Have you ever been alone in a crowded room when I'm here with you?

Have you ever been alone in a crowded room; well I'm here with you...

While browsing iTunes' store in search of the new Lights single, I came across 1 song by some independent artist by the same name. The first review (which made me laugh):

"It's rather unfortunate for this guy to have been screwed over like he has been. This song isn't THAT bad, but because iTunes messed up and put his song alongside the musical orgasm that is LIGHTS, it's a hideous monster by comparison."

Not a good idea to have the same name as another artist. Especially one as good as Valerie Poxleitner. One of the best things about her music so far: her songs are the kind that you can play at loud volumes through a good pair of speakers or headphones and the music will really engulf you in its awesomeness. "Musical orgasm" is actually a fairly accurate portrayal, in my opinion.

The reason for this, I might add, is because it's simply the kind of music that's conducive to being played really loud. Kinda like Stars. Rock music tends to sound abrasive when played loud and mellow acoustic music tends to sound weird because the music is too soft. But Lights is... symphonic. And symphonic music has so many rich textures of sound that when it's played loud, instead of getting "hit" with it (like you would with rock music), it flows around you like water. And that is awesome.

At least, that's how I see (hear) it.

From the perspective of someone who has not read the books, The Half-Blood Prince was amazing. Really really good. Being an even numbered film, I expected nothing less.

I was invited to take a facebook quiz today. The title?

"Are you LOL?"

Yeah, that's what I've always wanted to know.

Welcome back to the "I have a girl friend who has crazy Asian parents" debate/discussion.

Version 4.0 - The Pearl Edition (I apologize for posting twice in a row about the same person. It's more of a coincidence than anything else).

Not to be confused with version 1.0 - the Denise edition, version 2.0 - the Elaine edition, or version 3.0 - the Stephanie edition. But really, it's only the Pearl edition insofar as she happens to be girl in question for this particular case. I don't know that the actual dilemma is any different than the ones I remember debating about in the past.

I had a lengthy discussion with my parents on this topic yesterday (again). It was like going to court. I also didn't reach any solid solutions (again). Will we ever be able to work out all the bugs in the design? Maybe in version 5.0 or some later model. But! Progress is important. I would like to believe that we are slowly getting to a point where I can write a book on it (hey! Look at that, the idea for my next book! By the time my current project is done, we'll probably be on version 9.0 of this discussion; hopefully, by the then, I'll have solved the problem).

So what we have here is a case of girl feeling that her parents are too controlling, are critical of everything she does, and are not afraid to voice their opinions on these beliefs while simultaneously withholding praise when opportunities for praise arise. For those of you who are not familiar with girls with typical Asian parents and think this is an exaggeration, you'll have to take my word for this: it isn't. We wouldn't be on version 4.0 of this if it wasn't true. This has also been verified by my mother to be essentially true.

Since I am often the one who brings up the conversation and since I usually speak on behalf of the girl, I will be the prosecution. I am going to try my best to recreate yesterday's scenario (although it's getting hazy by now).

Prosecution:
The first thing you have to acknowledge is that Pearl is a good kid. She really is. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with her as a daughter that you can criticize her upon. She works hard and got into a good university. She loves her parents. She's been working all her life to please them. She's not an alcoholic, a drug user or a smoker. She's not involved in gambling or crime. As far as "big-ticket" items that are red flags for criticism, she's practically spotless. And in fact, I believe that this is the reason why so many of her arguments with her parents strike her as incredibly petty, unfair, and hardly worth the fuss that her parents make over it. Parents will find faults with their children, NO MATTER WHAT. So obviously, when there's nothing overtly wrong with you, there's nothing to mask/overshadow your smaller and more negligible faults, which, as negligible as they might be, are faults nonetheless.

Defense:
Point conceded.

Prosecution:
But fine, so her parents are critical of what they perceive to be flaws. That's normal. You're critical of my flaws all the time. At the same time though, you at least make the effort to take pride in my accomplishments. Don't you think it's important, as parents, to reinforce your child? I mean, I understand partly where this comes from. I'm pretty sure that her parents have heard a lot of horror stories about "parents who spoiled their child" part of it has to do with them vowing never to fall into this trap and then overdoing it in the process. All the same, positive reinforcement is important!

