Random Thought 10

To be a Conservative.

In the American political climate, I like to call myself a Moderate or an Independent, because I think that, in calling myself a Republican or a Democrat, the will of the party takes over and the issues are pushed back.  Republicans and Democrats are so willing to push aside some of their personal beliefs because they either a) so love their own party they are willing to compromise anything or b) so hate the other party, they are willing to do the same so the other side doesn’t win.  I don’t know about you, but I don’t like that at all.  I never have.  One of my biggest issues with this government is the two party system.  It seems that only if you are insanely rich can you successfully campaign for a presidential election.  Either that, or have enormous collateral to get loans upon loans.  I personally believe that it is the bipartisan nature of this government that will eventually destroy it. 

In the upcoming election, American voters will have two candidates to choose from.  And many don’t want either one.  I find myself agreeing with some things Obama says and some things McCain says, but I also find myself dissatisfied with certain things on both sides (Obama more than McCain, I must admit).   The thing is, I find myself disagreeing with many things both sides say.  I cannot be a Republican because there are many social issues I don’t agree with them on, but I cannot be a Democrat because there are many economic issues I don’t agree with them on.  So where does that leave me?  Somewhere in the middle, I guess.  But I think I can definitely say that I do have conservative ideals.  While I do think that the Church and the State need to be as separate as possible in order to STRENGTHEN BOTH, I do think it is important to life your private life as morally and ethically (according to Judaic, Christian, Muslim, whatever, values) as possible.  I believe that the government needs to have as little impact in individuals’ lives as possible because when it does get too involved, all that ends up happening is a dependency upon a system that is fallible and will fail you.  I think what needs to be remembered most of all is that people are fallible.  There is no such thing as perfection, and I don’t want someone who is just as imperfect as I am telling me how I should be living my life. 

So after that digression, where do these ideals leave me with regards to the Presidential election?  As a member of a democracy, it is my right and obligation to vote in the elections.  Without that right, we are just allowing other people to once again make the decisions for us, and do you really think that the people next door know what is better for you than you do?  Honestly? 

So this brings me back to the original topic that set me off on this tangent.  I have to say that it is not often that I find a person in the media with whom I so completely agree on a certain issue.  However, I came across an article by Glenn Beck on CNN.com today titled Commentary: Obama no, McCain maybe.  It is an incredibly thoughtful, well-written article, and I couldn’t help but agree with pretty much everything he said.  I want to reprint the things he said in the article about what it means to be a Conservative. 

• “A conservative believes that our inalienable rights do not include housing, healthcare or Hummers.
• A conservative believes that our inalienable rights DO include the pursuit of happiness. That means it is guaranteed to no one.
• A conservative believes that those who pursue happiness and find it have a right to not be penalized for that success.
• A conservative believes that there are no protections against the hardship and heartache of failure. We believe that the right to fail is just as important as the chance to succeed and that those who do fail learn essential lessons that will help them the next time around.
• A conservative believes in personal responsibility and accepts the consequences for his or her words and actions.
• A conservative believes that real compassion can’t be found in any government program.
• A conservative believes that each of us has a duty to take care of our neighbors. It was private individuals, companies and congregations that sent water, blankets and supplies to New Orleans far before the government ever set foot there.
• A conservative believes that family is the cornerstone of our society and that people have a right to manage their family any way they see fit, so long as it’s not criminal. We are far more attuned to our family’s needs than some faceless, soulless government program.
• A conservative believes that people have a right to worship the God of their understanding. We also believe that people do not have the right to jam their version of God (or no God) down anybody else’s throat.
• A conservative believes that people go to the movies to be entertained and to church to be preached to, not the other way around.
• A conservative believes that debt creates unhealthy relationships. Everyone, from the government on down, should live within their means and strive for financial independence.
• A conservative believes that a child’s education is the responsibility of the parents, not the government.
• A conservative believes that every human being has a right to life, from conception to death.
• A conservative believes in the smallest government you can get without anarchy. We know our history: The larger a government gets, the harder it will fall.

Those are the things a conservative believes in, and they’re the things that I believe in. Now, if only I could find a candidate to match.” (I added the bullet points for emphasis)

If this is truly what conservatives are, then this is what I would be proud to define myself as.  Unfortunately, I do think that people are all to willing to shove ideas down other people’s throats in the effort to have things “the way they should be”.  I don’t think candidates like this exist, or ever will exist.  And if they do, I don’t think that people will allow them to do the work they so desperately need to.

