Enjoying the journey (not just the destination)

I graduated from college this year which was a long time coming. You see, I did what I was supposed to do, I applied to colleges my senior year in high school and was accepted at every place I applied. I chose to go to Western Washington University for several reasons. It was a state school so I could almost afford it, it was small, it didn't have a Greek system, it was far enough away from home that I could get away from my parents but close enough that I could also come home on the weekends if I wanted to, it had a really great program in what I wanted to study, and most importantly it felt right, when I came to visit the campus I felt like that was where I was meant to be.

After two years there though, I'd changed my major three or four times and still hadn't settled what I wanted to do. I was aimless and in debt so I quit school and went to work full time. Everyone I knew would subtly or sometimes not so subtly ask me when I planned to finish, but I just didn't know what kind of degree I wanted to get or what purpose getting a degree in something just to have a degree would really serve. There was one person though who really wanted to see me back in school, not because she thought it was important for me to get a degree, but because she loved to learn and she could see that I did too.

She was like family to me. Actually that's not the best way to put it since her whole family was like family to me as I was dating and later living with her nephew (for over 7 years). She was more than just a surrogate aunt to me though. She was an inspiration.

I met her shortly before she was diagnosed with breast cancer, but the way she handled that wasn't the reason she inspired me so much, though she had more spark in her all through her fight with cancer than anyone else I've known before or since. What inspired me so much about her was the way she did things for the pure enjoyment they brought her, and it just so happened that two of the things she enjoyed were teaching and learning. She had multiple degrees (Bachelors, Masters in Education, JD) and she was certainly not using them all (in the practical sense).

One of the last times I saw her she was at the hospital, where I worked, for a chemo treatment and she came down and had lunch with me. At the time I was taking a real estate class, just for fun. She told me that she couldn't understand why I didn't go back to college. Here I was, the kind of person who would take a class just for fun (as I'd done with screenwriting, real estate, and visual basic at that point), but I wouldn't go back to school because I wasn't sure what I should major in that would make me better able to get ahead in life.

I finally decided that I should go back to school, not to get a degree, but because I liked school, I liked learning, and I could go back and take classes in things I wanted to learn about and maybe those classes would make up a degree and maybe they wouldn't but I'd be doing something that I loved. Unfortunately, she passed away before she could see me back in school, before I could tell her that she's the reason I found my way back to something I've loved as long as I can remember.

There were a lot of people who supported me, and pressured me, and inspired me down my path to higher education, but none so much as Christine. The idea that not everything has to be a stepping stone, that some steps can be enjoyed just for what they are and not for where they lead, is so important to me and she's the one that taught me that. I got my degree in English and it's probably not going to help me get ahead in life, but I really loved getting it.

It's not my party but I'll still cry if I want to

When George W. Bush was first elected president I was inconsolably sad and when, after 4 years of what I considered dismal job performance on his part, the American people didn't see fit to fire him, I swore I'd never vote for a republican (out of spite). I'm going to have to eat those words now.

A tragedy stuck King County a while back. Norm Maleng, King County's long time prosecutor passed away earlier this year. He was well liked and respected by all of his colleagues and employees, and by voters. He was a republican, but he was elected to the post almost 30 years ago and easily won re-election in the overwhelmingly democratic King County repeatedly, often running unopposed.

In the aftermath of Maleng's death an interim prosecutor was appointed. Dan Satterberg, also republican, was Maleng's chief of staff and has now been acting prosecutor for several months and is also very well liked and respected by his colleagues and employees (both democrat and republican alike).

I've never paid much attention to the elections for King County Prosecutor, primarily because by the time I was old enough to vote no one was running against Maleng anymore. So, I was kind of shocked to learn it was even a partisan race. I assumed that, like judges, prosecutors were nonpartisan.

My previous declaration would prohibit me from voting republican in this race, but my general rule with nonpartisan races is to learn as much as I can about the candidates to make an educated choice and my primary tool in doing that is to turn to people I know who know more about it than I do. If that were the case here, as with the elections for judges, I'd ask lawyers I know what they think, have they been up against the county prosecutors office, do they know people who work there, etc. If you know someone who works there that's ideal because you can just ask them who they would rather have as a boss. There's also always the voter pamphlet, but knowing someone who is familiar with the candidates and the race is preferable in a nonpartisan race.

