Watch Out For the Skittles Police

This is in no way travel related, but it was so ridiculous I just had to comment on it. This article is from WBZTV.com is about an 8th grade student who was suspended for buying Skittles from another classmate. Apparently the New Haven, Connecticut school has some insane rule that forbids candy from the property as well as the exchange of money from one student to another,

Really? Is this something we as Americans need to be worried about?

The article mentions that the student, Michael Sheridan, was not only an honor student, but he was the class vice president as well. Now, he's been suspended for 3 days (though it was reduced to 1 day), he's forbidden from attending an honors student dinner, and has been stripped of his title as class vice president.

All over some candy. I can see the school not wanting to promote the sale of candy. That's fine. If they'd rather sell fruit and other healthy options, more power to them. But the degree of punishment handed down for buying one bag of Skittles is an outrage. If Sheridan chooses to eat candy rather than fruit, that's his choice. The school has no right to tell him what he can and can't eat.

As for the breaking of the rules, I understand that much. I too have been to middle school, and I find it hard to believe that the student, especially a class vice president, wouldn't know that he can't be eating candy in class. However, there is something to be said about the old saying, "A bad law deserves to be broken."

All this school has done is punished an otherwise good student (who never had a disciplinary record), given themselves a bad reputation of an authoritarian administration, and shown this young student prematurely how nonsensical rules and authority figures can sometimes be. He should have figured that out in high school.

So to you, Michael Sheridan, I say keep eating that candy. Don't let the principal tell you what you can and can't eat. It's your body and your health. A rule as intrusive as that is designed to fail.

The Lede: Magazine Regrets Printing Prince Harry's Whereabouts

In a post today by Mike Nizza, The Lede talks about the magazine which released the information on Prince Harry's whereabouts, which put his unit at risk and ultimately forced him to be sent back to England early. New Idea, the Australian magazine that leaked the story, now says that they are sorry for doing so and it was a lack of judgment. Of course, the story didn't really explode until The Drudge Report posted the story.

This is an important case for journalists. Though not all journalists throughout the world had to agree with or follow the black out on this news like in England, you have to wonder about the responsibility of a journalist. By printing Prince Harry's whereabouts, they not only put his and his comrades' lives in danger, but they walk a fine line of reporting for the sake of finding the truth, and merely just to get the story out.

Obviously, it's always important to try to get your story out first, but if there is a universal agreement to not report something in the interest of safety, I feel like it's important to follow that. Prince Harry has said that he liked being in Afghanistan and that for the first time he felt like a regular person. Though he covered up his face to not be identified, he still fit in and looked like any other soldier.

Now, as a result, he's going to have his royal status once again thrown in his face and taken out of the battle back to England where he will no doubt be coddled again. I can't speak for him, but it sounds like he really just wanted to be a regular guy and have no special treatment. You can't help what family you're born into, and for Prince Harry, it seems unfair that his dream job should be cut short because of a journalist who just couldn't sit on a story.

Journalists are out there to find the truth and give justice to the public, so they should also consider if what they're doing is just and right. Did the story alert anyone to sudden danger? Did they create a social and cultural uprising? Was anything truly won by reporting on his location?

The Lede: Seven More Sins, Thanks to Vatican

In a post by Mike Nizza on The Lede today, Nizza discussed that the Vatican has now added 7 new sins, in addition to the other 7 sins and the 10 Commandments. The new sins include birth control, stem cell research, drug abuse, polluting the environment, contributing to a divide between the rich and poor, excessive wealth, and creating poverty.

While some of these new sins might seem like common sense, mainly the ones about the environment and poverty, the others just seem like the Vatican trying to reach into a modern and global demographic. It's hard to relate to Biblical stories about sacrifices and burning bushes, so it seems like the Church is trying to bring back the followers with things they can relate to.

Personally, I feel like the Church has their original sins, and they should stick to them. Why not add nuclear war to the list while they're at it? Or how about identity theft? When I heard that the Vatican had a new ruling a couple of years back on driving, I knew they were reaching beyond their limits. But this new list just seems like they're really stretched thin. Kind of like when a TV show will pull out a random celebrity guest in the hopes that it draws interest, but you can just tell they don't fit in and it doesn't make sense.

Home Sweet Home

This weekend I went home to see my parents and get some things before spring break. Home is a brown and white house with two garage doors in a quiet neighborhood of Sharon, Massachusetts. It was nice to go back for a while, do some laundry, and have a good meal. But do I really live there anymore? Sure, I have all of my important mail sent there, and during every school break I head back there, but at what point does it stop being "my house" and become "my parents house?"