Defense:
Point also conceded. But you have to keep in mind that the way Pearl's parents were brought up was very different from now. In typical Chinese culture, parents DON'T praise their kids. You're expected to do the right things. God forbid, *I* was never praised for doing something good when I young.

Prosecution:
But they moved to Canada! You can't move to Canada and live in a China-bubble! If you move to Canada, you have to be prepared to accept Canadian values. Or AT LEAST, let your child grow up with Canadian values. Otherwise, they'll be forever comparing themselves to their friends! If you wanted your child to grow up the way you did, why on earth did you leave?! Pearl's not asking for special treatment. She's just asking to be treated like any other Canadian child.

Defense:
Yes, but you have to consider that her parents have lived in China ALL THEIR LIFE. This isn't just something they can simply change as soon as they move here. And trust me, they ARE changing. It's probably just not fast enough for someone who's grown up in Canada to realize. What they're doing now is all they've ever known! In THEIR eyes, they've probably already made a lot of concessions on Pearl's behalf. It's just that Pearl doesn't know it. All she sees is that she has a lot less freedom than her friends. And while this may be true, she also probably has a lot more freedom than the kids in China. So her parents ARE adapting. It's just a classic case of the parents thinking she's ungrateful because to them, they're already conceding a lot of their values, and Pearl, while not ungrateful, probably not realizing this and thinking that her parents are simply the kind of parents who LIKE suffocating their child, which you know is not the case.

Prosecution (credit for this argument goes to my brother):
But in a case between a child and a parent, where each party thinks the other is ungrateful, aren't PARENTS the ones who are supposed to be mature? Between Pearl and her parents, which party would you expect to be more understanding? Her parents! I mean, that's what maturity is isn't it? Isn't it actually part of the job description of parents to understand that your kids won't understand you now... they will later. Where do you find a scenario where the CHILD is the one who is supposed to make the effort to be understanding?

Defense:
This is absolutely true (my mother tends to agree more enthusiastically with my brother's points because he makes it seem like less of a victory for my mother to concede anything... whereas I admittedly make a big deal out of winning. You can tell my mother and I argue(d) a lot, especially when I was younger). But like I said, in the Chinese culture, you aren't SUPPOSED to understand your parents. You are supposed to consent. And your parents weren't required to explain themselves to you. I know it's not the way it's done here and it's not the way you or Pearl were brought up. But again, their parents have grown up with this system their entire life.

Prosecution:
You know, this conversation we're having right now... Pearl says she doesn't have talks like this with her parents. Apparently, they don't communicate. Maybe if they communicated, there would be less misunderstanding.

Defense:
Apparently, this point needs to be hammered in further: THIS IS NOT DONE IN CHINESE CULTURE! Like I said, in Chinese culture, parents say, kids do. It's only here that communication plays such an important role in parental-child relationships.

Prosecution:
And apparently, this point needs to be hammered in as well: THEY ARE NOT IN CHINA! Did they miss the sign that said "Bienvenue au Canada" when they got off their boat/plane?! Did they not realize that Pearl was growing up in a Canadian culture? You cannot send your kid into a Canadian school and expect to maintain a Chinese environment at home. This does not work.

Defense:
We are at crossroads. It looks like at this point, we just have to wait until one party understands the other better.

Prosecution:
But meanwhile, Pearl is breaking down! She can't even get her priorities straight because she's so concerned about making sure that her parents approve. How is she supposed to figure out what she wants to do in life (she is, after all, in university) if she always has to constantly worry about what her PARENTS want her to do in life?

Defense:
Then she just has to weather the storm. Eventually, they will understand one another better. It's almost inevitable.

Prosecution:
So what am I supposed to tell her?

Defense:
Whatever she needs to hear in order to work through this.

Prosecution:
That told me everything and nothing. I think the case is pretty much closed until the next time.

END

That's the only solution? Wait it out? What about my unhappy friend?

I'm going to do something I don't do very often: defend douchebag behavior.

If you know anything about me, that should pique your interest. But first, some background.

