Through the course of my "Blogging Around", I saw Thomas's very precise, succinct comment on his blogging experience. He stated roughly that although the concept has it's pitfalls, the benefits of casual free-flow of thought writing are very nice. I responded as such:

"Thomas, I thought you had some great thoughts on here. Whereas I normally take a long time to express a point when writing it, you got the jist of my feelings regarding blogging in some very few sentences. I too feel like the informality (though, yes, the reigns do need to be kept somewhat tight) makes for easy writing and some real thinking that isn't TOO forced. Of course we're going to have some days where we just don't know what to write about a certain assignment, but at least this way we don't have to sound like calculating, expository geniuses while trying to pretend as though we do know what to say.

And by the way, great cartoon. Poor cheerleaders."

Secondly, I responded to Jon's blog, which talked about free-thinking, how he's come to understand his pattern of thinking, and his concerns over the overall "restricted" assignment process of blogging in Mr. Allen's class.

"Hey Jon, love the post. I found it interesting how, right off the bat, you said you felt blogging taught you something about your own thinking. The reason I found that...interesting, I suppose, is because I've never looked at it that way. You've now kind of inspired me to go back and really try to rember WHY I think the way I currently do vs. merely know how I currently think.
Regarding your thoughts on how it's "free flow thinking", I totally agree.
About that last bit though? I recognize that sometimes the prompts and forced, and how that's, well...inconvenient, but many people seem to wish that they hadn't had to do them in the first place. And when thinking about that, I have to disagree a little bit, because school isn't always going to suit our thoughts or needs, nor should it. I think these were made to make us think and, if I may...uncomfortable in our thinking, so that we really examine things to come to a truly thought-out answer. If we had it our way and could just write about anything in english class, I doubt there'd be any challenge to the process and I suspect there'd be little gain from it.
No, the gain that Mr. Allen hoped for may not have been as big as he wished (and that's just a guess). Still, I think it was worth the try. And overall, I think you have a great flow and natural vibe to your blogs, as you do whern you speak. I hope you keep yours up and running :]"

Metacognition: This Year's Blog

This year's blog process has been one that I've enjoyed. Granted, I felt a bit forced at times, but when something has to be done for school, it's got to be done for school, and I understand that. We can't blog about whatever we well please in this process or else, well, I'll ramble endlessly about art and love, someone else'll ramble about birds, and someone else'll ramble about how this is "like, oo my god, the biggest waste of time I've like ever spent on homework, Mr. Allen!" (This, of course, is a guess. I do, however, think I could find some people who might agree with me.)
In any event, I've enjoyed this process as a way of doing work that doesn't require me to research and doesn't have the teacher's opinions or intended "lessons learned" as the guiding factors of a grade. I need to be awake and cognitive in class, and be ableeto read directions, and, as long as no complications occur, I can do this assignment. I love the fact that the structure by which we're held day in and day out isn't necessarily forced or upheld; I feel it brings a certain unhindered flow of thought into the blog that one wouldn't get elsewhere. When I'm writing in the blog, I'm surprised that thoughts just FLOW out of me. Honestly, I feel like it's harder to write an essay because one feels forced and restricted in the many different ways that essays control/guide the writer (which I don't think I need to explain) and so perhaps it would be a better idea, as an experiment,, to give an assignment, have students blog about it, find their central focus among all the psychobabble, and have them construct an essay from that. No, I'm not a teacher, so I don't find that something I'd sit up at night thinking how to do. But if I was a teacher, that might be how I'd go about things.
In the end, except for the amount of cursing that I'm assuming isn't allowed in school blogs, blog-speak is US speak. It is, more or less, how students speak, unless we're using correct grammar for brownie points or not typing "lol" at every sentence (and we've all wanted to at one time or another). But you probably already know this, Mr. Allen. I'd be surprised if you didn't. So WHY am I telling you? Well--and with my luck, you've probably already deduced this yourself--we come out writing and using writing skills and learning to improve and turning in legible, intelligent, and thoughtful pieces almost every week, and, this being the kicker, without a classic format.
Maybe it's just us.
I know it's not just me (Blogging around has showed me that).
But I seriously think this blog of ours has allowed us, or at least myself, as students, to get the best of both worlds. And through this experience, I've learned that not only can one be unrestricted (outside of a desired subject about which to write) in writing and still be effective, but that it can be done over, and over, and over again, without obsessive control, from day one. I've enjoyed watching myself be a part of that realization, knowing that I can produce "good" information just through being told to "write", and that my education can be taught by a teacher through a method not so intense that students come crawling out of the wall shouting "We don't need no education" (as some inevitably do, sometimes).
This is a great model for continuing material learning in class and for keeping students' writing abilities up to par. What else can I say?

