This is part 1 of a series of posts I intend to write on depression and related topics. Having suffered from a chronic state of depression for almost 10 years now, I've always wanted to document my erratic mood changes and mind-upheavals in a journal of some kind.
After seeking counseling with my psychologist for the last 3 years now (I still do), I have slowly been able to unravel the limits of my emotional range. I have made some progress in understanding what triggers it, the life-cycle of the depressed state, how often it happens and if the weather's got anything to do with it :)
It would be foolhardy to unburden 10 years of a silent mental struggle in one single post. So I thought I would write a little about my past and a little about my present condition in each post.. and hopefully over time, I will have documented most of the last 10 years and the present.
(Above, I found this interesting school project video made on depression ..thought it was shot beautifully and was very sensitive too).
The last few weeks in particular has been like sailing in tempestuous waters. Sometimes, three days straight I will show up at school and work, perform extraordinarily and be highly efficient. I will be at work on time .. finish project deadlines way ahead of time .. go out of the way to learn more and do more ... Things couldn't get more satisfying.
Then the crash comes. Its like panic selling at the NYSE. I miss a day at work(maybe I overslept). Then the next few appointments go up in smoke. Very soon I realize I haven't left home in 2 days .. I'm stuck in a dark dingy corner in my room surfing the net incessantly without a purpose .. and by the 3rd day, I know I have just reversed the previous "3 awesome days of productivity". Then the phone goes off because I become reclusive .. I don't want to talk to anybody or listen to anybody .. And you know the rest.
I have spent the last couple of weeks in a similar state. My mood changes ranged from intermittently buoyant to outright gloominess .. so I decided on an experiment. Using Facebook.
I pushed myself to resume my personal blog (this one) and start expressing my opinions on current issues (once again). I go on Facebook, ping back old friends, return messages .. accept friend invitations .. and soon I have messages back and forth from my friends .. things slowly start looking better.
I start posting my blog on Facebook as well and invite friends to read it. People leave comments .. tell me if they like it or disagree. I start feeling confident and finally find the temperament to leave the house and enjoy the summer sunshine.
So bottom line : Get out of the house ! I remember reading a research article where a study showed it helps to fight depression just by simply leaving your room/house and going outside .. and also by just showing up at work.
Hope I haven't bored people to death with my travails. Maybe my next post I'll write about how successful the process has been .. and when I first started feeling depressed for long stretches of time together at 15.
Till then,
Keep your spirits up !
Friday, May 29, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
California Supreme Court Ruling : You cannot call it marriage
The absurdity of this is still sinking. No, I am not mad at the ruling (read NY Times article) much. Why ? Because I understand what the judges are trying to do. Or at least if not agree with the ruling, I can see their logical conclusion.
The Chief Justice and the 5 other assenting judges of the California Supreme Court felt that it was not the court's prerogative to challenge or alter a decision reached by a democratic process ( the slim majority through which the Prop. 8 was passed a few months ago).
In some ways I was also greatly relieved when the bench re-affirmed that under California law, same-sex civil union was still allowed with all the same benefits like those enjoyed by "heterosexual marriages". And that the hundreds of marriages that had taken place when the law was in effect were not going to be voided.
But this is what I don't get. The absolute unwavering insistence by the religious Right on their claim to the word "marriage".
Can somebody please explain to me their rationale ? On what grounds can one section of citizenry claim ownership on a word ?(I say one section of citizenry because they received only 52 % of the votes, barely a simple majority)
As much saddened I am by the ruling .. I am very sure (and I can count a few of my friends in it) that we don't give a damn.
If I have to call it a civil union, you know what? So be it. If I have to call it "full-of-shit" I couldn't have been happier.
I think the entire LGBT community must react to this news with utmost nonchalance ... we must retort with such a level of indifference and show our friends on the Right, that it doesn't matter what they get to call our commitment to love and lifelong partnership... that it doesn't matter if they alone get to enjoy the "fruits of this heavenly matrimony - marriage" .. Because seriously, we have better things to do than haggling over what it can be called and cannot.
I am very sure if a large swathe of the LGBT community refused to acknowledge this as a defeat and instead felt .. now we have California, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Vermont .. 6 out of 50 states that does not discriminate a human being .. and that we have work to do in other states and other countries.. the religious right would undoubtedly feel even more insecure.
They would feel insecure when they see our conviction is in fighting the real issues .. in getting equal rights for everybody .. in preventing any person being discriminated because of their gender or sexuality .. they will know they have a lost cause because those are issues its difficult to bring rationale arguments against.
Gandhi did not organize armies of his countrymen to show the British how much more stronger he and his supporters were than the British. Gandhi knew that to fight the British, one did not need a greater opposing force .. in fact, one needed no force at all.
