Bao's weblog

Icon

Meandering thoughts of a Bay Area college student… be prepared for some bipolar vocabulary

Just Something I picked up along the way

To be hopeful in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness. What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do [great things]…If we remember those times and places-and there are so many-where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction. And if we do act, in however small a way, we don’t have to wait for some grand Utopian future. The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is in itself a marvelous victory.

Howard Zinn (1922-2010)

Filed under: General

You know how whenever you check your blog stats…

you can find the strangest things people have typed to find your blog?

I found three more search engine terms to add onto my ever-growing list:

-double penetration

-итальянская кухня (Italian cuisine)

-оригами лягушка (Origami frog)

…apparently the last two terms are Russian, but they just look like mirrored letters to me. OH! You know what’s really fun? Going onto Google Translate… and translate your entire blog into a completely different language.

I gotta say, my blog in Japanese looks sexy. My blog in Arabic looks SO AWESOME! My blog in English… mundane =[, but obviously the most meaningful.

Filed under: General

To show someone you love them

After reading Marcus’s post, I thought long and hard about it. What’s the best way to show someone you love them? Would it be ^3^ or XXX? Well this post probably doesn’t answer the question directly.

Me, I think the best ways of showing that person you love them are the things you do behind their back. Example? There’s a girl you’re madly in love with. The only thing that’s keeping you from her… is her new boyfriend. He’s amazing, handsome, and he’s fucking crazy about her. She loves him more than the world. And as much as you hate to admit it, she’s better off with him. If you really loved her, you’d take the boyfriend, lure him into a dark alley, pull out a silver chain… and give it to him straight and unflinching. You tell him that her birthday comes up in three days and she’s been eyeing this necklace in that jewelry place for awhile.
Do it with a happy heart. Why is it the best way? It’s selfless.

To show her you love her, you just have to make her happy. It could be from the easiest, mundane things like surprising her with a cup of her favorite tea to something as gut-wrenching as the above. To show her you love her, you put her above yourself. And that’s it. That’s all there is to it. Sometimes it hurts, but that’s the price you pay when you’re emotionally invested. The results are often worth it. If you truly love her. Or else the money you burned on that necklace was a huge mistake.

To show a friend you love him or her, you should put them above yourself as well. Wake up at 7:00 in the morning because they want to spend time with you at 7:30 in the morning. Realize that they want to see you at 7:30 in the fucking morning because they probably can’t. Wait. To. See. You… because they think you’re worth getting up at 7 in the morning for. Show up on time.

Showing a friend you love him or her doesn’t require giving sage advice whenever they need it. They don’t need opinions or instructions unless they ask. Usually all they do is talk. And if you care, you listen.

When they’re pissed, you, as a true friend, are meant to take his or her side no matter how messed up they are. You still talk of course, if what they did totally sucked. You talk after they pull themselves together. There’s an old saying that when you’re spending the night in a jail cell, a friend will check up on you in the morning, a good friend will bail you out, but a best friend will be in the cell with you.

When I figure out that I love someone, I find that it’s special. Because despite what the hippies say, love is very rare. There are over 6 billion people on this planet. If you’re lucky, maybe 10/6,600,000,000 will love you. (Not by default like family)

I guess what I’m trying to say is that love hurts, it’s hardly worth it, but you can’t live without it. Love means putting yourself on the line because it’s so rare it’s worth dying for.

And I bet many people have.

Night everyone

Filed under: General

I hate fillers

because that’s what they do. They “fill” empty space. They’re nothing special. They piss me off. That last post was, to me, a filler. I want to make every post mean something to me. Lately, each one brings me a different feeling from the next, be it sadness or euphoria.

I still enjoy blogging. I don’t see myself just stopping anytime soon. After all, this website is the only concrete proof (besides a perishable birth certificate and passport) that I exist in this world. I like to think that I’m unique, but I doubt that’s true. It’s actually somewhat comforting that I know people go through the same things in life that I do. It’s not as scary when you feel a certain way then find out through your friend’s blog that he or she had felt that way just several days ago. They’ve pulled through. They’re still alive! What’s the big deal!?

My friend had me take this quiz. Results?

