I wrote this over a year ago for when I was planning on leaving Selma for Montevallo. I never posted it, though.
=====================================
If someone had asked me what I believed in a few years ago, I would have been hard-pressed to give a sensible and sincere answer. A couple of years ago, however, I began to evaluate myself and life. I began to think on who I was as a person and what I wanted to do with my life. Up until that point in my life, all of the big questions had been answered by the religion I was raised in. Despite my embracing the faith of my parents, I found that I was deeply unhappy and sought the reasons why; and I sought the remedy to my discouragement and weariness. I am happy to report that I did realize why I was unhappy, and I did find the answer to my problems. In the process, I established a new worldview -- one built upon lessons learned in childhood and supported throughout a lifetime of experience.
I believe that the only thing that ever has or ever will matter to us is the needs of humanity. For this reason, I have no sympathy for gods who demand worship and threaten torture. If they are real, then I pity them -- because they are lesser beings than we have grown to be. I have never been attracted to the idea of streets of gold and walls of jasper, but I have longed for Heaven on Earth. It is my heart’s desire to see people united in love for one another -- overcoming the boundaries of language, ethnicity, religion, and nationality. I spurn any idea that promotes divisiveness. Is a united and healthy Earth an impossible ideal? Perhaps, but think how wonderful just realizing part of that ideal would be. It is this idealism, born of love for humanity, that drives me. Because this idealism has served me so well, I give no quarter to ideas that would rob me or other people of that idealism by telling us that we are worthless and depraved or dependent upon anything but ourselves to effect the changes we need to see. That idea is worthless and depraved. I believe in the power of idealism: I believe we can be better than we are, and that we should set goals for ourselves. Even if we don’t reach them, we are made better by our struggle to overcome our failings. To lose faith in ourselves is to die -- as individuals, as a society.
As I see that there is no difference between the needs of myself and the needs of my neighbors -- whether they be next door or across the oceans -- I live my life in the sprit of empathy. I strive to live in love -- to be compassionate and understand the needs of those around me. After all, that’s all that really matters. I want someone’s life to have been improved in some miniscule way by my existence here. This is done in recognition of the fact that ordinary kindnesses from other people have helped me, and I want to improve other people’s lives in the same way that mine has been improved.
Because I recognize that life is fleeting and that regret is rarely satiated, I strive to live my best life now and to realize the potential of each moment; to be as happy sitting at a red-light as I am driving through the countryside on a sunny autumn day. I recognize that I will have good days and I will have bad days -- but I deserve neither. All I can do is appreciate and make the most of each. I do not live in the past or future, but in the present; and I make the most of it. I am in awe of the world that I live in. When I gaze out of my bedroom window and see the lush green of the trees set against the unbroken blue sky, I understand worship. I am delighted by the pursuit of knowledge, because being able to understand the world that I live in enables me to appreciate it all the more.
I see reason as a flaming sword -- not one that keeps us from paradise, but one that allows us to do away with the choking brambles of ignorance and superstition to make paradise. I recognize that the scientific method, that uncompromising search for real answers, is what has helped humanity rise “from the swamp to the stars”. Inspired by what science has achieved, I adopted the principles of freethought in my life and have found my life to be all the better because of this. I recognize that science and reason must be tempered with empathy , because as Paul Johnson once said, “The worst of all despotisms is the heartless tyranny of ideas.” The only thing that matters is people -- and that is what I believe.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
This Week at the Library
Current Music: "Let the Music Play", Barry White
I started a habit over a year ago of commenting on the various books I read. While it started at this blog, this blog became inactive when I moved to university and I started doing my library posts on MySpace instead, gradually creating a separate blog for it for my own purposes. (You can click the title of this post to go there.) I do this mainly for my own benefit, as I like to keep track of the books I read.
Books in this Update:
I began this week with The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin. I read this book for historical, rather than scientific, reasons. I imagine that it is of little use as a scientific text today as it was published in 1859 -- before heredity and DNA were discovered. I decided to read it to see what the book was like, since it caused such a sensation in its day. I would do the same for other historically important texts -- The Wealth of Nations, The Communist Manifesto, The Jungle, etc. As a student of history, and a fledging student of the history of science in particular, I'm quite interested in this book. It also helps to be armed with facts for those chance encounters with fundamentalists who are prone to saying "Darwin said…". I figure if I read The Origin of Species, I could call them on their BS promptly. (Some people hunt. I call BS. We all have our sports.)
