Last week, my boyfriend proposed to me (appropriately) during the latest episode of The Big Bang Theory. It was a surprise and, after many expletives, I said yes.
The next day, gawkers asked to see my ring and for those (who I knew) that lived far away, received a photo of an awkward hand model pose in front of my living room blinds.
I expected some gasps but what I wasn't prepared for were the comments regarding the fact that my engagement ring wasn't a diamond solitaire. The sad part is my mother and some of her friends even remarked that "...maybe you could trade-up to a diamond in a year."
You see, apparently, every girl dreams of diamonds, tiaras, pink castles in pastel blue skies, and a prince with an eye-crushing diamond growing-up.
I, obviously, did not watch enough Disney movies or maybe focused too much attention on science, sports, music, and boys who barely met the Prince mold.
I was angry; seeing red - and not because I suddenly wanted what everyone thought I should have; I never even considered a diamond as something I want (nor have I ever wanted one)... I was angry because people were disappointed once I showed them the "important digit" to find it wasn't a diamond but an emerald band with small diamonds. I somehow crushed their dreams and then was interrogated by a few who wanted to know why I didn't want a diamond as if it were a problem.
An engagement ring is a physical symbol of a person's promise to a pending lifetime commitment; its size does not reflect the person's love for the other (although for some that might be the case) nor does its stone reflect how much the person cares for the other.
As I sit and type this mini-missive, I look at my ring and smile at the promise; I also look at it and know the person who bought it for me bought me the most expensive piece of jewelry because it truly reflects me, us, and our values. This lady in red is now tickled pink because I know that princesses don't live in pink castles in the skies and love isn't measured by a carat and I met (and love) someone who understands that.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Mitt a Catch When It Comes to Pitching Something Different
This coming election continues the well-needed change of our Presidential candidates' make-up. President Barack Obama became the first-elected Hawaiian-born, mixed-race President, and now Mitt Romney stands to become the first Mormon to carry a major party in a general election. While Mr. Romney is not the first Mormon to attempt a Presidential bid (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/53888762-90/romney-utah-mormon-lds.html.csp), I feel it is necessary to highlight his first, as it seems we, as a "Christian nation" love to advertise our Christian roots and love for humankind, but fail to mention a candidate's religion is only as good as the one we deem acceptable or even "right." It is the dirty secret we keep covered-up in a laundry list of acceptable (yet not acceptable) "Christian" behavior.
When John F. Kennedy was running for the highest office, he stated, "I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters – and the Church does not speak for me."
For those of us who subscribe, practice, and/or follow religion (especially Catholics), we may take offense at his words; in fact, for some, they interpret his remarks as abandoning his Catholic roots. However, I firmly believe the opposite to be true. Without taking into consideration his infidelity, as he, ultimately, had a higher power and his wife to answer to, JFK was staying very true to his Catholic roots in that his beliefs were, indeed, a private matter and not one for public consumption. His beliefs and his desire to not broadcast, espouse, or hide behind them embodied the separation of church and state. JFK wanted to a do a job and that's what he planned on doing; he would remain a Catholic if he stayed in the Navy or became a socialite trolling the pristine waters of Martha's Vineyard.
So, before you knock Romney, look at the man representing the Republican Party and not at the man's religion as the reason for your final choice of whether to vote for him or not. While I agree Romney's Mormon faith is a large part of who he is, it is, as a Presidential candidate, not just what he is. In other words, calling him out because he practices a faith many Americans view as different, weird, or unacceptable because we may not understand the tenets of his beliefs is actually un-American. And even if we have a basic understanding of his beliefs, it is only right that we respect them (even if you do not agree with them).
I also feel it's an opportunity that Romney can monopolize by educating the American public about a religion that is a puzzle, if not a mystery, to many. How this can be achieved is tricky; as I stated above, Kennedy separated his Catholic roots from his pending Presidential roots but separating religion from your outward self is akin to separating oil from water with your hands. Romney is not obligated to teach the American public about Mormonism nor should his beliefs be the sole focus of every question blurted his way. But, I can't help but think there is a way to for him to bridge this gap and educate a sometimes uneducated, ignorant public.
