At one time or another, we've all been through it. We stand in front of a (metaphorical) closed door, faced with two choices. We can either open it and deal with whatever is behind it, or we can leave it shut and never know.
I've been asking myself which course I would take. Would I rather know, even if the answer turns out to be something I really don't want to hear, or would I prefer to let it remain unknown.
When faced with this dilemma in the past, I've always opted to know, no matter how painful. And painful it has been. But the need to know has always trumped the fear of getting hurt. "I just want to know! I can handle anything as long as I know!" But then, more often than not, when I have found out, I've realized that I'd have been better off not knowing. Surely the wise people who came up with sayings like "ignorance is bliss," and "what you don't know can't hurt you" were right. No?
I'm in a situation now where I could either let the door remain shut and retreat quietly, or open it and face one of two possible solutions -- one that I want -- very much -- and one that I don't -- very much. If I leave it, there won't really be any adverse effect -- after all, if I don't know what could have been, I can't really count it as loss. On the other hand. . . oh, the possibilities if it turns out to be what I want! And yet, even as that unconscious smile begins to appear at the thought of what could be, I'm reminded of what the alternative could mean.
But the familiar mantra is never far away. If only I knew. I could deal with anything, if I just knew!! I can't stand not knowing!
In the end, I know I will choose to find out. I am, after all, in the business of finding things out. I just hope I can deal with the consequences.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Monday, November 26, 2007
Yokohama and turning 27!
Seeing as last Friday was Black Friday, Okia and I decided we were due for another Ikea trip in memory of our U.S. days! Just to keep life exciting, we headed off to Yokohama this time, a different place and a different Ikea. We spent most of the day there, and emerged hours later, duly laden with lots of good (but necessary) stuff.
Deciding that we'd earned a good dinner, we headed off to Chinatown for a wander around and some yummy Chinese food.
The world's best Nikuman (pork bun) shop (or so they claimed)
Enjoying the world's best Nikuman
Okia trying to decide which of two identical pink teapots was prettier
A real rotary phone in the restaurant where we ate
Ahhh! Food!
The next day I turned 27! Something about getting older must have triggered some sort of signal in me, because I spent most of the day huffing and puffing, rearranging my furniture to make my apartment more homey. I think I sort of suceeded (pics to come!) That evening, a few friends and I went out to a bar with some live music for a very low-key celebration.
Deciding that we'd earned a good dinner, we headed off to Chinatown for a wander around and some yummy Chinese food.
Some pictures from Chinatown:
Ini in front of one of the Chinatown gates
Ini in front of one of the Chinatown gates
The world's best Nikuman (pork bun) shop (or so they claimed)
Enjoying the world's best Nikuman
Okia trying to decide which of two identical pink teapots was prettier
A real rotary phone in the restaurant where we ate
Ahhh! Food!
The next day I turned 27! Something about getting older must have triggered some sort of signal in me, because I spent most of the day huffing and puffing, rearranging my furniture to make my apartment more homey. I think I sort of suceeded (pics to come!) That evening, a few friends and I went out to a bar with some live music for a very low-key celebration.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
A tough decision
A recent chat I had with a friend about a career decision he was facing set me thinking. If I had the opportunity to work on behalf of someone who everybody knows has caused a great deal of pain and suffering, but has not yet been tried, and therefore not convicted, would I take that position?
Arguments in favor: everyone is innocent until proven guilty; even the most heinous of criminals is entitled to being treated fairly; and, careerwise, it would be the opportunity of a lifetime.
Arguments against: well, everything else. . . that, despite the fact that he has not been convicted, his crimes are well known and documented. Could I, well aware of the atrocities this person has committed, willingly ally myself with him?
As we struggled through the pros and cons of the situation, I remembered my previous post about the movie Dead Man Walking, how Sr. Helen Prejean remained firmly on the side of a convicted killer, despite everyone around her condemning her for her decision. And I thought of Jesus and the company he kept -- people who had not yet been tried or convicted, but about whose sinfulness nobody had any illusions.
But I still wasn't convinced. This person's crimes are on a much larger scale than your average criminal. And I wasn't entirely sure that my friend really believed his arguments about fairness. Intellectually, yes. In his heart, not really. What also concerned me was whether he could, if he came across the people whose lives had been ruined by this person, justify his decision to them and to himself with a clear conscience.
I told him to pray about it. His immediate response was "Ugh. Praying -- the answer is no." My response: if that's the case, I know what I would do.
But when I thought about it afterwards, I realized that I was pretty sure that my friend had not really prayed about it, but had simply assumed what the answer would have been if he had. But I'm not entirely convinced that would be the answer.
After pondering this for a few days, I'm still not sure what I would do if I was in his shoes. But after thinking about it, I do have this to say to him: go back and really pray about it. You might be surprised!
