Cav's Place

Just like last year, I knew all the songs and some of the presentations before the show. Same reason for my interest, of course, trying (and failing) to keep my mind busy…
As usual, I watched the show and tried to rank the songs, trying to judge solely based on the current performance and not on how I knew that song could sound like. I’ve been using the same ranking system for some ten years now and even though I’m usually way off I don’t plan to change it. After all, “political” votes have a major role in determining the classification, but I’m not going to take them into account because I’m trying to rank according to overall quality, not to predict the outcome. Of course my system is subjective, but how else can you judge such things?
That system involves giving each country a song mark, a show mark and a “personal impression” rating. The marks are theoretically between 1 and 10, but they have always been between 4 and 9, with the vast majority being 6 or 7. A 9 is very rare, there have only been two or three in all these years, and it’s basically the same with the 4, thankfully. As for 5 and 8, if I have two or three of each during a show I’m satisfied that I have “calibrated” things properly. The rating can be “good”, “neutral” or “bad” and there are some fixed rules regarding that too, for example taking the language it’s in into account. Then I average the two marks and rank songs according to that. When the average is equal, I rank according to song mark. When two or more countries get exactly the same marks, I take the rating into account. Finally, if everything is equal (and this happens quite a lot) I just try to rank based on whatever differences I can notice, which stuck better in my mind and so on.
Still, even though I came up with this system and have been using it for so long, sometimes I happen not to agree with some of the results I get. That’s partly because I’m factoring in the “personal impression” rating so late and partly because sometimes there’s a very good song that has no show value at all (or the other way around, but that’s rather rare) and I see myself forced to put it lower than I’d have liked. But that’s how it is and I think I’ll stick to it.

Russia, as usual, has a high position assured regardless of the song. That means their performance must only give them that extra edge to put them on top and it would appear that this time it was enough.
Ukraine seems to continue the run of good results and I can’t blame it on the “political” votes. The performance was quite good overall, I’m not complaining about this one.
But I think I’ll have to get back to “political” votes when it comes to Greece, because otherwise I don’t see why it was third. Then again, it’s a matter of taste, songs of that kind drive me away.
Same goes for Armenia, because I thought it was one of the worst performances in the contest. It shouldn’t have even made it to the final if you ask me.
Norway had a very good song, but without a good enough show to back it up. I’m actually happy that it ended up on a better place in the contest than in my ranking.

And since I mentioned my list, here it is (actual place between parenthesis):

1 Azerbaijan (8)
2 Finland (22)
3 Georgia (11)
4 Ukraine (2)
5 Russia (1)
6 France (19)
7 Latvia (12)
8 Sweden (18)
9 Norway (5)
10 Poland (24)
11 Iceland (14)
12 Turkey (7)
13 Denmark (15)
14 Romania (20)
15 Portugal (13)
16 Greece (3)
17 Croatia (21)
18 Bosnia (10)
19 Serbia (6)
20 Spain (16)
22 United Kingdom (25)
21 Germany (23)
23 Armenia (4)
24 Albania (17)
25 Israel (9)

Didn’t get any place right and wasn’t ever even only one place off. Two places off for Denmark, Germany, Portugal and Ukraine. Three off for Iceland and United Kingdom.
On the other end, at least ten places off for Armenia, Finland, France, Greece, Israel, Poland, Serbia and Sweden.

Let me briefly explain my top ten picks now.
Azerbaijan were the only ones who stood out by show value, what they did actually expressed something and connected with the lyrics of the song. And the song wasn’t bad either.
Finland… What can I say, I liked the sound…
Georgia and Ukraine were both good, though very different, songs that were backed by a decent show. I’m going to plead guilty of putting Georgia above Ukraine partly because the singer’s blind.
Russia is one of those cases where I disagree with my own ranking. There were several songs I liked better, but Plushenko’s show of skill while trying to skate on that very small area meant this one had some show value to back it up.
France had something going for it, it simply was interesting. It’d have probably been way better if the singer would have managed the trick with the helium, since that’s what I think it was, properly.
Latvia put up a good show and their voices actually didn’t sound as bad as they had previously. The song’s catchy.
Finally, Sweden, Norway and Poland had good songs, but not much show to back them up with.