You value your friendships: 60%

You love your friends very much – so much so that it’s actually quite a worry. You may not be able to cope very well when you do lose somebody’s friendship. You are a very sensitive and fragile person, and are therefore likely to get upset easily. You care for your friends and are willing to do anything that they ask you to do. Sometimes this can make your friends think that you are a bit of a nuisance. Nevertheless, people do really love you because your highest priority is your friends.

Um…

I do NOT get upset easily. Sometimes I sniffle during movies. Haha! I remember 2012, when the black guy was talking to his father who was on a cruise. And the father had this monologue.  I’m not that sensitive or that fragile of a person…. not mentally… though I bet even Teresa could break my arm if she thought about it. I care for my friends and am willing to do anything they ask me to do. Reading through that sentence, the word “masochist” comes to mind. Haha, but this reminds me of a conversation I had with Martin last night. Yeah I meant it all. If I was independent and my parents didn’t give a tiny rat’s ass, I’d give myself a 50% chance I’ll drive down there to hang out with you. At 10 p.m. …sometimes this can make you guys think that I’m a bit of a nuisance. Please tell me that’s not true you pricks 0_0. Nevertheless, people do really love me because my highest priority is my friends.

My highest priority is college. But fine, friends and family come in second by a hair (like the short ones on my head, not the long ones that girls have… ya)

I miss this. I blog and blog about these “feelings” and about death. I can’t believe I can still just talk about the every day things. Totally made up for the last post.

Tonight, Martin and I took a trip down memory lane to the time when we drove to Sweet Tomatoes once a month after 5th period. It probably was a bitch of a commute, but we always had a blast. It’s a shame we can’t redo those blissful months. Teresa once asked me where’d I go if I had a time machine. I think I answered that I’d relive my 18th birthday. I change my mind. I’d relive my 18th birthday along with every following minute until high school is over.

You could argue that those days to follow were fillers. But there’s nothing filler-esque about high school life and Sweet Tomatoes!

Cheers.

Filed under: General

The Policy

It sounds like the name to a really ominous book or movie. No, actually it’s my policy, the one where I’m supposed to blog about something significant once a week. To be honest, it is ominous. For me anyways. Well I’ve got to tell you, I’ve been cheating. Not that I haven’t been blogging every week, but the things I blog about aren’t that significant. Most of you probably see through all of the smoke and mirrors I employ using my vocabulary. You push aside all of those illusions and strip the issues to its butt-naked state, then I’m probably just another teenager bitching at life. But then again, we all are.

We all go through those realizations, those earth-shattering epiphanies, and we treat them oh-so-special. But they are earth-shattering. Yes, but they rock only your earth. The rest of the world moves on. Everyone else has already been through all of these. Makes me depressed a little, because I like to think that I’m something special. I guess I’m just another person in the world of 6.6 billion.

The three day weekend was really fun. On Friday, I enjoyed some quality one-on-one talking with Teresa. Looking back, I was really surprised that it wasn’t too awkward. We talked. We drove. We had drinks. We got lost. It’s all fun and games until you realize you’re all the way in downtown San Jose. We met up with Kevin in Oakridge and went bra shopping with Teresa. It’s still laughable that no one in Target found it weird that two guys were accompanying (and making suggestions for)  a girl who’s browsing at lingerie. Later that night, I got picked up and we went to Starbucks and Martin’s house to watch Brad Pitt slaughter the Italian language (along with several Nazis). Inglorious Basterds was fun.

My Saturday began when Thanh and Teresa picked me up. We met up with everyone at the YMCA and we carpooled to a Dim Sum place, then went to the park. We ate, ran around, and abused each other until we felt like throwing up. You know how they say you learn something new every day? I learned that Teresa and Cassandra are freakishly strong when it comes to arm wrestling. We spent the next several hours at Thanh’s house playing poker for pride and ego, then went to Martin’s house for food, a walk, mafia, and more poker for more pride and ego. I came home satisfied and worn out.

It was a fun weekend.

Filed under: General

Feeling sentimental

Christmas may have passed, but I still feel a bit of its spirit.

Filed under: General

The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

Yesterday marked the day that gay marriage has been taken to the federal courts to determine its fate. The stakes are high and the moment for tackling the last civil rights fight of the century begins now.

