Oops.

My dating post back in February.

OK FINE. I WAS WRONG. SO SUE ME.

If anyone had actually bothered to both read that post AND watch me recently, you're probably wondering exactly how much more hypocritical I can get. Because I doubt anyone is stalking me THAT much, here's the deal: read that post, then imagine anything and everything that I can do to completely go against it. And I'm talking a line-by-line rebuttal here, people.
I'm posting this now because I was reading that old post on dating, and I realized how much I've contradicted myself. And so I think that it's about time I redefine my views a bit. I mean, I only feel hypocritical if I denounce something as wrong, KNOW that it's wrong, and do it anyways. I don't feel that certain things are wrong anymore, and it's time I reorganize my thoughts on them.

Well, I guess it's not a TOTAL contradiction. I mean, some of the stuff I said in the first few paragraphs are still valid, I think. Seriously...the power issue really does happen. I know it's not happening to me right now, though, because I learned my lesson from that incident that I semi-described in that post. But really: a freshman and a senior? I feel like the maturity level difference on those is a bit too big. And it's not just the three-year age difference; the senior's gone through high school, mostly. He's seen things, done things...while the freshman's just gotten there. She's relatively naive, you know?

You think you’re in love, everyone else’s doing it, and the biggest and stupidest reason of all, it’s a status symbol.

I still agree with the last two reasons. Just because most people have a boyfriend/girlfriend is no reason to try and get one too. If you feel left out, that's not your fault; it's your friends. If they don't have the common decency to keep themselves off each other while they're with you, or while you're around, then they should change, not you.
And then the status symbol thing is even more inane now than ever, if that's even possible. People still date for the "prestige" and the "status" and that's just incredibly stupid, not to mention cheapening the concept of love for everyone else.
But that first one: "You think you're in love"...I'm not so sure about that anymore. Could it be possible at the age we're at? At one point I would've said "No." easily. But now...I don't know.
Because if what I'm in now isn't love, then what is it? I mentioned infatuation in my post, but this bond is far too deep, and exists on far too many levels for it to be a crush, or "puppy love".
But we'll get to that in a second. I do agree that the fact that people celebrate their one MONTH anniversaries, it's symbolic of how shallow the whole high school dating scene has become.
SO...on to the next paragraph.

The worst is when you start dating a close friend.

Yeah..."oops." Not dating, per se, but it WAS (and is) a close friend. What's really weird about redefining my views is that I read what I wrote before, and it all makes sense! And yet here I am. And for those of you wondering where "here" is, I'll get to that in just a moment.
So, about dating, or at least being in the infamous "relationship" with a close friend. It's true that most high school relationships don't work out, and it's also true that college destroys the ones that make it past the teenage years.
But is that any reason to be so pessimistic that you don't even TRY something? If I wasn't where I am now (and again, clarification is coming!), I'd wonder forever what it would have been like. Now I do, and regardless of what happens, regardless of what happens, be it next week, next year, or never, I'll never regret taking the chance and living the risk.
So sure, it may not work out, but you can have the time of your life while it lasts, and if you're careful, it doesn't have to end horribly. Dating (or whatever) a close friend shouldn't mean that when the "relationship" ends, your friendship does too. And if you can't manage that, then were you really close friends to begin with?
Now take note, I'm not trying to bash people whose relationship with a friend didn't work out, and it killed their friendship as well. That happens sometimes too, and sometimes you can't change it. I'm just saying that maybe it doesn't have to be that way, or at least, maybe it doesn't DEFINITELY have to be that way. Just have a little bit of hope, I guess.
Now, on to where "here" is, for me. To do this, I'm going to take one of those quizzes that someone made up:
Do you like/love someone right now?
Well, I'd hope that after this long post saying that my PREVIOUS post condemning high school dating was slightly wrong, it'd be pretty obvious. But for those peanut-for-brains out there, yes. I do. But don't ask me to specify like or love, because I don't think I'm mature enough to know the difference. From my personal experience, I'd say it's love, but my personal experience is only 16-ish years. That's not very much to explain the emotion that is the only reason that our entire species is still around.
Does she like/love you right now?
Well, you could take the previous answer and just switch the genders and point-of-view...or I could say this: it would seem so, and I hope to God that she does, but again, how am I to know? Only one person knows for sure, and as far as I am inside her head, I can't know the answer to this for certain.
How did it happen?
How? Interesting question. Let's just say that when you don't set boundaries to friendship, it kind of spills over. Not that that's a BAD thing.
What's happening now?
We're not dating, that's for sure. And I'd say we're "friends...with benefits", but that carries a horrible connotation with it. So let's leave it at this: we love/like/whatever each other, and we're content with that for now.
Where do I see myself with her in the future?
I don't know. I don't want to know. Someone asked me this before, and I told them that I have no earthly idea. Given all that stuff I said before about how relationships often don't work out, I don't really want to look very far ahead in the future. Sure, "playing it by ear" doesn't always work, but you can't plan ahead if you've got nothing to plan for. And plus, the spontanaeity is great.

