Partly

I was watching my cousin's little girl today. She's six and adorable. She loves to play games, so we were doing all the standard kid games and she wanted to play a Memory card game. Now, I hate Memory. Always have, but it's a good enough game to play to pass some time and she loves it. She's also VERY good at it. She rarely misses a pair when one has been flipped over. It was fun watching her play, so very sure and quick.

But the most interesting thing was what I learned about myself and my inability to see things the way they are.

There were 36 cards laid out in four rows of nine cards each and we sat across the table from each other. Once we started playing I'd flip over a card that I know I had seen a match to and then I would reach to where I was really sure the match was. I was usually wrong. She would laugh and, before I even flipped the cards back over, would flip over the match I'd been looking for.

The interesting part? Eight times out of ten the matching card would be in a spot that was a mirror image to where I was looking. If I had thought it was in the row closest to me, it was actually in the row furthest away from me. If I flipped over a card two columns in from the right, the actual spot it would be was two columns in from the left. It wasn't that I was flipping over the wrong card right next to the correct card, no, I was completely in the wrong quadrant of the playing field.

I actually started to do the opposite of what I thought was right and my game improved. If my first impulse was to reach to the right side, I would force myself to go to the left. Instead of picking the side closest to me, I would do the side furthest from me. Granted I still sucked, but I did better.

I don't know why that surprised me, really. I mean, I know I have issue with things like that. Left and right, for example. I understand that most people do the left and right thing with no issues but I can't. I mean, I can't. If I'd be ambidextrous, I would never know which way is right because I know right is the side that I "write" with. I actually have to hold my hand as if I'm holding a pencil and then I know which side is right.

I usually don't tell people this because it immediately places me in the "dumber than a kindergartener" category, but it's something I've had to learn how to deal with all my life. Ask anyone who's ever taken directions from me. They will tell you that they always follow the way I point rather than what I say because if I want someone to go left I will point left but I will often say "go right".

It's always interesting, what people chose to judge "smart" and "intelligent" by. You screw up right and left? You will never be seen as smart. Have a hard time memorizing the multiplication tables? Dumb becomes your middle name. It doesn't matter if you can recite the whole damn Hamlet soliloquy, if you mess up "7 x 8" and you're automatically in the shallow end of the gene pool. Misspell common words? Hell, might as well just curl up and die before you infect the rest of the world with your obviously contagious stupidity.

Ok, that's probably an overstatement and most people over the age of 18 probably won't say those things to your face, but it's not exactly wrong, either. Our society -- especially our on-line society -- places a great deal of emphasis on "smart". Defining "smart" is a lot harder than one would think, though. So people chose to define "dumb" instead. And they usually define dumb as "people who can't do the things that come easily to me". That's just human nature -- we think of ourselves as smart, we quantify those things that we do that "make" us smart and we judge other people by those same standards.

I understand all of that. And quite frankly, I'd like to think that I'm too secure (or at least too damn old) to care what people I've really never even met think of me. Most of the time I manage that, too.

I think what really bugs me about these things is that if I could come up with a label to give people -- like "I'm dyslexic" -- that covers all of these "shortcomings" everyone's attitude would change. You see, we will accept people's shortcoming if there's a nice, neat label to toss on them. If someone's dyslexic, we'll benevolently forgive their "stupidity". We will overlook their "failings" as long as they can have a label that excuses them. You don't have that label, well you're out of luck. You're just dumb.

It pisses me off that people need a label to be considerate or in order for people to accept that intelligence comes in more than one flavor. It's wrong that a diagnosis is needed in order for people to be tolerant and accepting.

Obviously, this is a sore spot for me. This post has been sitting around in one form or another for years. I've come to terms with the fact that this will never change. I understand that most of the world needs such labels in order to know how to treat people. I only pull out the "I'm dyslexic" defense when I'm really stressed. Usually, I don't need to. Most times, I just try not to care what people will think. The rest of the time, I know my limitations and work hard to address them or avoid situations where they will cause me problems. I work hard at hiding my shortcomings so I don't have to justify them to the world.

It is, after all, the smart thing to do.

I was once described as being "aggressively optimistic". It seems an accurate description of me. I like to see the positive side of things. I enjoy the silver-lining and I will fight to find it.

Don't misunderstand this. I know that bad things happen in this world. I know this because they have happened to me. They have happened to people I know. People I love. The world can be a hard and cruel place. Wil suffers from depression, so I know well how dark the world can become. I don't pretend these things don't happen, I don't ignore the bad or the evil.

But I always come back to a quote by Victor Frankl, holocaust survivor: “Between stimulus and response, there is a space. In that space lies our freedom and power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and freedom.”

My response is always, ALWAYS to try and surround myself with the positive. To fight until I can see some sign of good. Until I can BE some sign of good.