When the British would see man after man, standing proud and upright, holding hands together in unison but never once raising an arm to protect himself or his fellow protester from a harsh baton-blow, Gandhi knew the British would be compelled to concede and recognize the futility of their batons .. the futility of opposing silent non-violent protesters ...the futility of suppressing the yearning of something so basic and fundamental to a human, the right that make him equal to everybody else.
Often when I read the entries on Wikipedia on the long years of Apartheid, the Jim Crow laws discriminating blacks up to the fifties and sixties, the systematic ethnic cleansing in Europe in the forties and nineties .. I wonder how could a sane world have allowed any of that and for so long ?
Years from now when two boys holding hands together ... entering the dance floor on their prom night will be looked upon with as much interest (or rather dis-interest) as any other couple on the dance floor ... our sons and daughters and their sons and daughters will wonder how could we have tolerated such ignorance and antipathy towards our fellow human beings .. and for so long.
The Chief Justice and the 5 other assenting judges of the California Supreme Court felt that it was not the court's prerogative to challenge or alter a decision reached by a democratic process ( the slim majority through which the Prop. 8 was passed a few months ago).
In some ways I was also greatly relieved when the bench re-affirmed that under California law, same-sex civil union was still allowed with all the same benefits like those enjoyed by "heterosexual marriages". And that the hundreds of marriages that had taken place when the law was in effect were not going to be voided.
But this is what I don't get. The absolute unwavering insistence by the religious Right on their claim to the word "marriage".
Can somebody please explain to me their rationale ? On what grounds can one section of citizenry claim ownership on a word ?(I say one section of citizenry because they received only 52 % of the votes, barely a simple majority)
As much saddened I am by the ruling .. I am very sure (and I can count a few of my friends in it) that we don't give a damn.
If I have to call it a civil union, you know what? So be it. If I have to call it "full-of-shit" I couldn't have been happier.
I think the entire LGBT community must react to this news with utmost nonchalance ... we must retort with such a level of indifference and show our friends on the Right, that it doesn't matter what they get to call our commitment to love and lifelong partnership... that it doesn't matter if they alone get to enjoy the "fruits of this heavenly matrimony - marriage" .. Because seriously, we have better things to do than haggling over what it can be called and cannot.
I am very sure if a large swathe of the LGBT community refused to acknowledge this as a defeat and instead felt .. now we have California, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Vermont .. 6 out of 50 states that does not discriminate a human being .. and that we have work to do in other states and other countries.. the religious right would undoubtedly feel even more insecure.
They would feel insecure when they see our conviction is in fighting the real issues .. in getting equal rights for everybody .. in preventing any person being discriminated because of their gender or sexuality .. they will know they have a lost cause because those are issues its difficult to bring rationale arguments against.
Gandhi did not organize armies of his countrymen to show the British how much more stronger he and his supporters were than the British. Gandhi knew that to fight the British, one did not need a greater opposing force .. in fact, one needed no force at all.
When the British would see man after man, standing proud and upright, holding hands together in unison but never once raising an arm to protect himself or his fellow protester from a harsh baton-blow, Gandhi knew the British would be compelled to concede and recognize the futility of their batons .. the futility of opposing silent non-violent protesters ...the futility of suppressing the yearning of something so basic and fundamental to a human, the right that make him equal to everybody else.
Often when I read the entries on Wikipedia on the long years of Apartheid, the Jim Crow laws discriminating blacks up to the fifties and sixties, the systematic ethnic cleansing in Europe in the forties and nineties .. I wonder how could a sane world have allowed any of that and for so long ?
Years from now when two boys holding hands together ... entering the dance floor on their prom night will be looked upon with as much interest (or rather dis-interest) as any other couple on the dance floor ... our sons and daughters and their sons and daughters will wonder how could we have tolerated such ignorance and antipathy towards our fellow human beings .. and for so long.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Difference in Freedom of Speech between US and India
The Indian Supreme Court recently ruled that "nobody can tinker with the national anthem". In question is a song from the new Ram Gopal Verma movie Rann called "Jana Gana Mana Rann" based on the Indian National Anthem "Jana Gana Mana".
The Supreme Court was not the sole dissenter. The song has incensed many others to go on rampage and destroy public property and near-riot situations have been witnessed in a few cities. If there was one acid test that I could administer to these dissenters that would determine their futility or rationality of burning vehicles on roads, it would be this.
Make each one of them enter a soundproof booth and then ask them to sing the National Anthem. I wouldn't be surprised if more than half of these "protectors of Indian honor, culture and lets say everything under the sky" would fail to get beyond a few lines.
To me the issue is larger than dishonoring a national institution. I don't think changing the lyrics of a national song to reflect a story's plot qualifies as dishonoring or tampering. It is rather an artistic expression. And the expression be in favor of the country or against it, protecting that freedom of expressing that thought is more important than the expression itself.
Here is another version of the song sung by children and in compliance with the original tune as composed by Laureate Rabindranath Tagore.
