dirges for diana

here’s a thought … 10 years after her death, regardless of what we think caused it, can we just leave her alone, already? or do we really need to satisfy that sick, schadenfreude addiction we seem to have? just wondering. sadly, i think i already know the answer to this question.

But what is far more important to us now, and into the future, is that we remember our mother as she would have wished to be remembered as she was: fun-loving, generous, down-to-earth, entirely genuine. We both think of her every day. We speak about her and laugh together at all the memories. Put simply, she made us, and so many other people, happy. May this be the way that she is remembered.

~Prince Harry, 31.08.07

It’s easy to lose the real person in the image, to insist that all is darkness or all is light. Still, 10 years after her tragic death, there are regular reports of “fury” at this or that incident, and the Princess’s memory is used for scoring points. Let it end here. Let this service mark the point at which we let her rest in peace and dwell on her memory with thanksgiving and compassion.

~ Bishop of London, 31.08.07

where does one find g-d?

i have recently discovered that mark twain wrote far more than tom sawyer-esque literature. in particular, letters from the earth hooked me. and, then, schoolhouse hill. and then i discovered … that mark twain wrote profusely about faith in the supernal, about religion, about the bible, about the nature of man. that he surmised, through his satirical writings, that eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge not only conferred upon man knowledge of good and evil and the differences that lie between them, but also a thirsty disposition to commit evil. interesting, that notion. an assertion i have not heard before. an assertion which, nonetheless, deserves noting.

i wonder, as mark twain does, does any other living thing attach so much importance to itself as does the human? what, in our nature, makes us believe so fervently that the creator made it all happen just for us? twain asks his readers, does an apple in a vast orchard think itself most special as does the human? its almost as if we need a purpose. we need something larger than us all to feel anchored. to feel purposeful. cs lewis alluded to this fact in his treatise, mere christianity. lewis believed in humanity’s need to possess the knowledge to attribute the universe either to random existence, or to some organizing power. indeed, he makes perfect sense when he says that any creating power that exists outside the universe can no more make itself known within the confines of said universe than an architect can make himself a wall in a house he’s designed. clever, that analogy.

cs lewis lyrically referred to g-d as the first love of each and every soul. indeed. how lovely, a thought. lewis asserts the notion that one finds truest evidence of g-d’s existence only within oneself. one cannot logically find g-d himself … within the confines of the universe. god’s now resounds for infinity, while our now slips away even as the words tumble from our lips. we cannot begin to comprehend g-d’s nature and the immeasurable blazing immensity of the g-d head. still … one may see a reflection of the g-d head “… flowing through the blue of the sky, the taste of honey, the delicious embrace of water whether cold or hot, and even through sleep itself.”

so, where do we find g-d? i’ve come to feel the eternal nature of this quest. how interesting that i find something … some silver thread of inspiration for the nourishment of my faith, and soul, in two streams of literary knowledge that seem opposed ~ mark twain, the cynical, satirical, and irreverent vs cs lewis, lyrical, atheist-turned-christian: skeptical apologist for believers. i have firmly held, for many years, that to truly gain an understanding of an issue or an entity in this universe, one must know what stands for it, and also what stands opposed to it. and so i see the fruits of such a process. most elucidating. in an intellectual way.

have i answered my question? perhaps, but the answer will take me several lifetimes to decode. and so, i suppose its not at all the answer one wants or expects to receive.

the world’s most sustainable resource?

fear 

the fat capitalist pigs and those with the biggest power hard-ons have and continue to build an entire layer of capitalism, based on keeping people scared, based on telling them that terror lies just over that next hill. check out this article, written by naomi klein.

thinking about the current situation in the middle east … dubya’s mythical war on terror …  makes me wonder, just who’s protecting whom? who’s on the offense, if everyone’s on the defense? and how can any serious opponents engage in the game of war, whilst breaking the rules of engagement left, right and centre? methinks war happens because war works for a select few … who happen to matter more than the rest of us, perhaps.

instructions for life … from the dalai llama

• take into account that great love and great achievements involve great risk
• when you lose, don’t lose the lesson
• follow the three r’s: respect for self, respect for others and responsibility for all your actions
• remember that not getting what you want is sometimes a wonderful stroke of luck
• learn the rules so you know how to break them properly
• don’t let a little dispute injure a great friendship
• when you realize you’ve made a mistake, take immediate steps to correct it
• spend some time alone every day
• open arms to change, but don’t let go of your values
• remember that silence is sometimes the best answer
• live a good, honourable life. then, when you get older and think back, you’ll be able to enjoy it a second time
• a loving atmosphere in your home is the foundation for your life
• in disagreement with loved ones, deal only with the current situation. don’t bring up the past
• share your knowledge. its a way to achieve immortality
• be gentle with the earth
• once a year, go someplace you’ve never been before

a kick in the ass (RANT)