The idea of "home" is different to a lot of people. For some, it's a material place that they can touch, smell, and even taste, if they feel so inclined (just don't eat the lead paint). A place that you can go to and claim as your own. Where no one can touch you. For others, it's a place that you feel most comfortable. It could be on a friends couch or even on the road. As the saying goes, "home is wherever you make it."

I wonder if I've lost that feeling. I still like going back to Sharon--for a while anyway. All of my old friends are from there, and there's the sense of childhood and simpler times in that neighborhood. I've lived on and off in Amherst now for close to four years, and almost every time I come back to Sharon, I feel more removed than the last time. Every time I travel somewhere else, I feel as if I'm farther away from the childhood and growing up in Sharon.

It's not necessarily a tangible thing, but I can feel it. I walk around my house and all of the stuff on the walls feels somewhat different. Renovations here and there have changed my house enough so that it's hardly the place it was when I was a kid. Either way, it's still nice to come back to a place that seems somewhat familiar. Especially after traveling for a long time or being away at school.

At this time next week I'll be on a 747 headed to South America. I'll be heading to Uruguay to do some volunteer work in the capital, Montevideo. This will be my first trip to South America, and I'm very excited. We have a lay over in Buenos Aires, Argentina, but only for an hour or so, unfortunately. I'd love to actually get to spend some time there, but there just isn't any time. Keep checking the blog, because I'm going to try to post some entries while I'm down there. Hopefully there will be a working computer in the hotel. Stay tuned.

All iPods Go To Heaven

I suppose this is a sort of obituary for my iPod. Last week my iPod was stolen, and needless to say, I feel a loss that can best be described in the first few primal responses that come to mind. Shock, anger, frustration, sadness, and numbness are the emotions that came to me after I realized my iPod was gone. It's more than just the monetary value of the iPod that mattered to me. It was actually pretty old--I bought it over three years ago and it was on its way out--but the sentimental value that bugs me the most.

There's hardly ever justification for theft, and when you break into someone's room and take what isn't yours, you really take more than just the object. You take a little bit of the person's trust in other people. You take a little bit of the person's soul that was put into that object, if that object truly touched them enough.

As I've alluded in some other posts, music is incredibly important to me. It gets me through a lot of times, be they good, bad, or just a fleeting moment. Over the years I've done some intense traveling, and the iPod was always there with me. Through hours of long bus rides, layovers and delays, and killing time in the car, it gave me what a lot of people wish they could have. It gave my life a soundtrack. I'll always have a character theme with certain parts of the world now because of my iPod.

I suppose it just seems like I've grown attached to a material thing, and that would be a just assessment, but I think it goes deeper than that. I think what was truly stolen was my old travel buddy, the old faithful that would always cheer me up just when I needed it, or lull me to sleep in an uncomfortable part of the world. I think it was the idea of having a piece of my travels taken away, because no matter where I was in the world, I had that music player with me, keeping me entertained.

I tend to personify my things sometimes in an attempt to feel some connection with what I've done. Sometimes I'll joke that I trust my old backpack more than a person because that pack held up under intense traveling, and that person hasn't proven themselves in the same situations yet. "This jacket's been with me all over the world, so be careful with it."

When I traveled to Lisbon I was by myself for the first time, and to comfort my loneliness and insecurity of being alone, I turned to my MP3 player. It stood by me the whole time. Later, when I was traveling alone for two weeks and on other trips, it kept me company on the trains, in the parks, and while reading on long airplane rides across the oceans. I believe that you can bring out a different aspect of traveling with the addition of music, and with the music gone, a part of that experience is also gone.

Of course, I still have the music saved on my computer--the only place I can access it from now. And someday I'll be able to buy another iPod and have those good times on the road with my music again. But for now, I can't afford a new one, and I'm just going to have to learn to travel with the roar of the jet engine and the snores of my roommates. Luckily, I usually have a song in my head anyway. But maybe this is a good thing too. Maybe I'll pay more attention to the local music, or to the local noises. I've always listened for them, but now I can completely focus on them, rather than the song in my head that I just heard.

I guess in the end it just comes down to me missing my old friend, my own personal soundtrack, ready to follow me around, spotting on and off and the lightest touch. A material thing from the outside-yes-but a real thing from the inside. And someday when I have that music with me once again, I can relive the old days, and make some new imprints on my musical memory. A new friend with an old face.