I refuse to be called a Republican and I refuse to be called a Democrat.  Maybe if I can hold onto these core values that Mr. Beck speaks of, I can hold true to what I believe and vote for the candidate that emulates those as well.  

The question does remain, though: what to do if neither of the candidates emulate enough of the values to make me want to vote for either? 

Family

I went on vacation this weekend to a wedding on the east coast.  My aunt was getting married, and it was an excellent opportunity to see my family out there again, especially since I hadn’t seen them since I moved last July.  My whole family was there, with the exception of an uncle, his wife and their two children.  Since the details are too long-winded to be aired in a public arena such as this, I will just say that there has been a falling out with that branch of the family because the wife is a heinous bitch and her daughter has decided to follow closely in her footsteps.

Anyway, it was the first time I had seen my parents and one of my sisters since January.  For being such a large, Catholic group, we are very close.  I talk to my parents often, and my sisters, for all of our fighting, bickering and what-not, are the closest friends I have.  My family in NJ, my Mom’s family, is an odd group, and it can certainly be said that my sisters and parents, as the “weird relations from California” don’t really fit in.  But when it comes down to it, we are always there for each other and (with the exception of the uncle I no longer care to acknowledge as such) love each other dearly and would go to bat for each other in a heartbeat.  And we have. 

All of this really brought out the importance of family in my eyes.  I was talking to one of Mom’s cousins at the wedding and later, my Uncle and I were talking about how important family is to the cousin.  And I realized how truly important family is (and should be) to everyone in the family.  I mean, it’s not often that people are willing to unselfishly shell out ~$500 (or more) a person to attend a wedding in another state (for my parents, a state clear across the country).  But my family is, and while it may seem like I’m bragging or something, I think I just want to make a point.  I have a rule: there are two events in a family member’s life you just don’t miss – weddings and funerals.  These two not only celebrate huge events in a person’s life (also two of the sacraments, if you want to think about it that way), but they also help a family, especially one as large as mine, get together when it would have otherwise been impossible. 

You see, friends are like water.  They come and go, ebb and flow.  I am sad to say that I don’t keep in touch with many of the people I thought I would keep in touch with over the years.  But family is like the rock beneath your feet.  They may shift over time, and move with the forces of the earth, but they are always there, standing firm against the ravages of time.  Your family is, and should be, your lifeline.  I’ve moved many times in the past few years, but I know that no matter where I go, or what I do, my family will support me. 

Many of you out there may be thinking to yourselves, well, my family is awful, and my friends are my family.  I am sure that is the case for a lot of you.  But you still have that familial structure.  You have created a family out of your friends, and you call them family even though they are not blood related.  So the same thing applies. 

All I want to say is that you should hold onto that with both hands.  There isn’t much else that should be more important than your family.

Random Thought 9

A History Lesson.

As a bored member of the 9-5 club, I have ample time to surf the internet and check out other blogs.  I find some that are funny, some that are boring, some that make me think, and some that make me think “Did this person get an education EVER?”  Today, I was on a wordpress blog that fights Anti-Americanism.  This blogsite, Waging a War Against Anti-Americanism in This Post discussed a Facebook profile created by some Brits about how much America sucks and how horrible Americans are and how much more superior the British are.  They include various reasons, including our methods of spelling, and our (lack of) culture, etc, etc.  It is very insulting to an American to see this (as it was meant to be, I’m sure), and I would hope that no American feels that way about their own country (because if they do, they should move to another country and see if it’s any better).  While it would be incredibly easy to combat every single thing these idiots said, what really got me was the blatant misrepresentation of history on this site.  I have reproduced them below so I don’t have to keep gracing that site with my illustrious presence in an effort to argue against them (as much as I hate to do so, you can access the site here):

“6) They claim to have ’saved our ass’ in two wars. Before anyone tries to claim this:

WW1: they gave us almost no help, and only joined when the Germans sank many of their ships and tried to persuade the Mexicans to invade Texas

WW2: they refused to join, left us to deal with Hitler, and gave us no help. They SOLD us help, but that wrecked our economy after the war, which is why we’re no longer a superpower. Then they joined the war because Japan attacked THEM and Germany declared war on THEM.