The Origin of Species, despite being written in the Victorian era, is actually rather readable. The edition of the book I'm reading features commentary (sometimes corrective) to help put things into perspective. While Darwin's book introduced the idea of descent with modification to a larger audience than the Royal Society, his chapter on "The Struggle for Existence" bespeaks of ecology to me. I do not know enough about the history of ecology to say if many naturalists had observed it, Darwin certainly did. Take, for instance, this passage:
How else to describe ecology rather than 'plants and animals bound together by a web of complex relations'? Wikipedia says that "ecology" was coined in 1866, and that its founder was Eugenius Warming. I may read more on ecology later on; it's an interesting topic. Most of the chapters are fairly interesting. I thought "Instinct" was a little dull, but other chapters, like "Geographical Distribution", made up for it. That chapter was particular interesting, as Darwin describes his experiences in probing to see how seeds could be transferred from one island to the next. Three methods he came up with were (1) seeds carried by seawater, (2) seeds in dirt clumps attached to natural debris that is shuffled from island to island through the currents, and (3) through animal scat, since birds can often be blown hundreds of miles from their natural routes by prevailing winds. Darwin actually tests these ideas -- submerging seeds in seawater to see if they would germinate, liberating seeds from animal feces and successfully planting them, etc. The man was meticulous.
Next I read The History of Science from the Greeks to the Scientific Revolution. I am enjoying a growing interest in the history of scientific thought. It combines my lifelong interest in history and a newly awakened and burgeoning affection for science rather nicely. This book was quite excellent, I thought, in presenting its information. The book is divided into three parts. The first starts the development of natural philosophy in the Greek world and its progression and moves through the death of the classical world to the rebirth of knowledge in the medieval era with Copernicus. As I read about Copernicus and Galileo (who promoted Copernicus' idea of heliocentrism), it struck me that all Copernicus had to substantiate his claim that the Earth and planets moved around the Sun rather than the reverse was simple math. All either Copernicus or Galileo could do was observe the movement of the planets and other celestial happenings and say "This is what we think is happening. It seems to fit the facts at hand." There was no hard, undeniable evidence outside of the math, and there wouldn't be until the space age. Imagine that! For hundreds of years, people were taught that the Earth moved around the sun not through undeniable evidence but through simple rational and math. As I read about this, I realized that the same was true for both Darwin and Mendel. Darwin spent years observing the natural world, just as Copernicus and Galileo observed the heavens, and then made an observation. As I found out in a later reading, Darwin's initial title for The Origin of Species began with "An Abstract of an Essay On…". Darwin's idea was just that, an idea: a mental abstraction, just like Copernicus'. Here's where it gets interesting: Darwin saw natural selection as the basis for evolution, but had no idea what made that work. How did parents pass on traits to their children -- faster limbs, bigger brains, etc? Mendel figured that out when he realized what we now call genetics, but he lacked the tools to find the actual genes that were doing what he described. Later on, DNA was discovered, meshing Darwin, Mendel, and Watson's discoveries together. I find this sequence of events uncommonly fascinating. Anyway, after finishing the introduction, the book is split into two more sections: the physical sciences and the life sciences. Both are interesting in themselves. The history of medicine isn't something I know a lot about other than what I learned in Theories for Everything, but this book's section contained a wealth of information. Speaking of Theories for Everything, I wonder if the thrilling narrative presented by that book is what prompted my interest in the history of science?
