Links in a chain

Over the years, a few people I once considered my friends have told me, "You should be more like your sister." The implication was that I should be more adventurous. But that's not how I see things. The way I see things, we each have our own path, and the thing to do is to follow one's own path. My sister is the ultimate traveler while my mother is the ultimate homebody, but they are the same because both are following their own paths. My sister's life is more glamorous than my mother's, but glamor is irrelevant. Whether one's life is glamorous has little bearing on whether one is being true to oneself and living up to one's potential.

I feel that my grandmother, my mother, my sister, and myself are a chain of women across the generations. Even though our lives are very different on a superficial level, we are all carrying on the same tradition. We carry on the tradition of striving to follow our own paths rather than conforming to expectations. We also carry on the tradition of being the kind of person who would never say to someone, "You should be more like ____." Instead, we are the kind of person who says, "It's wonderful that you are yourself." We view others in a compassionate, respectful way. Although we recognize the validity of diverse viewpoints, we are selective about which people we become close to. We are committed to our family and those we have chosen as friends. We encourage the people in our lives to follow their own paths rather than telling them how they should be. We live life heartily and with integrity, but also diplomatically. We don't put up a fight against others, we just go our own way. The people in my family are role models to me not because of the number of adventures they have but because of the way they follow the path that is true for them, regardless of its glamor or adventurousness. I am one of them because I am true to me, and anyone who tells me I should be different from what I am is missing the boat.

Super Tuesday and the latest debate

Those of us who will be voting in the Democratic primary on Feb. 5 have two candidates to choose from. People in New Hampshire had more choices. There must be a better way to organize the primaries, so that people from all states have a range of choices. Maybe we could divide the country into 8 regions, and have a different primary day for each region. That way it would be more evenly divided. Also, the order of the regions could be different in different years.

The two candidates that I have to choose from aren't really that different from each other. They define their difference as being about experience vs. change. Obama says "I think what is at stake right now is whether we are looking backwards or we are looking forwards," while Clinton says we should need someone who can solve problems from day one. I think I prefer the experience over the change. The claims of change strike me as empty rhetoric. Politicians always like to claim they will bring change. I'd rather have someone who knows how to do the job.

So many people seem to think that being a good Christian means devoting your energy to condemning other people as sinful. In contrast, I think Christianity is about helping others. I liked what Hillary Clinton said tonight: that she opposed a law against providing any sort of assistance to undocumented immigrants because "that would have criminalized the good Samaritan and Jesus Christ himself."

Apparently there have been people concerned that Obama is secretly a Muslim. It seems like a strange worry to me. Anyhow, to address that concern, Obama gave a speech a while back saying how Christian he is. I didn't like the way he seemed to accept the premise that it's important to be Christian in order to be qualified to be President of the United States.

But I think both of them care about helping the downtrodden, getting people good health insurance, and ending the war in Iraq. Either way, it would be refreshing to have that kind of president.

We all just want to be understood

When someone says something to me that makes me feel annoyed, misunderstood, or hurt, my impulse is to tell someone else about it. The reason for that is because there is a certain piece of me that has not been understood or accepted. Therefore I take that piece around to somewhere else to try to get understanding and acceptance for it.

One of the things that bothers me, and which often leads me to having a piece in search of acceptance, is people who cast judgment on other people's lives. When I take my piece around for acceptance, a side effect of that acceptance could be criticism of the person who rejected that piece.

Does this mean that I don't think other people should judge, but that it's okay for me to judge, or for others to judge as long as they agree with my judgments? I like to think that there's a difference. The difference is between judging someone's actions as being inherently bad and being disturbed by someone's actions. If someone bothers me, that means I want them farther away from me. It doesn't mean that the person is inherently wrong.

There is a place for judgment. There are some actions that are wrong, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about people who are steal or kill or cheat. I'm talking about people whose outlook or interpersonal style does not mesh with mine.

It bothers me when people make judgments about how other people live their lives. I don't like it when people think someone else should be working harder to improve themselves in some area, whether it's eating a different diet, exercising more, advancing their career, or improving their interpersonal skills. I don't think one can judge those kinds of things. Each person has their own preferences, goals, and barriers, and no one else can really understand what another person wants or has to overcome.