Here’s the thing: as the WWII generation continues to die, and the events of the “War to End All Wars” grow more and more distant in the collective memory, the facts about this era begin to get garbled.  The events of WWI have been completely eclipsed by what happened after.  One of the issues is that, since WWII was so horrible and survivors refused to discuss it, we don’t have as many first-hand accounts as we would like – especially regarding issues like the Holocaust, and the atrocities committed against the Chinese by the Japanese in the name of nationalism.  Don’t get me wrong, the advances in technology have given us more information than we thought possible, but the secrecy of the initial stages of the war have allowed a lot of people to become confused. 

I don’t have as much historical knowledge of the events leading up to and including WWI.  I have, however, studied extensively the takeover of the Nazis leading to WWII as well as the war itself.  My stance on the matter (as a historian and an American) is that the entrance of the US into WWII signaled the beginning of the end of the Axis Powers.  That being said, the US could not have won the war on its own.  The only way the Allies won the war was through the joint collaboration of all the members – Great Britain, the US, the USSR and France (kind of).  And that is historical fact. 

It’s interesting because I have heard it the other way around too.  I have heard Americans argue that the US could have won the war without anyone else’s help.  That is a complete fallacy, just as the idea that the Allies didn’t need US aid (monetarily, militarily, etc) throughout the war is also a complete fallacy.  I think that in this precarious political and economic climate, people are so willing to jump on any historical reference they can find to justify how they feel about a certain group of people.  And if they can’t find it, historical fact is manipulated to suit whatever is being argued. 

But let me get a couple things straight.  Without a thorough understanding of the events and the reasons behind those events, no opinion should be made about what happened in the time period from 1914-1945.  It is a very complicated time in the world’s history and people study it for years without truly knowing everything about it.  To assume that you can make statements about that time period without really knowing the history is completely ignorant and totally arrogant.  Added to this is the fact that FDR’s FBI files still have not been released because of the laws regarding their release.  There was a lot of secrecy before WWII, and stuff going on in backrooms that historians can only guess at. 

So before you let your rabid nationalism/patriotism (from Americans, Brits and everyone else) skew your perception of what actually happened in the beginning of the 20th Century, try to actually read up on it first.  And don’t think that what you learned in high school history (or secondary school history depending on where you are) is enough – far from it.

I won’t deny that I am proud to be an American, but almost as importantly, if not more so, I am a historian, and it must be remembered that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. 

The Manson Legacy

Is it possible to be compassionate to one of them? 

Charles Manson is one of the most iconic names to come out of 60’s and 70’s crime.  Everyone should at least be able to recognize his name, if not for knowledge of the heinous acts he perpetrated, but because his name has wormed its way throughout pop culture to this day.  Every so often, his name, or one of the names of his followers comes up in the news, whether locally or nationally, and people are reminded yet again of the horrors committed against those murdered at the Tate residence and the LaBianca family.  For those who need a refresher course, Wikipedia has an extensive article about him and the acts he committed.  I also recommend Vincent Bugliosi and Curt Gentry’s Helter Skelter: the True Story of the Manson Murders if you want a really good in depth look at what happened.  Vincent Bugliosi was the chief prosecutor in this case, and the book is just incredibly well-written.  I have this odd fascination with true crime (I call it an odd fascination because I don’t enjoy reading about true crime, I just seem to want to read about it) and I have read Helter Skelter many times over the years. 

Recently, there have been some interesting events occurring surrounding Manson and his clan.  In May, police went to the ranch in Death Valley, CA, used by Manson and his “family” to search for bodies (ABC news story), thinking that they might find other victims of Manson’s twisted idea of what the future would hold.  They actually didn’t find anything, but that’s not surprising – it is the desert and the murders would have happened 40 years ago.  To be honest, it wouldn’t have surprised me in the least if they had found something – I have no doubt that more murders were committed than what the family was convicted for.  The other piece of news about Manson and his followers to reach headlines is different, and evokes very conflicting emotions in this observer’s mind and heart:  Susan Atkins, known as Sadie Mae Glutz in the Manson family, is dying (Wikipedia article here).  She has terminal brain cancer (ie. a malignant brain tumor), has been given less than 6 months to live and has requested “compassionate release” so that she may die out of prison.  This request made national headlines, here is an article published June 13 when the news came out (Friday the 13th!  Superstitious, anyone?).  As I said before, this bit of news has evoked very conflicting emotions within me, and I will do my best to lay them out for the reader to interpret for themselves.