It boils down to fear and if there is a way to at least deflate the protective bubble of ignorance, I hope this election can at least ameliorate some of those fears. Then again, some Americans still believe Obama was not born in Hawaii...
I may not agree with some of Romney's stances on specific issues, but I am glad he is the clear frontrunner (and "presumptive nominee") for the Republican party.
Why?
Because change is good. Change is good even when it's uncomfortable.
While I do not believe in electing (or even voting for) a Presidential candidate because of a "first" (first African-American; first female; first Klingon, etc.), I firmly believe Obama and Romney represent the change needed in our elections. The United States is comprised of individuals who practice many different religions or even none at all. Therefore, our candidates should reflect that and should not be publicly ridiculed, questioned, or prejudiced because of their beliefs.
This election is shaping-up to be quite historical in many senses of the word; some feel our country is worse for the wear after Obama's freshman tenure whereas others feel he is doing the best he can, given the circumstances. Only history and time will tell.
But what time and history cannot tell us is who to vote for in the coming election. Therefore, it is critical that we examine the candidates as a whole and not a part even those parts (in total) create the sum person that stands before us, asking us for our vote.
When John F. Kennedy was running for the highest office, he stated, "I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters – and the Church does not speak for me."
For those of us who subscribe, practice, and/or follow religion (especially Catholics), we may take offense at his words; in fact, for some, they interpret his remarks as abandoning his Catholic roots. However, I firmly believe the opposite to be true. Without taking into consideration his infidelity, as he, ultimately, had a higher power and his wife to answer to, JFK was staying very true to his Catholic roots in that his beliefs were, indeed, a private matter and not one for public consumption. His beliefs and his desire to not broadcast, espouse, or hide behind them embodied the separation of church and state. JFK wanted to a do a job and that's what he planned on doing; he would remain a Catholic if he stayed in the Navy or became a socialite trolling the pristine waters of Martha's Vineyard.
So, before you knock Romney, look at the man representing the Republican Party and not at the man's religion as the reason for your final choice of whether to vote for him or not. While I agree Romney's Mormon faith is a large part of who he is, it is, as a Presidential candidate, not just what he is. In other words, calling him out because he practices a faith many Americans view as different, weird, or unacceptable because we may not understand the tenets of his beliefs is actually un-American. And even if we have a basic understanding of his beliefs, it is only right that we respect them (even if you do not agree with them).
I also feel it's an opportunity that Romney can monopolize by educating the American public about a religion that is a puzzle, if not a mystery, to many. How this can be achieved is tricky; as I stated above, Kennedy separated his Catholic roots from his pending Presidential roots but separating religion from your outward self is akin to separating oil from water with your hands. Romney is not obligated to teach the American public about Mormonism nor should his beliefs be the sole focus of every question blurted his way. But, I can't help but think there is a way to for him to bridge this gap and educate a sometimes uneducated, ignorant public.
It boils down to fear and if there is a way to at least deflate the protective bubble of ignorance, I hope this election can at least ameliorate some of those fears. Then again, some Americans still believe Obama was not born in Hawaii...
I may not agree with some of Romney's stances on specific issues, but I am glad he is the clear frontrunner (and "presumptive nominee") for the Republican party.
Why?
Because change is good. Change is good even when it's uncomfortable.
While I do not believe in electing (or even voting for) a Presidential candidate because of a "first" (first African-American; first female; first Klingon, etc.), I firmly believe Obama and Romney represent the change needed in our elections. The United States is comprised of individuals who practice many different religions or even none at all. Therefore, our candidates should reflect that and should not be publicly ridiculed, questioned, or prejudiced because of their beliefs.
