Monthly Archives: July 2012

Hold Your Head High

Leave a reply

Only one person can ever truly help you. That person lives between your ears: you.

Everything you’ve ever accomplished, achieved or been proud of was a product of your initiative and your hard work. No one can do for you. The only person who can ever really help you is you. One of my favorite quotes is by Dr. Seuss of all people: “Today you are you; that is truer than true. There’s no one alive who is youer than you.”

You’re the only person who can hold your head up. You’re the only person who can live out your dreams. You’re the only person who can feed you, after all, you can lead a horse to water, right? No person can ever be truly selfless. We are in charge of keeping ourselves in shape, feeding ourselves and following our dreams.

Our dreams are ours; no one can take them away from us. No one can pursue them for us. If your dream is to be selfless like Mother Theresa, then it’s selfish to pursue that dream. It’s your dream. You are pursuing something for yourself. Selfishness has such a negative sound and connotation to it, but it’s really what makes us such a great society overall. We all have dreams, and we all know what it will take to pursue them. Pursuing selflessness is a goal that makes you feel good; it’s selfish. We are all selfish. It’s innate. There’s no avoiding it.

Hold your head up high. You’re the only one who can. No one can follow your dreams for you. No one can learn for you. No one can help you more than you can help yourself. You do you. That’s the most important thing you can do in  your life. Before you can love someone else, you must love yourself.

10 Days left

1 Reply

In 10 days I will be getting on the 7:35 flight from Miami to New York’s LaGuardia airport. We’ll be staying in a hotel in the Upper West Side, which is really nice. We expected to have to stay out in Queens because of hotel costs, but we luckily found a place on 79th Street for just about $120 per night.

I’ve gotten to the point where I can set up viewing appointments for apartments in the city. As soon as our early-morning flight lands on the 28th we’ll hit the ground running. I’ve set up several appointments, but we’ll need to set up a lot more. Sorry the blogs have been sporadic lately; we’ve been busy setting up everything to get me up to school. Once I get to school, the blogs may come back in frequency, but I wouldn’t hold my breath because school promises to be crazy.

Wide World of Sports

Leave a reply

Europe has had a wild week in its sports world. Spain’s football team defeated Italy in the Euro Cup, and Swiss Roger Federer beat Scottish Andy Murray at Wimbledon to tie with American Pete Sampras for all-time most Wimbledon wins.

Let’s look chronologically. Just a few days ago Spain became the first country to win three consecutive major football tournaments. They were the Euro Cup winners in 2008, World Cup winners in 2010 and now they won the Euro Cup again for 2012. Congratulations to the Spaniards—well deserved.

But now I want to look at the sport that has my heart—tennis. The Wimbledon Championships, played at the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club in Southwest London just south of the Thames, is considered the premiere tennis event of the year. It is the only grand slam tournament still played on tennis’s original surface—grass. This year’s tournament was, in my opinion, one of the best in recent memory. The top four seeded players—Serbian Novak Djokovic, Spaniard Rafael Nadal, Swiss Roger Federer and Scottish Andy Murry (respectively—all provided for a spectacular tournament. I’m going to dissect this piece by piece; indeed, player by player.

Rafael Nadal, a Spaniard for whom I’ve had a strong loyalty, was beaten in the second round this year by an unseeded player—hardly the exit the number two player hopes to make in tennis’s most “prestigious” tournament. In a five-set, three-hour match, Nadal was taken out by an unknown, first-time-at-Wimbledon player from the Czech Republic named Lukas Rosol. Rafa only gained one set in the match—the third, winning it 6-2. The final match score was 6-7 (Nadal winning the tie breaker 11 to 9), 6-4, 6-4, 2-6, 6-4. Just a month ago, Nadal won the French Open—a clay court tournament, statistically Nadal’s best-played surface—over Djokovic.