A word about the countries that made it to the final… I used the same system to rank the semi-finals and seven out of my top ten from each did go through. In the first one I put Andorra, Belgium and Slovenia instead of Armenia, Bosnia and Israel (special note here, Israel ranked last out of all 43 participants for me). In the second I put Bulgaria, Hungary (which ranked last according to votes) and Malta instead of Albania, Croatia and Portugal.
As a side note, the country that benefitted from the new rule that states that juries choose one of the qualifiers from each semi-final was Sweden, at the expense of Macedonia. Poland was the country the juries picked in the first semi-final, but they were tenth according to votes anyway. At least this time I agreed with the juries both times, seeing as both Sweden and Poland were in my top ten even in the final. (And speaking of Sweden, I happened to bump into the song the viewers chose in their national selection. It’d probably have been the best ballad in the contest, but the jury chose otherwise and by a wide enough margin to make the difference.)

This post has been sitting in my drafts for a very long time. Taking the post number into account, it’s been sitting here for more than a year. Occasionally I’d add a link or remove another, but I haven’t actually written anything in it until now. I guess all this talk about influences finally made me get around to it. I thought it might, even mentioned it in that post…

Let’s start with the one thing that I might in a small way agree with. I’m talking about movies where violence is used just for the sake of violence. That doesn’t mean I support any kind of restrictions, only that I can see how, in a certain context, they could make some moderately unstable people do the wrong things, so closer supervision may be required. I certainly don’t agree with banning them or forbidding children from watching them, that’d just make them more interesting and would not solve anything. And have to say again that I’m talking only about those where violence exists only for the sake of violence, not where its use is justified.
The problem with movies is that you can’t get involved, there’s no direct way to release the tension that builds up. Watching a movie, or anything else for that matter, is completely passive. When you play a game you’re directly involved in the action, when you read a book (which is not an issue for this post, only used as comparison) you imagine what’s going on, or at least you should, and I even consider listening to music as somewhat more involved than watching a movie or the news. But in this case all you can do is sit there and take it all in, the lack of release making it require a less severe case of existing mental instability in order to potentially trigger an undesired reaction.
Watching something containing unjustified violence certainly won’t have such effects on a person that’s at least reasonably sane and intelligent, of course. Which means it’s still the person’s fault or, in case of children, the parents’ fault for not noticing the problems and explaining everything in the correct manner in due time. And that’s the main issue: Potential violent influences may only affect those who are obviously prone to such acts, the fact that such people exist being their own fault if they’re no longer children, and by that I mean past the age of 12 at the very most, or their parents’ fault if they are. The media isn’t there to educate the masses, it’s not its job.
I rarely watch movies and when I do it’s mainly for the effects and massive battle scenes, preferably “with the fate of the world on the table”. That means they certainly include violence, but it usually has a purpose, it results from the story, it’s not an end in itself. Though it could be somewhat less than justified if the effects are nice enough I guess, but I’d have serious misgivings about it. I’m not saying I’m representative of anything, just that when assessing risk you should determine why does a person choose to watch violent movies or shows. It all boils down to the person…

Moving on to music, I think it offers a little more chance for release than the movies or TV. You’re still not directly involved, but there’s nothing stopping you from doing something to release any anger you may feel. When you watch something your eyes must stay on the screen, but when you listen to something your ears don’t usually have to stay in a certain position relative to the source of the sound. Not to mention that songs are much shorter than movies and therefore have much less time to create a certain mood unless you specifically want them to do so. Therefore music requires a significant predisposition to violence in order to have any such effect on a person, making it impossible to justify blaming it for any such acts.
A person who’s at least reasonably sane and intelligent will choose what music they listen to according to their mood, not the other way around. Of course there are people who are criminally insane or simply too stupid, but that’s not the music’s fault! Those people would end up doing the wrong things sooner or later regardless of what they’re listening to and excuses may be found at any time, but they’d be just that, excuses.
There is even a study saying that violent music may be beneficial, helping intelligent youth get rid of anger and frustration. It only included a small number of subjects, but I think it can be confirmed by a simple look around. Reasonably sane and intelligent people will choose what they listen to according to who they already are, also passing the message and any mood it may create through their own “filters”.
People who can handle themselves need choices and the freedom to make them, because they will sometimes find good uses even for what others consider to be bad options. What we should aim towards is reducing the number of people who are prone to making the wrong choices, who don’t realize what’s real and what’s not and are too influenceable for their own good and that of the world. And that’s not achieved by reducing the number of possible choices, that actually makes them even less likely to choose correctly when faced with a choice!
I for one have started listening to metal after Andra left and haven’t stopped since. I usually listen to music only when I’m very depressed, and I’m constantly very depressed since she left. I needed something “stronger” than what I knew until then, somebody sent me a few songs and the rest, as they say, is history. I focus on the more melodic kinds, can’t stand growls and usually listen mainly for the lyrics, using the music mainly to deliver the necessary “punch” to break through my mood and allow me to take in the lyrics properly. Yes, my favorite songs are usually depressing, though some might also be considered violent or even both at once, but I choose what I listen to according to my existing mood, not the other way around. Actually, this shows why I agreed with the results of that study so much, doesn’t it?