Next, I read Charles Darwin: the Naturalist Who Started a Scientific Revolution. I found this book and the one preceding it by searching for "scientific revolution" at my local library in the interests of expanding my knowledge of the history of science. It's a biography of Charles Darwin. I recently watched a video that piqued my curiosity about the life of Charles Darwin, and specifically the voyage of the Beagle. As far as narratives go, I have to say this one is excellent. Biographies can be dull despite being about an interesting personality, but this book is anything but dull. The author presents a lively telling of Darwin's life, drawing conclusions about why he was able to do what he did based on his surroundings. The book concludes by saying that Darwin was marvelously fortunate. He was born into the landed gentry, which made his life as a naturalist much easier. His father supported him financially, allowing him to spend his time doing research and writing. He married a woman who gave him immense emotional support, and he was able to surround himself with some of the leading minds of the day, who inspired and encouraged him. This book gave me new insight into Darwin and his book. I got a good laugh when perusing the "Suggested Reading". The author mentions Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker, and says that Dawkins has taken Alfred Huxely's role as "Darwin's bulldog". The author says that 'like Huxeley, he is a tremendous popularizer [of science], and like Huxeley he takes no prisoners.' That's one way to characterize Richard Dawkins: a bit like saying FDR had a way with speeches.
I have other books -- namely, The History of the Ancient World, Modern Germany: Its History and Civilization, and Biology: Demystified. However, each presents problems: the first two are large, while the last is a self-teaching book, and as such I cannot read it straight through. I have to re-read sections to make sure I remember everything. I checked out Biology: Demystified in the interests of helping me better understand biology (as you might imagine) and thus far it is -- although I do have problems with the book, which I will elaborate on should I finish it and include it here.
Instead of trying to make more progress with those larger books, I decided to visit the library today (I had the day off of work because we had no work to do) and fetch some other books. I began with The History of Science in the 18th Century, which is the second book in the series that The History of Science […] to the Scientific Revolution began. Next I checked out Christopher Hitchens' god is not Great: How Religion Ruins Everything. I should note that I have read Hitchens before (his biography of Thomas Jefferson) and didn't really like his tone, which seemed to be…overly academic. I've seen the guy in interviews and enjoy him there, but not in that book. You can probably guess the book's theme from its title. I'm only reading it to say I have: I'm actually not interested in books about atheism. It does get old.
Next I'm reading -- or attempting to read -- Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. I have tried to read this book twice before, only to be stymied by the fact that my brain yelps and hides under the couch when it encounters genetics. I know a smidge more about genetics now than I do the last time I read this book two years ago, but as evidenced by the slow progress I am making in Biology: Demystified, this subject does not come easily to me. I've heard that the third time's the charm, but even if I can't get through it, I will try again. I will continue trying to read the book until (1) I die or (2) Athena tells me not to. I don't know how long I have before case one is reached, but I doubt case 2 will be realized any time soon. Why am I so determined to read this book? Because I tried once, and failed. I won't have it said of me at my funeral that a book got the better of me -- even if it was written by an Oxford professor.
Next I checked out a book on Greek mythology and I finished my round with a collection of short stories by Isaac Asimov. I think that's everything. I was thrilled to find the Asimov collection: I was concerned that I had read all of his short-story collections at the library.
I started a habit over a year ago of commenting on the various books I read. While it started at this blog, this blog became inactive when I moved to university and I started doing my library posts on MySpace instead, gradually creating a separate blog for it for my own purposes. (You can click the title of this post to go there.) I do this mainly for my own benefit, as I like to keep track of the books I read.
Books in this Update:
- The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin
- The History of Science from the Ancient Greeks to the Scientific Revolution, Ray Spangenburg
- Charles Darwin: the Naturalist Who Started a Scientific Revolution, Cyril Aydon
I began this week with The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin. I read this book for historical, rather than scientific, reasons. I imagine that it is of little use as a scientific text today as it was published in 1859 -- before heredity and DNA were discovered. I decided to read it to see what the book was like, since it caused such a sensation in its day. I would do the same for other historically important texts -- The Wealth of Nations, The Communist Manifesto, The Jungle, etc. As a student of history, and a fledging student of the history of science in particular, I'm quite interested in this book. It also helps to be armed with facts for those chance encounters with fundamentalists who are prone to saying "Darwin said…". I figure if I read The Origin of Species, I could call them on their BS promptly. (Some people hunt. I call BS. We all have our sports.)