Djokovic lost to Roger Federer in the Semi Finals, as would be expected when two of tennis’s modern-day greats face one another. Djokovic went down in four sets, 6-3, 3-6, 6-4, 6-3. Djokovic beat Nadal just earlier this year at the Australian Open. When it comes to the current top three seeded players in gentlemen’s tennis, there’s no denying Djokovic, Federer and Nadal are neck-and-neck for the number one spot. Just this year alone, they’ve all won between 36 and 41 matches. Nadal has won 41, Federer 39 and Djokovic 36.

This year’s Wimbledon final was a thing of beauty. Scotsman Andy Murray took on Roger Federer. The match was remarkable before the players even set foot on Centre Court. Murray was the first Briton to make it to the Wimbledon final in 74 years. Being played in London, England, United Kingdom—the fact that a Briton made it to the finals after that long brought that much more pride to the match. Brits crowded Centre Court, filled in other (empty) courts just to watch the match on the big screen, and “Henman Hill”—the hill just outside Centre Court just to watch Andy Murray go for the glory—for queen and country.

Member’s of the public are seen watching tv screens showing Wimbledon tennis final between Andy Murray and Roger Federer in Dunblane, Scotland, Sunday, July 8, 2012. (AP Photo/Scott Heppell)

Andy Murray, a shy, soft-spoken and emotional fellow had the pressure of every Brit pushing him forward. There were constant calls for quiet by the chair umpire because the crowd so frequently burst into applause for the young Scotsman. This was not Murray’s first time taking on Roger Federer. The two have played each other 16 times, and they’ve each won eight of their 16 meetings. Murray’s nationality was not the only cause for positive crowd uproar at the match; the win gave Federer his seventh Wimbledon title, which ties him with Pete Sampras for most all-time Wimbledon wins, and his seventeenth grand slam win. Federer, at the height of his career, held the number one spot for 237 consecutive weeks. Sports Illustrated ranked Federer the best tennis player in recorded history—better than Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Rafael Nadal and Bjorn Borg. This win just keeps stacking Federer’s already lengthy list of achievements. There is no denying Federer is one of the best players who ever played the game.

Roger Federer of Switzerland during the men’s singles final match at the All England Lawn Tennis Championships at Wimbledon, England, Sunday, July 8, 2012. (AP Photo/Anja Niedringhaus)

The match between the two great players was one of the most emotional and captivating I can recall. It was on par, if not better than some of the rival matches between Sampras and Agassi. The first set was full of attitude and high-powered play from Murray. He won the first set 6-4, and two of the games Murray won were broken games. Federer broke Murray back for one game, but he still lost the set to Murray. Federer came back in the second set with a new-found passion, and he beat Murray 7-5; in that set Federer broke Murray once of the two break opportunities, but Murray failed to break Federer in any of the four opportunities he had during the second set.

Andy Murray of Britain during the men’s singles final match at the All England Lawn Tennis Championships at Wimbledon, England, Sunday, July 8, 2012. (AP Photo/Paul Gilham, Pool)

The third set saw only one break point, but because Federer served first in the set, he won it 6-3. Then came the fourth set and the rain delay. After the delay and the closed roof, Federer took off and solidified his win. The match ended after three hours and 24 minutes of play.

But, for all the upset of a lost Wimbledon, Murray still has a lot to be proud of. The first Brit in 74 years to reach a final, and, as ESPN showed today, Murray has brought a new light to the Scottish town of Dunblane. Dunblane has been known since the mid 90s as the location of a school massacre. Compared by ESPN to Columbine High School’s tragedy, Andy Murray was in the school on the day of the mass shooting, but he was not in the class affected. The town hoped he could help Dunblane make a new name for itself, and he certainly has. Although Murray has never talked about the tragedy, the town knows how much he has done to change things.

There was no shortage of royalty or high-profile attendees at today’s finals match. British Prime Minister, David Cameron, famous footballer David Beckham and his wife, pop star Victoria (or Posh Spice) were there.

Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, right, speaks with her sister Pippa Middleton to watch Roger Federer of Switzerland face Andy Murray of Britain during the men’s final match at the All England Lawn Tennis Championships at Wimbledon, England, Sunday, July 8, 2012. (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth)

 

 

Andy Murray

Roger Federer

Quite probably the most emotional part of the match occurred after it. Just after the Duke of Kent, Prince Edward, awarded the trophies, Murray made his way to the on-court, post-match interview. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a player be handed the microphone before, but Murray asked for it and got it. He started crying and told the entire United Kingdom—nay, he told the world how much it meant to him to have made it that far, all through sporadic tears. Take a look at it here; it’s pretty amazing.

For queen and country, as they say, there’s always next year. Even Federer knows Murray will win “at least one major,” but by the way things look, Murray may very well be headed toward several.

Home

Leave a reply

I’ve been told that “home is where the heart is,” and I know it’s the people in a home that make it homely. There’s no question leaving home is one of the hardest young people ever do in their lives, but I also believe moving away from home is a requirement. From my own experiences, “home” is a state of mind more than a location. I have many homes, and among them are buildings, rooms, piers and, probably the most homely of them all, is in my parents’ arms. There’s something amazingly settling about being held by mom or dad.

Home is dysfunctional. It is that distinct lack of functionality that makes home home. Home is not the perfect, two-and-a-half children family. Home is as many kids as there are dogs craziness. Home is different for every person. But one similarity every “home” shares is an unquestionable sense of connection. Homes connect families. Home brings mom, dad and kids together around the dinner table. Homes bring siblings into crazy (and often pointless) arguments.

Tallahassee became home. I started saying “I have to go home in August,” when I would visit Naples for breaks from school. It got to that level of comfort. It was that familiar; I think homeliness is due to a kind of familiarity. When we become accustomed to the toothbrush being on that side of the sink, the length of time it would take to run out of hot water in the shower or how often the dogs need to go outside we allow ourselves to become part of the home we are in. Home is the familiar. Home is the usual. Home is the comfort. Home is mom asking whether you want fried or scrambled eggs. Home is dad waking you up (against your will) to go fishing at 6 a.m. Home is being around the people who you know love you and loving them in return. Home is that one particular harbor. Home is that song of movie that reminds you of someone you once lost.

It has been 1,490 days since I left for college the first time. On June 8, 2008, I left the comfort of my parents’ home to embark on what would become the greatest period of personal growth I have experienced yet. Actually, you know what? It wasn’t my greatest period of personal growth, it was my greatest time of overall growth: personally, professionally and educationally. Tallahassee, while maybe not the “educational center of the world,” was exactly where I needed to be for the four years I spent there. I learned so much from my friends, teachers and mentors at Florida State and Florida A&M Universities. I am truly grateful, and there are not enough words in the English language (or the Spanish language, for that matter) to express the depth of my gratitude.

Leaving home is hard, but I believe it’s necessary. Leaving that which is familiar pushes you out of your comfort zone. Getting out of your comfort zone allows you to explore part of you that may not have ever surfaced at home. What happens if you leave your house at 1 a.m. while mom and dad sleep? You’re “sneaking out.” That same act is called “going out” when you leave your dorm room at 1 a.m. Some call it freedom; I’ve heard some call it hell. Whatever it means to each individual is decided by them and only them. Leaving home allows immeasurable growth of your person. Leaving home allows you to create new homes. Leaving home allows you to create new families. It allows you to determine your own fortune. Leaving home allows you to come back home.

I write this to say, simply—very simply—home is a state of mind, not a state of address.

New York, New York

Leave a reply

All day today I’ve been trying to figure out how I’m going to get all of my stuff up to NYC for this coming year. I never knew moving to the Big Apple could become such a nightmare so quickly. Thankfully, I’ve found a roommate that I know I get along with, but that doesn’t make the apartment hunt any easier.