*moved from tales of the red mantissa*

EDIT: the following post i wrote in the fresh, raw wake of the virginia tech massacre, and in response to several newsstories that poured themselves from that stupid, glowing box and into my stream of consciousnes. the pain that choked me as the anguish of the massacre rained upon me, and the stupid things i heard enraged the beast within me and so i wrote this angry rant ~ a sort of kick in the ass for all my american friends in blogger-landia. i physically copied and pasted the comments generated on this post’s original publication in my blogger blog so i could capture the reaction received. i admit i felt disappointed that the culture of destruction and retribution seems so endemic that, on the whole, many seemed resigned to this sort of thing occurring. anyway, comments are closed for this post.

Thursday, April 19, 2007
a kick in the ass (RANT)

the recent shooting @ virginia tech have me wondering about guns. specifically, american gun culture. and … what purpose it serves IN THE HERE & NOW. I don’t really give a shit why the ‘right to bear arms’ exists … or how it became embedded in the constitution. none of that matters to those 33 mothers … fathers … to those 66 sets of grandparents … to all those who remain behind. NOW – that’s what matters. NOW = the history of tomorrow. ARE YOU PLANNING ON MAKING IT? OR BREAKING IT? you like to call yourselves the leaders of the free world. THEN, HOW ‘BOUT Y’ALL FUCKING ACT LIKE IT?

george bush says the time to discuss american gun culture … well he says “its not now.” okay, fuckhead. then WHEN IS THE FUCKING TIME? when exactly can we take our heads out of our damned asses, and SEE REALITY?

why is it the greatest national tragedy when 33 people die in a college shooting … and its ho-hum news when somewhere 183 people die on one day, in baghdad? WTF? what’s wrong here? you see, I’m looking @ this from my perch, NORTH of the 49th parallell. and I say there’s not really any difference. same shit, different pile. human = human. destroy. destroy. destroy. well, what clue do y’all need to see that this strategy ain’t workin’ fer ya? DO WE HAVE TO SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU?

T-H-E T-I-M-E I-S N-O-W.

N-O-W.

the time IS NOW. its time to face the reality. GUNS KILL. THE END. no exceptions. no excuses. and don’t be a smart-ass by tellin me that trite line ‘guns don’t kill, people do.’ that’s fucking semantics, and you know it! a gun represents a desire to destroy. anyone who owns a gun, does so with that purpose in mind. killing = killing. no exceptions. hunting (i.e. that what we’re calling it when people like to shoot and kill things for sport, read: entertainment). rage killings, it all points to the same need – the need to destroy. WHY? why this culture of destruction?

are you gonna tell me that y’all can put a man on the moon, but youse can’t curb that instinctual drive to kill perceived threats? that’s a lot of BULL, and y’all know it.

THE TIME IS NOW. get the fuck off your asses and DO SOMETHING! the world watches, the world mourns …. and the world IS FUCKING TIRED OF WATCHING YOU DESTROY YOURSELVES and those select parts of the world that piss you off, that you don’t understand, that you perceive a threat. the world does NOT want to see you try to use this latest horrific tragedy to put your shit on someone else’s ass (like – oh the gun man was south korean … like, that’s supposed to make y’all feel better? screw that!) get this straight – YOU – YOU ARE A MOST FORMIDABLE THREAT, with your culture of destruction. and WE. because we just sit here and watch you, watch you, watch you … kill the world. systematically.

WHAT WILL YOU DO ABOUT IT?

that’s all.

wait. no. there’s more.

WAKE UP! do you need to here that song again? do I need to play it for you, once more? tell me. tell me, please. I beg you. am I the only one here, raging against the machine? is everyone else still in their blue pill stupor? did get the only red pill left? or … maybe I really am a mutant and the blue pill does not work on me.

does anyone out there GET IT? I mean, really GET IT?

please … someone tell me they do.

pssst – if this post makes you angry @ its author (moi), then you likely do not GET IT.