I recently read an article by Ted Olson, one of the leading conservatives against prop 8, former Solicitor General under George W. Bush, and a lifelong Republican. He makes a beautiful argument on behalf of marriage for all and its importance in our society. At its best, marriage is a means to create a loving household between two individuals through social and economic means. It establishes a place for a couple in the community and benefits society.

Below is a copy of an essay written by Ted Olson that highlights these fundamental issues and what’s really at stake when we debate over gay marriage. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Together with my good friend and occasional courtroom adversary David Boies, I am attempting to persuade a federal court to invalidate California’s Proposition 8—the voter-approved measure that overturned California’s constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex.

My involvement in this case has generated a certain degree of consternation among conservatives. How could a politically active, lifelong Republican, a veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, challenge the “traditional” definition of marriage and press for an “activist” interpretation of the Constitution to create another “new” constitutional right?

My answer to this seeming conundrum rests on a lifetime of exposure to persons of different backgrounds, histories, viewpoints, and intrinsic characteristics, and on my rejection of what I see as superficially appealing but ultimately false perceptions about our Constitution and its protection of equality and fundamental rights.

Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one’s own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.

Legalizing same-sex marriage would also be a recognition of basic American principles, and would represent the culmination of our nation’s commitment to equal rights. It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation.

This bedrock American principle of equality is central to the political and legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives alike. The dream that became America began with the revolutionary concept expressed in the Declaration of Independence in words that are among the most noble and elegant ever written: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Sadly, our nation has taken a long time to live up to the promise of equality. In 1857, the Supreme Court held that an African-American could not be a citizen. During the ensuing Civil War, Abraham Lincoln eloquently reminded the nation of its found-ing principle: “our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

At the end of the Civil War, to make the elusive promise of equality a reality, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution added the command that “no State É shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person É the equal protection of the laws.”

Subsequent laws and court decisions have made clear that equality under the law extends to persons of all races, religions, and places of origin. What better way to make this national aspiration complete than to apply the same protection to men and women who differ from others only on the basis of their sexual orientation? I cannot think of a single reason—and have not heard one since I undertook this venture—for continued discrimination against decent, hardworking members of our society on that basis.

Various federal and state laws have accorded certain rights and privileges to gay and lesbian couples, but these protections vary dramatically at the state level, and nearly universally deny true equality to gays and lesbians who wish to marry. The very idea of marriage is basic to recognition as equals in our society; any status short of that is inferior, unjust, and unconstitutional.

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that marriage is one of the most fundamental rights that we have as Americans under our Constitution. It is an expression of our desire to create a social partnership, to live and share life’s joys and burdens with the person we love, and to form a lasting bond and a social identity. The Supreme Court has said that marriage is a part of the Constitution’s protections of liberty, privacy, freedom of association, and spiritual identification. In short, the right to marry helps us to define ourselves and our place in a community. Without it, there can be no true equality under the law.

It is true that marriage in this nation traditionally has been regarded as a relationship exclusively between a man and a woman, and many of our nation’s multiple religions define marriage in precisely those terms. But while the Supreme Court has always previously considered marriage in that context, the underlying rights and liberties that marriage embodies are not in any way confined to heterosexuals.

Marriage is a civil bond in this country as well as, in some (but hardly all) cases, a religious sacrament. It is a relationship recognized by governments as providing a privileged and respected status, entitled to the state’s support and benefits. The California Supreme Court described marriage as a “union unreservedly approved and favored by the community.” Where the state has accorded official sanction to a relationship and provided special benefits to those who enter into that relationship, our courts have insisted that withholding that status requires powerful justifications and may not be arbitrarily denied.

What, then, are the justifications for California’s decision in Proposition 8 to withdraw access to the institution of marriage for some of its citizens on the basis of their sexual orientation? The reasons I have heard are not very persuasive.

The explanation mentioned most often is tradition. But simply because something has always been done a certain way does not mean that it must always remain that way. Otherwise we would still have segregated schools and debtors’ prisons. Gays and lesbians have always been among us, forming a part of our society, and they have lived as couples in our neighborhoods and communities. For a long time, they have experienced discrimination and even persecution; but we, as a society, are starting to become more tolerant, accepting, and understanding. California and many other states have allowed gays and lesbians to form domestic partnerships (or civil unions) with most of the rights of married heterosexuals. Thus, gay and lesbian individuals are now permitted to live together in state-sanctioned relationships. It therefore seems anomalous to cite “tradition” as a justification for withholding the status of marriage and thus to continue to label those relationships as less worthy, less sanctioned, or less legitimate.