This, however is not a nonpartisan race, a fact which the democratic candidate is eager to point out (see this article in the Seattle Times). If I hadn't sworn never to vote for a republican again (out of spite), this wouldn't be much of a problem for me. Satterberg is respected, as Maleng was, and he puts professionalism ahead of politics in the work place. Norm Maleng believed that the office of county prosecutor shouldn't be a partisan race, because partisan politics don't have any more place in the prosecutors office than they do on the judge's bench. I agree, and it seems like Satterberg agrees too, as he's pledged to lobby the legislature to make it a nonpartisan office (should he win the election).

I'm consoling myself for having to break my no voting for republicans pledge with the fact that this really isn't a partisan race, or shouldn't be, and it's the republican in this case that seems to be arguing that point. Sure, it's in his interest to argue that it should be nonpartisan (since he's a member of the minority party) but I don't think that's the only reason he's doing it and since it's an argument that I happen to agree with I'm not inclined to pick apart his motives for making it.

World Series subtext (or not)

Well, two games in I suppose I should be talking about the Series, but there's not much to say that hasn't been said by every sports writer in the country already. Boston had to dominate in game one to knock the Rockies off the high from their 20 game winning streak, and they did. Colorado needed to get back some of that winning energy in game two but they didn't. It now looks like Boston is a near lock to win the series. I wish I had something to say about it that hasn't been said, but I'm drawing on all my BA in English BSing skills and I can't come up with anything.

Okay, I'm not drawing on all my BA in English skills. The primary thing that they teach you in university English classes is the ability to take one sentence or even one word from a text and speak volumes on the significance (real or imagined) of that word or phrase both within the text and in the world at large. I could probably do that with the the World Series as my "text", and believe me using a baseball game as the text would be, not just embraced, but likely rewarded in any college English department.

I could theorize for several pages about the significance of pitching, but even then it would still have all been said. Baseball is America's pastime and this is the championship series. I don't feel the same pull to talk about it that I do about, say, bike racing. Even when I talk about the Tour de France, arguably the most notable race and certainly the only one that Americans seem to care about, I feel like I can provide a somewhat unique view point or say things that, at very least, only a handful of sports commentators in this country are talking about.

It's not that I'm not interested, or not watching the games...oaky...I have worked late the past two days and only caught the end of the games so far, but I'm still committed. I even burnt myself because I was trying to cook dinner and watch the end of game one at the same time. Maybe, I'm just not as invested in this Series as I could be or have been in some years past.

I tend to appreciate baseball as much for its history as anything else which is to say I am more interested in teams with interesting histories that include scandals, or curses, or historic rivalries. I like the Red Sox, the White Sox, the Cubs, the Dodgers, the Mets, the Phillies, the Pirates, the Reds, etc. I suppose I tend to be more interested in National League Teams. The fact that I'm from Seattle should make that fairly self explanatory. I mean, obviously the Mariners are my team, if I care about other teams I'd prefer them not to be rival teams, though I make a few exceptions.

So, the thing is, I care and I'm watching, and yes I'm a bit of a Red Sox fan so I'm a little bit invested in the outcome (i.e. I want the Sox to win). However, it's not exactly captivating this year. Now that the Red Sox have broken their historic curse they're less interesting, and the Rockies have only been around since 1993 (there's no interesting history there at all). It might be more interesting if this were the first time an expansion team were in the Series but the Diamondbacks did that (when they were only a 3 year old team). Okay, there's an inherent love of the game, or like of the game at least, but the things that make me care enough to analyze each pitch and call aren't there. It's not my home town team, it's not historic, it's also not especially complicated or interesting. If the Rockies make an astonishing come back and win the next three games in a row then there will be something to say (though even then it will have all been said by people who know more about the game than I do).