When someone says something that leaves a part of me seeking acceptance or understanding, I take it around to others in search of acceptance. All the other person has to do is say they see where I'm coming from, or not say much at all about it. But a lot of people don't do that. A common mistake people make is explaining that I really should not be bothered by the thing that bothers me. Apparently they think this will cheer me up. However it comes across as saying that I have no right to feel the way that I do. Even after I explain to people that the way I want them to be supportive is by accepting my feelings, they still explain to me why my feelings are wrong. This just leaves me feeling more misunderstood, so then I move on to somewhere else to seek understanding and acceptance.

When someone consistently says things that bother me, then I just stop talking to that person. It could be topic-specific. It could be that I find I can talk to someone about impersonal topics, but that there's no point in talking to them about my personal dilemmas.

There's a place for dialogue. I don't expect everyone to instantly understand me. But if someone persists in responding to me in ways that I don't like, even after I explain where I'm coming from, then after a while, I just have to stop sharing with that person in that way.

People can be close to the extent that they are on the same wavelength, but they also have to give room for distance in the areas where they are not on the same wavelength. I can't expect everyone to be close to me in all ways. If I strive for that, I'll just be frustrated, and won't be able to appreciate the ways in which I do connect with people. The complications arise when the ways I want to be close and distant with someone differ from what that person wants, or when circumstances put me into a situation such that a person is part of my life more or less than I would like.

Being with people

A week ago today, I was with some people I've known a long time who are perfectly fine people, but not people I've been able to be friends with. I left that event thinking that in high school and before, I was an unpopular misfit, then I went to college and felt like a normal person who fit in with everyone else and had friends, and continued to feel like a normal person after college, up until two years ago, when I turned into an unpopular misft again. Sort of like Cinderella -- the enchantment wore off, returning me to my original state.

Yesterday I was with some different people. One was an old friend whom I last saw 9 years ago and last really regularly spent time with 22 years ago. The other was his wife, whom I had never met before. Seeing them was the opposite experience of last week. I realized that when I'm with the right kind of people, it just works for me to be with them, even if I haven't seen them in a long time, even if I never met them before. So many times I've met people and they seemed like perfectly nice people and I wanted to become friends, but I just couldn't make a connection with them. So often this happens and I beat myself up about it. Then, several times a year, I meet someone with whom I can make a connection. I realize that that connection is something that just is or is not there, and if it's not happening with someone, it's just that we don't have that connection. It doesn't mean that it's a failure on my part for not being able to make the connection happen, and it doesn't mean that no one exists who is on my wavelength.

The two activities I'm in this year -- the radio station and the community garden -- seem to be very fruitful places for meeting people. I've met some really good quality people at both places. Some of the activities I've been involved in in the past, such as a ski club and a singles club, really did not have my kind of people.

I saw a number of similarities between the couple who visited last night and the couple whom I think of as the only true friends I have left living in this area. It was reassuring in a way. It showed me that there are certain traits that characterize my friends, and sort of explained why I'm not friends with certain other people.

Still, I had a creeping feeling of insecurity, a feeling that if these two couples met each other, they would hit it off so well that I would be a bit of an outsider.

I guess that's what I expect based on my experiences since I've lived here. Most of the people I was friends here with used to hang out with me but then they met people they liked better.

When I was with these friends last night, I found myself talking at length. It felt unusual. It's like the people I see on a day to day basis aren't interested in what I have to say long enough to let me talk for that long. It's not like someone could just decide, "I want to be your friend, so I'm going to let you talk at length." Intent is one thing, and it's valuable, but it's not the same as being on the same wavelength. That can be seen in my desiring to make a connection with many people but being unable to, and also in how an ex-boyfriend explained his inability to be close to me before we broke up: "I want to want to." That's why I can't fault the people who only hung out with me until they found someone they actually liked to hang out with. I wouldn't want them to hang out with me only out of a sense of obligation. Being with people who don't connect with me, who don't enjoy being with me, just reflects back at me the idea that I'm not a fun person to be around. The magic combination is to find people who both have the desire to connect with me and who have the inherent interest in talking about the same things I like talking about.

Seeing this friend I knew back when I felt like I was a normal person, reminded me of a few things from those days. It reminded me of the job I had two summers in a row -- after the first summer, they wanted me back for a second summer. During that time, I was also working as a babysitter. I babysat for one family who then recommended me to other families. The kids liked me and so did the parents. I remember there was a class for which we had to write a paper in conjunction with a partner. I ran the statistical analyses, and my partner wrote the commentary about what the statistics meant. I did not have the knowledge about the topic (politics) to write the commentary, but my partner did not have the experience with statistical software that I did, and he was impressed that I could do it.

