What's your picture of such an event? How about this:
Hospital bed, tears of joy running down the exhausted mother's cheeks, the father with an irreplaceable smile.
Fresh grandmas and grandpas eager to see the new family member.
Tons of cards from friends and relatives.
A room painted either blue or pink... or any other happy color, with a crib, loads of toys and a brand new pram.
And, most important of all, the lively and healthy newborn.
Satisfied?
Well, then there is the second possibility.
The one in which the newborn is missing the last adjective.
The one when the baby is physically and / or mentally challenged.
I have been to their wedding, I know both of the parents for some time. He is unbelievably kind and loves kids, she is not only loving, but also very efficient and could have handled the household one handed. They could have been a prototype family.
Dear God, why does Down Syndrome even exist? My only hope is You. I hope You have a good plan. A friggin' awesome plan.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
On Cars
Okay, this post is going to make some people angry, but frankly, at this very moment, I don't care all that much.
Girlfriends are like cars.
As soon as you find out about them, you really want one. And when I say really, I mean A LOT. So you take the first one you come across. It doesn't take all that long to realize it's just a piece of ****. So you get rid of it, and start thinking about the ideal one, the one you would really want. And, what a surprise, you do find one that quite fits your requirements, and so you go for it. But after some time, you find out that you still forgot about many things you would like to have in it. So, once again, you get rid of it and create a new, somewhat more precise image of what you are looking for. And so on.
To add some hope, I should mention that at any stage of the cycle, including the very first one, you may be as lucky as to find the perfect one, the one that you actually really want, even though you did not know it beforehand. But, as I said, you'd have to be lucky.
And I was not. Not for the first time, and neither for the second time. Let's see what the future brings us, for the time being, I do not need a car.
P. S.: ✈↓
Girlfriends are like cars.
As soon as you find out about them, you really want one. And when I say really, I mean A LOT. So you take the first one you come across. It doesn't take all that long to realize it's just a piece of ****. So you get rid of it, and start thinking about the ideal one, the one you would really want. And, what a surprise, you do find one that quite fits your requirements, and so you go for it. But after some time, you find out that you still forgot about many things you would like to have in it. So, once again, you get rid of it and create a new, somewhat more precise image of what you are looking for. And so on.
To add some hope, I should mention that at any stage of the cycle, including the very first one, you may be as lucky as to find the perfect one, the one that you actually really want, even though you did not know it beforehand. But, as I said, you'd have to be lucky.
And I was not. Not for the first time, and neither for the second time. Let's see what the future brings us, for the time being, I do not need a car.
P. S.: ✈↓
Saturday, February 6, 2010
On Racism and Immigration
Not exactly an easy topic, right? Well, let's get started.
The European Union (most of it) has adopted an immigration policy which, from my point of view, lets practically anybody enter and stay in European countries. I think this policy is flawed, given that we expect Europe to keep not only the "way of life", but also the development status it currently enjoys. My stance would probably be regarded as racist or at least nationalist by the politicians (and the masses), but I want people to think again about their own stances, and, if possible, find mistakes in my argumentation or perhaps plainly disagree, but with reason - let's really think this through.
The essential point of my argumentation is the following: I do believe that only people who do not wish to destroy a country's typical way of life should live in that country. It would be ideal if all of them would support and adopt it, but those who do not are sometimes a very inspirational source of criticism and provide momentum needed for change and development. But I think there needs to be a line between (constructive) criticism and destructive movements.
I have no problems with people of any descent, as long as they don't force me to change my lifestyle. On the other hand, I do enter conflicts with people who force me to unwillingly modify it, but that is a problem independent of race. Unfortunately, but also naturally, the concentration of such people is higher among immigrants. They bring their own lifestyle with them, which can't be criticized - but the question is, why do they come? Do they want to be economically better off? Well, then they should start assimilating as soon as possible, because it's what we know and do and they don't that makes the difference that drove them here. Are they politically pursued and are seeking asylum? Very well, I don't see a problem with that - but again, why would they want to keep their old ways, which not only may have somehow, indirectly, led to their persecution, but also (apparently) isolate them in the new society and this time make them not politically pursued, but frowned upon by the general public. This could be changed - the general public needn't frown upon foreigners, and the immigrants sure could stick with what they did up to know - as long as they do not force anybody else to change their lifestyle, as was mentioned before. And, behold, those are people we should definitely pay more attention to, because they are a source of inspiration for us. Every nation is in danger of not having the distance from our own actions, which is necessary to evaluate them, as opposed to foreigners. Foreigners are not "bad", only people who live in a country and wish to destroy it's principles (or act as if they do) are "bad" - as I said, unfortunately, most of these people are immigrants.
Two things are still left to mention. One - how do we define our "way of life"? Part of the answer is not all that hard to find: European society has been formed by it's climate. Nowadays metaphorically, we need to grow and protect crops in the summer in order to survive the winter. We are "planners", we learn from our history and carefully create elaborate plans for our future, taking into account everything we can think of that might happen, however improbable it may be. That's why we are so keen on education - to guarantee a better future. That's why we have all sorts of insurance - to secure the worst case. That's why we gather, (usually) take pretty good care of and keep our belongings for quite a long time - we might need them in the future. That's why we set an alarm clock and go to work every weekday, even though our bank account currently holds enough money to feed us and the whole family for more than a year (Okay, we might not have that much money, or we actually go to work because we enjoy it, but you know what I'm saying).