And now, the most reviled of all such potential “influences”: Video games! It’s so easy to take the newest development and blame it for everything simply because it’s still relatively new and many people don’t understand it properly, isn’t it? This never ceases to surprise me because, out of all these potential “influences”, games offer the best chance for release! That makes them a great way to release existing anger and frustration, therefore making those same reasonably sane and intelligent people I keep mentioning that much less likely to take something out on actual things or living beings, so how can you blame the games for the acts of violence committed by obviously unstable individuals?
I won’t focus too much on the other potential benefits of gaming, though they may include gaining knowledge, improving skills or physical abilities, or social interaction. I doubt that anybody who’s determined to see violent games as the cause of so many evils will care about those anyway. I want to focus on violence and what I’m trying to say is mainly that playing games, regardless of the degree of violence, will not make you actually be violent unless you already have some serious mental problems. It’s sad that so many studies tend to aim towards telling people what they want to hear when it comes to this issue, but it’s always nice to see that a few balanced ones do exist (though I have a problem with that one as well, namely the part about suggesting ways to limit children’s use of games).
The purpose of violence is important, but since the player is directly involved there can be a legitimate reason for apparently meaningless violence as well, namely releasing anger. If you are already angry or frustrated and need to let it all out somehow, I’ll say it’s far better to have a bloody virtual world readily available before you reach a tipping point and risk taking it out on actual objects or living beings! This way, violent games actually make reasonably sane and intelligent people less likely to cause damages or harm and the fact that they’re blamed for acts of violence is absolutely baffling.
What’s more, games can include moral choices and the path you take may more or less represent your views and values. This way, a person’s choices while gaming may be a way to determine the already existing risk factor, but they shouldn’t be taken as a cause for it. If a person constantly chooses the needlessly violent or otherwise “evil” path in games, it may be a sign of problems that could need to be gently corrected in order to prevent actual acts of violence in the future. However, if a person chooses that path only when they are already angry or have no other valid choice, it can be a sign that they’re a responsible individual who tries to find safe ways to release the tension and thinks before acting.
I for one play RPGs almost exclusively and that certainly requires a lot of thinking, planning and making choices. I think my gaming reflects my views and values very well since, unless I’m only playing to release some tension, I do my best to play a “good” character but I judge that mainly based on the end result, placing somewhat less emphasis on the means of achieving it and practically none at all on the game world’s rules and laws. I try to always do what I think is right and cause as little unjustified harm as possible. I’ll do what needs to be done if it comes down to it, but I’ve been known to replay significant portions simply because I realized I could have done something without stealing, not to mention without killing. I find myself baffled when I see people asking why can’t they be completely “evil” in this or that game, slaughter everything, rob everybody and so on. Don’t get me wrong, I fully support the idea that you should be able to do those things and occasionally use virtual violence and “evilness” to release real tension myself, but I think anybody who specifically wishes to act like that in games frequently has a serious problem that has absolutely nothing to do with the game.

