If You Love Me,

Make this happen

Reevaluating the shit

It is part of every responsible person's duty to periodically reevaluate their feelings and decisions on various experiences. For myself, this includes past relationships, conversations, career plans, and personal creeds. Of course, the most obvious things for me to reconsider occasionally are Julee, med school, and straight edge.
The Julee thing is fairly open and shut. I think that I maybe should have stuck with Danette that night at prom, but then everything nowadays would be upside down. I don't know that I'd even be able to have this sort of reflection. I'd probably be a kinesiology student still, for instance. I don't know, it's impossible to say what could have been. I still occasionally miss Julee, but I am mostly glad that I'm away from her. I have developed a new taste for women, and a new appreciation as well. I see now that if I were to meet Julee NOW, I wouldn't be all that interested in her, really.
Medical school is too vague to talk about. I wonder if it is the right decision, but I don't think that I'm ready to commit to either side.
Straight edge demands reflection. Any reason that I have for STAYING straight edge will probably be different than any reason I had for BECOMING straight edge. I wonder if I'm not depriving myself of something, as opposed to protecting. I still generally view alcohol and drugs and casual sex as detrimental to spiritual fulfillment, but is it really so black and white? Small amounts of alcohol or weed can actually have beneficial effects on the body (and the soul, according to some), so why do we take such a hard line stance? Should not the stance be against getting drunk as opposed to drinking? Is it true that you can not have an honest opinion on a situation to which you are unexperienced? Because I've never been high, can I really say that I don't see any spiritual betterment in doing so? This is not the same thing as abortion.
Someone who has never known love cannot say that it isn't important to them, I don't think. Someone who has never had sex cannot say that sex is not important to them, unless they throw an asterisk on the end of that statement. And what about the word love? In an effort to retain the sacred aspect of SOMEthing, I used to hold back my affection. I was separated. Kisses considered too valuable. Sex considered distant. The word itself saved for unique situations. Maybe we'd be better people if we didn't overload that word, or put too great of expectations on it. Why can't we redefine love? People claim that using the word too often devalues it. This may be true, and in fact probably is. But that's why we have poetry, isn't it? We can prove the level of our love (love is a spectrum, after all) by our actions, more so than we'd ever be able to with words. Sometimes it may be better for us to tell someone we love them, even if we don't LOVE THEM. Why is there some weird quota involved here? It feels like we attribute the word to a feeling we had with someone at some point, and then we only use it again when we achieve the same feeling or something greater. If we do THAT, I fear that we might be OVERvaluing the word. Why not just love everyone, but be aware that perhaps we love some people more than others, and that the word may not always mean the same thing every time we use it? The danger lies in the interpretation of the word by the other person. If I tell someone that I love them, they may not understand exactly how I feel. Once again, poetry comes into our lives and demands that single words only superficially represent the way that we feel. Didn't Adam tell me that the Japanese don't say "I love you," but rather use a word that basically means "loving" or is a verb for a loving feeling experienced at that moment? This makes more sense to me. In this way, we are not locking ourselves into a designated height of expression, but rather just saying "At THIS moment, I feel something for you that it tremendously positive and enjoyable." However, I wouldn't dare say that to a girlfriend who just said she loves me, lest she cut my testicles off.
So what's the point? Love is transient and subjective. How we feel at any point is only how we feel at THAT point. If I'm laying next to someone and I feel my mouth forming the words, "I love you," maybe I'll just say it. Or maybe I'll preface it and protect my own future heart by saying. "At this moment, I feel love for you." It's hard to say.
Is the whole straightedge thing similar to veganism? I don't know. I feel like since I have already categorized the animal products industry as a negative thing, I cannot partake at all. In other words, I've decided that it is bad, so for me to support it would just be hypocritical in the most damaging way. It isn't even really possible to say, "veganism is too hard, I'm going to just have a little bit of cheese now and then," because I know that it ISN'T too hard. Or maybe it is, but I like to think that we ought to allow things into our lives that we know are hard, because it makes us better. If it really IS too hard, then you don't just throw it out the window. You strive and strive for it, and actually do the best that you can. You don't just SAY that you're trying your hardest. I mean, I think that I'd rather you didn't try at all than to lie to everyone and lower your standards. The point though is that I don't necessarily consider alcohol and weed to be the same as like meat and fur. The meat and fur are damaging and destructive in their production, and my consumption thereof only encourages that. My support further enhances the idea that man has been given unchecked domination over all of creation. That we can decide who dies and why. We're all just creatures. Weed and/or alcohol are only as bad as the people who consume them. Getting drunk is damaging, but is DRINKING that bad? Some of the most respected and peaceful peoples in the history of peoples enjoyed the occasional drink (or smoke). Who else might I be? And besides, people who are straight edge are usually just scared, honestly. Scared of various things, but scared nonetheless. Maybe of their past, or their family's past. Maybe of the future, or a lack thereof. It's hard to say.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080327/ts_nm/merck_fda_dc

FDA probes suicide risk in Merck Singulair

15 minutes ago

U.S. health regulators are probing a possible connection between Merck & Co's Singulair asthma drug and suicidal behavior, the Food and Drug Administration said on Thursday.

The FDA said it is reviewing the issue after receiving reports of mood and behavior changes, suicidal thinking and suicide in patients who took the drug, which is used to treat stuffy nose, sneezing and other allergy symptoms as well as asthma.

The agency did not say how many reports it had received.

While no definite link to the drug has been established, the FDA said it has asked Merck to evaluate its data for more information on the risk. The agency said it expects it to take up to nine months to finish its own review.

The FDA said it is also reviewing reports of behavioral changes in patients taking other similar drugs, including AstraZeneca's Accolate and Critical Therapeutics Inc's Zyflo but has not yet decided whether further investigation is needed.

Merck earlier added information about the risk of tremors, depression, anxiousness and suicidal behavior to Singulair's label.

Representatives for Merck had no immediate comment.

Shares of Merck were off 31 cents at $44.39 in morning trade on the New York Stock Exchange.

(Reporting by Kim Dixon and Susan Heavey, editing by Dave Zimmerman)

Copyright © 2008 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

Copyright © 2007 Yahoo All rights reserved.Copyright/IP Policy |Terms of Service |Help |Feedback
NOTICE: We collect personal information on this site. To learn more about how we use your information, see our» Privacy Policy