The Origin of Species, despite being written in the Victorian era, is actually rather readable. The edition of the book I'm reading features commentary (sometimes corrective) to help put things into perspective. While Darwin's book introduced the idea of descent with modification to a larger audience than the Royal Society, his chapter on "The Struggle for Existence" bespeaks of ecology to me. I do not know enough about the history of ecology to say if many naturalists had observed it, Darwin certainly did. Take, for instance, this passage:
I am tempted to give one more instance showing how plants and animals are bound together by a web of complex relations. I find from experience that [b]umblebees are almost indispensable to the fertilisation of the heartsease and some kinds of clover. [B]umblebees alone visit red clover, as other bees cannot reach the nectar. Hence we may infer that, if the whole genus of [b]umble-bees became extinct or very rare in England, the heartsease and red clover would become very rare, or wholly disappear. The number of [b]umblebees in any district depends in a great measure on the number of field-mice, which destroy their combs and nests. Now the number of mice is largely dependent on the number of field mice, which destroy their combs and nests. Now the number of mice is largely dependent […] on the number of cats; and as Col. Newman says, 'Near villages and small towns I have found the nest of [b]umblebees more numerous than elsewhere, which I attribute to the number of cats that destroy the mice.' Hence it is quite credible that the presence of feline animals in large numbers might determine, through the intervention from mice and then of bees, the frequency of certain flowers in that district. "
How else to describe ecology rather than 'plants and animals bound together by a web of complex relations'? Wikipedia says that "ecology" was coined in 1866, and that its founder was Eugenius Warming. I may read more on ecology later on; it's an interesting topic. Most of the chapters are fairly interesting. I thought "Instinct" was a little dull, but other chapters, like "Geographical Distribution", made up for it. That chapter was particular interesting, as Darwin describes his experiences in probing to see how seeds could be transferred from one island to the next. Three methods he came up with were (1) seeds carried by seawater, (2) seeds in dirt clumps attached to natural debris that is shuffled from island to island through the currents, and (3) through animal scat, since birds can often be blown hundreds of miles from their natural routes by prevailing winds. Darwin actually tests these ideas -- submerging seeds in seawater to see if they would germinate, liberating seeds from animal feces and successfully planting them, etc. The man was meticulous.
Next I read The History of Science from the Greeks to the Scientific Revolution. I am enjoying a growing interest in the history of scientific thought. It combines my lifelong interest in history and a newly awakened and burgeoning affection for science rather nicely. This book was quite excellent, I thought, in presenting its information. The book is divided into three parts. The first starts the development of natural philosophy in the Greek world and its progression and moves through the death of the classical world to the rebirth of knowledge in the medieval era with Copernicus. As I read about Copernicus and Galileo (who promoted Copernicus' idea of heliocentrism), it struck me that all Copernicus had to substantiate his claim that the Earth and planets moved around the Sun rather than the reverse was simple math. All either Copernicus or Galileo could do was observe the movement of the planets and other celestial happenings and say "This is what we think is happening. It seems to fit the facts at hand." There was no hard, undeniable evidence outside of the math, and there wouldn't be until the space age. Imagine that! For hundreds of years, people were taught that the Earth moved around the sun not through undeniable evidence but through simple rational and math. As I read about this, I realized that the same was true for both Darwin and Mendel. Darwin spent years observing the natural world, just as Copernicus and Galileo observed the heavens, and then made an observation. As I found out in a later reading, Darwin's initial title for The Origin of Species began with "An Abstract of an Essay On…". Darwin's idea was just that, an idea: a mental abstraction, just like Copernicus'. Here's where it gets interesting: Darwin saw natural selection as the basis for evolution, but had no idea what made that work. How did parents pass on traits to their children -- faster limbs, bigger brains, etc? Mendel figured that out when he realized what we now call genetics, but he lacked the tools to find the actual genes that were doing what he described. Later on, DNA was discovered, meshing Darwin, Mendel, and Watson's discoveries together. I find this sequence of events uncommonly fascinating. Anyway, after finishing the introduction, the book is split into two more sections: the physical sciences and the life sciences. Both are interesting in themselves. The history of medicine isn't something I know a lot about other than what I learned in Theories for Everything, but this book's section contained a wealth of information. Speaking of Theories for Everything, I wonder if the thrilling narrative presented by that book is what prompted my interest in the history of science?