So the issue at hand, as one editorial I read about this was very quick to mention, is that the need for justice to be served wars with the need for humans to be merciful.  Some may think this is a black and white issue – no gray area, but I don’t see it that way.  And I’m sure the judge this comes before won’t think so, either.  Or maybe he/she will.  The whole point, though, is that this is a “compassionate release”, not a request for parole, or re-trial or anything, but the dying wish of a woman who has spent the majority of her life in prison, paying for her heinous actions. 

Susan Atkins most certainly deserves every day of her life sentence.  The only reason she isn’t on death row now is that all death penalty convictions before 1972 were commuted to life terms when the CA Supreme Court ruled the death penalty was unconstitutional.  When CA re-instated the death penalty, the sentences couldn’t be changed back because, I believe (and correct me if I’m wrong) the law of habeas corpus prevented that.  So, according to the original trial, and her original sentence, Susan Atkins shouldn’t even be alive today – she would have been executed long ago.  Now she is truly dying - a painful death at the hands of cancer.  She has asked for a compassionate release because she knows she is going to die and wants to endure that pain outside of prison.  But then, just because she knows she is going to die doesn’t mean that she should be released to die at home.  Don’t convicts die every day in jail – whether or not they know it is going to happen?  And, while this may sound callous, technically it can be said that prison is her home – she has been in prison longer than not (37 years in jail, she went in when she was 23).  And let us not forget – if it was Charles Manson asking for compassionate release, I don’t think anyone would allow it.

And then there is mercy.  Mercy is a powerful word, and a powerful tool when used.  Susan Atkins is asking for mercy from the California penal system, the family of the victims she murdered and from the same jury of peers who convicted her almost 40 years ago.  I don’t think anyone would blame anyone else for denying her request.  Even though she has repented and become active in prison reform programs, and has become a born-again Christian, she still brutally murdered an 8-month pregnant Sharon Tate, showing no remorse during the murder or during the trial.  Yet, can something be said for true rehabilitation?  Can we ever know the number of people she has helped with her work while in prison?  Does that even matter?  It’s easy for me to say that I would like for her to be released, but would I be able to say that if I was a surviving victim of these acts?  I don’t know the answer to that (and I can only hope I never have to find out). 

An act of mercy is one of the most important gifts one human can give to another.  A case like this one really tests our ability to be merciful.  For those of us who are Christians, isn’t this one of the ultimate Christian duties?  Isn’t it our duty to give mercy to those who don’t deserve it?  “Compassionate release” is just that – an act of compassion for a dying woman.  But maybe the question is – should we feel moved to compassion and mercy for this woman?

A fascinating conundrum.  One thing cannot be denied – Susan Atkins will die, and will die soon.  When she does, it will be in the hands of God what happens to her next.  I can only hope that our Savior knows the answer to this conundrum – for all our sakes.  We ask for compassion and mercy every day, from family, friends, strangers – but do any of us really deserve it?  And is the point whether we deserve it or not, or whether those being asked for mercy are compassionate enough to actually do so?

I leave you to draw your own conclusions and your own opinions.

Big Brother and . . . Dieting?

As I was sitting at work, bored out of my mind as usual, one of my friends sent me a link to a NY Times article about recent events in Japan.  Apparently, Japan has decided to institute a law saying that local governments and companies have to actually MEASURE people’s waist sizes!  I guess it was put into effect a couple months ago, but we are hearing about it now.  As part of the annual check-up, Japanese men and women between the ages of 35-74 have to have their waists measured.  The standard which they are measured against is what the International Diabetes Foundation has considered healthy for Japan.  For men, waistlines should be no more than 33.5″ and for women, 35.4″.  But wait, it gets better.  If after 3 months, the offenders are still over “government limits” and have a weight-related problem, they will be “steered” to further re-education about weight loss over the following 6 months.  AND, according to this US News article, if companies can’t slim down their employees, they face higher payments into the national health insurance.

WTF?!

Are you kidding me?!  “Hello, Big Brother?  Japan is calling, they want to come over for dinner and have a nice long visit.”

