Cambridge Boots Boy Scouts, Calls Support for Soldiers "Pro-War".

Okay - one: support for the soldiers is not "Pro-War", no more than allowing a woman the right to choose is "Pro-Abortion".  The soldiers are risking their lives in a police action (it is not a war, actually...the "war" ended months ago) which OBVIOUSLY isn't going to end any time soon.  They did not choose the war, they did not agree to the war.  They are only doing their jobs.  Unfortunately, the politicians voted to go to war without having some sort of an exit strategy. 

Two: They are BOY SCOUTS.  They volunteer and donate and work toward making this world a better place.  I'm not saying they are the only ones, but come ON!  My fiance is an Eagle Scout, and, let me tell you, they work ridiculously hard to reach that achievement.  These kids were trying to get donations because they believe they should help people.  Many troops also do Toys for Tots, soup kitchens, and raise money and clothing for the poor.  They are not "Pro-Homeless" because of that, though. 

One interesting comment at the end of the troop leader's article says "Hopefully the lesson learned by all...is that liberals want to run your life.  All the talk of "tolerance" and such is just that, talk..."

We have officially hit a level in our society where being "politically correct" is taken to a level where some people are censored and others are slapped on the wrist for being "controversial".  Blacks suddenly have to deal with people using nooses as a passive-aggressive threat, Boy Scouts are being told that they shouldn't help the soldiers, and I (since I'm in the majority) must watch what I say to not be labeled as "Racist" or "Prejudice".  Everyone needs to take a step back from their soap box (including me) and look around.  Our society is more divided because we are still prejudiced...we just hide it under a smile and a roll of the eyes behind people's backs.  It's still there, people.  The civil rights movement will never be over.

The New York Times is having an essay contest based on Rick Perlstein's article "What's the matter with college?".  Students are being asked to respond by explaining Why College Matters. 

I do believe, after reading the article, that Mr. Perlstein missed the point.  College may not be that place "to discover your first independent film, read your first forbidden book, find freaks like yourself who, say, shared a passion for Lenny Bruce", but it is a place to learn about cultural diversity.  And, in that diversity, you will find the greatest people you will ever meet.  

In his essay, Mr. Perlstein is trying to compare my generation to my parents' generation.  There were social mores that students were fighting against at that point.  With my generation, broken mores are more acceptable...drinking and drugs are not a "counter-culture" persay - there were 3 first-round draft picks for the NFL who admitted to smoking pot.  Sex before marriage is not quite the "sin" it seemed to be in the 50's.  Tattoos and piercings are almost a rite of passage, rather than a show of individuality.  And (he does make this point, though he seems to feel that it makes college irrelevant) the advent of the internet has allowed "banned" books and independent or foreign films to be readily accessible.  In fact, you can have many of these things delivered to your door in hard copy or delivered to your computer in .PDF or .MP3 formats.  

Before, college was a place of "hippies" and "beatniks", the people who your parents warned you about.  They were the greatest people you could ever meet because they taught you to think for yourself.  Now, college is the place to meet future presidents, CEOs, entrepreneurs...the greatest people you could ever meet because they teach you how to DO for yourself.  In fact, he cites a conversation with Caroline Ouwerkerk, who is considered an "Organization Kid" (Coined from a 2001 Atlantic Monthly article by David Brooks, as cited in the Perlstein article).  She is involved in several facets of her university, which Perlstein believes is the university scheduling her self-exploration.  The problem with his theory is, you get involved if you want.  It isn't compulsory.  And most students try to be as involved as possible to make the university more "their school" than a place they attend.  This was likely shunned in the 60s and 70s, as it must have been an attempt for "the Man" to get his hands on your life.  In actuality, not being involved means you ARE being run by the Man, as decisions are made at the school that will directly effect you, and yet you had no control because you wanted to be independent.

College has moved from "a place to discover yourself" to "a place to refine yourself".  With all the world at our fingertips, we are able to discover what we like, dislike, and care about earlier than before.  And what we like/dislike/care about is not necessarily influenced by our parents ideals.  In fact, in order to decide where you want to go to school, you have to have already discovered who you are.

Anyone who has applied for a job lately has noticed a trend.  "Bachelor's degree or equivalent required".  For many careers,  you MUST go to college to even be considered.  Yes, college has definitely transitioned to a necessary stop on the road of life, but that is what makes it matter even more.  

It may not be the way of the hippie generation, but it seems to me that college is even more relevant than before. 

I finished Into Thin Air, yesterday, and let me tell you...I immediately had to start a Christopher Moore book to clear my head.  