Blogging Around

The first blog I responded to was Jamie's. She talked about Growth, in an intellectual sense. She spoke of how we, at earlier points in life, frequently dismiss things because we think we've gained all there is to gain and there's nothing else that could possibly fit its way into our head, because there's simply "nothing more to learn" from it. Looking back, after having read Michael K, she realized that this was not the case, and she's grown to appreciate what she previously dismissed, to which I responded:

"Alright. So. Jamie Tolmatsky could kind of, sort of, be my hero in this blog's case.
Why?
Because (switching to speaking to the writer, now) you 1) acknowledged the fact that at many times people (and especially teens) overlook things because they think they can see everything to be taken from it and find there's nothing to learn, and
2) You've personally recognized that particular ideaology and chosen to move away from it (I never find enough people who think like this and it literally made me incredibly happy to see. It was refreshing, to say the least.)
Oh, and 3)--You actually connected that ideology with something we did in English class. Personally, I can't remember the faintest thing about the "Stone" poem and I'm sure some of the lessons from Michael K, though he's been my favorite character, will wash away over time in the tide of my brain. So the fact that you can make these connections that're required of us and make an actual, valid, (and, if you continue to think this way throughout your life) life-changing distinction from it is...awesome. Keep doin' what you're doin', a'right?"

My second comment was in response to Leanne's Metacognition blog, which showed her frustration with writing a story that felt forced and not entirely hers, hoping for the best in the end. Hoping to clear things up, I responded, saying:
Dear Leannaaa,

In a way, I agree with you. I understand that it sucks to not be able to finish the story you originally intended to write, only to be told to rewrite most of it in another direction, whereupon you feel you've lost that creative drive and you miss your voice.
It's like being given a chance to do something you'll enjoy and then, once you've had a taste of it, someone takes it, alters it, and tells you to enjoy what you can out if it, because they know it'll be better in the long run...somehow.
Now, here's the thing.
I really, really think you should write out the whole story as you originally planned it (if you're still interested in it as it first was). Write it with all the language devices you can, with all your specific twists and turns, with whatever you thought was significant to you, and be able to say that you finished it. You finished YOUR story.
Then, I think you should read it aloud. Read it aloud, find all the awkward sentences and phrases (and no, not "awkward teenage dialogue *chuckle chuckle*", but sentences that just...don't seem right) and try to fix those. Use everything that you've learned so far in all your English classes to make it seem as professional as possible. Because, at least for me, how comfortable we are with our story is determined by how good it sounds, how well it stands up in the boxing ring of criticism against published bigwigs. Of course we may not be necessarily good enough or experienced enough to be published as proifessionals yet, but it's a good thing to base your writing on. In the end, you have to be comfortable with it, to be able to read it and not grimace at what sounds strange or juvenile.
You've got to be willing to be your own critic, I think. Very few people like to be criticised by others who think they have a much better idea of how THEIR story should be written. And that's a valid dislike. In the end, the critic represents the public. So, right now, we have that in Mr. Allen. It doesn't take a genius to see that you're not happy over the laborious revisions, that you want your story to be told, and not a teacher's.
So refresh yourself. Being tied down by criticisms and rules and regulations while writing a story that isn't even yours has GOT to be inhibiting you and your creativity, and that's the last thing anyone wants. So again, refresh yourself. Step back, shake your head violently, and re-write. (Nah, you probably don't want to do this now. But the summer can get kind of boring some days. Maybe try it then :].) And write out your story. Read it aloud, coax the awkward out of the first -draft sentences, and think about all the ways it could be done better. If you enjoy storytelling, and feel like it's worth it to start and finish something so that you can truly call it YOURS (and that feels gooood), then try that out. And no matter how good it may be for the public, it won't really matter; it's your story, written by you, for you. Written freely, happily, and with an open mind.
And, you know...you always have that other "school" one to fall back on ;].
Capice?

