Crushed by Crushes

I didn't get into the whole “liking boys” business until I was about fourteen. While that might seem fairly early on to you, I felt like a total idiot prior to hitting that stage, as most of my female friends have already experienced the whole “gee, I like him so much!” drama and I wanted a piece of it. I found it utterly unfair that they got to sit in their beds surrounded by boxes of chocolate and tissues, weeping about the difficulty of their lives. But after finally developing romantic feelings for a fellow human being, I realised that it was a thing I could have easily done without and that all those boxes of chocolate and tissues were not signs of being mature, but merely depressed.

I've upgraded from chocolate to champagne (it makes a social occasion out of my pain, making it more acceptable to invite my friends over with the intent of ruining their evening by making them go through painstakingly detailed re-enactments of my incoherent thought processes), but I continue being crushed by my crushes. I thought that, having reached adulthood, I was somehow too old for it, but I could not be have been more wrong. I suppose you can never be too mature to be immature.

Having a crush on someone can go one of three ways. You either make your feelings known and get rejected or – in the presumably better case – not… Or - if you are at all like me - you sit in your lair, stalk them on Facebook and wait. Here is my manual to handling all three cases!*

Requited feelings

In case you found that the person you were secretly enamoured with likes you too, congratulations! You are about to commence a journey of unknown duration, during which you will become an unbearable mess of a human being, unable to speak about anything but your new amazing boy/girlfriend, kissing, plush toys and baby animals. Good luck to you and all your friends!

Unrequited love

If you get rejected, then all the fictitious scenarios of the two of you watching the sunset together (which you've no doubt spent countless hours perfecting in your head) disappear. You are reduced to a shadow of your former thirteen-year-old self, clutching a box of Kleenex in one hand and a KitKat in the other (using brand names, how annoyingly consumerist of me!), thinking that the whole world is against you. Well, here is my advice: revel in those moments! It might sound stupid, but please, enjoy it! How long have you been waiting for a good enough reason to perform a questionable voodoo ritual, not shave your legs for a week, throw dog poo at happy couples and stay up all night listening to James Carrington’s “Ache” on a loop with tears flowing down your cheeks? There’s a little Bridget Jones inside most of us, so go ahead and indulge in these precious moments of pathetic self-pity.

Haven’t said a word

In case you’re still waiting for the “right moment” to tell them, let me just tell you that there is no such a thing and that you should take a leap of faith and just do it before somebody else does. Having said that, I am one of those people who have "as much charm as a dead slug" ("Hunger Games" reference #1) in the presence of their crush and who fully agree with the following Chandler Bing statement:

I am generally unable to control my - already underdeveloped - motor skills in the presence of the boys I like, which makes it extremely difficult for me to use the invaluable advice advertised by reliable sources like Cosmopolitan. Swinging my hips and flipping my hair back just do not seem like plausible options when I am at a constant risk of tripping over my own foot. And talking does not help the situation either, as I either stutter or continuously insult them. So I tend to avoid confrontation and usually just end up leading them to believe that I am blissfully unaware of their existence. Every once in a while I do initiate conversation, but as such bright moments usually occur as a byproduct of liquor-induced courage, I rarely manage to make a good impression. And then I whine about it to my friends and complain that my crush doesn't seem to notice me. So please just let what I just described act as a deterrent and go get 'em.

The thing with crushes is this though – they are just crushes. The odds are, you will survive. In fact, the odds are you will look back in a few months or even weeks, and realise how ridiculous your entire obsession was... Speaking of odds, "may the odds be ever in your favour!" - I have acquired an unhealthy obsession with "Hunger Games" and I magically seem to find a way to incorporate quotes from the book into my everyday vocabulary. This is it for my useless rant and I wish you a fabulous Sunday!

*Disclaimer: Do not expect my advice to actually help you solve anything. Please, I can’t even solve my own problems!

Images: unknown; "Longa é a noite" by Eric Guillemain, via noirfacade; "Brivido Caldo" by Adam Whitehead, via noirfacade

Iran: To Attack or Not To Attack?