This election is shaping-up to be quite historical in many senses of the word; some feel our country is worse for the wear after Obama's freshman tenure whereas others feel he is doing the best he can, given the circumstances. Only history and time will tell.
But what time and history cannot tell us is who to vote for in the coming election. Therefore, it is critical that we examine the candidates as a whole and not a part even those parts (in total) create the sum person that stands before us, asking us for our vote.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Hip to Be a Hipster
The Willamette Week, a free weekly that covers Portland news, politics, food, and culture, has admonished Groupon with one local business owner even writing a letter to the editor who insisted, "The Groupon invasion certainly ruined the atmosphere for them. I had no idea I would be putting these wonderful, valued, everyday customers on the line for this mass gaggle of Beaverton-Lake O, Lexus-driving, retired at 40 and have an assload of money but love to get a deal ex-money managers and soccer moms."
I am offended that a restauranteur in Portland thinks everyone in the 'burbs has a gaggle of money and a Lexus. I could only hope and dream. Getting a deal is probably the reason some have money, but getting a deal is also a part of being frugal and a reflection of the times we live in.
Portland, it seems, is trying to cultivate and package an image that is causing different reactions in different groups of people; the "difference-ness" it once welcomed with open arms was now only being welcomed if you fit the mold or the image it has cultivated. Being different is no longer good; it seems being the same is becoming the norm in Portland and that is a shame.
Because if you're not a hipster, you might as well drive home in your Lexus to your McMansion to a suburb with a name with more than two syllables.
I am not a Portland native. Heck, I am not even a West Coast native. However, this being my second (and permanent) tenure in the Portland area, I admit the growing I-am-too-hip hipster attitude is starting to make Portlanders seem, well, a bit obnoxious. When I moved to the Portland area in 2000, I was recruited by a major tech firm in the suburbs.
At the time, I was 24 years old...a newly-minted M.S.-degree carrying gal who never traveled west of Pennsylvania; never ate sushi; and never even flew on a plane.
When I came to this area, it opened my eyes to a wonderful world of experiences, places, and, most importantly, people. What I loved about Portland is you could be yourself and that was perfectly OK. Cars, while wasteful, weren't completely derided by cyclists and drivers didn't hate cyclists. The 'burbs were a place to live outside Portland and the city of Portland was a place to live if you worked in Portland or wanted to live close to city life (and all it has to offer).
Flash-forward to summer 2008 (when I moved back)...
I noticed something "off" about Portland; its hipster population that was charming now seemed obnoxious; I was at a bar one night and criticized by a hipster because I didn't know if it was a seat-yourself-kind-of-place so I politely asked the bartender. The one-PBR-drinking couple (yes, they were sharing a can) laughed at me and said something I care not to repeat. Meanwhile, my date and I proceeded to politely drink several drinks (thus giving the bar more money) while the couple clung to their single can of PBR. Apparently, being nice, racking-up a good-sized bar tab, and handsomely tipping the bartender is a bad thing when your establishment only wants patrons who look and drink cool.
If you don't eat organic, shop at Whole Foods, ride a bike, and live in Portland, itself, you shouldn't be in Portland. And that is a shame...
Sadly, Portland claims it wants to stay weird (an ironic statement, considering the iconic "Keep Portland weird" catchphrase was copped from Austin) when, in reality, it's all starting to look the same. I won't leave this city I love; I just want the city I fell in love with to come back.
I am offended that a restauranteur in Portland thinks everyone in the 'burbs has a gaggle of money and a Lexus. I could only hope and dream. Getting a deal is probably the reason some have money, but getting a deal is also a part of being frugal and a reflection of the times we live in.
Portland, it seems, is trying to cultivate and package an image that is causing different reactions in different groups of people; the "difference-ness" it once welcomed with open arms was now only being welcomed if you fit the mold or the image it has cultivated. Being different is no longer good; it seems being the same is becoming the norm in Portland and that is a shame.