P.S. 40 days isn't that long

I was watching 40 Days and 40 Nights earlier today. Actually it's the second time in a month I've watched it (or parts of it) because they keep re-running it on various cable outlets (and because I kind of love it). Today I actually started watching it because I'd read a review of another Josh Hartnet movie with numbers and days in the title (30 Days of Night) and the reviewer had said that Josh Hartnet didn't have what it takes to be a leading man. I thought it was a little odd. I mean normally when they say something like that about an actor it's in reference to a romantic comedy or serious drama not a crappy horror movie. Also, I think Josh Hartnet's just fine as a leading man (in the more traditional sense) not that I can speak to his performance in 30 Days of Night since I haven't seen it and don't plan to (in fact if I even see the commercial on TV again it's likely to drive me to drink). Anyhow, I saw that 40 Days and 40 Nights was on and thought I'd see if his acting was as decent as I remember it.

This is not about Josh Hartnet's acting skill (or lack of it) though. He is pretty good in that movie, but that's not what stood out for me this time I watched it. There's a scene where Hartnet's character is trying to explain to this new girl he met, that he really likes, why he's taken a 40 day vow of celibacy. It's all about his ex, he really loved her and when they broke up he subscribed to the theory that the best way to get over someone is to get under someone new, but it didn't work, he couldn't get over her that way. So, the new girl says she thinks she understands, she says that it's hard to tell the difference between physical attraction and a genuine connection sometimes, and he agrees.

I think you know where this is headed but let me spell it out anyway. That's absolutely not true. First of all, if it were true then Hartnet's character wouldn't have had trouble convincing himself that he had a connection with whatever girl he jumped in bed with to try to get over his ex because it would have been so easy to confuse those purely physical attractions with genuine connections. He wouldn't have decided to take the vow of celibacy because the casual sex would have worked and gotten him over his ex, but it hadn't worked. The entire premise of the movie is predicated on the fact that purely physical attractions don't even come close to comparing to genuine connections.

Anyone who's had sex for reasons other than a genuine connection (like physical attraction, or an attempt to get over someone, or an attempt to sublimate some other emotion, etc) and has also experienced a genuine connection knows that it is easy to tell the difference. It's not hard at all. In fact, it's hard to confuse a physical attraction with a genuine connection (unless you have both with the same person and then the line is kind of blurry but the need to distinguish the two is moot).

Maybe it's tempting when you get your heart broken to go out and find someone new right away even if it's only for a night. Maybe you think it will help you get over someone and when it doesn't work maybe you try again with someone else, but after that you know it's not a decent substitute for a genuine connection. If you do it more than twice you're just punishing yourself.

I used to have a theory about drinking until you puke. I don't like puking and I think most people would agree with me there. If you drink until you puke twice you should know better than to do it a third time. After the second time you should know your limits a little better and be able to recognize the signs that you're starting to reach them. The whole casual sex as treatment for a broken heart thing is kind of like drinking until you puke (in fact drinking until you puke is also often considered a good remedy for a broken heart but it doesn't work either). After the second time you should know better because it is most definitely not hard to tell the difference between a purely physical attraction and a genuine connection.

The Twinkie Principle

I have never eaten a Twinkie. That's not a metaphor, I really haven't ever eaten a Twinkie, though after reading the rest of what I have to say it might start to sound like one.

When I was a kid my parents wouldn't let me eat Twinkies. Later, when I was old enough to buy my own food, It had stopped occurring to me to want Twinkies because I've always had a huge sweet tooth and had found plenty of other things to satisfy it. More recently it had become a point of pride for me. I'll tell people that I've never eaten a Twinkie and enjoy their shock.

So, recently, I'm starting to think that maybe I really am missing out on an experience that I ought to have had long ago. Kind of like the girl on Private Practice this week who'd never had sex. At first it was forbidden, then ultimately you just figure, I've gone this long without it why ruin my streak. The thing is though, that it's not like I've been waiting to eat a Twinkie, I had fully planned on never eating one until I started to think I might be missing out on something.

Okay, I'm getting a little too much into metaphor territory so let me address the metaphor more directly.

A lot of people make up lists of things they want to do in life (or by a certain age). Things like travel, get a college degree, learn a foreign language, go sky diving, etc. I've never made up a list like that (though certainly if I did it would have included all of the above and more). Lately it almost seems like I do have a list and have been on a crusade to cross as many things off as possible. In the last year I've crossed the first three items on that list off.