Metacognition: Short Story

Writing my short story took a lot of improvisation. I had specific events panned out, but not there exact moments. Even some of my most touching or important moments in the story came along as I was writing, but had not been a part prior to then. It came in a steady flow. At time,s I would have to stop and think "what direction is this going in, to what purpose, etc." I'm very happy I stopped and did that at times, because sometimes I got lost in my story.
Anyway, there was no outline on which I checked off every "story landmark, dialogue, etc." This was a rough outline by which I wrote, and I'm happy about that. The story didn't come off as mechanical (at least to me, at the moment), and the characters had voices of their own. Dialogue flowed from my fingers almost effortlessly, as nothing was pressured on the characters. Earlier on, I had to think about dialogue, I had to choreograph tension, and I had to stop to be sure what came next fit the general feel. It showed. Some parts of the original draft I am proud of, but others are, as we'd say in french "pire". Absolutely horrible. You can see that I over thought and though it was meant to be an early A+ effort, I felt the opposite was the result. With the finished version, some of those old elements are kept, and an entire scene is kept, but still almost extensively edited. There was the feel from the rest of the story that it then had to fit with, so that was the only time I stopped and thought and edited with an unfeeling scalpel.
In the end, I couldn't stop myself. Constantly playing, or rather, manipulating writing techniques new and old, trying to display the image in the best way possible, I had to finish the story, but it was going to take longer than expected. I had to do my character justice, and I had to develop his anguish, his blind ingratiation of the love he's been given, and his realization (or lack thereof) that he must make things right. Though it took 12 pages to take him through that humbly set but daringly intimate inward quest, I felt it had to be done. Granted, it always feels close to perfect at the original finish, but I certainly think that that is about the right length for his story. The end was accomplished. I believe the necessary steps to take him there were put in place and taken. I am confident, and I loved the experience.
So now, the ball is in your court, Sr. Allen.

Metacognition: Jane Eyre Essay.

Whoof.
It was a doozy.
Although suprisingly not nearly as difficult as I had expected. (Then again, when one specializes in love, it probably shouldn't be such a hard thing to write and ruminate about, no?)
And that's what I experienced this project as being: one big written rumination. I'm not sure whether that was the intended feel to get from it (and I'm almost positive it wasn't) but hey, it's what happened. And it's something I've never experienced on an essay before.
I don't want to say the method Tessa and I developed was haphazard or...aimless, but it developed just as a conversation would. We were to write a dialogue about the GENERAL theory of love and I feel it developed as such; after all, I don't know many people who talk in focused, scripted essay speak.
I feel with this we accomplished a comfortable, authentic dialogue (or trialogue) beyween the characters and discovered a lot about love and it's different modes of existence and requirements, etc. I feel we kept the characters on a tight enough leash to not seem rambling and idiotic, but we also gave them enough room to explore their previous actions and emotions, now that they are "free".
Is till feel, however, a bit unaccomplished regarding the whole essay. I'm not sure there was a strong enough structure, though I feel the desired effect was accomplished. In the end, I left with an empty "has this really been done right?" feeling, probably because I'd never done an essay of this easy style before (and I say easy because I love dialogue and find it very easy to write.)
In the end, I can say that I felt I excercised a whole different pair of muscles and, although it felt awkward and I'm not sure I excercised those weights 100 % correctly, I feel I came out of it with a very appreciated literary experience.