I don't succeed all the time. It's damn hard work to be positive in the morass that life can become. I'm easily influenced by the emotional context around me. I tend to self-doubt and self-recriminate. I am both stubborn and fearful. My fight/flight response is equally balanced and rarely makes my first reaction in any bad situation a good or positive one. I am very, very good at running through scenarios in my mind and thinking dark and dangerous thoughts.

But while I have no control over my initial reaction -- over my fear, over my inadequacies, over my overwhelming desire to just pretend that it didn't happen or to obliterate the problem utterly -- I have complete control over my response. As Victor Frankl says therein lies my growth and freedom.

So yes, I fight to be positive. I fight to do good. I volunteer with the youth of my community. I donate what I can to the local food pantry and HAVEN. I work for my Church. I praise good when I see it. I comment on it to those around me.

I fight to see the good. I am sure to note the number of good, hard-working teenagers I see at the store. I appreciate the neighbor who snowblows my front walk without being asked or being thanked. I admire the group of children who can play quietly (more or less) at a table while their parent waitresses a night shift and I greatly admire a business that allows them to do that.

I fight not to fall into the "It's all about me" mentality that seems to be all the rage these days. I try not to indulge in sarcasm or the belittling of those I disagree with or don't like. I remind myself that it's petty and often cruel to get pleasure out of the misfortunes of others.

It doesn't always work. A brief check of my journal will demonstrate that. But at the same time, I don't write done every slight or injury done to me. In two months -- hell, in two days -- I won't remember the small annoyances of the day, why should I record them here where they lurk waiting to reinfest my life at some point?

Which, in the end, probably makes me a lousy journalist. I know the thought is to write it down and get it out. Only I've always thought that written words were permanent and thoughts are fleeting. In my half-full world view, I'd rather let the bad thoughts flit right away. Of course, if I would take the time to mark down the good ones more often, life would be even better.

[Error: unknown template qotd]

I'd rather be rich.

I don't want to be "Super-smart". I know people who are super-smart. They walk around not understanding most of the world. Not relating to most of it. True brilliance is as much of a curse as it is a blessing.

Give me money. I can do things with money. I can build and share and help people. Hell I can do dumb things with it that make other people happy. I still be able to relate and understand the 99.9% that live in this world who are as average as I am. I can set up trust funds and foundations that allow all those "super-smart" people out there to do what they do. Me? I'll go fishing. I'll talk to the guy walking down the street. I'll hang out at a football game or help out with the local 4-H. I'll toss money at lost causes and plant trees and the like.

That said, I don't think the question is exactly fair. "Super-smart" and "Super-rich" are really not comparable.

Being Super-smart is who you are. How you think defines you. How you think influences how you see the world, how you interpret the world and the people around you. It colors every aspect of who you are and how you interact with others and the world around you.

Being Super-rich is merely an adjective. It doesn't change who you are. It doesn't change how you view the world or how you interpret the world or the people around you. It does change how you are able to interact with the world, that's true. It will allow you to do so much more. But it doesn't change you, not fundamentally.

And if anyone is willing to toss a whole lot of money my way, I'd be glad to prove that. *grin*

I love baking bread. It reminds me that life isn't about timing or exact measurements or verifiable perfection. In Egypt the bakers started out in the morning with the same ingredients but never knew whether they would end up with bread, beer or some combination of the two. Even with the reliable ingredients we have today, bread is not something that can be made well by precise measurement or blind obedience to timelines. Making bread is organic and is different each time you do it, even if you do it every day.

The temperature of the water effects how well the yeast reacts and the age of the yeast effects how quickly it raises. The sugar and salt may always be sugar and salt, but no bag is every alike and even the best yeast is a fickle creature and can only react to what it's fed. Sunny days are the best for baking bread. Is there a front moving in? Is the pressure falling or rising? What type of oil are you putting in it? What temperature was it when you added it? How cold or warm was the flour -- and yes, that makes a difference. As does the type and brand of flour you use.

Bakeries control all of the variables. They have to in order to put out a consistent product. But the more you control it all, the poorer the quality of bread. Wonder Bread isn't. It's edible and it's cheap, but you can roll it up into a little ball and the only difference between the bread and the crust is a slight color change. My cousin's girl calls store bought bread "fake bread". She's not far wrong.

There was a line I read once and for the life of me I can't remember where it came from, it was: Time, like bread rising. I understand that. It takes as long as it takes. There is not 'time" there is only conclusion. It may take a half hour or two hours for the bread to rise. The usual instructions are "Raise until double in bulk."

Those instructions go with "Add flour until stiff" or "Add sifter of flour plus just a little more, if needed". This is how I learned to bake. My recipes have other similar instructions, such as "Add water like pie crust" or "Bake in hot oven until done." One of my favorites goes "Add two eggs, three if available. May omit if you have none." That recipe was clearly written during the Depression when good cooks were the ones who had ingredients.