Apparently, because of the national health care system, which covers the Japanese either through their employers or through a public health system, the government can pass laws like this without much opposition.  Even critics of the law don’t call out it’s blatant Big Brother attitude, but the fact that it’s not necessary.  They say that maybe it would be necessary in a country like the US where there are many Americans who weigh 220 pounds (!) but not Japan.

There are so many things wrong with this bit of news, I almost can’t process them all.  The best way I think is to make a list and then see if I can address all of them.

1. Big Brother attitudes
2. National Health Care
3. The slight against US health
4. The seemingly little opposition to this law
5. A trend for the future?

So let’s start with #1 (my favorite).  Here’s the thing: socialism can be basically equated to Big Brother.  Whether or not you want to admit it, socialism is where a few ”experts” decide what is best for the population at large – with healthcare, it is decided for you if a medical treatment is appropriate, and apparently, it is decided how big of a waist you should have.  Socialism takes basic privileges and rights, afforded to you in a democracy, and puts those rights in the hands of someone else because you don’t know better or enough to make your own decisions.  It’s as if the country is a family, and the government is your parents deciding what you should and should not do because it’s “best for you”.   It’s most certainly where Europe is, and apparently Japan.  Communist China is much more extreme (you know, their law where families can have only one baby?).  Socialism is certainly where the US is headed, especially if Obama wins this year.  But I digress.  The fact of the matter is, soon, we will be told what we can and cannot eat because it’s bad for us – oh wait, that’s already started too with the banning of Trans Fats.  Whether or not you agree with it, it’s still Big Brother.

#2 – Socialist health care.  This one sends shivers down my back.  Here we go.  I’m against socialized medicine.  Why?  Well, I think the US is too big to have a good system for socialized medicine and if you go by state, then you will have mass migrations to the states with better healthcare (ie the wealthier states).  Also, where do you think the money comes from to pay for drug and cancer research?  Hmm?  And where do you think that money would go if we gave everyone “free” healthcare?  Hello. . . common sense is knocking. . . a little reminder – nothing in life is free, we all have to pay for it somehow.  Obviously, everyone should have access to affordable healthcare.  Making it free is just idiotic. 

The third point is this slight against the US.  I wanted to comment on it because it really just highlights how little the rest of the world thinks of Americans.  And how apparently everyone is over 200 lbs.  Don’t get me wrong, America is most certainly fat and it is definitely an epidemic.  But really, do people HAVE to call attention to it all the time?  I mean, of course there’s a problem, I’ll be the first to admit it, but for once, leave Americans out of arguments that have nothing to do with us.

The last two issues can be tied together.  As far as I can tell, there has been little opposition in Japan to this law, but hopefully I’m wrong in thinking that, and maybe it just hasn’t been reported.  Either way, other countries could get the idea to do this and soon anywhere with socialized medical care could consider passing a similar law.  The lack of opposition could be seen as support and genius politicians may want to try it out in their countries.  It terrifies me that this may become a new trend in healthcare. 

I’m sorry, but I don’t care what kind of healthcare a country has, the government has ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to tell you what to do with your body.  If you want to be 500 lbs, that’s your right to do so.  It’s extremely selfish, because then someone is going to have to take care of you and your fat, but it’s still your right as a person.  I mean, does it go the other way?  Will you be sanctioned for being too thin?  Being too thin can cause as many health problems as obesity.  When does it stop?

Random Thought 8

Types of Crushes

In a night of revelations this past weekend, I came up with a genius way of explaining the types of crushes women (since I am a woman, that’s all I can speak to – I’ve given up trying to understand men’s minds) have on men.  Well, I think this theory is genius.  I’m pretty sure most people will wonder a) why it matters and b) who the hell cares.  I find it an interesting, and once again, to be perfectly honest, I don’t care if anyone cares or not.

So anyway, I think there are 4 types of crushes: Celebrity Crushes (which I personally think shouldn’t count as a real crush anyway because you’re never even going to meet that person, so why bother); High School Crushes; College Crushes; and finally, Real Life Crushes.  As a single woman in her early 20’s (I’m 23 for two more months – still counts as early), I have had the opportunity to observe my friends’ and family’s relationships, and my own (failed) ones and have recently come to these conclusions.  Now for all of you who think I’m insane or just have way to much time on my hands, yes, you are right, but just read on, I think I can satisfactorily explain this.  While they are kind of self-explanatory, but you may enjoy my explanations.