Captured Thought: Livre d'Amour

Yesterday, while with my friends (one, my best friend, a girl; the other, her boyfriend, a boy) and their romantic habits, walking through the streets of Glenview like a bunch of late-night delinquents, I was struck by an epiphany (actually, the epiphany came hours earlier, but this setting is far funnier, and entirely true).
My epiphany? My brilliant idea destined to revolutionize the fiction industry--a novel about love, written by a young'in, and written for young and old alike? Thanks for asking! It struck me as I walked that late-night street: alone in the dark, unfortunately listening to my friends quite blissfully showing/macking their profound love for one another.
A great image, I know. But I was there.
Anyway, "revenons au mouton", as my french romantic-minded cousins would say; it struck me that this frustration I'd been feeling (that had been slightly amplified by the sheer bliss of my enamored buds, though one could say they themselves are quite beyond the budding stage of their feelings for one another) was probably because of pent-up moments, feelings, thoughts, and memories not yet driven to the point of sheer beaten-to-death awkwardness with my exes.
Oh.
If one hasn't been taking notes of my recent history or brain patterns, one should take into account that I'm very relationship-oriented. A lot of "ex" stuff floating around in life. Yes, it's quite grand.
Anyway, I was struck with the idea to write a book, a chronicle of a disenchanted lover of love. This is one with many exes with whom he has left things unsaid, and who finds himself lost, unable to feel that emotion most essential to him-- all because of tinfoil-wrapped, two month-old, leftover love. And believe me, that leftover love stanks, and it probably doesn't even want to be eaten. In fact, he's sure it doesn't; being revisited is the last thing it wants, but he still finds its aroma savory and sweet. Enough metaphor? I believe the image has been put across as to just what this boy is feeling.
Anyway, he has to do something with himself. Something. Lazy, imprudent, rude or just plain drastic, he doesn't really care. Something. Something is all he needs, he thinks, to set him he free--if that's even what he wants--and boy, is he afraid of that, too. That something that he decides on, though foolish, is this: full frontal, uninhibited, face-to-face, surprisal meetings with those he has fallen in--and, except for one--out of love with. No surprise cell phone calls late at night, no "let's set up a meeting" nonsense, but straight-up, doorstep style surprise encounters.
No, it's not a good idea in the least.
Yes, there are better, more civil, far less creepy ways to reconcile and free the soul with one's lost loves. But...since when has that been worth anything, and since when has that level of creativity been sufficient for a novel? Anyhow, I am highly determined, if not destined, to write this novel,
Then, of course, I find out that there is a John Cusack movie revolving around a similar theme.
Well, to that great inconvenience, I say that I am going to go even DEEPER into that iconic quest, I will put even MORE sinister, sickening pressure on the main character and his contingents (which is far too cold of a word for those for whom he has felt things so deep and burning and passionate), and I will make it known that one does not have to be an adult to be able to express onself in such a manner.
And who knows? They might even make a better movie about my book, non?
I think it's a great captured thought, a formidable starting line. Wish me luck.