I would attach my usual, “not my intention to offend ….” disclaimer, but, today, right now, as I write this …. that’s a lie. I suppose, in a way, its absolutely my intention to offend. coz, if that’s the only way I can get yer attention, and get you thinking, then, as jean-luc picard says, ‘make it so’.

get angry.
get outraged.
and …

put those tears away, unless you’re ready to make sure you don’t have to cry them again. them’s just crocodile tears if ya ain’t willing to get up the courage to change the things you can.

and … oh yeah … STOP WITH THIS POLITICALLY CORRECT BS. what the world needs right now is absolutely a new country video that depicts a song all about school shootings. its NOT TOO SOON. remember – the time is NOW.

and … before you write me some angry rant here in these comments, write that angry rant to anyone who had anything to do with that very disturbed young man – deemed ‘mentally ill’ by a court in virginia – GETTING A SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPON! while we’re at it – here’s a rhetorical question – why does any civilian NEED a glock?

and remember … I’M ON YOUR SIDE. that’s why I’m kicking y’all in the ass with this blog post. don’t forget that!

we have already made sure – thru our shitty-ass lifestyle choices – that our children will not live as long as we will. do we want to make sure that they make it … to middle … or beyond?

THE CHOICE IS YOURS. THE TIME IS NOW.

Posted by the.red.mantissa at 08:10

Labels: angry, gun control, massacre, rant

9 comments:
Infinitesimal said…
sigh

each state makes it’s own laws
(so far)
and
Virginia determines that outpatients like Cho can still legally own and purchase firearms.

even glocks.

yep.

that may change.

by the way, there was another shooting spree today in Texas.

Nobody was hurt.
(I don’t think)

Friday, April 20, 2007 10:09:00 PM PDT
Gary Baker said…
RM: When someone legally markets a gun that arms itself and actively goes in search of victims, I will agree that we have a gun problem. Until then, we have a people problem. If that were not the case, then Washington DC, with it’s horrendously restrictive gun control laws, would have almost no gun violence. As it is, the situation is horrid. Your advocating treating of a symptom. That can have it’s place, but I don’t think destroying a right is the way to address it.

Oh, and it really isn’t productive to ask “Who needs a (fill in the blank).” There is almost no one in America (and most of the world for that matter) that does not have more of something than they need, whether it is food, money, stuff, etc.

Sufficiently free of PC BS?

Saturday, April 21, 2007 1:31:00 PM PDT
the.red.mantissa said…
gary -

i ask the questions i ask. its my mind, my blog. please – do not come here judging the ‘productivity’ of a blog post i described ‘rant’ in the title. i suppose i could say what i like to call ’smart ass’ comments do not seem productive to me – however thats seems pointless.

as far as needing. well, that man who lives in rural south africa needs that uzi stashed under his bed, because he’s going to blow someone’s fucking head off if they walk thru the door unannounced. that’s the environment there. kill get killed. no other choices.

is that the sort of culture americans embrace? kill or get killed? if americans need that glock or if they think owning something with the capacity to produce instant death/maiming is ok … then that answers my question.

you speak of semantics, with your quip of a gun that goes in search of its victims. and … miss my point. the gun SYMBOLIZES the destructive force in the culture. and its one among many symbols of destruction in said culture. however, one that lately, has gotten much screen time.

why is it that other western countries, with no such right (as if its truly a right in any sense, other than some delusional one … IMHO) have such violence and destruction embedded into their culture?

switzerland, a country in which every male between the age of 18 and 45, owns a firearm and knows how to operate same, has among the lowest violent crime rates in the western world. interesting, ain’t it? quite, i think. the difference btw usa and switzerland is that desire to destroy …. either directly, or thru the media … does not exist.

i don’t expect you to get my point of view. in fact, i don’t expect most people. but … i express it anyhow.

Saturday, April 21, 2007 6:12:00 PM PDT
the.red.mantissa said…
infini – utterly amazing. a mentally ill person, who has expressed homicidal ideation of the mass kind in writing gets a semi automatic weapon. what else … but a mass shooting spree … could be the result of such an event? i mean … honestly? or – maybe i am not supposed to be asking that question?

so — do y’all let pedophiles work in toy stores, too?

yup. i heard about the one in houston, in the nasa complex. shots fired, never heard anything about if there were any casualties.

Saturday, April 21, 2007 6:23:00 PM PDT
Gary Baker said…
RM:
Your blog. Your questions. Quite right. Are you saying that you post these because you don’t want comments? I know some people do. If that’s the case, I won’t comment on anything else listed as a “rant.”