Arguments in favor: everyone is innocent until proven guilty; even the most heinous of criminals is entitled to being treated fairly; and, careerwise, it would be the opportunity of a lifetime.
Arguments against: well, everything else. . . that, despite the fact that he has not been convicted, his crimes are well known and documented. Could I, well aware of the atrocities this person has committed, willingly ally myself with him?
As we struggled through the pros and cons of the situation, I remembered my previous post about the movie Dead Man Walking, how Sr. Helen Prejean remained firmly on the side of a convicted killer, despite everyone around her condemning her for her decision. And I thought of Jesus and the company he kept -- people who had not yet been tried or convicted, but about whose sinfulness nobody had any illusions.
But I still wasn't convinced. This person's crimes are on a much larger scale than your average criminal. And I wasn't entirely sure that my friend really believed his arguments about fairness. Intellectually, yes. In his heart, not really. What also concerned me was whether he could, if he came across the people whose lives had been ruined by this person, justify his decision to them and to himself with a clear conscience.
I told him to pray about it. His immediate response was "Ugh. Praying -- the answer is no." My response: if that's the case, I know what I would do.
But when I thought about it afterwards, I realized that I was pretty sure that my friend had not really prayed about it, but had simply assumed what the answer would have been if he had. But I'm not entirely convinced that would be the answer.
After pondering this for a few days, I'm still not sure what I would do if I was in his shoes. But after thinking about it, I do have this to say to him: go back and really pray about it. You might be surprised!
Friday, November 02, 2007
The latest in Sri Lanka
Yesterday, the Sri Lankan Army killed one of the most senior leaders of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE -- yes, a group designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S., EU and India), S.P. Thamilchelvan, in an airraid, the BBC reported.
The first reaction of those who don't know much about the situation there would be that this is a good thing. If the forces in Afghanistan kill a senior member of the Taliban, don't we celebrate that as a good thing?
But this killing is anything but good news. Thamilchelvan was not just a senior leader of the LTTE, he was also the chief negotiator, communicating with international envoys in their efforts to reach an elusive peace agreement between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Tigers. With his death, that peace agreement has now moved even further away. The GOSL is, as usual, playing on the world's paranoia about "terrorist organizations" to justify this killing, and promises that more will follow. Little do outsiders know that, as far as terrorist organizations go, the GOSL is no better, if not worse, than the LTTE. I in no way condone the means by which the Tigers go about achieving their goal of a separate Tamil homeland. I absolutely don't. But the government uses the very same means, and yet, the President, Mahinde Rajapakshe (who, incidentally, runs the country as a family business, with his relatives in key ministry posts), sits on his high horse and points his finger at his opponents. And naive outsiders buy it.
The government knows that Thamilchelvan's killing will only step up the kidnappings and brutal killings on both sides. And that is exactly what it wants -- to provoke the LTTE, so that the GOSL can then continue to feed on the world's "terrorism" paranoia, and justify its own actions as retaliation, its noble efforts to deal with terrorism . . . all while innocent civilians are stuck in the middle, their loved ones lost, their lives ruined.
For a taste (and it is only a very small taste) of what goes on Sri Lanka, click here. Most people live under the illusion that the capital "Colombo" is a safe place, but, while there is no outright fighting there, the surreptitious kidnappings and killings make it anything but.
Update
The first reaction of those who don't know much about the situation there would be that this is a good thing. If the forces in Afghanistan kill a senior member of the Taliban, don't we celebrate that as a good thing?
But this killing is anything but good news. Thamilchelvan was not just a senior leader of the LTTE, he was also the chief negotiator, communicating with international envoys in their efforts to reach an elusive peace agreement between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Tigers. With his death, that peace agreement has now moved even further away. The GOSL is, as usual, playing on the world's paranoia about "terrorist organizations" to justify this killing, and promises that more will follow. Little do outsiders know that, as far as terrorist organizations go, the GOSL is no better, if not worse, than the LTTE. I in no way condone the means by which the Tigers go about achieving their goal of a separate Tamil homeland. I absolutely don't. But the government uses the very same means, and yet, the President, Mahinde Rajapakshe (who, incidentally, runs the country as a family business, with his relatives in key ministry posts), sits on his high horse and points his finger at his opponents. And naive outsiders buy it.
The government knows that Thamilchelvan's killing will only step up the kidnappings and brutal killings on both sides. And that is exactly what it wants -- to provoke the LTTE, so that the GOSL can then continue to feed on the world's "terrorism" paranoia, and justify its own actions as retaliation, its noble efforts to deal with terrorism . . . all while innocent civilians are stuck in the middle, their loved ones lost, their lives ruined.
For a taste (and it is only a very small taste) of what goes on Sri Lanka, click here. Most people live under the illusion that the capital "Colombo" is a safe place, but, while there is no outright fighting there, the surreptitious kidnappings and killings make it anything but.
Update
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