It's true that recently I've been pushing my limits but the question here is where do those limits come from? Are there things I haven't done that I'm missing out on simply because it never occurred to me to do them? Or worse things that it has occurred to me that I want to do but have been refraining from out of fear. Have I been sheltering myself? Is one Twinkie going to kill me?

Boys and Girls: Make a connection

I have a best friend who is like a sister to me and through her I've met a bunch of really great women who've become good friends but it wasn't always that way for me. I wasn't always one of the girls, gabbing about boys, and shoes and chocolate. For much of my life I was one of the guys.

My devotion to Dawson's Creek is well documented as is my belief that it holds many profound bits of wisdom. So, it's time I talked about the maxim that has been one of the defining principles of my life and, like many things, it was eloquently voiced (by Jen) on Dawson's Creek. She was in therapy, discussing her inability to trust boys when the subject came up of whether or not she trusts girls and she says, "Girls suck. I mean, it's like they get a lobotomy the day they hit puberty. I mean, one day you're all milling around FAO Schwartz in the Rainbow Brite section, next day somebody gets breasts and after that it's all about getting boys to like you and whoever does first wins." This bit of little lost girl wisdom was, or is, something I've believed absolutely for most of my life.

Women are duplicitous, manipulative, illogical, competitive, evil meanies. I am a woman and, of course, consider myself an exception to this rule, though not entirely, because part of the evil that is inherent in the female of our species is that, when they get together in groups, they can infect each other, even those usually immune, with this toxic competitive urge. I'm not saying that competition is, in general, bad, or that men don't compete as much, if not more. However, men compete over things with concrete outcomes, things that can be measured...faster, bigger, louder, etc. Women, as you might expect, being ruled more by emotion than logic, compete over emotional things, primarily, though not exclusively, who is more loved (and how the hell do you measure that, really?). It's as though they think there is a finite amount of love, or sympathy, or whatever, in every room and they aren't happy unless they leave the room with more of it than anyone else.

Most of my life I've been more likely to make friends with guys because women are too complicated and you can never really trust that they mean what they say. Now, some people out there subscribe to the Billy Crystal (When Harry Met Sally) view of male/female relationships, that men and women can't be friends because sex always gets in the way. This is patently ridiculous. Theoretically I can't comment on the purported basis for this theory from the film. Maybe it's true that men want to sleep with every woman they find attractive and even the one's they find unattractive (how would I know, right?), but my experience having primarily men as friends would seem to contradict that premise.

It might be true that when men and women are friends, assuming heterosexuality on both parts, often one of them will develop more than friendly feelings. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that as often as not it's the women who want more and the men that want to be just friends. In fact that's not such a risky statement for me to make because in my personal experience, I've been on the receiving end of unwanted advances from my guy friends as often as I've been the one making unwanted advances. I'm not going to claim that it never ruins a friendship but I will say that it doesn't often.

That's predicated on logic though, which, granted, women aren't often well versed in. For example, if I'm friends with someone and I enjoy his company and he lets it be known that he's interested in more than friendship but I don't feel the same, I'm going to tell him that and hope that he can still be my friend which works most of the time. On the other hand, if I develop fuzzy feelings for a friend and I tell him but he's not interested and says he just wants to be friends, I'm not going to abandon a perfectly good friendship because of unrequited love. That would be such a waste.

Years ago I was madly in love with a guy who was not in the least interested in me but we became friends, over time we became best friends because we hung out a lot together. People were constantly telling me that I was wasting my time because he was never going to feel the same way about me that I felt about him. That's a position that I think completely defies logic. If I enjoy spending time with someone that time isn't wasted. The time would be wasted if I spent it alone, pining for someone who wasn't interested, rather that out in the world hanging out with a friend and having a good time. To burrow a term from the business world, you have to decide whether or not the time your spending talking to or hanging out with someone is "value added" or not and really, if you like someone that much then their friendship is obviously going to add value to your life. Why abandon someone, if you have a connection with them, just because one of you wants more than friendship.

That brings me back to my no female friends rule. If you meet someone, who you really connect with, writing them off, deciding that you can't be friends with them because of their gender (whether, like me, you have a bias against one gender or like Harry you're afraid sex would get in the way) is ridiculous. Genuine connections with people are special and you owe it to yourself to foster them.