There are people who appreciate what I do in my work now. It doesn't feel the same though. Maybe it's because I know that what they appreciate is only a small piece of what I'm capable of, because I feel that people don't appreciate me for all that I am, but only for something that is less than what I am.

Generations

I always felt like a girl without a generation, caught between baby boomers and generation X. Today I found out there's a name for people like me: Generation Jones. Technically, I'm several months too young to qualify for Generation Jones, but culturally, it resonates with me much more than Generation X, which I supposedly belong to. And it's not like generations have a strict cutoff date, where if you're born one day, you belong to one generation, while if you are born the next day, you belong to the following generation.

President Bush

Yesterday President Bush said in regard to stem cells, "Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical. And it is not the only option before us."

That does not seem to be his viewpoint when it comes to capital punishment or Iraq.

Harry Potter

I have been re-reading the Harry Potter books. I haven't gotten to the sixth one yet, so it's not as fresh in my mind as the first five. The books are not my favorites, but they have some good qualities. I think perhaps the main reason they are not my favorites is that they are told from the perspective of a boy. It's not the fact that the main character is a boy. A Solitary Blue features a male character as a child and teenager, but it was told from a perspective that I could relate to. The issue with the Harry Potter books is not the demographic facts associated with the main character, but rather the outlook of the main character. I could relate better to someone who showed more maturity, and who showed more of an appreciation for certain concerns of female characters -- Molly's worry for the safety of her family, Hermione's sensibleness and caution. Being told from a young male perspective doesn't make the book bad. Everyone should have the opportunity to read books they can relate to, I just don't happen to belong to the same demographic for which these books are written. Some of the things I do like about the books:

• They are engaging. They make you want to keep reading, even when you've already read them a few times before.
• The magical quality, the many details which create a sense of wonder.
• The way some small thing mentioned later on turns out to be a part of something else. Veronica Mars is like this too. I suppose this is a trait of a good mystery story, but I don't read many mysteries. This makes re-reading rewarding. After you know how things turn out in the end, then when something is mentioned in passing, you can realize how it's going to turn out to be a part of everything else. I like that richness of so many little things comprising a complex bigger picture. That's what makes Veronica Mars good ( except when the network is trying to destroying it by insisting that it not be so complicated, that viewers shouldn't have to think so much to understand it).
  
• I like the way Luna, Neville, and Ginny start to emerge as characters starting in the fifth book. I wish Harry wouldn't keep pushing away them and others. He always seems to think that Ron and Hermione are the only ones who should be a part of things. That seems to be part of his youthful shortsightedness.
• At first I considered the books an entertaining read, but lacking any deeper meaning to give you something to think about later. However, each book is longer, darker, and more complex than the last, and the later books do have more to say on issues. They address how people respond to the existence of an enemy. Some people become so harsh and power-hungry that they act the same as the enemy they are fighting. Others deny that any threat exists. With the many different reactions to the threat, those who are against the same enemy experience sharp divisions amongs themselves. They become suspicious of those who disagree with them, calling them traitors. The presence of the enemy weakens the good side, not just through direct attacks by the enemy, but because the presence of enemy sows the seeds of discord within the good side, causing people on the good side to attack and destroy each other. They look to demographic factors to decide who is good and who is evil, condemning people based on the demographic category to which they belong. The people who strive to be good need to understand that being good is not just about hating the enemy, that deeds done in the name of fighting the enemy can be evil deeds too. Meanwhile, the evil side wants to get rid of people who are not purebloods, but the leader himself is not a pureblood. It seems to somehow be his own hatred of what he is that causes him to lead the persecution of others.

Also, regarding the Harry Potter movies, I have seen the first, second, and fourth, and these are my comments.

• The magical aspect, the sense of wonder, is strengthened by the visual aspect which movies provide.
• The casting is very good. The characters really exude the personalities that we know from the book. One thing that's a bit off is that the actor who plays Ron looks a bit more like Fred and George are supposed to look, while the actors who play Fred and George look a bit more like Ron is supposed to look. Also, the actor who plays Hermione is too pretty. But most of the actors look just right, and all of them play the characters really well.
  
• The books are a lot longer than the movies, so events end up being somewhat compressed in the movies. This bothered me most in the fourth movie. I kept thinking, "That's not how it really