You might have noticed how many times I specified “reasonably sane and intelligent”. Fewer and fewer people could qualify as being that these days and I’m quite sure that’s where the problem is. That has nothing to do with potential violent “influences”. It, however, has a lot to do with the stress this society creates, its absurd requirements, its relentless pace… And the fact that certain people in positions of authority like the ones they have power over to be stupid and irresponsible, it makes it easier for them to keep their position and profit.
That said, would you kindly let the violence in TV shows, movies, songs and games go and focus on the real issues, namely bad parenting, stress, stupidity and mental problems? Not all problems, mind you, just those severe enough to make somebody no longer know the difference between what’s real and what’s not, between what can cause real harm and what won’t. After all, I don’t consider myself to be sane by any stretch of the term, but I won’t go on a killing spree regardless of what I’ve been watching, listening or playing lately… Despite the fact that humankind often makes me think that such an act would be quite justified…

I just want to translate a piece of news that I bumped into. It apparently first appeared in Ziua de Vest (in Romanian), on May 17th. The fact that I don’t see it in other places is sort of weird, and that newspaper’s archive isn’t operational right now either so I only had Google‘s cache to go on. There are a few places that picked up on this but didn’t post it in full, just linked to the newspaper and the link was only to the section where the news originally appeared, which is naturally no longer valid since that section now contains today’s news. The TV station I picked this up from did post a small note about it on their site, but it’s only a few lines. I don’t rule out the possibility of a hoax, but I’m very much inclined to believe it.

Chief-commissioner Sandel Palade, chief of Timis police, declares open war to the members of the emo community. He formed, in Timisoara, a special squad made up of 12 officers that will monitor emo high school students non-stop. The anti-emo squad is led by himself. The officers who will track “misunderstood high school students” come from all departments and they will be joined by representatives of other qualified institutions and perhaps even the secret service.

We bump into them daily, but rarely pay any attention. Youth with strange hairdos and faces full of make-up and piercings. Youth who consider themselves misunderstood by their parents, feel inferior to the others and listen to certain rock bands. Youth who end up hurting themselves and may, according to specialists, commit suicide at any moment. To put it simply, members of the “emo” community or “emo-kids”… The case of the 12 year old girl from Bucharest, adept of the emo movement, who killed herself by throwing herself from the tenth floor, sparked the interest of the entire country. In Timisoara, a group of about 30 high school students is the main focus, though the number of teens who claim to be emo is certainly far greater. “We have created a group of 12 officers, from all departments, who will look for possible anti-social behavior from certain members of the emo movement. Emo adepts are usually found in high schools. We have exact information regarding the places and the way in which we need to operate,” says chief-commissioner Sandel Palade.

It’s hard not to recognize them. They wear heavy make-up around their eyes and have long hair which covers one eye and is usually black but may be a mix of black and certain bright colors. They dress very strangely. They are kids who see parents and society as a constant torment, and who find life meaningless. One of the schools where most emo adepts study in Timisoara is Lenau High. At least that’s what unofficial police sources claim. Their meeting place is a bar very close to the high school. Elena Wolf, principal of Lenau, doesn’t think being emo is the most important problem regarding Timisoara’s teens. “I heard of them, but I didn’t try to find out exactly how many children are drawn to this movement in this school. We have guidance teachers and counselors who talk with the children daily. The problem is that school is not the only place that can teach you how to live your life.”

Chief of Timis police, Sandel Palade, thinks the emo way of life is inherently harmful and promises that the anti-emo squad will talk with the principals of all the schools where, according to their information, there may be adepts. “Police officers from all departments, as well as other crime prevention institutions, will work to determine where the members of this group come from. They are, usually, in high schools and that’s why we will talk with all the principals from these educational institutions. Emo is a harmful movement that makes teenagers kill themselves. We will monitor those who might do such a thing day and night,” Palade says.

All I can say is… What the hell? I said before that I find them weird because depression and caring enough to look in a certain way don’t add up from my point of view, but this, if true, is outrageous! It blows everything way out of proportion and it’s discrimination, pure and simple. What does it hope to accomplish? Protect them from themselves? I’m sorry, but you can’t do that. And if you’re talking about the genuinely depressed ones, you certainly won’t convince them that things can get better by treating them like criminals! But… 1984, here we come.