The Lede: Settling Very Old Scores in South Korea

In a February 29 post from The Lede, Patrick J. Lyons writes about the South Korean government redistributing land because of collaboration with the Japanese between 1910 and 1945. The Lede poses the question of when has enough time passed that it becomes unfair to punish the descendants of the people who committed the acts?

It's an interesting thing to take into account. At the end of the post, Lyons talks about the land redistribution after the American Revolution and how the Loyalists lost their land but dealt with it well before the 1840s. Comparatively, as much time has gone by now in South Korea and the descendants are just now being punished.

Another thing to think about is the issue of reparations to African American descendants of slaves. You could ask the same question of how much time has passed that it no longer becomes the problem of the state or the individual. I think that in the case of South Korea, it seems a bit unfair to be taking away the land now, unless the landowners somehow are directly related to the suffering that was caused by their collaboration.

Today, we have friendly relations with Japan and Germany, even though horrible atrocities occurred during World War II. We don't punish the children and grandchildren of Nazis or Japanese guards at Nanking or Cabanatuan. I don't think the children should be held accountable for the actions of their parents. With that being said, something should be done to help those families that suffered and still do suffer as a result of the treatment during the occupation. Perhaps those families can be given jobs on the land or have a stake in the ownership.

On Traveling Alone

Traveling in groups can be a great way to see a new place. Not only do you have the security of being with guides and other people your age, but you can have people to eat and drink with, as well as pass the time with. If you're traveling with one or two other people, you tend to rely on those people for support, both emotionally and physically. When you travel on your own, however, it's a totally different experience that you could either love or hate.

Like with anything you do, there will be advantages and disadvantages. One of the best aspects of traveling alone is that you can do whatever you want and not have to worry about other people complaining or slowing you down. If you want to wake up early or sleep in, there's no one else to take into consideration. You really have complete freedom while traveling alone, and it allows you to take your time and enjoy the place you're traveling in. A lot of times while traveling in a group, you get herded from one spot to the next without being able to soak it all in. When you're by yourself and don't have anywhere special to be, you can sit and enjoy the place you're in.

Being alone allows you to meet more people, at hostels, for instance. Often times, people who travel alone will stick together and hang out. Though you don't have to do the same thing the other guy is, a lot of times you find that you're both going to the same place anyway. It's nice to buddy up, and if you find that the person is getting on your nerves, you don't have to hang out with them anymore.

Traveling alone can give you a totally different perspective on a place. You can get a really insightful trip, rather than the superficial kind you sometimes get with a group trip. If you like to write, you can just sit at a cafe or in a park and watch the locals. You can get a chance to do some thinking without anyone else bothering you.

Not everything about traveling alone is perfect though. The worst thing that can happen is loneliness. One of the best parts of traveling is sharing the experience with someone else, and if you're all alone, you have no one to discuss the beauty of the mountains or the culture with. You eat and drink alone, and you have no one to look out for your safety and well being. Maybe this was just my own problem, but when I traveled alone and saw groups of friends laughing and having a good time, I'd be jealous. I'd want to share in that good time with my own friends. You can't just go out drinking in a foreign city by yourself.

Another problem is your safety. Anytime you travel alone you can be a target for thieves or swindlers. One of the most stressful times is when you have a huge backpack on with another smaller bag on your stomach, riding the subway in a city where you don't speak the language. All someone has to do is tip you over and you're screwed.

There's also the issue of "If we're screwed, at least we're screwed together." When you're traveling with friends you have the little reassurance in the back of your head that if anything should come up, at least you're all together and can work together to figure it out. If you missed your train or plane and have to spend the night in the station or airport, you can laugh it off and hang out with your friends. You can even take shifts watching the luggage. But when you're by yourself, you're truly alone, especially when you don't speak the language. I've had to spend a few nights in airports clutching my bags, and it's an awful sleepless night if it happens.

If you travel to a city without a clear list of things to see and do, but wanted to go there to experience it, you could find yourself very bored. Sometimes the best part of traveling is the experiences you have with the people there. I traveled to Lisbon alone for two days because I wanted to see the city, but I didn't really know any specific sights or things to do other than a few things I'd heard. So when I got there I found myself thinking, "Now what?" I wandered around aimlessly for two afternoons just killing time. It could have been a great trip with just one other person to talk to and experience it with, but instead I was counting down until I left.

With all that being said, you can truly learn a lot about yourself just from traveling alone for a few days. You realize how careful you have to be and how to look out for yourself. You can look inside yourself and see what kind of person you are, and whether or not you would be better suited to travel alone or with others. But no matter what you come to realize, at least you know that you've done it and can do it again.