Sunday, April 22, 2007 1:58:00 PM PDT
she said…
“ya’ll”?!

grrrherhaha

Sunday, April 22, 2007 5:20:00 PM PDT
the.red.mantissa said…
she … grrrherhaha, indeed

gary – just don’t like the feeling i get when someone comes to my blog to judge me. i think differences in opinion can be expressed without antagonism … is all.

agreeing to disagree … often its the best course of action. believe me, i have learned this the hard way.

regards …

Monday, April 23, 2007 9:14:00 AM PDT
Gary Baker said…
RM: I truly was not trying to be judmental of you, but of the words you expressed. You seem to place a lot of in symbols. I do to an extent, but I would much rather evaluate someone by their words, and your words seemed a challenge to me to everyone who believed that guns played little part in the outcome, or who believed that the presence of students armed for their own protection could have made a positive difference.

You said that you thought this was the time for questions. What do you think would help the situation? Do you believe we should base national gun policy on the actions of a disturbed individual? These are not intended as “smart ass” questions. I really want to know.

Monday, April 23, 2007 9:40:00 AM PDT
Gary Baker said…
words you expressed. You seem to place a lot of in symbols. I do to an extent, but I would much rather evaluate someone by their words, and your words seemed a challenge to me to everyone who believed that guns played little part in the outcome, or who believed that the presence of students armed for their own protection could have made a positive difference.

You said that you thought this was the time for questions. What do you think would help the situation? Do you believe we should base national gun policy on the actions of a disturbed individual? These are not intended as “smart ass” questions. I really want to know.

Monday, April 23, 2007 9:40:00 AM PDT
Gary Baker said…
RM: In the spirit of fairness, I don’t think you should complain out being judged when your blog features lines like:

“GUNS KILL. THE END. no exceptions. no excuses. and don’t be a smart-ass by tellin me that trite line ‘guns don’t kill, people do.’ that’s fucking semantics, and you know it! a gun represents a desire to destroy. anyone who owns a gun, does so with that purpose in mind. killing = killing.”

A more judgemental line would be very difficult to find. For some people, guns represent memories of family times together. For others, even in America, a gun represents the ability to protect themselves and their familes. The courts have ruled time and time again that we have no “right” to government protection. If that’s the case, then basically it is on each of us to be able to protect themselves, and in some areas of the country that means a gun. (BTW – I don’t own a gun, don’t hunt, am not a member of the NRA. I simply believe in the constitution.)

If you don’t want to feel judged, that’s fine. But when you come out imposing judgements, don’t be offended when others return comments in kind.

** [28.7.07] i did not bother to respond at that point. but now i will just add that i think its sad, indeed, when we humans think that our own self protection (and that of our family) necessitates the taking of someone else’s life. why the mutual exclusivity? has life in america suddenly become a game of chicken ~ a string of mutual exclusivities?

IF NO ONE HAD A GUN, THEN NO ONE WOULD NEED A GUN AS PROTECTION, WOULD THEY? WHAT A NOVEL THOUGHT!

veil of fear?

this portion written in autumn, 2006 and posted on blogger

HEADDRESS NIQAB

~on the surface~
veil of fear … i watched a documentary of this title … and, honestly? not sure what to think. on the surface, sure, the issue of this veil controversy seems simple. but … dig deeper. if you’re a canadian – then, it ain’t so simple. a canadian will think mosaic, not melting pot. do we have a right to dictate the dress of civilians in our society? why do we? what about freedom of religion? freedom of expression? does dress constitute expression? does a veil – really known as a niqab – pose any threat? or intimation of violence? ie – as in the black trenchcoat and t-shirts with violent messages.

so … let’s talk about this niqab. jack straw wants us to believe that a niqab presents a barrier to communication. really? so … i’m guessing jack doesn’t do the teleconference thing? or the email thing? riiiiight …. how does he reconcile all the communicating he doubtless does in the course of his day via telephone, email, memo? i can’t imagine that he refuses to engage in these means of communication on the grounds that they preclude him from observing facial gestures. so … what gives? perhaps an inability, or unwillingness, to assimilate a foreign custom? a sort of hiding behind one’s own veil of fear, in rejecting the validity of niqab? one wonders.

i think of france – where legal restrictions curb religious expression with respect to dress. and i wonder. i understand the sentiment. but – does it go too far? i think of the usa. known as a melting pot. meaning, from a cultural perspective, dilution of cultures of origin by the american culture. i think of canada. what makes canada, canada? does the term mosaic have anything to do with it? i think so.