The recipes lack cooking temperatures because the stoves were heated with wood and didn't have accurate temperature gauges on them. Things were measured in cups but that cup didn't have to be a measuring cup. I still have two white "Baking cups" that my grandmother had. They hold about a cup and a quarter of ingredients. Teaspoons and tablespoons were used on the table and pinch, smidge and dash were all accepted and understood. This is how I bake.

This is how I live my life.

There isn't a template that I lay out before me. There isn't a recipe for success that I can mix together. The variables can't be controlled. I may just be out of an ingredient today. The low that is moving in is going to make it really hard to do anything. No one has ever come up with an accurate gauge to control the temperature of my life. Sometimes the sun just won’t shine and the water is always cold.

But "Time, like bread rising." I'll get there. There are no deadlines. There is no failure. The loaf I have today, with the ingredients and circumstances may not be perfect. But it's edible and even at it's worse it's better than Wonder Bread. And tomorrow? Tomorrow with it's new ingredients and new circumstances? Tomorrow I can bake again. There's no deadline. No perfect recipe that I have to adhere to.

Time. Life. Like bread rising.

It came to me again yesterday that football could really be considered my first fandom. To be specific, I suppose I’d have to say that Packer Football is my first fandom, but I love football as a whole and will watch games and cheer for teams when my beloved Packers aren’t involved at all, so I think I can go with the generic “Football Fandom”.

Fans are fans. I’m always perplexed when one set of fans belittles another. I’ve heard people standing around in Packer jerseys and wearing cheeseheads talk disparagingly about fans who dress up for Star Wars or LOTR. But then again I’ve been at SciFi cons where the whole point of a panel was to diss the “red-neck sports fans” and talk about how much cooler us “geeks” are.

It’s something I notice, I suppose, because I live in two worlds and love both of them. I fit equally well into each group. It’s not an act, either. I love passion and fans are passionate. I find so much more joy in cheering and celebrating than I do in pointing and ridiculing.

Besides I love a good party and the Super Bowl is always good for a good party. Granted it’s not a three-day stay in a hotel surrounded by hundreds of like-minded fans, but it doesn’t require travelling or paying an admission fee either. So it works out.

In reality, football fandom has really taught me a great deal. I’ve learned to deal with prima donnas whose celebrity status threatens my enjoyment of the game (see icon). I’ve learned to deal with unexpected plot developments that I didn’t like (ie any game we lost, especially the two losses to Minnesota this year!). I’ve learned how to stay friends with those who have different views about the sport (what do you mean, you’re a Dallas fan?). It was the first place that I learned about creating fanfic (just wait until next year – we’ll go all the way!) I’ve learned how not to let other people’s rants ruin my squee. I've learned that just because you rant about something doesn't mean you don't love it. I’ve learned how to balance my desires for victory against the fact that I have no control over anything that goes on in the field. I’ve learned to enjoy other fans joy and understand other fans heartbreak.

Would I have liked it better if the Pack was bringing the Lombardi Trophy back home? Damn straight. But I think the most important thing being a sports fan has taught me is how to enjoy something I love even when it doesn’t turn out the way I want it to.

Besides, there’s always next year.

The New York Times recently (July 5) had an article about my State Capital, Madison called 36 Hours in Madison, Wis. - NYTimes.com.

It's mostly a travel guide focusing on where to eat and a couple of things to do. Because it's, you know, the New York Times, it focuses somewhat on the High End, but Madison's High End is usually very welcoming and within the realm of affordability even for the average person. Anyhow, it was nice to see a shout out to the town. The best part of the article, IMO, was the introductory paragraph, where the writer captured the spirit of Wisconsin better than most ever do:

MADISON, a liberal college town that doubles as the capital of a politically complicated state, pulls its disparate elements together into a spirited reality all its own, a funky amalgam of hard-partying students, socially conscious activists, sports fans, outdoor warriors, politicos from both sides of the aisle, artists, foodies and more. Long pigeonholed as a hotbed for frat parties and activism, Madison has a vibrant but much more tempered side brimming with arts, culture and food. In a city with so many types to keep happy, it’s impossible not to find something that suits your fancy.

I especially love the description "politically complicated state". And we are. We may have been Blue in the last elections, but you will notice that even the Democratic Party doesn't count on Wisconsin as a sure thing. That's because we don't do things out of blind loyalty and we tend to be too politically aware of real life consequences. Hell, even our most influential Democratic Senator (U.S. Senator Russ Feingold) isn't afraid to buck the party line when he knows it's the right thing to do.