There have been a lot of cases here lately where people have lost their jobs over leaked information about things that either had nothing to do with their work or at least nothing to do with their performance. Of course this is happening everywhere, but since I seem to have started a series of posts based on news from Romania I might as well keep it going. I have a lot of comments running through my mind about these issues anyway…

The major recent story of this kind has been that of three nurses who took pictures of themselves next to an unconscious patient, trying to look sexy. They weren’t naked or anything of that kind, they weren’t using the patient in any way, they were just trying to strike certain poses while being around that patient’s bed.
As expected, the media blew it all out of proportion, taking it as proof of the low interest those in the field of medicine have for their duties around here, plus lashing out at them because of the supposed immorality of their actions. That resulted in an investigation being started by the hospital this took place in, an investigation which was concluded very quickly because complaints registered more than six months after the fact are null and void and this happened about one year ago. Still, though neither law nor internal regulations allowed them to take any action against those nurses, they used other means to pressure them into resigning.
The explanations revolved entirely around the morality of their action and how they were making fun of that poor “dying” patient. I looked at what pictures were published and I didn’t see them do anything to or with the patient, they were simply posing for the camera, usually with their backs towards the patient’s eyes. Not that he could see anything anyway since he was out cold! According to them, he had just survived a very complicated open heart surgery and the prognosis was good (so he wasn’t dying, at least not anymore) and that was just why they were doing what they did, they thought it’d be fun to celebrate it in some way… And besides, I think you need to find ways to have a bit of fun on the job when said job involves pain, suffering and death on a daily basis!
Honestly, what man would mind three pretty young women posing rather sexily around him? Ok, maybe in that particular case it’s a good thing he was out cold, because his heart had been through a lot and arousal wouldn’t have been recommended, but still… And either way, shouldn’t they have tried to track down the patient and simply ask whether he is bothered by this or not? Or is this another case of “we know what you’re feeling better than you do”?
We have doctors who keep on practicing without any problems after forgetting various items inside their patients, or others who perform the wrong operation, or on the wrong patient. There are others who “simply” misdiagnose, prescribe the wrong treatment or hardly pay any attention to a patient unless he or she offers them enough as a “gift”. Many of those don’t have any problems, or get away with just a slap on the wrist or at most 10% taken off their pay for a couple of months, but these girls had to resign over a few pictures that didn’t hurt anybody! If they’re worried about morality, how about the morality of that?