this portion is newly written – never posted
~the veil~
the veil. ahhh the veil. it beckons me to ask myself of the eroticism of hair. because, really, that’s what lies at the core of the issue, when you peel all the layers away. do you think of hair as erotic? i have to say that i do. having long hair, myself, i have witnessed first hand the subtle eroticism of manipulating said long hair, by, say, untying it (ie letting the hair down).

i feel the subtle perception difference of others if i am wearing a head-scarf, have hair tied, or have hair loose. the manner in which i dress my hair speaks volumes of the erotic message i want to send out. modesty requires some sort of hair restraint. while, letting the hair loose seems to subtly provocative. that’s my personal view on hair. in fact, for the sake of modesty i usually have my hair restrained for much of my everyday life.

so … i can see the logic or reasoning that would lead one to want to wear a veil (tho, understand me, i have not said that i would or do wear one myself). but, what of the full facial covering? perhaps that’s extreme? the waters here seem quite muddied …. i wish i knew.

graffiti

the Oxford Dictionary gives this definition: inscriptions or drawings scribbled, scratched, or sprayed on a surface. orginates from graffio, Italian for ’scratch.’

some view graffiti as vandalism, plain and simple. others, as a tool to express political resistance. indeed, one can think of graffiti as belonging to a subculture of rebellion against authority. and …. as a modern form of art. a form of art that leaves us wondering: who does carve the annals of history? graffiti provides us with rich detail about the social and cultural context of its development. thru graffiti we discover evidence of another version of history deep … personal … obscured … the untold stories that have slipped thru our fingers like grains of sand.

a noted graffiti surrealist summarizes the dilemma and fascination of graffiti: “Graffiti is revolutionary like the surrealist art I represented in my show Brave Destiny,” he says, “and any revolution might be considered a crime. People who are oppressed or suppressed need an outlet, so they write on walls—it’s free… However, people also have a right to protect their property. It is a human dilemma.”

does graffiti merely encourage further decay and vandalism? does it serve any tangibly useful purpose in its expression of political and social context? are we misguided in our reverence of graffiti as a form of subversive art? or, are we finally opening up the annals of history to the losers – no longer just the winners – of society?

what is history? does any one human, or group of humans, hold more claim to recording history, than any other? if we see history as a record of cultural and social and political context, then … surely graffiti deserve a mention? or do we want to ‘cook the books’, so to speak, and manipulate history?

and then … can we trust the accuracy of our history – the one which we learned in school? how much of class hierarchy exists, embedded in history? how has it coloured the truth? a truth we can no longer verify for ourselves. thinking about graffiti makes me wonder.

on blogging and the web of humanity

[originally written 3.10.06 and posted on wordpress]

wordpress.com says 398,000 blogs.

technorati.com says 55 million blogs.

livejournal says 11,299,071 blogs.

why do we blog? what do millions of us derive from blogging?

does it serve our primordial animal requirement for social contact and connectedness? does it fulfill the hunger pangs of that narcissistic wedge of our being? does it serve as a tool of self-discovery for those who have lost themselves to the fray? does it somehow seem ironic that blogging, this communication tool upon which many depend heavily for human connectedness in a dehumanizing era, emerged as a possibility only because of dehumanizing technological advance?

i don’t have the answers. but observe, from my year or so of blogging experience, that this phenomenon appears to reflect an interesting fact about humanity. a mostly overlooked fact of humanity. a profound fact about humanity. essentially we share the same core. regardless of what latitude, of what longitude, of what continent people reside within. regardless of what religious or political beliefs that people follow, they all have hopes. fears. thoughts and worries of the future. children. dreams for those children. jobs. careers. stresses. neighbours. vices. joys.

the more i blogged. and the more i read the blogs of others. i realized. its all so simple. what makes them (being those individuals who do not reside in my geo-culture space) so different from me? stripping away all the superfluous? nothing makes them different than me. me and them — that’s a construct, a mere construct. there’s only us. fractured, in some places. but its us. if you liked cliche and believed in god, you might say, ‘there but for the grace of god go i.’ truly. we = them. them = we.

startling? or humbling? or despairing? that mere circumstance and socialization separates me from the fundamentalist and fervent religious believer. or the comfortably numb suburban stepford wife. or the family living among savage violence and carnage in baghdad. or the soldier, stationed somewhere in the middle east and a witness to unspeakable attrocity, venting his soul to cyberspace. or that homeless person living in her car.