That is the best things about Wisconsin -- isn't just one thing. Don't try to stereotype us. Don't think that just because we're A, we also have to be B. Political labels of "Democrat" and "Republican" or even "Liberal" and "Conservative" aren't nearly as important as the practical and pragmatic. While Madison does tend to lean more toward the "well-intentioned but stupid" occasionally, it happens far less than most other places. In a society where everything has to have it's own little label and niche so that things can be easily categorized and dismissed, Wisconsin doesn't fit.

And I like that.

Gakked from imbri6:

1) Comment here, and I'll list five things I associate with you.
2) Post this header in your own journal, and elaborate on the five things I mention.

I commented on hers and she gave me:
Internet
Writing
Chickens
Devotion
Jennie

( Ramblings ahead! )

Leave a comment and I will give you five words of your very own!

More thoughts on the societal impact of the WGA strike. The first part can be found here along with an explanation of how I manage to come up with these thoughts.

I freely admit that most of this post reflects how I (and those I hang around with) watch and experience television/movies. Your mileage my vary...

( The value of scripted entertainment to critical thinking. )

Look, another "Just Write Damn It" philosophy piece based, of course, on 24.

( Theme Topic from '24' Episode 5.2 -- Truth and nothing but the truth... )

In my surfing around looking for different thoughts on the whole Katrina distaster, I ran across this great blog entry. I totally love it. More that that, I agree with the main points of it. Read at your own risk, however. Although there is some offensive language, I'm sure it's the ideas that are in it that some will find the most offensive.

Quotes from it:

Who can not see the way the country has changed, not since 9/11, but before that – since the 2000 election? Who cannot feel the split, the division, that rips like a shredding sail on a broken mast, canvas tearing like the sound of musketry, as the rigging falls to the deck?

Race has nothing to do with this – precisely nothing. The mobs of murdering Hutus and swarms of slaughtering Serbs are as different racially as it is possible to be, and they are cut from precisely the same cloth.

That’s because the people I associate with – my Tribe – consists not of blacks and whites and gays and Hispanics and Asians, but of individuals who do not rape, murder, or steal

In New Orleans we have a mayor who left some 400-500 buses sitting fueled and underwater in the Ray Nagin Memorial Motor Pool saying that evil white conservative America was selling out his people within 24 hours of the catastrophe, from a safe and dry and adequately toileted location, while four years ago we had a Mayor who ran to the site of the disaster so quickly it is a full-blown miracle he was not killed when a building collapsed literally on top of his magnificent, combed-over head.

Sometimes, Bad Things Happen. Some things are beyond my control, beyond the control of the smartest and best people we have, even beyond the awesome, subtle and unlimited control of the simpering, sub-human village idiot from Texas.

Hurricanes come. They have come for all of human history, and more are coming. Barbarians also come to steal or destroy what they cannot make themselves, and they, like human tempests, have swept a path of destruction through civilization since before history was written on clay tablets on the banks of the Euphrates.

My favorite, because I often think it:

George Bush did not take over the White House with a six-shooter; people voted him into office with the biggest number of votes in American history. I’m one of those people, and [...] I demand my equal time.

I ran across these two wonderful articles on TTT. I found them on TORN -- my first choice for all things LotR.

This first one is one the differences between books and movies and how things need to be done differently in different mediums. It's written by "Quickbeam" over at TORN and you can go there to read it. It has the links to all the original info and such. Of course, because I don't trust links sticking around, you can click ( here )

The second article is by Johah Goldberg, entitled "Movies & Metaphors". It is wonderful and can be found at National Review Online. While the original work has links to all the articles and references mentioned, but I also copied it in case the link don't work. So, if you want, you can just click ( here )

Time magazine featured The Two Towers in several articles that focused both on the movie and on fantasy in general.

After several paragraphs that covered the usual "Fantasy is childish and infantile and is a dangerously seductive and simplistic way to think" they end up on a more intelligent note than I would have expected. After all, it's a more acceptable and less challenging choice to simply dismiss fantasy as being a feckless desire for easy answers. I was surprised to see Time not taking that easy way out, but actually going through the effort to see LotR as not simply another children's story.

I really liked the ending thoughts:

And at its core, The Lord of the Rings isn't a story about frilly shirts and talking frogs; it's a tale about temptation. Frodo isn't a knight in shining armor; he's not even a wizard in a pointy hat. His only claim to fame, his sole superpower, is his uncommon ability to resist the seductive, corrupting temptation of the all-powerful Ring he carries. And as hard as he fights against that temptation, in the end he fails.

Is there a message there for contemporary America? As the world's only superpower, we're carrying the Ring on behalf of an entire planet, and our burden is every bit as heavy as Frodo's. Seen in that light, The Lord of the Rings looks like a very grownup story indeed, one that can't be told often enough. Frodo lives