Next, I read Charles Darwin: the Naturalist Who Started a Scientific Revolution. I found this book and the one preceding it by searching for "scientific revolution" at my local library in the interests of expanding my knowledge of the history of science. It's a biography of Charles Darwin. I recently watched a video that piqued my curiosity about the life of Charles Darwin, and specifically the voyage of the Beagle. As far as narratives go, I have to say this one is excellent. Biographies can be dull despite being about an interesting personality, but this book is anything but dull. The author presents a lively telling of Darwin's life, drawing conclusions about why he was able to do what he did based on his surroundings. The book concludes by saying that Darwin was marvelously fortunate. He was born into the landed gentry, which made his life as a naturalist much easier. His father supported him financially, allowing him to spend his time doing research and writing. He married a woman who gave him immense emotional support, and he was able to surround himself with some of the leading minds of the day, who inspired and encouraged him. This book gave me new insight into Darwin and his book. I got a good laugh when perusing the "Suggested Reading". The author mentions Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker, and says that Dawkins has taken Alfred Huxely's role as "Darwin's bulldog". The author says that 'like Huxeley, he is a tremendous popularizer [of science], and like Huxeley he takes no prisoners.' That's one way to characterize Richard Dawkins: a bit like saying FDR had a way with speeches.
I have other books -- namely, The History of the Ancient World, Modern Germany: Its History and Civilization, and Biology: Demystified. However, each presents problems: the first two are large, while the last is a self-teaching book, and as such I cannot read it straight through. I have to re-read sections to make sure I remember everything. I checked out Biology: Demystified in the interests of helping me better understand biology (as you might imagine) and thus far it is -- although I do have problems with the book, which I will elaborate on should I finish it and include it here.
Instead of trying to make more progress with those larger books, I decided to visit the library today (I had the day off of work because we had no work to do) and fetch some other books. I began with The History of Science in the 18th Century, which is the second book in the series that The History of Science […] to the Scientific Revolution began. Next I checked out Christopher Hitchens' god is not Great: How Religion Ruins Everything. I should note that I have read Hitchens before (his biography of Thomas Jefferson) and didn't really like his tone, which seemed to be…overly academic. I've seen the guy in interviews and enjoy him there, but not in that book. You can probably guess the book's theme from its title. I'm only reading it to say I have: I'm actually not interested in books about atheism. It does get old.
Next I'm reading -- or attempting to read -- Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. I have tried to read this book twice before, only to be stymied by the fact that my brain yelps and hides under the couch when it encounters genetics. I know a smidge more about genetics now than I do the last time I read this book two years ago, but as evidenced by the slow progress I am making in Biology: Demystified, this subject does not come easily to me. I've heard that the third time's the charm, but even if I can't get through it, I will try again. I will continue trying to read the book until (1) I die or (2) Athena tells me not to. I don't know how long I have before case one is reached, but I doubt case 2 will be realized any time soon. Why am I so determined to read this book? Because I tried once, and failed. I won't have it said of me at my funeral that a book got the better of me -- even if it was written by an Oxford professor.
Next I checked out a book on Greek mythology and I finished my round with a collection of short stories by Isaac Asimov. I think that's everything. I was thrilled to find the Asimov collection: I was concerned that I had read all of his short-story collections at the library.
Monday, June 09, 2008
Termination
I'm tired after a long day and a dramatic weekend. On the weekend, I decided to terminate a relationship that I've been struggling with since...September or so. When I moved to Montevallo, I immediately met and befriended a guy whom I'll name Fitzroy. We got along quite well, he and I, even though we disagreed on much. While we got along smashingly, there were problems -- namely in his treatment of people, as he constantly made fun of people. This did not sit well with me, as I saw no need for it. Because I enjoyed his company so much, though, I would ignore these incidents. When he began to make more and more snide remarks about me, though, and my writing, I began to realize that something was amiss. As time wore on, I became more and more tired of the way he treated others and myself. Things came to a head yesterday, when he decided to mock me on his website -- misrepresenting what I said in a private discussion of ours and making intensely personal attacks for the amusement of his other friends, who commented and attacked me. It was then that I realized that I was done with him. I sent him a message to inform him (rather politely) that he was an asshole for what he had just done. I no longer consider him a friend.