The second argument I often hear is that traditional marriage furthers the state’s interest in procreation—and that opening marriage to same-sex couples would dilute, diminish, and devalue this goal. But that is plainly not the case. Preventing lesbians and gays from marrying does not cause more heterosexuals to marry and conceive more children. Likewise, allowing gays and lesbians to marry someone of the same sex will not discourage heterosexuals from marrying a person of the opposite sex. How, then, would allowing same-sex marriages reduce the number of children that heterosexual couples conceive?

This procreation argument cannot be taken seriously. We do not inquire whether heterosexual couples intend to bear children, or have the capacity to have children, before we allow them to marry. We permit marriage by the elderly, by prison inmates, and by persons who have no intention of having children. What’s more, it is pernicious to think marriage should be limited to heterosexuals because of the state’s desire to promote procreation. We would surely not accept as constitutional a ban on marriage if a state were to decide, as China has done, to discourage procreation.

Another argument, vaguer and even less persuasive, is that gay marriage somehow does harm to heterosexual marriage. I have yet to meet anyone who can explain to me what this means. In what way would allowing same-sex partners to marry diminish the marriages of heterosexual couples? Tellingly, when the judge in our case asked our opponent to identify the ways in which same-sex marriage would harm heterosexual marriage, to his credit he answered honestly: he could not think of any.

The simple fact is that there is no good reason why we should deny marriage to same-sex partners. On the other hand, there are many reasons why we should formally recognize these relationships and embrace the rights of gays and lesbians to marry and become full and equal members of our society.

No matter what you think of homosexuality, it is a fact that gays and lesbians are members of our families, clubs, and workplaces. They are our doctors, our teachers, our soldiers (whether we admit it or not), and our friends. They yearn for acceptance, stable relationships, and success in their lives, just like the rest of us.

Conservatives and liberals alike need to come together on principles that surely unite us. Certainly, we can agree on the value of strong families, lasting domestic relationships, and communities populated by persons with recognized and sanctioned bonds to one another. Confining some of our neighbors and friends who share these same values to an outlaw or second-class status undermines their sense of belonging and weakens their ties with the rest of us and what should be our common aspirations. Even those whose religious convictions preclude endorsement of what they may perceive as an unacceptable “lifestyle” should recognize that disapproval should not warrant stigmatization and unequal treatment.

When we refuse to accord this status to gays and lesbians, we discourage them from forming the same relationships we encourage for others. And we are also telling them, those who love them, and society as a whole that their relationships are less worthy, less legitimate, less permanent, and less valued. We demean their relationships and we demean them as individuals. I cannot imagine how we benefit as a society by doing so.

I understand, but reject, certain religious teachings that denounce homosexuality as morally wrong, illegitimate, or unnatural; and I take strong exception to those who argue that same-sex relationships should be discouraged by society and law. Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual. To a very large extent, these characteristics are immutable, like being left-handed. And, while our Constitution guarantees the freedom to exercise our individual religious convictions, it equally prohibits us from forcing our beliefs on others. I do not believe that our society can ever live up to the promise of equality, and the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, until we stop invidious discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

If we are born heterosexual, it is not unusual for us to perceive those who are born homosexual as aberrational and threatening. Many religions and much of our social culture have reinforced those impulses. Too often, that has led to prejudice, hostility, and discrimination. The antidote is understanding, and reason. We once tolerated laws throughout this nation that prohibited marriage between persons of different races. California’s Supreme Court was the first to find that discrimination unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed 20 years later, in 1967, in a case calledLoving v. Virginia. It seems inconceivable today that only 40 years ago there were places in this country where a black woman could not legally marry a white man. And it was only 50 years ago that 17 states mandated segregated public education—until the Supreme Court unanimously struck down that practice in Brown v. Board of Education. Most Americans are proud of these decisions and the fact that the discriminatory state laws that spawned them have been discredited. I am convinced that Americans will be equally proud when we no longer discriminate against gays and lesbians and welcome them into our society.

