

With such a grueling and challenging semester only halfway done, I was a little dismayed to not have an opportunity to go back to NoVa for my spring break. Although going to Disney World is not a bad alternative to say the least, sometimes even the self-proclaimed Happiest Place on Earth is no match for home. There’s a certain comfort and warmth that comes with being in your own house with your family as well as friends that are pretty much just an extended version of that in all but name.

So why choose this song? No, it’s not because I associate home with my first sexual encounter with a guy like Vanessa does. While the dominating narrative of the song deals with that blurring and distressing episode in her life, it’s the underlying sentiment that speaks to me the most as she knew that she could always rely on her closest friends back at home after the heartbreaking consequences. It’s that support system that helped lift her spirits as she fled the scary situation she had just endured to somewhere all too familiar.

Home is that place where no matter how complicated, hectic, or confusing life gets, it’ll all be okay when you get there. When one thinks of home, it isn’t so much the physical site itself but rather the happiness and joy that come with it. It’s something unmatched and beyond compare no matter where you are; in a sense, it’s something we try to recreate when we’re not there.

That is not to say that everywhere else sucks and that we should just run home and hide from the big bad world for the rest of your life. Continue striving for that goal of recreating a home away from our original home because it’s clearly achievable – isn’t that what our parents have successfully done for us? Just appreciate what it means to you so that you can help bring it to someone else later down the road. I know I will over this following week when I think on what and, more importantly, who I’ll be missing out on.

Enjoy.