Making the decision to do this made my Sunday a touch dreary, and my spirits lifted only when I listened to a program of the local NPR station, "Getting Sentimental Over You". They played several Sinatra records, and those always brighten my mood. Even so, I was glad to go to bed, anticipating the workweek ahead of me and knowing that it would distract my thoughts from this affair and bring me closer to being able to not be concerned about how I am to pay for college tomorrow. Today was a full, and oddly fun day. Breaks seemed to come more quickly than they usually come, and my feet took much longer to grow tired. Around 3:50, we ran out of work and proceeded to simply clean up until we were scheduled to leave at four. At a few minutes 'til four, our supervisor advised us that we were out of work, and thus we new hires weren't needed for a while -- not until the agency we were hired from calls us.
So now I sit no closer to meeting my financial needs and one "friend" short. I'm looking for new work, and am anticipating being able to go to the library tomorrow.
Making the decision to do this made my Sunday a touch dreary, and my spirits lifted only when I listened to a program of the local NPR station, "Getting Sentimental Over You". They played several Sinatra records, and those always brighten my mood. Even so, I was glad to go to bed, anticipating the workweek ahead of me and knowing that it would distract my thoughts from this affair and bring me closer to being able to not be concerned about how I am to pay for college tomorrow. Today was a full, and oddly fun day. Breaks seemed to come more quickly than they usually come, and my feet took much longer to grow tired. Around 3:50, we ran out of work and proceeded to simply clean up until we were scheduled to leave at four. At a few minutes 'til four, our supervisor advised us that we were out of work, and thus we new hires weren't needed for a while -- not until the agency we were hired from calls us.
So now I sit no closer to meeting my financial needs and one "friend" short. I'm looking for new work, and am anticipating being able to go to the library tomorrow.
Friday, June 06, 2008
Life, continued
Time for me to fly!
Oh, I've got to set myself free
Time for me to fly!
And thats just how it's got to be
I know it hurts to say goodbye
But it's time for me to fly. (REO Speedwagon, "Time For Me to Fly")
So life has continued recently, although I've been neglecting both this and my "real" journal. I'm sure future me will be angry at my current negligence, but the joke is on him -- the present is fluid, and as such present-me can't be touched.
I finished the spring semester with a 4.0, which is damned impressive given my performance in Marriage/Family, where we were routinely tested on information not covered in lectures -- our only source for information. I figured I'd do well to finish with an 86 in that class, but I took advantage of every extra credit opportunity I could. It apparently worked, as I got an A. I don't know how high, and don't especially care. It's a friggin' A. (Pun unintended.) After returning to Selma in triumph, I spent May doing nothing but looking for work, reading, and playing computer games. After a couple of weeks my life in Montevallo seemed as if but a dream. Was it only a few months ago that I lived in perpetual bliss? That is not a romanticized view of my life in Montevallo: I constantly wrote in my real journal about how damn pleasant life was there. It was amazing. I woke up, and I was happy to be there. Here...well. I'd say Selma isn't that bad, but I'm tired of it. So many tired, bad memories. But here I am, and I'm determined to make the best of it.
A few days ago, I called one of the staffing agencies in town as soon as I woke up, and lo! They had a job for me. They said it was only for four weeks, which caused me some worry. I might be able to find a job for June, July, and most of August -- but it might be a bit more difficult to find a job for just July and most of August. I figure, though, if four weeks from now arrives and I still have no job, I'm going to be kicking myself. So I took the job. It's at a factory that distributes various kinds of oily crap -- lighter fluid, lubricant for cars, windshield wiper fluid, transmission fluid, that sort of thing. My job is to dump boxes of empty jugs onto a line, where they are subsequently filled and re-boxed. On my first day there, I was given a pair of safety goggles and a back-support belt and told that I would have to turn them in at the end of every day. Damn! There went my plans to make off with them. Safety goggles would have SO caught on in Montevallo as a fashion statement.