since taking an online presence i have learned about life in the swedish arctic circle, have increased my awareness of the cultural distinction between canada and the usa, have found some absolute treasures of humanity – intellectual, artistic, spiritual, eccentric. have discovered entire communities devoted to fetishes i once loathed myself for having. have felt disturbed and chilled at the ease with which one could become homeless.

i’m not that different, on the most fundamental human level, from any of these people. however, i am definitely a different person now, as opposed to before encountering any such individuals in the blogosphere. blogging quickly becomes addictive to all who engage it fully for this reason. it enriches us. energizes our humanity. of course it does! for in contributes to the growth, and also our understanding of, the web of humanity. it melts the walls, fences and other obstacles that separate so many humans in the physical and social worlds. it helps us see ourselves. it makes us feel we belong.

breathe, can we?

[originally written 7.10.06 and posted on wordpress]

deny. demonize. deny some more. then kick sand in everyone’s face if they express opinions that differ from yours. have we, here in this north american society, grown this small? really? i despair. it feels like we have. where, oh where, have our hearts and minds gone? where has constructive outrage gone? where has compassion gone? oh … sometimes i feel like its all too much. far too much.

did we think the threat of mcarthy-ism dead? think again. maybe not. did we think solving the middle east difficulties would really be that easy? did we bother to inform ourselves of the history of the conflict? did we already forget about lawrence of arabia? did we already forget that 54,000 canadian, 400,000 american, and 25 million in total, soliders died in WW2 – a war that spanned 6 years? the world effectively lost an entire generation of men. do we have a fucking clue? about history? about things that happen on the other sides of the oceans?

do we really think its ok to send adolescents, who have questionably yet to reach the age of consent, into a environment filled with manipulative, power-addicted narcisstists (read:politicians)? OMG. what the fuck makes us soooooo blind and naive? really, its all too much. i wonder if its occuring to anyone out there that sexual deviance and sexual repression go hand-in-hand. or if we are all just going to put another pair of blinders on and get on the ‘indignant outrage’ soapbox?

it saddens me a great deal that people out there still think the collective WE bears no responsibility for all the world’s suffering. absolutely saddens me. that they honestly believe, because they did not pull the trigger, wield the torture device, or hold down that 15 year old girl so 14 others could rape her, this grants absolution and frees them from accountability. why? why, if another human, somewhere – anywhere – out there, suffers would ANY one think they have no responsibility to contribute toward efforts to relieve said suffering?

and why have we attached some sort of twisted ideological entitlement to the relief of suffering?

and what the fuck is up with this culture of retribution and revenge?

breathe. can we?

in the face of helplessness

[originally written 15.10.06 and posted on wordpress]

“… i eventually realized the hopelessness of the situation.”

the words of my husband (a UN brat who spent one-third of his life in africa) ring true in my head. i peer thru a veil of tears, as sanjay gupta tells the stories of the sudanese refugees of brutal civil war. silent sobs fill my chest, as i focus on the photon-spewing flat screen sitting a mere 6 feet away from me.

a united nations worker strolls with gupta on camera as she paints a picture of daily life in sudan, near the chad border. a 14 year girl, gang raped by 15 members of one tribe. the women and children of another village taken, raped and killed. my heart crumbles, with each syllable, each word, each phrase, each story uttered. and the videography? equally heart-wrenching.

my heart crumbles. and i feel the fullest sorrow of those words – “… i eventually realized the hopelessness of the situation.” such carnage. such brutality. such corruption. so widespread. i feel no outrage. or indignation. or anger. just incredible sorrow. and something i feel inclined to call guilt. for, the fact of my membership in humanity holds me, in some infinitesimal way, accountable for such pockets of incredible suffering and carnage.

and so, what do i do? how to i act? i know. i know. one person cannot change the world. but, i believe in the eisenberg principle. and i believe that humanity changes one human at a time. and, i see witnessing as an crucial form of action, of doing. and so, i watch. i fervently watch.

i deliberately choose not to look away from the screen. or leave the room. or cover my eyes and ears. i do not shield myself from the event of this suffering. i embrace its connectivity in my living room. it touches me. i touch it. i decide. not to let go. and then, i embark on a journey. my mind’s journey. a journey into my humanity. i seek to inform myself. i owe it to myself, to my humanity.