Haine & Pair

When things hurt us most, we often trick ourselves into believing that feeling anything is feeling well. It's almost a survival instinct - we feel that something that provides the sense of being alive, regardless of how it hurts us, is better than anything that doesn't. Because at least that which hurts us has an immediately identifiable corollary of reminding us, through pain, that we don't have to feel that way. I often think that when people wish for pain, they have a silent hope that if they take on as much pain as possible in one sitting, then perhaps they won't have to deal with it anymore. Whether they think that they may create a karmic shift that leaves them spared from any further episodes, or if they will build a tolerance to that level of pain - and subsequently be able to walk through those fires without blinking.

Yet, when we convince ourselves that we have a form of protection from a specific type of pain, we most likely leave ourselves susceptible to a completely different, perhaps more potentially damaging brand of pain.

It's a hard realization, that life's ratio of pain to pleasure is perhaps as wide as 80:20 - but the pride comes in holding onto the right experiences. When we wallow in misery, whether our own accumulated experiences or those impressed on us by someone or something else, we leave our minds on pause - while our bodies continue to age and be battered. So that when we finally return our focus to our present state, we have what seems to be only more damage to sift through.

As silly and cliched as it has become, carpe diem is still a worthy way to conduct one's life. If nothing else it gives us only that day's rises and drops to deal with, and no extraneous stresses - good or bad.

But don't take the statement as it is used in modern terminology, as a rallying cry. No, take it in the terms presented in its birth: Seu pluris hiemes seu tribuit luppiter ultimam quae nunc oppositis debilitat pumicbus mare Tyrrhenum: sapias, vina liques et spatio brevi spem longam resces. dum loquimur, fugerit invida aetas: carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.

Whether Jupiter has allotted to you many more winters, or this final one which even now wears out the Tyrrhenian sea on the rocks placed opposite - be smart, drink your wine. Scale back your long hopes to a short period. While we speak, envious time will have already fled. Seize the day and place no trust in tomorrow.

And if you really stop to think about it, those who have found themselves victims of real, scarring pain have no reason to trust tomorrow - because as history is always an indicator, there will most likely only be pain. Today is all that matters, steal it - make it yours, and trust nothing that anyone tells you about time or healing.

Keeping History Alive

Tradition is important. To a degree tradition is what keeps us human, as most of our lives are dictated by patterns - and tradition is not just a big part of that, it is its very definition:

"A continuing pattern of culture beliefs or practices."

Whether they be noble or wicked - conspicuous or inconsequential, traditions are what help define our lives, our societies and our world. That said, some traditions are not meant to last - and one could argue that others even deserve to be snuffed out as quickly as possible. But regardless of one's opinions towards specific traditions or the idea of tradition itself, we all have our own traditions - for which many of us would fight to protect and preserve for future generations.

And it is within this mindset that we can begin to understand the divide between 'traditional' journalists and bloggers.

Once, there was a question posed of CNN and its then-radical format, "Is a 24-hour news cycle really necessary?" And we can see the answer to that in the development of channels like MSNBC/CNBC, the SportsCenter formatting of all the various ESPN channels, C-SPAN or even the hundreds of specialty channels ranging from programmes about history to surgery coverage.

And it is in those 'Breaking News' updates to which we grew so accustomed, along with the sudden and massive popularity of the World Wide Web that both the demand for and the ability to deliver instant news came about.

So what is the problem with this version of presenting news? Perhaps those who work for newspaper and television outlets are intimidated by the fact that the Internet serves as a level playing ground, on which they are forced to compete against the common man. Or that those who oppose blogs see them as a poor substitution from a tradition that they believe needed no fixing.

The common argument is that blogs are a cesspit of ignorance, ridicule and poor grammar. And that those who contribute to them, whether through columns or comments - are of the lowest quality of person, whether in opinion or personality. Some even still view blogs as nothing more than personal diary entries made public. And while it is true that a blog is a journal - it is not necessarily a diary.

The same comparison can be used towards newspapers - that they are nothing more than a daily record of occurrences, experiences, or observations. Besides, many prominent and respected journalists have blogs that they use to provide extra insight on the news stories they cover. Does that detract from their professionalism or integrity, or does it simply provide a more thorough and personal look into the lives of those whom the public trust to present them their news?

... And what 'traditional' standards are we fighting so hard to preserve? The ones that drive journalists to this?

There is a tradition much more valuable than any of that, the tradition of innovation - without which, we would never even be able to have this discussion, due to our lack of Internet and/or computers.

Much like the parallel rise of reality television and programmes that depict true-life situations, there is only so long that one can present realism without then being pestered to provide reality. And while we here at Bafflegate don't support the position, we do understand it. Because as so many generations and technological advances have proven - news is a tradition, its format is not.