Should the USA attack Iran? That is the burning question American politicians are attempting to answer at the moment. I would love to think that a simple "no" should suffice, but clearly that is not a satisfactory answer in the eyes of most neo-cons. I will, therefore, try to show why I agree with the Israeli ex-Mossad chief Meir Dagan, who said that attacking Iran is "the stupidest idea he'd ever heard".

I first began worrying about the possibility of a looming war in November 2011 when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) published its report, warning that Iran appears to be on a clear path to developing a nuclear weapon. The report quickly made its way to the headlines of major US newspapers like The New York Times and raised concern among the populace. But even when - or especially when - reading major tabloids, one must "trust but verify". And after some initial verification, many realised that the IAEA report was not as reliable as they have previously believed. Seymour M. Hersh wrote a fascinating story in The New Yorker entitled "Iran and the IAEA". Here is an accessible explanation of the article, from The Young Turks' host Cenk Uygur:

But it was not until Robert Kelley's warning that people began paying attention. Here is what the former IAEA Chief Inspector had to say:

"When a country goes to war, as the U.S. did in 2003 with disastrous results, there should be some lessons learned on the table. It would appear there are no lessons learned being used in the current hysteria. The most important is peer review. The accusations leveled against Iraq in the nuclear area in 2003 were largely from the mouth of one single low-level analyst in the U.S. He got far outside his competence and made accusations that were shredded in peer reviews by far more competent people, yet his view bubbled to the top because the peers were muzzled and his scary message was more welcome in high circles. The November 2011 IAEA Board Report [on Iran] looks like déjà vu.... I think the Board of Governors should demand an investigation of the report and an independent review, line by line, of where that information was coming from, and why it was spun so heavily to one side."  

—Robert Kelley, former IAEA Chief Inspector

via  Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) - March 9, 2012

When the Obama administration somewhat unexpectedly announced that the US troops will be removed from Iraq just in time for Christmas, I was torn between feelings of relief and foreboding. The timing seemed a little uncanny in juxtaposition with the questionable IAEA report. And then it began - the Republican Presidential Candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul) began touting their willingness to go to war with Iran. Here is what they had to say at the CBS News & National Journal GOP Debate in November 2011:

Unexpectedly, I found myself nodding along as Ron Paul spoke. In his words: "I’m afraid what’s going on right now is similar to the war propaganda that went on against Iraq. And you know they didn’t have weapons of mass destruction and it was orchestrated and it was, to me, a tragedy of what’s happened these past 10 years, the death and destruction, $4 billion - $4 trillion in debt." This is the view I would have expected of any sane aspiring leader. But, sadly, Newt Gingrich summed up the general GOP and neo-con approach towards a possible war in Iran very well:

1. Carry out "maximum covert operation to block and disrupt the Iranian nuclear program, including taking out their scientists, including breaking up their systems, all of it covertly, all of it deniable."
2. Engage in "maximum coordination with the Israelis, in a way that allows them to maximize their impact to Iran."
3. Employ an "absolute strategic program ... of every possible aspect short of war, of breaking the regime and bringing it down."
4. If these measures fail and the dictatorship persists "you have to take whatever steps are necessary to break its capacity to have nuclear weapons."

Whilst the second point probably does not surprise anyone, due to the US right wing's infamous support for Benjamin Netanyahu and the state of Israel, the extent of covert operations on Iranian territory might not be known to many. Covert operations targeting Iranian nuclear scientists have been going on since 2007 and have claimed their most recent victim - thirty-two-year-old Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, a professor of chemistry and the deputy director of Iran’s premiere uranium enrichment facility - on January 11, 2012. The identity of the attacker is not known, but odds are he is either an Israeli or, indeed, an American. As a recent article entitled "We Can Live With a Nuclear Iran" written by Paul Pillar stresses, "the timing of the chemist’s death—amid a series of diplomatic events that came fast and furious in January and February, each further complicating relations with Iran—had the effect of dramatizing how close this covert war may be to becoming an overt one." In other words, in the end the US and its treasured ally Israel might have no other choice but to go to war, because if tensions continue rising, a seemingly insignificant incident could set off a lethal chain reaction. Fear mongering, especially when used by prominent US politicians, is likely far more dangerous than any of them realise. This danger is well articulated in a slightly lighthearted article in The Economist, "The View from Tehran", written from the perspective of Iranian Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: "it is hard to be sure [whether America will initiate an attack on Iran or not.] I would feel a lot safer if we already had that bomb."