I have had similar conversations - twice with Pearl and maybe a few bazillion times with Karen - about the ways that guys respond when you either a. tell them you have a boyfriend, or b. tell them you're not interested in dating them. I mean, it's possible to conflate the two if you want. It basically amounts to the same thing. Usually, "a" will lead to "b" although admittedly, "b" doesn't always lead to "a". But that is neither here nor there. In both cases, I have heard Pearl and Karen tell me about how annoying it is that guys will suddenly... not necessarily stop talking to them, but at least... I dunno, lose interest in hanging out or something of the sort.

This is understandably annoying. After all, when guys do this, it really does seem like they're only talking to you in order to, if not "get in your pants" (which I always take pains to point out, is not necessarily the case), then at least in the pursuit of a relationship. And this can obviously get annoying when you're not looking to enter into a relationship (with them).

Now, Pearl sometimes talks about how that's the reason why she sometimes debates to herself about setting her relationship status on facebook. And Karen has ranted about how she doesn't like telling guys that she's not looking for a relationship because when she does that, some otherwise "good" guys (as she calls them) tend to lose interest in "being friends". And here's where it gets interesting. Up until yesterday afternoon, my response has always been the same. And that response has always been, do you really want to be friends with the kind of guy who will stop talking to you just because he finds out that you're either in a relationship or not looking? I mean, you (the plural you) say that you don't like telling guys that you're in a relationship or not looking because "otherwise good guys" stop talking to you. If they stop talking to you, then these are not actually "good" guys are they? Like I said to Pearl, if a guy sees your facebook relationship status and stops talking to you, then he's not really a guy you want to hang out with is he? You should be glad that your relationship status is filtering out all the douchebags and only leaves you with genuinely "good" guys; not just the guys who you, in your innocent youth and stupidity, mistakenly THINK to be a good guy when any genuinely good guy will able to tell you he's a sleazebag from a mile away.

That has always been my stance on this whole issue. Because as I always say, being "nice" is a perspective. You do not decide to be nice or not nice depending on the situation. Any guy who's only nice in some situations, but suddenly becomes a douchebag in others, isn't really a nice guy. And I mean, that's STILL my stance on the whole thing. I didn't have an epiphany yesterday that somehow justified douchebagotry. But I did have an epiphany yesterday that might, at least, help girls understand exactly how the situation stands from the viewpoint of a guy (since girls are notoriously fond of thinking they know while being notoriously wrong every time they try. But I exempt the girls who read my blog; you tend to be girls of the unique variety so it's possible that you already know this).

In order to illustrate how my epiphany came about, I do have to admit that I seem to have developed a pash for Pearl. Here's hoping she doesn't read this. And for those of you who do read this, don't tell her! But to the point. Now, everyone knows that I'm big on principles. So I know that it's wrong to stop talking to/hang out less with Pearl just because she has a boyfriend. I just spent the last 4 paragraphs detailing why this is so. I also know that I've become a positive influence on her life. So I would never stop talking to her, or trying to broaden her horizons, or making a difference in her life. It's simply contrary to my nature. I can't not be part of her life if she appreciates it and wants me to...

But MAN, is it hard sometimes.

It really is. I mean, I'm pretty much as nice and considerate as they come. Yes, I am sarcastic, yes I am an intellectual elitist, yes I can be abrasive if you're a douchebag. But those are pretty on-the-surface traits that I can set aside if I need. Fundamentally, I'm a pretty decent person (some might argue too nice and too considerate for my own good sometimes) and I think most people will acknowledge this about me. And even still, for someone like me, you do realize how difficult it can be to cultivate anything deeper (friendship-wise) than a casual friendship with a girl you like enough. It's just... think of it this way: it's like cultivating a garden that will only ever bloom halfway. Sure, some people will argue that at least you get to see the seeds grow into stems and you might even see the pretty little buds with their closed petals - and that is reward enough for the effort you put into planting the seeds and watering them everyday. But a lot of people would also rather not plant a garden at all if the plants will never reach full bloom (or worse/more accurately, if the plants will only bloom for someone else).