This book is the eyewitness account of Jon Krakauer, who climbed Mt. Everest in May of 1996 as part of an assignment for Outside Magazine.  Little did he know, he'd begin a harrowing journey that would end with 13 climbers dead (including 3 accomplished climbers/guides), most of the rest injured, and many questions that could never be answered.  It also left a profound sense of guilt in Krakauer, who feels that he could have done something to prevent this tragedy.  The fact he got off the mountain at all is amazing. 

I don't think I've ever read a book about a disaster that actually made me want to attempt anything quite like this book did.  Even after finishing the book (and thinking in my head "NO!  Don't do it!  You'll die if you try to summit this mountain"), I kind of have a hankering to climb Mt. Everest.  Pipe dream, really.  I've never done any serious climbing, and I wouldn't be in any kind of shape to attempt that at all.  There's just something about the descriptions from those who have climbed the mountain (including quotes from climbers like Eric Shipton) that make me want to see what it's like at "the top of the world".  For example, there's Krakauer's personal view on May 10th, 1996: "Straddling the top of the world, one foot in China and the other in Nepal, I cleared the ice from my oxygen masked, hunched a shoulder against the wind, and stared absently down at the vastness of Tibet.  I understood on some dim, detached level that the sweep of earth beneath my feet was a spectacular sight.  I'd been fantasizing about this moment, and the release of emotion that would accompany it, for many months.  But now that I was finally here, actually standing on the summit of Mount Everest, I just couldn't summon the energy to care."  The idea that exhaustion, coupled with a lack of oxygen, kept him from really enjoying that view is unbelievable.  I can't imagine the stress he was under at that point, physically and mentally.  

After Krakauer's initial article in Outside, he received large volumes of mail on a daily basis, some complementary, some very critical.  He angered family members by speculating that Andy "Harold" Harris had walked off the edge of the South Col after successfully summitting the mountain.  He met up with Harold at Camp 4 when Krakauer stopped to grab a new canister of oxygen during his descent.  Harold, per Krakauer's description, was delusional from a lack of oxygen (he was checking O2 canisters and proclaiming them all empty, even though there were at least 6 that were half-full or completely full), and Krakauer was also sluggish and lagging.  He didn't recognize the signs for Harold until it was too late because his brain was suffering from a lack of oxygen.  Krakauer did correct his mistakes after conversations with one of the Sherpa guides and another climber proved that Harold was ascending the mountain again to help Rob Hall and one of Hall's customers, neither of whom made it off the mountain.  There were many mistakes made on that mountain, but no one mistake could be blamed for the calamity.  It's possible, even probable, that people would have died no matter what.  It was like the mountain had a grudge against the climbers.  

All in all, I'd suggest this book, but readers beware:  You will be left shaking your head and second guessing many of the decisions that were made by Rob Hall, Scott Fischer and Andy "Harold" Harris.  

**As a note, I picked this book up after Christine Boskoff's body was finally found in China.  She was the owner of Mountain Madness, a Seattle adventure travel company originally owned by Scott Fischer.**

I was picked to write a blog for school when I start in September.  Apparently, people think my writing is interesting =).  

I'm actually really excited about this because it will give me something of a venue for writing with a "direction" of sorts.  Obviously, it's about the experience of grad school, but it's opinion too.  Ought to be interesting. 

OH!!  And I have training for volunteering at the MSPCA in August, which will be exciting.  I'm not home enough to actually have a pet, so it'll be nice to spend some time on Sundays with the animals.  It's a minimum of a 6 month commitment, but that's not too bad.

Other than that - here's an article of interest - apparently, doctors are prescribing anti-depressants for "unhappiness".  I understand clinical depression, but, when a woman goes to her doctor and explains that she's stressed because she doesn't like how her husband handles their finances, but she doesn't want to hurt his feelings by taking them over abruptly, I don't think she needs medication.  She likely needs to see a marriage counselor, because she should be able to tell her husband that she would rather take care of the finances.  The fact that the doctor put her on medication which basically led to her husband running the family into financial ruin because of her medicated apathy is amazing to me.  I'm not saying that there aren't people out there who actually need medication - on the contrary, I think there are people who definitely should be on anti-depressants.  But the level of prescriptions written is shocking.  It's kind of like my aunt and uncle, who are on something like 6 heart medications combined.  Their doctor just prescribes pills, which I'm worried is what is happening with these anti-depressants.  

I also wonder if this is a by-product of our single-serving culture (yes, sort of ripped from Fight Club, but it's true).  We live in a society that wants for ease and quickness - Swiffer Sweepers, bottled water, take-out.  Is it possible that some people turn to anti-depressants because they don't want to deal with what is truly bothering them?  That maybe taking a pill is easier than talking it out?  Maybe.