In other words, I got the first apartment on the first try. When I was given a brief tour, I was excited. I loved what I saw. The living room had a decent amount of space, the kitchen was a separate room entirely, and the two bedrooms had a size that was about equal to the one I will no longer sleep in due to mold growing on the wall. Guess the paint that was covering it up is no longer as effective as it used to be.
I did the turnoff and transfer requests for the various utility companies while doing laundry today. I have just a few weeks before getting moved, and I'm excited. I have plenty of packing to do, and I intend to get some of it done before I go to sleep. If I get it done ahead of time, I'll have less hassle on moving day. At least I'll be able to pay my rent in town instead of mailing it. That's the one thing I disagreed with the most about my current place.
Speaking of which... I've begun to notice that when disagreements occur, no matter how minor or extreme, the phrase, "Get the other side of the story." follows. It's been happening more and more. I can understand why. After all, people have been put away for crimes they never committed. I just want to point out that there are also times when getting both sides of a given story isn't always useful. Yes, responsibility should be applied to all parties whenever possible. However, it can't always be spread evenly, depending on the actions of one, a few, or many.
Long story short... life isn't always even, balanced, and completely fair. Legitimate gripes and concerns can easily be negated by abhorrent actions, especially when tempers are lost. Allow me to give an example. I follow The Saucy Skeptics, a blog written by two girls who identify themselves as Atheists. The latest post shows support on the part of a lawsuit on the part of American Atheists regarding a piece of the World Trade Center that's shaped like a cross.
I can understand how a variety of people were lost on that fateful day in 2001. What caught my eye was this little tidbit:
The cross has become a Christian icon. It has been blessed by so-called holy men a few times, and presented as a reminder that God, in his infinite power of goodness, who couldn’t be bothered to stop the Muslim terrorists, or stop the fire, or hold up the buildings to stop 3000 people from being crushed, cared enough to bestow upon us some rubble that resembles a cross. Ridiculous.The reason why Jon Stewart made fun of the situation was because of the words above in bold. Of course it was quoted differently by Fox News, which everybody should take with a grain of salt. In the closing of the statement by American Atheists, they did call for equality and for all viewpoints to be represented. There has been discrimination against those who are not Christian, and there most certainly has been violence against them as well. Opening one's proverbial mouth and inserting their foot is not the best way to convey a message and will only serve to upset those who were on the fence as well as those who disagree about the whole situation. That's the price of not thinking things through before performing an action or series of actions.
Those words, in my view at least, negated the intended message. After all, how many Muslims would consider the so called hijackers, whether they actually were on those planes or not, true Muslims? I'm guessing not all of them. I'm sure plenty of Muslims would have been offended by that statement. Personally, I believe the piece of rubble should be used an opportunity to educate about different beliefs instead of hidden away from everyone else. All the talk about equality is damaged with careless statements like the one I quoted above, and will only serve to hinder support for Atheism to exist.
They certainly have the right sue. They have a right for their voices to be heard, but they had the responsibility to use their heads to think before they had that statement published. I know what's it like to be criticized for not being a Christian. I get it. However, I also understand that the best way to have a discussion with those who disagree with you is to not come off as a jerk or an extremist.
All that said, I do get it. Conflicts do occur, but one can not always evenly divide blame and responsibility. Things aren't always fair, for there are times that legitimate gripes and complaints do not justify certain actions in response, especially if it's violent (accidental or not). I'm not saying that complaints and gripes are over-written forever, but is it really worth it to slam your first into a wall in anger when it could cause property damage, cause another person to be scared for their life, and potentially result in monetary loss or is it better to simply use your voice and explain why you have a problem in the first place? Frustration is easily understood, but it doesn't always justify violent reactions, especially if it turns out to be assault.
Now I'm not saying that reactions are never provoked. They most certainly are and will continue to be so long as civilization exists. It is important to recognize our own internal biases and realize, "Hey! Maybe there comes a point when somebody's words aren't as important as their actions." Anybody can have enough charisma to come up with any explanation and make it sound plausible. Subtle details though can be conveniently left out, such as having one's name on certain accounts while the other person handed over cash. The claim could be made that the other person wasn't paying their fair share of the bills, and there most certainly are times when that does truly occur. What about the person who handed over some cash to pay for half the bill? Cash isn't easily traceable, except by the Federal Government (and even then, it can be quite the hassle). All one would have to say is that they were taking care of the bills, and a witness would see the bill in their name only.
In other words, when splitting the cost of anything, have the names of all parties be a part of the paper trail. It'll mitigate a lot of headaches later on.
I know I've been rambling. On and on I go. It's just sometimes we can't always make things completely fair... at least until enough time has passed, the dust has settled, and cooler heads prevail. Violence is never a good solution, unless it's in self defense (and even then, it's best to end things as quickly as possible to minimize damage). The reason for all of this is that life in general is just not fair. There's supposed to be challenges as well as lessons to learn. The lesson for this post is simple. Before entering into any form of agreement, venture, contract, etc... with anybody, all parties should really get to know each other beforehand so that boundaries can be set to minimize hazardous conflict. If it turns out that there would be conflict on a long term basis, then going back to the drawing board should be in order. In other words, think things through before making crucial decisions so as to avoid major headaches later on in life.