Dialectics: Love And Faithfulness

When in love, it's now assumed (for men and women) that both partners remain faithful to one another. Regardless of the circumstances, if they are continually bound by a serious relationship, they would be looked down upon for being unfaithful.
In writing my short story, however, I explore the mind of someone who falls out of love, and someone who could very well become unfaithful, but is bound to his partner by guilt.
In this situation, love has been lost. It is still fresh in his memory, he knows it was very valid, but he feels he has to put on a mask to be a faithful "lover" of sorts. When one is engaged to someone, the common understanding is that the two should be in love, like these two. But when put in this main character's position, one may likely choose to bury their emotions, and stay faithful. This is commonly the nature of how we act; when we discover we are in love, people frequently hide it for a while, waiting/hoping that the person with which they are in love will turn up and proclaim their feelings for them as well, and when someone falls out of love, they may bottle it up for the sake of (take your pic) kids, their economic future, the relationship/freindship as a whole, and the possibility of a change of heart.
But, in seeing this, we know that being faithful does not always mean we have to be in love. Just as some people in love will choose to be unfaithfull because they are, say, sex addicts, some people with no mutual feelings will be faithful. They may do it just because the idea of having a real functional relationship, regardless of emotion involved, means more to them than to be in a relationship in which love is truly a foundation, without which it cannot stand. The knowledge of having a relationship is worth more than the love that comes with it, in other words. That, at least, is the shallow possibility.
In trying to find a solution to this, one would be dealing with matters of he heart, AKA (almost) uncontrollable chemistry, chance, and how attractive you can possibly at any given moment without looking like you're trying too hard. Also, faced with the knowledge that one's partner no longer feels love for them, but is remaining faithful (for whatever their reason meay be, as explained above), one would likely NOT do what is recommended (end the relationship, realize that there are more fish in the sea) and decide to stay with his/her "lover" until the ship can simply noo longer stay afloat. What they don't know is that it's likely it already has sunk, and they're both just waiting for it to simply become too uncomfortable for a relationship to exist. Many of us can relate to this from experience, but still don't exactly which action is right--work at a relationship and really try to keep it going withouu exploring other avenues, or end it because the love simply isn't there anymore.
I deny that the time during which someone has been in a relationship really matters in the decision-making; one can be in a relatinshiip for less than a month and find they are in love regardless.
I deny any feeling that would suggest exploring other people is a good decision; an honest, true, and faithful break is better for people's affection cordiality than anything else (at least, this is what we mostly find to be truth.)
So what should one do? How can these two terms, these two states of being and action, exist together without any faults? Can we make a general statement and rule in the best interests of ever relationship? Well, as some famous person once said, "for every complicated problem, there is a simple, and wrong solution." I, for one, agree with this wholeheartedly. Every relationship must solve its problems individdually, as they are all different (if only incredibly slightly) and they all deal with different personalities. So, there is not one solution for everything, for maintaining that love and faithfulness go together, and one is not left without the other. But, some guidelines may be good to keep in mind:
-Do not cheat. Do not. You hhve made a commitment and even sociopaths should know this is morally wrong.
-If you're going to say "I love you," you'd better mean it. A lie as big as that can not go down well, I believe many people can tell you.
-The person you are in a relationship with hopefully loves you just as much as you do them. If this is not the case, one has to let go. Maybe then, they may see what they were missing, and maybe in leaving them, you will see what you were missing in the outside world.
Maybe.
And this is where love always gets messy.

Blogging around

In this segment of "Blogging Around", I reviewed Leanne's and Emily's posts on Best of Week and What If?
Leanne's post covered the concept of sight, and perceptions. She spoke of the blind man in "Cathedral", who in some ways knew more and could see more than the close-minded, bitter husband, whose eyes were working perfectly well. Leanne adressed the fact that sometimes, seeing things, especially the brutal things of this world, can affect someone more than actually experiencing the same event. I found this whole post very intriguing, and wrote:
"Leanne, I thought this was really interesting(your favorite word ;]). Especially your last quote, "And if you can see, don't miss up the opportunity to see everything." It's strange to hear that for me, because I find we can almost never truly see everything there is to see, though we may try so hard and focus on knowing all. In fact I wonder, is it better to attempt to see everything, and be dissapointed at the slightest surprise once it is revealed that one cannot see all, or rather to be content in the knowledge that is presented to yourself, while still seeking to have a better understanding? Wow, that's a lot of words. Anyway, I enjoyed your insight and certainly agree that those who cannot see may have an entirely different outlook on the world; why is it that blind people are not more commonly heard of in philosophical discussion, I wonder?
I vote next year's freshman should have an intelligent blind student; maybe we can all learn something."