Moving on, there have been several cases of teachers who were fired or pressured into resigning after certain pictures or movies were leaked to the media or posted on-line. You had everything from a couple of pictures of the person trying to look sexy while still dressed to porn movies, and I’m not talking only about home movies. Honestly, what does that have to do with their teaching skills? Especially since these things tend to be leaked a long time after the fact, so even if you want to think that doing such things makes the person change, it’s not like they happened then!
There have been a few cases of young female teachers who had a few pictures that could potentially be considered somewhat sexy posted on their accounts on various sites. That made a lot of people get on their case and pressure them because supposedly they’re bad examples for their students. Firstly, that has to do with their personal life, not their abilities as a teacher. Secondly, how exactly is that a bad example? They’re doing the same thing many of their students are doing so, if anything, you can say they show that they have some common views and therefore can become closer and communicate easier. Is that a bad thing? Do teachers need to stay these distant bogey men or evil witches in order to be “moral”?
There has also been a case recently, and others in the past, where a private sex video featuring a teacher has been leaked. I didn’t look for this recent one, but I heard that it features said teacher having oral sex in her own bed with a man, presumably her boyfriend at the time. It would appear that he leaked the recording after the relationship ended. Can anybody please tell me why does this make said teacher immoral? Does everyone assume that teachers are asexual or what? Isn’t it known that sometimes, preferably very frequently, they also have sex? So what if she allowed herself to be filmed? I for one would be trying to track down the guy and request an explanation for making the video public! Maybe she did do something very rotten to him and he saw it as just revenge, which is something that should be judged separately but still has nothing to do with her skills as a teacher, but maybe he’s just an asshole and he should be the one prosecuted, not her. I think she’s embarrassed enough by it as it is!
Moving on to the more serious matters, there have been cases of teachers and other public workers who were proven to also be prostitutes. When it comes to prostitution I might have to grudgingly agree that the penalties were somewhat justified. Not because I see prostitution as being immoral, but because for some stupid reason (“morals” again) it’s still illegal, which means they are engaging in illegal activities while being paid from public funds. Not that you wouldn’t have to fire pretty much every politician if that rule would apply to all, but still… Thing is that people don’t seem to care whether they still are prostitutes or just were at some point in the past. Why should you still pay the price if you have seen the error of your ways and changed? What incentive do you have to change your ways if you know you’ll pay the price either way?
Another issue is starring in porn movies, the (more or less) professional kind. One specific case I can think of right now is that of a teacher’s aid who was recently revealed to have starred in a porn movie five years ago. At the time she was married to a fanatic member of a cult who convinced her to join as well and that’s how she ended up in the movie. It happened five years ago people! Since then she left that man, the cult and the porn business, moved, rebuilt her life, remarried and is currently pregnant. Not to mention that being a porn actor isn’t illegal! Yet she was pressured into resigning too… Excuse me, but what’s the problem? I guess whether or not they had any STDs can be a factor, because if they didn’t you can safely say they’re a good example because they can teach about practicing safe sex, and that’s much needed in today’s world even though so many refuse to see it.
As for male teachers, the similar cases there tend to be quite few, most being truly serious and dealing with sexual harassment or other similar things. Yet, strangely, those tend to be allowed to continue teaching! Still, there has been one recently, namely an elderly teacher, close to retirement, who was filmed watching porn on a school computer during a break. The school’s principal says he’s appalled by this and can’t figure out how can a distinguished teacher with over 40 years of work behind him do “something like that”, especially when he’s so close to retirement. What did he do? He was just watching some porn! It wasn’t during class, so what’s the problem?
In most of these cases there’s one thing that stands out by its absence: They hardly ever mention the person’s skills in relation to their job! And in the few cases where they do, it’s as a side note. I do remember the news reports mentioning that there have been frequent complaints from students about one of the “porn star teachers”. Really? Then why didn’t you do something about it before? This makes it sound like “oh, we know she’s a bad teacher, we never really cared about that, what she does when she’s not teaching is far more important”, doesn’t it?

Such cases are quite frequent and I find it disgusting! I’m not even convinced by the Max Mosley sex scandal, even though that has wider implications, because it’s still a matter of what he does in his personal life and as long as it doesn’t affect his work I don’t see why people should care what gets him off.
I for one am only interested in the personal life of a person that’s not my friend when it noticeably affects their work and I’m interested in said work, and even then it’s usually just to find an explanation for certain things. The two are separate and I can easily admire the work of a person I dislike or dislike the work of a person I admire. Why can’t others do the same? Do we have too many people who are so good at what they do that we need to look for new ways to make selections? Or is it that so many can’t accept that others are better at something and need to look for ways to bring them down to their level? No need to answer that…

The media is still living off Andrada’s suicide, Andrada being the emo girl I mentioned in my previous post, but now the sensationalism seems to be wearing off and that leaves room for some more serious and balanced comments. It’s not easy to pick them out of the sea of idiocy, but at least they exist.
Many are still focusing on the emo culture and missing the greater issue, but not all do that. Though still misguided, the best reaction I have seen so far is from a newspaper, Evenimentul Zilei (in Romanian), which is taking the issue further, pointing out what it really is. It’s the result of the problems affecting our society as a whole, which could in a way be summed up by one word: Loneliness. Lonely souls living in a lonely world… They’re blowing some things out of proportion and vastly underestimating others, they include stupid or simply meaningless points of view, but overall they seem to be on to something. Something we all know, but very few are willing to admit.