Because if you're not a hipster, you might as well drive home in your Lexus to your McMansion to a suburb with a name with more than two syllables.
I am not a Portland native. Heck, I am not even a West Coast native. However, this being my second (and permanent) tenure in the Portland area, I admit the growing I-am-too-hip hipster attitude is starting to make Portlanders seem, well, a bit obnoxious. When I moved to the Portland area in 2000, I was recruited by a major tech firm in the suburbs.
At the time, I was 24 years old...a newly-minted M.S.-degree carrying gal who never traveled west of Pennsylvania; never ate sushi; and never even flew on a plane.
When I came to this area, it opened my eyes to a wonderful world of experiences, places, and, most importantly, people. What I loved about Portland is you could be yourself and that was perfectly OK. Cars, while wasteful, weren't completely derided by cyclists and drivers didn't hate cyclists. The 'burbs were a place to live outside Portland and the city of Portland was a place to live if you worked in Portland or wanted to live close to city life (and all it has to offer).
Flash-forward to summer 2008 (when I moved back)...
I noticed something "off" about Portland; its hipster population that was charming now seemed obnoxious; I was at a bar one night and criticized by a hipster because I didn't know if it was a seat-yourself-kind-of-place so I politely asked the bartender. The one-PBR-drinking couple (yes, they were sharing a can) laughed at me and said something I care not to repeat. Meanwhile, my date and I proceeded to politely drink several drinks (thus giving the bar more money) while the couple clung to their single can of PBR. Apparently, being nice, racking-up a good-sized bar tab, and handsomely tipping the bartender is a bad thing when your establishment only wants patrons who look and drink cool.
If you don't eat organic, shop at Whole Foods, ride a bike, and live in Portland, itself, you shouldn't be in Portland. And that is a shame...
Sadly, Portland claims it wants to stay weird (an ironic statement, considering the iconic "Keep Portland weird" catchphrase was copped from Austin) when, in reality, it's all starting to look the same. I won't leave this city I love; I just want the city I fell in love with to come back.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
100% God-Free (Soul Food with Empty Calories)
I grew up Catholic. In my early 20s, I left God because it seemed educated people eschewed God and that, as an educated person, that was not only the right thing to do - but the educated thing to do.
I look back now and realize I let someone else do my thinking for me; more importantly, I let someone else tell me how MY heart felt about God and religion.
I admit, I'm not a Bible thumper or someone who announces their belief in God from the rafters as I point a casting finger down at the "heathens". I'm the "quiet" Catholic...the one who grew-up believing in God (and still do), but something is starting to make me want to say, if not scream, something.
In Portland, the number of churches is just as visible as the number of fine restaurants and food carts that dot our beautiful city. Yet, with all the churches, it seems Portland is more Godless than most other cities I've lived in - in fact, I've read and been told (from casual surveys) that we boast a population with the highest number of atheists and agnostics, respectively (as there is a difference), in America.
It saddens me that in a city filled with so many churches that can provide food for famished souls, some still go hungry - and some go hungry by choice. With all our restaurants and churches, it seems there is a hunger that has more to do with soul food rather than sole food.
What happened? Some point to politics. Liberals don't believe in God and Portland is a very liberal city. Yes and no. Being a Liberal doesn't make you a card-carrying God-hater. I should know, because I'm a Liberal who believes in God.
Some point to science - that science cannot support a God. However, I disagree. Evolution and religion can go hand-in-hand; why is it so shocking to think God's blueprint was evolution?
Others point to, what I call, the wishing well theory. They've prayed and their prayers yielded nothing in return, so why bother? However, prayer is not just a means to ask for countless things (although I admit I am praying for a husband, LOL!). Prayer, to me, is my daily conversation with God. And, yes, most of of us pray (at some point) to ask for something whether it's a sunny Memorial Day weekend for their camping trip or a snow day to get out of school. But God knows who we are; he knows that despite the "requests" he knows we're not just asking; we're telling him more important stuff, too. Once we get past the fluff, we might tell him what is troubling our soul or what's making it jump in leaps and bounds.