The first day was absolutely exhausting, but things have gotten better. I know how to take advantage of lulls in production now (read: sitting down when there's no work), and I'm getting plenty of sleep. It's an unpleasant way to spend 40 hours a week, but I don't really have a choice. As Isaac Asimov said, "Miracles don't happen. Sweat happens". I can't expect the gods* to grant me a financial miracle to pay for college, so I have to work for it. Considering that I dislike getting dirty, factory work is definitely not what appeals to me. I'm not one of those people who has to work to feel good about themselves: the only reason I'm working there is for money, as distasteful as I find the premise. I'm doing so that I can go to university, enjoy life to its fullest again, and then start working in a library, where I'm working for something I BELIEVE in. This base "working for money" thing won't last too much longer.
To end on a somewhat amusing note. The people in management are all "white" and the peons all "black" -- with the exception of myself. The managers (who ride around in golf carts frowning at us) work from an office that is labeled "Overseers' Office". This carries an unfortunate connotation to a history major -- even more so considering that this place used to be a cotton mill.
Oh, I've got to set myself free
Time for me to fly!
And thats just how it's got to be
I know it hurts to say goodbye
But it's time for me to fly. (REO Speedwagon, "Time For Me to Fly")
So life has continued recently, although I've been neglecting both this and my "real" journal. I'm sure future me will be angry at my current negligence, but the joke is on him -- the present is fluid, and as such present-me can't be touched.
I finished the spring semester with a 4.0, which is damned impressive given my performance in Marriage/Family, where we were routinely tested on information not covered in lectures -- our only source for information. I figured I'd do well to finish with an 86 in that class, but I took advantage of every extra credit opportunity I could. It apparently worked, as I got an A. I don't know how high, and don't especially care. It's a friggin' A. (Pun unintended.) After returning to Selma in triumph, I spent May doing nothing but looking for work, reading, and playing computer games. After a couple of weeks my life in Montevallo seemed as if but a dream. Was it only a few months ago that I lived in perpetual bliss? That is not a romanticized view of my life in Montevallo: I constantly wrote in my real journal about how damn pleasant life was there. It was amazing. I woke up, and I was happy to be there. Here...well. I'd say Selma isn't that bad, but I'm tired of it. So many tired, bad memories. But here I am, and I'm determined to make the best of it.
A few days ago, I called one of the staffing agencies in town as soon as I woke up, and lo! They had a job for me. They said it was only for four weeks, which caused me some worry. I might be able to find a job for June, July, and most of August -- but it might be a bit more difficult to find a job for just July and most of August. I figure, though, if four weeks from now arrives and I still have no job, I'm going to be kicking myself. So I took the job. It's at a factory that distributes various kinds of oily crap -- lighter fluid, lubricant for cars, windshield wiper fluid, transmission fluid, that sort of thing. My job is to dump boxes of empty jugs onto a line, where they are subsequently filled and re-boxed. On my first day there, I was given a pair of safety goggles and a back-support belt and told that I would have to turn them in at the end of every day. Damn! There went my plans to make off with them. Safety goggles would have SO caught on in Montevallo as a fashion statement.
The first day was absolutely exhausting, but things have gotten better. I know how to take advantage of lulls in production now (read: sitting down when there's no work), and I'm getting plenty of sleep. It's an unpleasant way to spend 40 hours a week, but I don't really have a choice. As Isaac Asimov said, "Miracles don't happen. Sweat happens". I can't expect the gods* to grant me a financial miracle to pay for college, so I have to work for it. Considering that I dislike getting dirty, factory work is definitely not what appeals to me. I'm not one of those people who has to work to feel good about themselves: the only reason I'm working there is for money, as distasteful as I find the premise. I'm doing so that I can go to university, enjoy life to its fullest again, and then start working in a library, where I'm working for something I BELIEVE in. This base "working for money" thing won't last too much longer.
To end on a somewhat amusing note. The people in management are all "white" and the peons all "black" -- with the exception of myself. The managers (who ride around in golf carts frowning at us) work from an office that is labeled "Overseers' Office". This carries an unfortunate connotation to a history major -- even more so considering that this place used to be a cotton mill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