Reactions to our lawsuit have reinforced for me these essential truths. I have certainly heard anger, resentment, and hostility, and words like “betrayal” and other pointedly graphic criticism. But mostly I have been overwhelmed by expressions of gratitude and good will from persons in all walks of life, including, I might add, from many conservatives and libertarians whose names might surprise. I have been particularly moved by many personal renditions of how lonely and personally destructive it is to be treated as an outcast and how meaningful it will be to be respected by our laws and civil institutions as an American, entitled to equality and dignity. I have no doubt that we are on the right side of this battle, the right side of the law, and the right side of history.

Some have suggested that we have brought this case too soon, and that neither the country nor the courts are “ready” to tackle this issue and remove this stigma. We disagree. We represent real clients—two wonderful couples in California who have longtime relationships. Our lesbian clients are raising four fine children who could not ask for better parents. Our clients wish to be married. They believe that they have that constitutional right. They wish to be represented in court to seek vindication of that right by mounting a challenge under the United States Constitution to the validity of Proposition 8 under the equal-protection and due-process clauses of the 14th Amendment. In fact, the California attorney general has conceded the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8, and the city of San Francisco has joined our case to defend the rights of gays and lesbians to be married. We do not tell persons who have a legitimate claim to wait until the time is “right” and the populace is “ready” to recognize their equality and equal dignity under the law.

Citizens who have been denied equality are invariably told to “wait their turn” and to “be patient.” Yet veterans of past civil-rights battles found that it was the act of insisting on equal rights that ultimately sped acceptance of those rights. As to whether the courts are “ready” for this case, just a few years ago, in Romer v. Evans, the United States Supreme Court struck down a popularly adopted Colorado constitutional amendment that withdrew the rights of gays and lesbians in that state to the protection of anti-discrimination laws. And seven years ago, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court struck down, as lacking any rational basis, Texas laws prohibiting private, intimate sexual practices between persons of the same sex, overruling a contrary decision just 20 years earlier.

These decisions have generated controversy, of course, but they are decisions of the nation’s highest court on which our clients are entitled to rely. If all citizens have a constitutional right to marry, if state laws that withdraw legal protections of gays and lesbians as a class are unconstitutional, and if private, intimate sexual conduct between persons of the same sex is protected by the Constitution, there is very little left on which opponents of same-sex marriage can rely. As Justice Antonin Scalia, who dissented in the Lawrence case, pointed out, “[W]hat [remaining] justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution’?” He is right, of course. One might agree or not with these decisions, but even Justice Scalia has

California’s Proposition 8 is particularly vulnerable to constitutional challenge, because that state has now enacted a crazy-quilt of marriage regulation that makes no sense to anyone. California recognizes marriage between men and women, including persons on death row, child abusers, and wife beaters. At the same time, California prohibits marriage by loving, caring, stable partners of the same sex, but tries to make up for it by giving them the alternative of “domestic partnerships” with virtually all of the rights of married persons except the official, state-approved status of marriage. Finally, California recognizes 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place in the months between the state Supreme Court’s ruling that upheld gay-marriage rights and the decision of California’s citizens to withdraw those rights by enacting Proposition 8.

So there are now three classes of Californians: heterosexual couples who can get married, divorced, and remarried, if they wish; same-sex couples who cannot get married but can live together in domestic partnerships; and same-sex couples who are now married but who, if they divorce, cannot remarry. This is an irrational system, it is discriminatory, and it cannot stand.

Americans who believe in the words of the Declaration of Independence, in Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, in the 14th Amendment, and in the Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and equal dignity before the law cannot sit by while this wrong continues. This is not a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American one, and it is time that we, as Americans, embraced it.

Filed under: General

Funeral Blues

Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone,
Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone,
Silence the pianos and with muffled drum
Bring out the coffin, let the mourners come.

Let aeroplanes circle moaning overhead
Scribbling on the sky the message He is Dead.
Put crepe bows round the white necks of the public doves,
Let the traffic policemen wear black cotton gloves.

He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last forever: I was wrong.

The stars are not wanted now; put out every one,
Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun,
Pour away the ocean and sweep up the woods;
For nothing now can ever come to any good.

-W.H. Auden

…I still miss you girl! You’re impossible to forget,  so don’t you forget me either. It’d be the worst day of my life.

You still mean everything to me.