People that don't believe in God are not "less" in my opinion; however, if they even peered into the kaleidoscope that shows what he is capable of, they would certainly be, if not see, more.
I look back now and realize I let someone else do my thinking for me; more importantly, I let someone else tell me how MY heart felt about God and religion.
I admit, I'm not a Bible thumper or someone who announces their belief in God from the rafters as I point a casting finger down at the "heathens". I'm the "quiet" Catholic...the one who grew-up believing in God (and still do), but something is starting to make me want to say, if not scream, something.
In Portland, the number of churches is just as visible as the number of fine restaurants and food carts that dot our beautiful city. Yet, with all the churches, it seems Portland is more Godless than most other cities I've lived in - in fact, I've read and been told (from casual surveys) that we boast a population with the highest number of atheists and agnostics, respectively (as there is a difference), in America.
It saddens me that in a city filled with so many churches that can provide food for famished souls, some still go hungry - and some go hungry by choice. With all our restaurants and churches, it seems there is a hunger that has more to do with soul food rather than sole food.
What happened? Some point to politics. Liberals don't believe in God and Portland is a very liberal city. Yes and no. Being a Liberal doesn't make you a card-carrying God-hater. I should know, because I'm a Liberal who believes in God.
Some point to science - that science cannot support a God. However, I disagree. Evolution and religion can go hand-in-hand; why is it so shocking to think God's blueprint was evolution?
Others point to, what I call, the wishing well theory. They've prayed and their prayers yielded nothing in return, so why bother? However, prayer is not just a means to ask for countless things (although I admit I am praying for a husband, LOL!). Prayer, to me, is my daily conversation with God. And, yes, most of of us pray (at some point) to ask for something whether it's a sunny Memorial Day weekend for their camping trip or a snow day to get out of school. But God knows who we are; he knows that despite the "requests" he knows we're not just asking; we're telling him more important stuff, too. Once we get past the fluff, we might tell him what is troubling our soul or what's making it jump in leaps and bounds.
People that don't believe in God are not "less" in my opinion; however, if they even peered into the kaleidoscope that shows what he is capable of, they would certainly be, if not see, more.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head
Here in Portland, our rain is the stuff of jokes, myths, and, probably, legends. Unfortunately, it also perpetuates this long-standing observation, if not stereotype, of people who carry and use umbrellas.
You can tell they're not from around here; they're carrying an umbrella.
I'm from upstate New York. Home of the white power dump - a winter snowfall can result in 18+ inches of the white stuff overnight coupled with bone-chilling temperatures. Because of my exposure to a "real" winter, does that mean I walked around naked when the white stuff flew because I was a native?
Hell, no.
Wool coat. Lined leather (waterproof) gloves. Hat. Scarf. Wool socks. Boots up to my knees. The haute couture of the Northeast.
When I first moved to Oregon in 2000, I wanted to draw as little suspicion as possible (as I heard about this "native" philosophy), so I never carried an umbrella. When I taught at a local community center part-time, I decided to walk on the nights I taught for fitness. Turns out it rained (I kid you not) the eight Thursdays I taught that spring. It wasn't drizzle but it wasn't a torrential downpour, either. I let myself get soaked because I thought carrying and using an umbrella drew attention to the fact I wasn't a true Oregonian.
Looking back, that is the one of the dumber things I have done in an attempt to save face. I'm not sure if I walked in that freezing, soaking rain because of pride or stupidity.
Today, I would tell you it was stupidity. I would also tell you I carry an umbrella every day now because it makes sense and who the hell enjoys being wet unless it involves a cocktail and sunscreen?