The rest of the answer is a bit more complicated. In Europe, we are not used to minarets. In Europe, we do not have cows in the streets - we eat them. In Europe, women usually don't wear burqas. On a non religious note, we seldom haggle in shops. We are not used to cooking on an open fire. And so on - things that are probably noticeable, but in most cases don't directly limit our own life. Despite this, they can be a source of heated political discussions and public demonstrations. I say, let's just apply common sense - when someone finds a place where he can make a fire without destroying someone else's lawn, or feels that a burqa is the appropriate thing, then why not - but again, only until it doesn't get in the way of the typical lifestyle of the country.
And the other thing, perhaps the more important one - as you might have noticed, this kind of approach does, in a way, lead to preservation of our current society and it's lifestyle. And as we have learned from history, for an at least partial survival of a culture, sacrifices were often necessary. But I'm willing to risk it - I dare say European (and North American) society is the most developed in the world, and if we manage to elude the fate of the Roman Empire, which was destroyed by a less developed culture (but Rome was already at its decline at that time), I think we stand a pretty fair chance of surviving.
GIANT NOTE at the end: all ciritcism is accepted. Please feel free to disagree and to contact me. This is my current "state of mind", I'm still working on it - are you working on yours?
P. S.: ✈☝
The European Union (most of it) has adopted an immigration policy which, from my point of view, lets practically anybody enter and stay in European countries. I think this policy is flawed, given that we expect Europe to keep not only the "way of life", but also the development status it currently enjoys. My stance would probably be regarded as racist or at least nationalist by the politicians (and the masses), but I want people to think again about their own stances, and, if possible, find mistakes in my argumentation or perhaps plainly disagree, but with reason - let's really think this through.
The essential point of my argumentation is the following: I do believe that only people who do not wish to destroy a country's typical way of life should live in that country. It would be ideal if all of them would support and adopt it, but those who do not are sometimes a very inspirational source of criticism and provide momentum needed for change and development. But I think there needs to be a line between (constructive) criticism and destructive movements.
I have no problems with people of any descent, as long as they don't force me to change my lifestyle. On the other hand, I do enter conflicts with people who force me to unwillingly modify it, but that is a problem independent of race. Unfortunately, but also naturally, the concentration of such people is higher among immigrants. They bring their own lifestyle with them, which can't be criticized - but the question is, why do they come? Do they want to be economically better off? Well, then they should start assimilating as soon as possible, because it's what we know and do and they don't that makes the difference that drove them here. Are they politically pursued and are seeking asylum? Very well, I don't see a problem with that - but again, why would they want to keep their old ways, which not only may have somehow, indirectly, led to their persecution, but also (apparently) isolate them in the new society and this time make them not politically pursued, but frowned upon by the general public. This could be changed - the general public needn't frown upon foreigners, and the immigrants sure could stick with what they did up to know - as long as they do not force anybody else to change their lifestyle, as was mentioned before. And, behold, those are people we should definitely pay more attention to, because they are a source of inspiration for us. Every nation is in danger of not having the distance from our own actions, which is necessary to evaluate them, as opposed to foreigners. Foreigners are not "bad", only people who live in a country and wish to destroy it's principles (or act as if they do) are "bad" - as I said, unfortunately, most of these people are immigrants.
Two things are still left to mention. One - how do we define our "way of life"? Part of the answer is not all that hard to find: European society has been formed by it's climate. Nowadays metaphorically, we need to grow and protect crops in the summer in order to survive the winter. We are "planners", we learn from our history and carefully create elaborate plans for our future, taking into account everything we can think of that might happen, however improbable it may be. That's why we are so keen on education - to guarantee a better future. That's why we have all sorts of insurance - to secure the worst case. That's why we gather, (usually) take pretty good care of and keep our belongings for quite a long time - we might need them in the future. That's why we set an alarm clock and go to work every weekday, even though our bank account currently holds enough money to feed us and the whole family for more than a year (Okay, we might not have that much money, or we actually go to work because we enjoy it, but you know what I'm saying).
The rest of the answer is a bit more complicated. In Europe, we are not used to minarets. In Europe, we do not have cows in the streets - we eat them. In Europe, women usually don't wear burqas. On a non religious note, we seldom haggle in shops. We are not used to cooking on an open fire. And so on - things that are probably noticeable, but in most cases don't directly limit our own life. Despite this, they can be a source of heated political discussions and public demonstrations. I say, let's just apply common sense - when someone finds a place where he can make a fire without destroying someone else's lawn, or feels that a burqa is the appropriate thing, then why not - but again, only until it doesn't get in the way of the typical lifestyle of the country.
And the other thing, perhaps the more important one - as you might have noticed, this kind of approach does, in a way, lead to preservation of our current society and it's lifestyle. And as we have learned from history, for an at least partial survival of a culture, sacrifices were often necessary. But I'm willing to risk it - I dare say European (and North American) society is the most developed in the world, and if we manage to elude the fate of the Roman Empire, which was destroyed by a less developed culture (but Rome was already at its decline at that time), I think we stand a pretty fair chance of surviving.
GIANT NOTE at the end: all ciritcism is accepted. Please feel free to disagree and to contact me. This is my current "state of mind", I'm still working on it - are you working on yours?
P. S.: ✈☝
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)