This is what happens when guys decide not to talk to girls who have no interest in them or are already in a relationship. Yes, it's a terrible thing to do. Yes, it's a sign that they're probably at least a partial douchebag (if not a giant one). Yes, a truly nice guy won't stop talking to you just because they have no hope of dating you. These are all true facts. And yes, you have every right to be indignant that guys would behave in such a way. BUT, please do keep in mind that you're asking a guy to cultivate a garden that will never fully bloom for him. You're asking him to be grateful for at least being able to see the stems and the buds and being satisfied that they played a part in its growth, without ever seeing you in full bloom. Please understand that THIS IS HARD. And while we know that nothing good in life ever comes easy, you also have to recognize, to use one of my favorite analogies, that it's like squeezing juice. A lot of guys simply decide that, in the case of being friends with a girl they really like, the juice is simply not worth the squeeze.

There's a quotation (anonymous, so Caitlyn, don't ask me who penned it) that goes: "If you truly love [care about] someone, then the only thing you want for them is to be happy - even if it's not with you." While this is substantially correct, you also have to be a saint to truly embrace this viewpoint. Boys with raging hormones are HARDLY your typical saints. So at the end of everything, even though I wouldn't personally do what these guys do, I can hardly bring myself to condemn their behavior is harshly as I used to.

Who decided that the piano belonged in the room directly below mine?! Impossible to do anything music-related while the damn thing is being played!

So far, I have liked all the even numbered Harry Potter films better than the odd numbered ones. As such, I have high hopes for this 6th film.

I'm also slightly anxious about whether or not my informal writing piece might accidentally follow/resemble parts of The Perks of Being a Wallflower. I haven't yet met a single person who's read it who hasn't told me that it reminds them of me in some form or another. But what am I supposed to do? I'm just writing honestly. I can hardly be faulted for having similar characteristics to some fictional boy.

I am beginning to think that I really should have done my informal writing project on manuscript rather than the computer. It would have been a slower process no doubt but it's not as if I'm blazing through the thing anyway. It's not just for posterity's sake. For some reason, I feel like when I write on a computer, I have to format while I'm writing. I feel like I have to be consistent with the way I write, not just what I write. And I would have much preferred to worry about format in a second draft after I get all the content out in a first draft.

Oh well, you live and learn I guess.

I have noticed something about my alma mater. And it concerns me a little bit.

I am beginning to realize that Queen's has tendency to wash its hands of "unpleasantness". They don't like to be held accountable, even when it's impossible for them not to be. Some of you know my stance on the whole "Queen's canceling homecoming" issue; my stance being that it's a bad idea. Because let's say the homecoming party happens anyway (in September). I think Queen's just wants to be able to throw their hands up and say "Hey, it's not OUR event anymore. Don't blame us." But as I've told people countless times, people will still blame them. Because they will associate the event with Queen's students. Right? You can wash your hands of it all you want; your students still represent your institution and if your students have a massive street party, it will still reflect badly on Queen's University. But Queen's... they're experts on diverting blame - one need only read up on the T-4 scandal, the racism scandal, the "thought police" scandal, the "we're a gazillion dollars over-budgeted for the Queen's Center" scandal, or any other scandal (AMS election), to realize that at Queen's, they like to kick blame around like a hot potato - only to have it land in some poor unsuspecting lap who then gets branded as the anti-christ (cue Jacob/Suhail).

So why express my indignation now? Well, I've been expressing it for the past 10 months. But it recently came up again; this time, with the faculty of education. You see, the practicum office is responsible for arranging the teaching placements for all the candidates. We spend about the equivalent of 4 months in these placements so you know, it's rather important. Yesterday, they sent out placement information and about 100 or so students don't have a placement school. That's right. It's not that they didn't get their first or second choice in terms of school board, but an actual case of "We can't find you a school... anywhere". And to all these unfortunate people, they send a standard email. Among one of the important things they stress in this email is: do not contact the practicum office.

Yeah ok. So WHO are they supposed to talk to if, god forbid, they find this news unsettling? Because you know, it's not bad enough that they couldn't find you a placement in your 4th choice of school board (your 4th choice likely being one that's already far less optimal than your first 3). But now they expect you to take the news that you don't even have a school to teach in, even disregarding distance/convenience, from a stock, standard, email. What kind of practicum office screws you over and then refuses to talk to you about it?! Take some responsibility for crying out loud!