Come rain or shine, with umbrella or without, you should always carry with you the knowledge that you are a unique individual and letting other people's opinions drive you is a waste of time. On the flip side, you have to respect others as well. In my case, where I've lived in four very different states, you have to respect the local culture - having traveled extensively throughout the US, I can honestly say there is always a local culture. So...
Don't expect a Starbucks in the middle of nowhere.
Don't move to a large city and expect no traffic.
Don't make fun of people who wear overalls.
Don't think that everyone who drives a BMW is a pr!ck or yuppie.
...and don't make fun of people who carry umbrellas.
You can tell they're not from around here; they're carrying an umbrella.
I'm from upstate New York. Home of the white power dump - a winter snowfall can result in 18+ inches of the white stuff overnight coupled with bone-chilling temperatures. Because of my exposure to a "real" winter, does that mean I walked around naked when the white stuff flew because I was a native?
Hell, no.
Wool coat. Lined leather (waterproof) gloves. Hat. Scarf. Wool socks. Boots up to my knees. The haute couture of the Northeast.
When I first moved to Oregon in 2000, I wanted to draw as little suspicion as possible (as I heard about this "native" philosophy), so I never carried an umbrella. When I taught at a local community center part-time, I decided to walk on the nights I taught for fitness. Turns out it rained (I kid you not) the eight Thursdays I taught that spring. It wasn't drizzle but it wasn't a torrential downpour, either. I let myself get soaked because I thought carrying and using an umbrella drew attention to the fact I wasn't a true Oregonian.
Looking back, that is the one of the dumber things I have done in an attempt to save face. I'm not sure if I walked in that freezing, soaking rain because of pride or stupidity.
Today, I would tell you it was stupidity. I would also tell you I carry an umbrella every day now because it makes sense and who the hell enjoys being wet unless it involves a cocktail and sunscreen?
Come rain or shine, with umbrella or without, you should always carry with you the knowledge that you are a unique individual and letting other people's opinions drive you is a waste of time. On the flip side, you have to respect others as well. In my case, where I've lived in four very different states, you have to respect the local culture - having traveled extensively throughout the US, I can honestly say there is always a local culture. So...
Don't expect a Starbucks in the middle of nowhere.
Don't move to a large city and expect no traffic.
Don't make fun of people who wear overalls.
Don't think that everyone who drives a BMW is a pr!ck or yuppie.
...and don't make fun of people who carry umbrellas.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
The "Magic" of Christmas
According to Websters.com, magic is "the art of producing illusions as entertainment by the use of sleight of hand, deceptive devices, etc.; legerdemain; conjuring: to pull a rabbit out of a hat by magic."
During the Christmas season, the "magic" of Christmas is on display for anyone who leaves the house. From fake snow to street ornaments to spectacular displays in the windows at Nordi's, Christmas is now a show rather than a meaningful time for most people.
Harried parents scour the mall searching for the hottest toy and in a few months when the next hottest toy comes out, the ghost of Christmas past laments his plastic scrap heap. We spend, spend, spend, only to realize that no matter how many presents we buy, we still feel empty and saddened by the fact that material items do not replace time, forgiveness, and regret.
So, as you wrap that perfect present or slave over that succulent supper, remember that Christmas does have meaning. And whether you're Christian or not, the meaning lies in treasuring those who are near and dear to us, and remembering those we have lost.
Let's take the magic out of Christmas and put the meaning back into it.
During the Christmas season, the "magic" of Christmas is on display for anyone who leaves the house. From fake snow to street ornaments to spectacular displays in the windows at Nordi's, Christmas is now a show rather than a meaningful time for most people.
Harried parents scour the mall searching for the hottest toy and in a few months when the next hottest toy comes out, the ghost of Christmas past laments his plastic scrap heap. We spend, spend, spend, only to realize that no matter how many presents we buy, we still feel empty and saddened by the fact that material items do not replace time, forgiveness, and regret.
So, as you wrap that perfect present or slave over that succulent supper, remember that Christmas does have meaning. And whether you're Christian or not, the meaning lies in treasuring those who are near and dear to us, and remembering those we have lost.