In his provocative article, "On Bombing Iran, A False Choice", T. X. Hammes goes even further and states that the decision whether or not to bomb Iran is a false choice, because it is only a matter of time before Iran acquires a weapon of mass destruction. According to him, "the real choice is facing an Iran with nuclear weapons or an Iran with nuclear weapons after you have bombed it." And the answer seems crystal clear. So, once more, I am forced to say "No." Attacking Iran would be a very stupid idea indeed.

Images: via 9gag - Art to Think About

© Sabina T., 2012. All rights reserved.

Insanity: The Things You Can Learn From a Drunken University Fresher

I’m insane. I realised it the other day whilst looking in the mirror, after getting back home from a very late night out. Hair a mess, makeup smudged, probably smelling of cheap vodka and cigarette smoke - suddenly it hit me. "I’m an adult now," I thought. It’s time for me to make intelligent, informed decisions. It’s time for me to grow up and be mature. I turned away from the mirror, about to mentally beat myself up for staying up until the morning… for the third night in a row… But then I asked myself: what does it really mean to be an adult? What do I need to do not to feel like a complete failure at this whole grown-up thing?

Look – I’m eighteen, I don’t know how to whistle and horror movies still scare me shitless. I find it difficult to cook dinner for myself, not to mention wash my underwear or do healthy things like… um… moving? But don’t be misled and think I haven’t tried to be an adult. Ever since coming to university, I’ve been convincing myself that growing up is the way forward & something I need to do. I set out to join the gym, eat healthy, do my work on time, budget well and keep my room neat. Needless to say, none of those things actually happened. The gym membership was too expensive, eating healthy too time-consuming, I had too much work, not enough money, and no place to store the wardrobe rapidly growing on my floor. The only things I did have – and still do to this day – were excuses and bad feelings. But those negative emotions were not caused by a poor diet or lack of exercise, but rather my realisation that I was not fulfilling the standard adult role. And not meeting the socially constructed criteria for adulthood made me feel nothing but inferior to others.

But then I backed up for a second, and tried to recall the things I have done since I’ve become an "adult". Aside from getting ridiculously drunk at parties and spending a little too much money on things I don't need, I stayed up all night talking to a friend about her family problems. I followed the news and watched The Young Turks show every day. I took a walk in the middle of a rainy night and laughed at myself out loud when I slipped on the pavement and skinned my knee. I went on a charity hitchhike across Europe with no money. I told a guy how I felt about him. I signed up for capoeira lessons. I burnt my fingers on a hot stove and had to walk around with a cup of ice water for the rest of the night because it felt like the skin was going to melt right off them.

Some of the things I did were great, some plain stupid. But one thing is for sure – I did not do them to be an adult, I did them to be me. None of these actions were influenced by how I think others would want me to behave. Sure enough, often they were not even based on a coherent thought process, they just happened. They all had consequences, both good and bad. But the one thing I can tell you is this – as immature as my approach towards grown-up responsibilities may be, I often feel genuinely happy. And that is more than I can say for many "real" adults. 

Of course, I'm not saying being responsible will make you sad. But nor will it, based on my experience, make you happy, as some people suspect. If you push yourself to be spontaneous and do things outside your comfort zone, or just things society might generally consider "weird" or "eccentric", that's when you will discover that the real happiness lies in the present. Sometimes you should allow yourself to spend the whole night reading your favourite book and eating ice cream, even though you know it will result in you being sleepy at work the next day. Because putting off the things you wanna do oftentimes means that you will simply never get around to doing them.

So yes, I’m insane for not living my life more responsibly. Bat shit crazy, if you will. But so are you if you always do.

Images: "Daddy's Little Girl" by Elena Rendina, via noirfacade