Emily's post on What If: Short Stories revolved around the pressures of finding a hidden meaning and being forced to put them in her stories, and how that may affect the outcome for the worse. I have felt this frustration many times, and I felt that this new short story assignment was just the one for the job of erasing those fears from our minds for the time being. So, in response to Emily's post, I noted:
"Emiqua,
I feel you. Well, actually, I'm coming at the situation from a slightly different point of view, but I've been exactly where you are before. I think we can relax a little bit on worrying over whether or not Mr. Allen will ask us to *insert hidden meaning here*, because I feel as though if we follow the directions, gestures, and form as content, meaning will come into the things we write, hopefully almost as reflex. If not, no big deal, non? As you said, we're supposed to write a story with STORY and CONTENT, and not a labourious over-emphasis on the lesson of the day. Perfect. I too agree that ever since I heard the words "hidden meaning" and "deep" slither out of a teacher's mouth, it added a whole layer of inauthentic and forced meaning to something that we'd rather just enjoy/interpret for ourselves, and to try to apply that to one's own short story may just be crossing a line. A meaning shouldn't be forced, I find, and if you end up having one, wouldn't it be better to discover after having written the story? I'd love a moment like that, personally.
Anyway, I think this is the perfect kind of assignment for letting all those worries go, and I think you're doing just the right thing by sitting down, using what you know, and just trying to make the best short story you can. Leave the deeper meaning treasure-hunt to the poor 6th graders who just discovered that literature will mean getting beat over the head with political context and "hidden insight" for the next three years-- we've got fun stories to write. :]"

Best of Week

The best of this week, without a doubt, had to be the commencement of short stories.
I'm going to come out and be quite honest: this past week was v-show week, and I was thus averaging about four hours (if that) of sleep per night. Alors, devine quoi, I was very very ready to pass out in class almost every day, as Mr. Allen so truthfully pointed out after hearing my use of the name "Blobert". Under normal circumstances, I regret to say that I probably would have. I have a strong will, but I think my eyelids prove a tad stronger in the end (I've experienced it in French and Biology class, which I'm not proud of).
Thus, something of true greatness would have been necessary to keep me up and slightly energized, no? You are correct, and that something of immense greatness came in the new unit of Short Stories.
I've always been a fan of ictional writing, but never a fan of short stories. From an ignoramus point of view, of course; I've never really read more then on or two in my life. All I know is that I love to write fiction, don't have enough time to write a full novel (which I've had in the works since this summer), and that this was my grand opportunity. I'll just deal with the reading of short stories without protest; hey, it's better than heart of darkness, no? I thought. I was quite wrong. Not about it being better than HoD, because they are more enjoyable to me, without a doubt, but moreso wrong about me having to "put up" with reading short stories. I did nothing of the sort. In fact, I was opened up to a new world of short, meaning-unemphasized, literary candy (which is a very strange way to put it, and I'm slightly ashamed I just wrote that, to tell you the truth).
I've definitely enjoyed every short story we've read; I've enjoyed their craft, I've enjoyed thinking them over (and NOT for the purpose of finding the "hidden meaning"), and I've enjoyed the fact that, well, they're NOT long--they're NOT a chore. Oh, and did I mention I'm no longer a bumbling, truthful-opinionless ignoramus in this subject?
So, I have to thank Mr. Allen and his curriculum for this week. And though that has an air of suck-up insincerity-for-brownie-points to it, that statment is very sincere. Honestly, even when I dislike what we may be reading, I am always somewhat amused and interested while in class. I really enjoy lerning in there. And now, after months of books that are quite difficult and not exactly the most enthralling to a classroom audience such as ours, we are given this creative respite. Well, it may not be so much of a break for others. But for myself, at least, this is the most exciting part of the year so far. It's a gift, a time for indulgence. I had another, far superior word for it, but it vanished the second I looked into the sun and found myself doing an Obama-style "determined, sternly optimistic look into the future".
Anyway. Thank you, Mr. Allen. I have a feeling that this whole process may prove to be a "best of the quarter" as well.