Let's take the magic out of Christmas and put the meaning back into it.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Sorry Seems To Be the Easiest Word
I used to apologize for anything and everything.
I don't anymore.
Like "I love you", saying "I'm sorry" is overused and often used too early, too often, or too quickly. Apologies are issued with the efficiency of an instant message - without thought or care, sometimes, for purpose or meaning.
We apologize for being late even though we know we didn't make the effort to show-up on time. We apologize for making a mess (on the kitchen table, in the bathroom, fill in the blank), yet we left the mess in plain sight after we finished the task at hand. We apologize for suggesting an alternative work idea to what's planned when what is planned clearly won't work.
Those apologies are minor, I would think, compared to apologies that are leveled but never have any true meaning: apologies for affairs when it was clear the perpetrating individual carefully and coyfully rendered their getaway plans; apologies for being rude when aggressive and impolite behavior is the person's SOP; apologies for not living up to our responsibilities when it was clear we agreed to be responsible; and apologies for saying something hurtful when we didn't flinch as we uttered those words.
How many times have you said I'm sorry and actually meant it?
It's a knee-jerk reaction now to say you're sorry without even examining the actions that caused you to utter those words in the first place.
To me, I'm saving "I'm sorry". I will only use those words for something I unintentionally did and am truly sorry for.
I won't apologize for my ideas and thoughts; I won't apologize for being who I am - as I am not perfect and God never intended me to be so, so I won't even try.
And I won't apologize for not apologizing because I want the words to retain their meaning; I want those words to reflect their original intent - because before an apology is issued, I want my actions to speak for who I am as an individual and reflect the morals and values I hold dear to my heart. I want my actions to be clear, honest, and not hurtful.
I want my actions to not require those words because what's the point of apologizing if you keep repeating the same behavior only to hurt someone or even hurt yourself, or to reap success from someone's misery? What good are words with no meaning?
Otherwise, "I'm sorry" simply becomes that - words - and if that's the case, those words do not belong in my vocabulary.
I don't anymore.
Like "I love you", saying "I'm sorry" is overused and often used too early, too often, or too quickly. Apologies are issued with the efficiency of an instant message - without thought or care, sometimes, for purpose or meaning.
We apologize for being late even though we know we didn't make the effort to show-up on time. We apologize for making a mess (on the kitchen table, in the bathroom, fill in the blank), yet we left the mess in plain sight after we finished the task at hand. We apologize for suggesting an alternative work idea to what's planned when what is planned clearly won't work.
Those apologies are minor, I would think, compared to apologies that are leveled but never have any true meaning: apologies for affairs when it was clear the perpetrating individual carefully and coyfully rendered their getaway plans; apologies for being rude when aggressive and impolite behavior is the person's SOP; apologies for not living up to our responsibilities when it was clear we agreed to be responsible; and apologies for saying something hurtful when we didn't flinch as we uttered those words.
How many times have you said I'm sorry and actually meant it?
It's a knee-jerk reaction now to say you're sorry without even examining the actions that caused you to utter those words in the first place.
To me, I'm saving "I'm sorry". I will only use those words for something I unintentionally did and am truly sorry for.
I won't apologize for my ideas and thoughts; I won't apologize for being who I am - as I am not perfect and God never intended me to be so, so I won't even try.
And I won't apologize for not apologizing because I want the words to retain their meaning; I want those words to reflect their original intent - because before an apology is issued, I want my actions to speak for who I am as an individual and reflect the morals and values I hold dear to my heart. I want my actions to be clear, honest, and not hurtful.
I want my actions to not require those words because what's the point of apologizing if you keep repeating the same behavior only to hurt someone or even hurt yourself, or to reap success from someone's misery? What good are words with no meaning?
Otherwise, "I'm sorry" simply becomes that - words - and if that's the case, those words do not belong in my vocabulary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