The Celebrity Crush is obvious.  You have a crush on a celebrity, some actor, sports star, rich CEO, whatever, whom you have never met and, most likely, will never meet.  This one can range from the innocent following of movies and reading about him in magazines to the insane stalkers you hear about getting arrested for trying to break into their house and smell their underwear (never a good thing).  This particular crush bothers me because it gets you nowhere.  Everyone in a relationship seem to have that “one person” who, if the significant other ever meets them, they can have one night with.  Well, why would you do that?  If you are in a truly committed relationship with someone, why would you have that “escape clause”?  It seems totally unnecessary and kind of demeaning.  You may be wondering why I would care, because it’s not a big deal, it’s totally impossible that it would happen, and it’s kind of a joke.  The question I pose to you then, is, think about what would happen if your significant other actually did meet that “one person”.  Then how would you feel?  And what if, since there is that “one person” would they be imagining/comparing assets then every time you were in bed thereafter?  Nope, I don’t like this type of crush at all (even though I totally have one on Jonathon Rhys Meyers).

A High School Crush is when you have a crush on a guy and it’s totally innocent.  Just a “school-girl crush” if you will.  You know not much is ever going to happen with it, and it doesn’t go much beyond flirtation, gooey-eyed staring, or a few dates with minor petting.  You’ll get over this crush pretty quickly and move on with no harm done and maybe a lesson learned on the type of guy you are (not)looking for.  I like this crush because it is totally innocent and no feelings should be hurt.  When we were in high school, we had tons of these crushes, and, since we were in high school, we were definitely hurt then because anything bad that happened meant the end of the world, but now, a High School Crush should be recognized for what it is.

The College Crush is a little more fun and I think more likely to happen to those in the early- to mid-20’s (which is kind of like a duh moment because you finish college in your early 20’s).  A College Crush is kind of like the High School Crush, except a little more dirty and will probably last longer and has a better chance of turning into a Real Life Crush (more on that later).  The College Crush usually stems from meeting someone at a bar, or randomly hooking up with someone you work with.  It sometimes involves sex, certainly heavy petting, but usually is never really completely serious, even though when it ends, people are hurt in one way or another.  Obviously a College Crush means more “adult” feelings and can involve very adult issues, but for many, it’s just a lot of fun and is part of the casual relationship image that defines those of working-class, early to mid 20’s set of the population.

This next type of Crush, and the one that is obviously the most complicated, is the Real Life Crush.  This Crush is the one that inevitably leads to long-term relationships – marriage, common-law unions, etc.  From the beginning it is acknowledged that “something” is there.  The sense of excitement is much higher from Day 1, and it is no surprise when a crush like this one turns into a long-term thing.  I thought about breaking this Crush up into different categories, but there is really no need, because no matter what happens later on, the Crush itself is what I’m discussing.  When I think of Real Life Crushes, I think of the stories of when my sister met her husband or when my Grandpa met my Grandmother.  These Crushes are real, deep and meaningful.  And later on, when they are reflected on, many times, it is just known that it would end in marriage.  If it ends, either in divorce or just a break-up, psychologically, it is deeply painful.  I would argue that if one person involved dies, the Crush never really ends.  I personally think that this Crush (even if it only happens once) is the best one. 

Of course, there are exceptions.  Everyone knows that sometimes, a high school relationship turns into marriage, and obviously, so can a High School Crush.  I just think that it is way more unlikely to happen.  Same goes for the College Crush.  A casual thing can most certainly turn into a deep, lasting relationship, but, for a lot of people, especially in their early to mid 20’s, a long-term relationship is the last thing on their mind and all they want to do is enjoy lots and lots of College Crushes.  Which, to be honest, is totally understandable.

Of course, there is a downside.  To me, this is when the first three types of Crushes mess with the last one.  When the Celebrity, High School and College Crushes happen to a woman who is married and has a Real Life Crush.  Obviously, anyone of these Crushes can spell disaster to a marriage if you let it.  But you know, if you can recognize those Crushes for what they are and what they are not, I think avoiding the temptation becomes much easier, and keeping that Real Life Crush going and even more powerful.

So, during the Keynote Speech of WWDC 08, I have tried to explain what each of these Crushes are and why they are important.  None of them should be ignored, but taken and enjoyed.  And, when they are over, learned from so that when the next Crush comes along, it is even better than the last.