What If: Teachers were personal?

Well, this idea certainly didn;t come to me because of a discussion in class. But it's something that revolves around the thought we put into learning things outside ourselves and the teacher's "responsibility" to teach through dictation.
Now, I don't at all think that there isn't something to elarn, some experience to be had, some moment worth enduring in every second of life, and thus I DO feel as though every moment in class, as well, is in some way valuable. Just ebcause you are there and are being exposed to education, you will be formed into a different person, and hopefully for the better. And who's to say what the best method of teaching to get to that point is?
Well, I'm not going to assume as though I know.
But, I'd like to believe that there is a teacher out there, somehow, somewhen, sometimes, who asks his/her students what they are thinking.
No, not what they are thinking regarding a specific curriculum (unless that is, in fact, what the student is thinking about). I mean a teacher who comes up out of his /her essential time and asks a random student, maybe the one in the front row who's still not not (double negative) listening, but doesnm't seem to be all that enthralled, and says, "hey, you. Yeah you, the one wit' da head. Tell us what you're thinking."
It's entirely possible that the student isn't consciously thinking of anything. But say he has to answer. Or maybe, the appeal of hearing himself talk presents an opportunity that is just too good to pass up. Either way, he/she will begin talking, and number one, we can gather that the first thing he starts talking about may not have been what he was thinking of before, but something he/she feels is important. Or its' something being used to cover up what's really nagging at them.
Anyway, throughout the course of this ramble session, the students would hopefully enjoy the respite, and they may all learn something. The student, the teacher, and everyone around them.
After all, I've discovered that emotions are evermore present and affecting when spoken about.

You know what, I have a story coming on now about this, slowly creeping into my head (and for the record, I actually started thinking about it on friday).
Thanks, Mr. Allen. This should be fun times.

Connection: Marlow and Presidents

We may not like to think about it.
For some of us, it's motivation to become honest leaders.
But whether we like it or not, some people, be they on a mission (Marlow) or trying to govern a people (a President) will lie or hide actual facts from the people they are trying to serve in order to keep them calm, or feel significant, or endevour to guide their emotions at an enemy.
Marlow teels the intendent that Kurtz's last words were her name.
Leaders tell us that there is less to be worried about than we think, or make us think that there is more to be worried about than there actually is. And other things, mostly, one would think, under the assumotion that it's better for the public to hear a lie.
Be it from Marlow or "The government, man!", people tell us things that are untruthful, "for the best".
We all know this, and of course it can be seen as a good thing, depending on the circumstances, but lying is something that goes on everyday. Lying is something that, no matter what the intention, causes a cycle of misinformation, and of fighting for something that is untrue, and plain. Simple. Abject. Fighting. Wrongdoings against others, because many people are not of a forgiving nature. A lie can cover up a conflict that's been going on for years, caused by another lie, and a lie can cover up the horrible things one has done for he sake of comforting one individual who could now go on to live life as a lie, and have their entire perception about their to-be love affect their every decision and self-understanding throughout the future.
Evidently, we are not all bound to make these choices. Some of us know that lying, as a principal, will only further a cycle of lies, and stand against a principle of truth and trustworthiness. I was wathcing a film last night called Apaloosa, in which a woman and a man she was trying to court (and who was also very interested in her) asked the man, "You don't lie?"
"Whyever would I need to?"
"Well...everyone lies"
"And what purpose does that serve? I'd just as much assume tell a man the truth."
"What about a woman?"
"I've never told a woman anything"
That last bit was just for kicks and giggles, but it was a part of the dialogue.
Anyway, as we enter a new age where the president has promised to uphold honesty of his dealings and actions with the public, but we can never truly be sure, only hope