Filed under: General

Winter Quarter 2010

Pretty simple deal. I’m still waitlisted for my english class. I’m also taking math and oral communications because for some reason, Cal Poly SLO would like me to have it before I try and transfer over.

Life continues to prove me wrong over and over again. Damn, life, you’re full of surprises! Well, I met a really cute girl in my communications class. Usually when I see a cute girl in class, I’d admire her for a bit, then shove everything to the back of my mind and focus. When people see the last transition happening, it probably scares them a little. Imagine looking up and make eye contact with a guy for a split second before he puts his eyes down and acts as if nothing happened. Holy fuck, he’s gonna stalk me until I lose it! Well, okay, maybe girls don’t think that way considering I’m not one, but some people would beg to differ. Damn them…

The look then stop method wasn’t the case here, though. Since it’s a communications class, we’re supposed to, of course, communicate. Since I didn’t know a single soul in that room, I picked her to talk to. Since we talked for a bit, I finally met someone new after weeks of chilling with the same people over and over again. And since it was the second day of class and she chose to sit next to me (FUCK YES!) I’m feeling kind of elated.

I suppose I don’t really care if she doesn’t like me that way. Once again I feel like myself again after all of these weeks of breaks, among other things. Looking back up to yesterday, winter break feels a bit weird, because I wouldn’t normally act like the way I did. In another way, I’m a little bit put down. Well, most of the people I know would dismiss her as not pretty because she isn’t Asian. Come to think of it, when was the last time Kevin, Nam, or Martin found a non-Asian girl attractive? 0_0 Her hair is only semi-long as well… At the same time, I feel a little guilty and disgusted for finding someone attractive at the moment so soon.

Also, I can’t believe after four to five years of knowing each other, you guys haven’t figured me out yet. When I yell at people, I’m never really angry. When I’m actually angry, I get really quiet. (Break didn’t count, because that time I was a bit sad, sure, but I was tired as hell.) It’s normally the same with AIM. CAPS ON and constant swearing doesn’t mean I’m hopping mad! It’s throws me off because my Fremont friends know this, so when I’m talking to both of you guys, I kind of have to “split” my personality and I lose track. Maybe I alienated a lot of people because I feel like they weren’t as close as they used to be. But I don’t mind since I’m confident things will return to normal.

Cheers!

New Years Resolution 3: make at least one new friend starting now.

Filed under: General

Beware of the hang-over

It’s been an a-okay three weeks. And in a puff of smoke, it moves back into the past and again our future is at stake as we trudge along the wartorn path of  college classes. Beware of the fucking holiday hangover. The textbooks are bought and the car fueled for the drive to college.  I’m not looking forward to going back to school like none of the past events ever happened. I’m not looking forward to shocking my body when I suddenly have to wake up at 6 am tomorrow. SHIT I hope I don’t oversleep.

However, I am looking forward to doing something productive with my life. I’m excited to meet new people and face new challenges. Basically, I’m excited to move on. What is this balance we’re trying to achieve? We continue to move forward, yet cling to the past and hope it doesn’t move on without us. We see each other quite often and act as if it’s not out of the norm (most of us), yet six days a week we lead different lives and have different friends. We consciously make an effort to not forget each other and to somehow manage to spend the rest of our lives in close contact.

With this unspoken system we’ve unconsciously worked out, we’ve somehow eliminated the awkwardness and the silence that often comes with long awaited reunions. I guess it all works out, but maybe there’s unseen damage. After I read Martin’s post, I reflected as well. Maybe it doesn’t all seem wrong to me, but something doesn’t seem right. Seeing old friends usually once a week and having the time of our lives… what could go wrong? Maybe we haven’t found the right balance yet. That’s confusing, however, because who doesn’t enjoy seeing old friends as often as possible?

Then again, maybe Teresa’s right. Maybe it’s the other way around and we really don’t see each other enough. “I wish everyone went to Berkeley.” That would mean that despite all our efforts, our friendships are strained by the distance apart we are from each other. However, if we see each other every day, then it’ll dilute the sense of “special” that’s meant to accompany reunions (yes, along with the awkwardness)  It doesn’t necessarily mean that the bonds we’ve built are weak and will inevitably collapse. Maybe it means that what we’ve been through so far is nothing and that the worst is still on its way.

Beware of  the holiday hangover…

Filed under: General