So let's sum up now. Oh wait, I'm too lazy, and it's getting late. This has probably been a pretty disjointed post, and I don't think I got to half of the things I wanted to say, but that might be because I don't know what I wanted to say in the first place. So yeah...if you REALLY want more details, talk to me personally. Odds are, I won't give you any, but you know, if there's one thing I've learned from all this, it's that not even trying because you're afraid you'll fail is the biggest failure of all.

Showdown

Did anyone else notice President Bush walking in with his arms held a bit out to his sides, and a bit of a swagger in his walk? This isn't a showdown at high noon, Mr. President, it's a debate. Oh well, I guess everyone has his own style, right? But please, Mr. President, be nice to the moderator. Don't talk over the poor guy; he's just trying to do his job.
Kerry played this well by including Charlie Gibson in one of his jokes; nice job. He also made an excellent point on abortion by linking it to the separation of church and state. Kerry pointed out that although he, personally, was Catholic, he couldn't base national decisions on his own religion. Bush seemed to say this, but then he contradicted himself (on the embryonic stem cell research question).
For both candidates, you could see the influence of their debate coaches and political advisors seeping through. On Kerry's part, he made a very strong effort to be more conversational and speak less in "Senate-ese". But it just sounds kind of weird when says "It's gut-check time!" He sounded like some sort of superhero version of Jimeny Cricket.
And then Bush was desperate to keep a straight face during Kerry's speeches. You could tell he was trying not to smirk, but he ended up just looking like he had eaten some bad Mexican food for lunch.
Some other interesting points:
1. Bush claimed, if I'm not mistaken, that he proposed the hydrogen-generated automobile. First of all, it's hydrogen-POWERED. The way he said it, it means that you actually built the car from hydrogen. And does anyone else get this feeling of deja vu back to where Al Gore said he invented the Internet?
2. Speaking of the Internet, I thought there was only one. Did I hear Bush mention rumors on the "internets"? Plural? As in, a few of them? What other internet is there? Maybe this other internet is where Bush got the statistic that 75% of al-Quaeda members are captured? According to CNN.com, that's 75% of only TWO-DOZEN leaders that were identified at the time of 9/11. This says nothing of the countless terrorists that are just as willing as the leaders to kill and hurt us, AND it doesn't count anyone who has been recruited by them in the last three years.
3. Bush said something about forests being "harvested". Um, what?
4. In what I think was Bush's last speech, he claimed that if John Kerry was president, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, and the world would be a much better place. Wow. Just...wow.
5. The point of that question about Bush's mistakes was for him to identify three, and then talk about how he fixed them. He did neither. In fact, he seemed exceptionally arrogant when he essentially stated that he doesn't know of any mistakes he's made so for, and that we'll see in the "history books". Sure thing, Mr. President.

Basically, this second debate was much more lively, animated, and sharper than the first. The questions on domestic policy got a bit more specific, even though the foreign questions didn't really go anywhere that wasn't covered in the first debate. Kerry's statement of a "global test" came back to haunt him tonight, just as it kicked John Edwards in the head in the vice-presidential debate the other day. All in all, however, I don't really think that any one candidate won, but I'm sure that many of the statements made here will affect the final debate, which is on domestic policy.

P.S. I'd like to see how it turns out with a CBS person moderating that one.

"Well, What About Poland?"

What ABOUT Poland? It's POLAND, for Pete's sake!

But before I get to that, here's the slip-ups that Kerry made (that i noticed, anyways):

1. He said something about cornering bin Laden, then letting other countries try and capture him. A few minutes earlier, he had just criticized Bush for not letting other countries in on Iraq. Of course, this could have been easily clarified by Kerry in that bin Laden was OUR original target, therefore WE should capture him, just to be sure, but Bush never brought it up anyways, so yeah.

2. At one point, Kerry said that exercising the right to pre-emptive war should pass the "global test". Bush pointed this out, but didn't impact it enough. He could've talked more about how the safety of the American people must be valued above this global test, but he left it at one sentence.