In New York you can’t begin apartment hunting until the month before you want to move in—and some might even tell you that’s too early. For an August 1 move-in, I’m STILL being told I’m looking too early. I wanted to have an apartment solidified for this year back in May… C’est la vie, I guess, but it’s beyond stressful. I should just let it go and know I’ll find something when I get up there, but that’s hard to do because of how plan-oriented I am. I want to know where I’m staying, what day I’m moving in, how I’m going to furnish it and what it’s going to cost. I can’t even pretend to know any of that now. As much as I love the city, I am rapidly starting to hate its real estate system.

I have been on Craigslist, PadMapper, Rent.com and any other apartment searching website there is, but that doesn’t really help because they are all looking for the same thing—someone to sign a lease today and move in tomorrow. Clearly, I can’t do that.

You know what the worst part is? According to every piece of documentation I’ve come across, the Graduate PLUS loan will help pay for rent and living expenses while you’re in school, but here’s the trouble: Columbia needs to know I’m an enrolled and registered student before they can disburse that money to me. That means I won’t see it until August 6, which is more than a week after I need to move in because orientation starts on August 2. That means I’ll have to figure out some way to put a deposit down on an apartment, feed myself, get a MetroCard and find some kind of furniture all without loan assistance. Huzzah.

I’m reminded of one of my first blog posts—you’re free to check it out here.

Now, with that being said, I don’t think I’d trade this craziness for a moment. And I know it will get ten times crazier once I move up there and really start my courses. I know this is the opportunity of a lifetime—my big break, my window of opportunity, and I don’t intend to squander it. I’m convinced that students get out of education only what they are willing to put into it. While I’m in the city I plan to go above and beyond in my academics. Some people have said, “in New York you can finally start dating!” or, “you’re going to have so much fun going out with friends at night!” Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure I’ll do a little bit of those, but I fully plan to invest myself into my education; my degree is my number one priority. No slacking allowed.

So, Columbia Lions, are you prepared for your centennial class of j-school? I sure hope so because if open house was any indication, you’ve never seen anything like what we’re all bringing.

Roar Lions.

Liberal Media v. Liberal Academia

Leave a reply

I noticed something this morning. My grandfather watches Fox News, and something one of their contributors said stuck out to me this morning.

They said something along the lines of “the liberal media and the liberal academia…” I was in the other room, so I don’t really know what the entire segment was about. But that phrase stuck out to me as peculiar. Media and Academia are the two biggest sources of information transfer in our lives. The best way, overall, according to innumerable studies, sources and academics, to make a better life for yourself and your family is to get a college degree. Study after study prove that college degrees can improve annual income by 200%; the source I’ve pulled that from is the United States Census Bureau.

Now, wait a minute. The liberal academia is a place where Americans can go to improve their own lives, but it will make them liberal? Is that a chance Americans are willing to take? Sacrifice their conservatism to attend college and double their annual income—I’m pretty sure most Americans will say yes. But it makes me wonder, does information lead to liberalism? If academia and media are two of the most concerning liberal strongholds in this country, the strongest conservative strongholds must be the opposite of those, right? So does that mean ignorance and social seclusion are the conservative strongholds?

While I clearly don’t think conservatives are ignorant and secluded, I do think their constant berating of media and academia are misplaced. Do most conservative politicians believe Americans should go to school? Of course. But if they want you to go to school, why are they putting down your institution all the while? It just doesn’t add up.

Here’s my question: if academia and media are the leftest of the liberal, then does that mean information equals liberalism? Does the smarter someone become make them become more liberal too?

I only ask this because I’ve attended college. I have my own opinions, and they’re not liberal or conservative. Quite frankly, one party vows for this kind of regulation while the other wants that kind of regulation. Republicans argue for social regulation—abortion control, marriage sanctity and ultra tight immigration controls; Democrats vie for fiscal regulation—banking reforms, healthcare overhauls and taxation. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with any of the aforementioned, but let’s call a spade a spade. Republicans saying they’re against regulation is like an academic telling people not to attend college. It just doesn’t make sense—it’s not the real world. Regulation is regulation, whether it’s fiscal or social.