This is not the only instance where Freedom of Speech is seen so radically different in the two countries, US and India. In US, you can burn the American flag as a sign of protest and as a right of showing dissent against the government or the country.. I'm sure if somebody tried that in India, their clothes would be next in line to go with the flag-bonfire.
When the Supreme Court says you cannot tinker with the National Anthem, how far can you draw the line? Should we include common masses and some bad musicians who can't sing or play the anthem to perfection? Should we time each performance of the anthem so that it fits the stipulated 52 second rule ?
And should we not then castigate AR Rahman, BharatBala and almost every top vocalist in the country for their inspiring production of the national anthem, titled "Jan Gan Man" because they "tinkered" with it by changing the tempo, adding more instrumentation and sound to it?
If we can fall in love with this BharatBala production because it inspires us and fills us with pride and joy for being Indian, shouldn't we then as reasonable people respect dissent and opposing opinion as well?
As an Indian, I rather have an imperfect country where people can speak their minds out even if it is acutely criticizing the country and what it stands for ... than a perfect country where we don't have the right to express ourselves fully lest it anger or hurt somebody's emotion.
Here is the article on NDTV.com which made me write my post.
The Supreme Court was not the sole dissenter. The song has incensed many others to go on rampage and destroy public property and near-riot situations have been witnessed in a few cities. If there was one acid test that I could administer to these dissenters that would determine their futility or rationality of burning vehicles on roads, it would be this.
Make each one of them enter a soundproof booth and then ask them to sing the National Anthem. I wouldn't be surprised if more than half of these "protectors of Indian honor, culture and lets say everything under the sky" would fail to get beyond a few lines.
To me the issue is larger than dishonoring a national institution. I don't think changing the lyrics of a national song to reflect a story's plot qualifies as dishonoring or tampering. It is rather an artistic expression. And the expression be in favor of the country or against it, protecting that freedom of expressing that thought is more important than the expression itself.
Here is another version of the song sung by children and in compliance with the original tune as composed by Laureate Rabindranath Tagore.
This is not the only instance where Freedom of Speech is seen so radically different in the two countries, US and India. In US, you can burn the American flag as a sign of protest and as a right of showing dissent against the government or the country.. I'm sure if somebody tried that in India, their clothes would be next in line to go with the flag-bonfire.
When the Supreme Court says you cannot tinker with the National Anthem, how far can you draw the line? Should we include common masses and some bad musicians who can't sing or play the anthem to perfection? Should we time each performance of the anthem so that it fits the stipulated 52 second rule ?
And should we not then castigate AR Rahman, BharatBala and almost every top vocalist in the country for their inspiring production of the national anthem, titled "Jan Gan Man" because they "tinkered" with it by changing the tempo, adding more instrumentation and sound to it?
If we can fall in love with this BharatBala production because it inspires us and fills us with pride and joy for being Indian, shouldn't we then as reasonable people respect dissent and opposing opinion as well?
As an Indian, I rather have an imperfect country where people can speak their minds out even if it is acutely criticizing the country and what it stands for ... than a perfect country where we don't have the right to express ourselves fully lest it anger or hurt somebody's emotion.
Here is the article on NDTV.com which made me write my post.
Indian politician Abhishek Manu Singhvi caught sleeping during TV interview
Alright. Here's when it happened. The Congress party in India won a huge majority in the recent April-May 2009 elections surprising everybody including themselves.
One of their campaign alliances, the National Conference, a state-level party in Kashmir took offence because the Congress hadn't invited them in the power-sharing of the Government.
This is an interview by Barkha Dutt of NDTV with Abhishek Manu Singhvi with Omar Abdullah (the Chief Minister of Kashmir and one of the top leaders of the National Conference).
You can see Mr. Singhvi at first drowsing ( fast foward to 1:09 in the video )
Then you see him trying to stop himself from yawning ( hee hee hee, at 1:34 in the video ). The grand finale comes from 2:27 .. you've got to watch it to believe it !
Wouldn't blame them... probably stayed up late nights trying to figure out the cabinet-berth arrangements. But Omar ! He has no clue his sleighted remarks are falling on deaf ears again !
One of their campaign alliances, the National Conference, a state-level party in Kashmir took offence because the Congress hadn't invited them in the power-sharing of the Government.
This is an interview by Barkha Dutt of NDTV with Abhishek Manu Singhvi with Omar Abdullah (the Chief Minister of Kashmir and one of the top leaders of the National Conference).
You can see Mr. Singhvi at first drowsing ( fast foward to 1:09 in the video )
Then you see him trying to stop himself from yawning ( hee hee hee, at 1:34 in the video ). The grand finale comes from 2:27 .. you've got to watch it to believe it !
Wouldn't blame them... probably stayed up late nights trying to figure out the cabinet-berth arrangements. But Omar ! He has no clue his sleighted remarks are falling on deaf ears again !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)