To get it out of the way, I’ll say I find the idea of being emo quite weird. The parts can be understandable taken separately, but when you put it all together there’s something that doesn’t add up. If it all starts from the music, the looks or peer pressure and then leads to depression then it means the depression isn’t real and we’re talking about stupid kids who are too easily influenced to matter. So I’ll ignore those and move on to the ones who start from a real depression caused by real problems, but here I bump into a different problem. The music, cutting and suicide attempts make perfect sense in this scenario, but when you’re depressed you tend to want to be left alone and certainly don’t give a fuck about how you look, so how do you reconcile being depressed with adhering to what appears to be a dress code and meeting in groups?
As a side note, since I mentioned cutting, one of the printed remarks was from therapist Ziegfried Schnapp, who said “they cut themselves because they need to feel something, to feel themselves”. I’m not sure I agree with that, because when I do it it’s mainly to turn some of the emotional pain into physical pain so it will be a little easier to bear, at least for a moment. It’s a way to share the pain with yourself since there is nobody else you can really share it with, nobody willing to help. At least that’s how it is for me, can’t say I know why somebody who identifies themselves as emo does it.
Back to them, I’m likely missing something here, lacking inside information, but I think there’s a major problem in their community as well. I’m talking about those who are actually depressed for good reason and then struggle to follow the other “rules” in order to be accepted among them in hopes of finding others who understand them. Only they don’t find them, or at least not as many as they hoped, because for some of them it’s just a fad. The first contact matters a lot, because if a depressed teen meets those for whom it’s just a fad before others who are just like him or her, said teen might be left feeling even worse than before.
Either way, when a truly depressed person decides to become openly emo, I think it’s an obvious cry for help. They are willing to do what needs to be done to be accepted among others who they think might help them because nobody else can, or at least nobody else wants to. Perhaps, if anything, it means they’re truly willing to do their part to solve their problems, choosing a method that may be no better or worse than many others. It also means they’re better than those who choose to ignore the problems and hope they’ll just go away on their own while they try to be the good little robots society wants them to be.

Which brings us to society. For all it’s advances, the modern society might not be better than those of the past. It creates at least as many problems as it solves and these new problems are more subtle, harder to solve or even notice until it’s too late. But society is only a creation of humans, an experiment if you will. And when you experiment for thousands and thousands of years and never get it right, it seems likely that you are the problem.
We are the problem, all of us. Society can’t go against the will of those who make it up, it’s a simple rule. But that will needs to be expressed strongly enough to counter inertia and the desires of the few who benefit from the current state of events. But our main fault is that we think and act alone, if at all. We are so lonely that we can’t even remember how to work together for a goal, or even agree on a common goal! And what’s worse is that each of us is alone in a crowd, a crowd made up of countless other lonely souls.
One of those articles was titled “Victims of a Broken World”. That’s not only true about emos or teens, as the article seemed to suggest. It’s not even only about everyone who is alive right now. We all are and we all have always been the victims of a broken world, a world that was probably never right and which we keep failing to fix for thousands and thousands of years. So, in the end, we are our own victims and our own executioners at the same time. Yes, some are mainly victims and some are mainly executioners, but we are all both at the same time. We should keep that in mind and work together as a result.

Working together… How can that happen when there are so many “me” and so few “we”? As with any problem, you need to get to the root before you can solve it. I don’t claim to know what the real root of all our society’s problems is, but I know this is at least relatively close to it: We put ourselves first, we don’t care about each other. And when we don’t even care about each other, how could we ever care about the world as a whole? And how can we fix it if we don’t care about it?
How can humanity as a whole realize that we are one? I’m not talking only about humans, I’m saying that everything is connected, each action or inaction sending ripples far and wide. I don’t claim to have the answer, but I know we don’t have to be lonely. Yet we make ourselves be… Yes, some are mainly alone because of choices others have made, some choose it for themselves and yet others choose for others to be alone. The blame is not shared equally, but it is nevertheless shared by all.

It’s interesting how one girl’s death brought such things into focus. Everybody knew them already, teenagers or even children have killed themselves before, so what changed? Why did that one death have such an impact? Why was a death required to start this debate?
One of those articles said “Andrada’s story is not sad only because it ended with blood on gray pavement. It is also sad because the world she lived in is wrong.” Isn’t that true for all of us? How many of our stories are sad at least in part because the world we live in is wrong? Or, better yet, how many are not?
I don’t know why this one death made people come together to talk about this issue, but it’s good that it did. Bad that it took a death, but good that at least that death was not completely in vain. I doubt there will be any real changes, I’m sure it’ll die out and be replaced by something else that catches the public’s eye before a solution to even one of these problems will be found, not that I know what that solution might be, but at least people are talking to each other. And when they talk to each other, they’re just a little less lonely, at least for a little while.