And the great moments:

1. Bush pausing for what seemed to be several weeks as he tried to remember what he had just petitioned to be allowed to say.

2. Kerry saying that Bush "outsourced" the job of capturing bin Laden to Afghan warlords. Way to work in a domestic topic, Senator.

In the big picture, I'd say that Kerry did pretty well in this first debate. Foreign issues were supposed to be Bush's strong point, but Kerry showed decisively that he could have done much better in Iraq, and how Bush's policy on nuclear ("nukular") weapons contradicted itself (i.e. Iraq and North Korea).
Bush repeatedly mentioned inconsistency on Kerry's part, but he really didn't link it to questions, arguments, or topics well enough to make it relevant.
Kerry managed to take all of these attacks on his conviction and clearly state how in fact, Bush was the one sending mixed messages, not himself.
There were also some really stupid arguments made near the beginning of the debate, but they filtered out after a few questions.
End result: Kerry is really the better debater, and if this topic was supposed to be Bush's forte, I don't know if the domestic debate is going to even be television-appropriate.

And Poland, Mr. President, does not constitute a coalition.

What Is a Team?

The rest of this post is copied from ha's blog, and I can't agree more.

Last year, a group of unbelievably dedicated seniors took on the responsibility of managing and running an entire speech and debate team. They did a friggin' awesome job, and kept us together, didnt they? We learned, we conquered, we stayed together, we worked together, and we did it all with love.

But of course, those seniors graduated last year, and the whole team went into the hands of someone new (which was cool!).

Suddenly, it seemed as if everyone on the team had forgotten what they were in the first palce; a TEAM. People began doing exactly what the past seniors had constantly kept at bay, and prevented. Selfish goals were at hand now, people were backstabbing eachother, and nothing in the phrase "for the sake of team" seemed to ring a bell. We've all forgotten...and now, in a mere 6 weeks, we've managed to take down the very foundation of what yesterday's great leaders had tried to leave us.

Just a few weeks ago, a few enthusiastic debaters (myself included) had an argument with a few people over the definition of a team. It all boiled down to how a certain other club WASNT a true team, and how speech n debate functions better because we are. The message sent over and over was "a team is not just a group of individuals." The reason why the debate team was so strong last year was because we worked together like a family. And so we preached on about that for about another hour...

But then, just two weeks later, I find myself thinking, "We're turning ourselves INTO a group of individuals." And this...is not a team. What have we done to ourselves, guys?

Out of sheer frustration in an attempt to revive the soul of something lost, I've decided to post the following:

WHAT IS A TEAM?
A team is a group of individuals with a common goal never forgotten.
A team works together.
Team members will always listen to one another.
Team members always try to cheer up other team members when they're sad.
A team member will not let another team member fall, because...
The team falls to the level of its lowest member.
No one is neglected on a team.
Everyone shares equal responsibility on a team.
"We are an army of one."
A team member always shows respect for another team member.
"There is no 'I' in team."
A team will always support those in it.
Team members don't talk BAD about other team members.
Team members do NOT take advantage of other team members.
"UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL."
You are always part of this team.
The actions of one affect all on a team.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS HATE ON A TEAM.
A team is always there for you.
Personal problems have no place on a team.
Selfishness has no place on a team.
A team believes in what it strives for.
A team leaves NO ONE behind.
A team understands what a team is.

Please try to remember, you guys. We've all grown to love this team. At least, I have. And I could never forgive myself knowing that I was a part of this team, and I was a part of allowing it to fall...

The Godfather

I need a bumper sticker (for my nonexistant car) that says:

How's My Conducting?
Call 281-555-8697

Maria just told me that the love theme from the Godfather has lyrics:

LOVE THEME FROM 'THE GODFATHER' (Speak Softly Love)
(N. Rota - L. Kusik • Famous Music Corporation/ASCAP 2:59)

Speak softly love
And hold me warm against your heart
I feel your words
The tender trembling moments start

We're in our world
Our very own
Sharing a love that only
Few have ever known

Wine colored days, warmed by the sun
Deep velvet nights, when we are one

Speak softly love
So no one hears us but the sky
The vows of love we make
Will live until we die

My life is yours
And all because
You came into my world with
Love so softly love

[Musical interlude]

Speak softly love
So no one hears us but the sky
The vows of love we make
Will live until we die

My life is yours
And all because
You came into my world with
Love so softly love

That's so awesome.