Kelly 2/26
Sooooo it's my week for a topic but I have been really busy with a move the past two weeks. That is my excuse for my horrible procrastination. And it is my topic.... sort of. Here is a really good animated video on procrastination. So, what's up with procrastination?
I know part of it is not wanting to do something. Other times it's being stuck on a project. Sometimes there is no explanation for it at all, and you just don't feel like doing what you know you should. And the really strange thing about procrastination is that you can procrastinate while getting things done. You can be procrastinating on one project while work on another.
As much as this tendency frustrates us in others, we are all guilty of it. Everyone procrastinates at some point. Even if it's only for a moment. Sometimes I feel like the true key to conquering procrastination is to only do it for a little bit and still get something done. If you put off something for 10 minutes while you clean up, that is not as bad as dropping everything and napping for an hour.
So, procrastination. How do you feel about it? Or we can always save this topic for later. :P
Julia 3/10
Speaking of procrastinating, I've been procrastinating instead of posting!
And now I'm procrastinating by posting.
You know...I might just let that stand on its own.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
So...
Julia 2/16
Ninja squirrels vs. zombie rabbits.
Who wins and why?
Kelly 2/20
Ok so I thought long and hard about this and I think this how that battle would go:
A virus breaks out among the indigenous forest bunnies. The once playful doe-eyed creatures are now reduced to shambling flesh eating piles of doom. Quickly, the zombie rabbits (or zabbits. Say it out loud, it's funny.) tun on the rest of the forest creatures. The mice, who were fast but too trusting, were the first to fall. Next were the moles, who never saw the attack coming. The combined might of the little creatures in the zabbit army quickly turned the tide on the Deer, who could have made it. Unfortunately the swift and graceful nature of the deer were overcome due to there instincts to stand perfectly still in terror when something bad happens. The Zabbits then turned their attentions to the last two clans that had so far evaded them, the birds and the squirrels.
The tree dwellers were naturally more wary than the ground-rovers, so when the virus came they believed themselves save due to the hight of the trees. But as the Zabbit army grew they knew that their tree fortresses would not be enough. The clan of the birds, in an almost unnatural display of good will, banded together and all flew south at the same time. This left the squirrels alone without allies. Rather than flee, the elders who had all gone white decided to call upon the arts of the black squirrel clan, otherwise known as the ninja squirrels. These phantom dark tree dwellers knew of secretes linked to killing that others only dreamed about, and their ability to kill was second only to the humans that occasionally invaded their home. The situation was dire however, so the sacred black almond shell horn was sounded and death came from above.
The battle was long, arduous, and gory. For each creature the dark squirrels sent to hells gate, the zabbits replaced them with many more shambling abominations. Despite the horror that was visited upon them, the ninja squirrels did not tire. They found knew ways of killing in that battle, and those ways were too gruesome to pass on in squirrel legend. However, soon their numbers began to dwindle. Too many of the other creature clans had fallen to the Zabbits and the battle soon seemed hopeless.
However, once clever and brave ninja squirrel went on a top secret mission to save his species. With all his wit and cunning he traveled to the nearby suburbs and committed unspeakable atrocities there.With every act he framed the rabbits with clear and obvious evidence. Soon the human menace was roused and then the battle was won. The humans eradicated the zabits, and parts of the forest with them. However, with the zabbits gone, new animal clans could finally come and those that had left could finally return. The small forest is now recovering, and it is all thanks to the dark squirrels. Those elusive figures returned to hiding soon after the battle was won, and there they lay in wait to this very day. Waiting for the call that will ouse them to battle once more.
So yeah. Ninja squirrels, but only because zabbits can't think logically. :P
Ninja squirrels vs. zombie rabbits.
Who wins and why?
Kelly 2/20
Ok so I thought long and hard about this and I think this how that battle would go:
A virus breaks out among the indigenous forest bunnies. The once playful doe-eyed creatures are now reduced to shambling flesh eating piles of doom. Quickly, the zombie rabbits (or zabbits. Say it out loud, it's funny.) tun on the rest of the forest creatures. The mice, who were fast but too trusting, were the first to fall. Next were the moles, who never saw the attack coming. The combined might of the little creatures in the zabbit army quickly turned the tide on the Deer, who could have made it. Unfortunately the swift and graceful nature of the deer were overcome due to there instincts to stand perfectly still in terror when something bad happens. The Zabbits then turned their attentions to the last two clans that had so far evaded them, the birds and the squirrels.
The tree dwellers were naturally more wary than the ground-rovers, so when the virus came they believed themselves save due to the hight of the trees. But as the Zabbit army grew they knew that their tree fortresses would not be enough. The clan of the birds, in an almost unnatural display of good will, banded together and all flew south at the same time. This left the squirrels alone without allies. Rather than flee, the elders who had all gone white decided to call upon the arts of the black squirrel clan, otherwise known as the ninja squirrels. These phantom dark tree dwellers knew of secretes linked to killing that others only dreamed about, and their ability to kill was second only to the humans that occasionally invaded their home. The situation was dire however, so the sacred black almond shell horn was sounded and death came from above.
The battle was long, arduous, and gory. For each creature the dark squirrels sent to hells gate, the zabbits replaced them with many more shambling abominations. Despite the horror that was visited upon them, the ninja squirrels did not tire. They found knew ways of killing in that battle, and those ways were too gruesome to pass on in squirrel legend. However, soon their numbers began to dwindle. Too many of the other creature clans had fallen to the Zabbits and the battle soon seemed hopeless.
However, once clever and brave ninja squirrel went on a top secret mission to save his species. With all his wit and cunning he traveled to the nearby suburbs and committed unspeakable atrocities there.With every act he framed the rabbits with clear and obvious evidence. Soon the human menace was roused and then the battle was won. The humans eradicated the zabits, and parts of the forest with them. However, with the zabbits gone, new animal clans could finally come and those that had left could finally return. The small forest is now recovering, and it is all thanks to the dark squirrels. Those elusive figures returned to hiding soon after the battle was won, and there they lay in wait to this very day. Waiting for the call that will ouse them to battle once more.
So yeah. Ninja squirrels, but only because zabbits can't think logically. :P
Monday, February 8, 2010
Communication
Kelly 2/8
It's amazing how many ways we have to talk to people and connect with one another today. Letters, phone, e-mail, several types of instant messenger clients, texting, and video messaging. Not to mention sites that are centered around human communication; Twitter Facebook, Myspace, Linked In and any others you can think of. We can communicate in so many ways that it is just a little bit mind boggling. And oh yeah, we can just talk to one another face to face. :D
I don't know how everyone else deals with it all, but I have a hierarchy of communication in my mind. It goes a bit like this: internet (fb, twitter ect), email, IM, phone (text or talk), video chat, and lastly face to face. Each level implies a different amount of trust and knowledge of a person. Also, notice now letter writing is not even on the list? I think it should be somewhere between video and face; however, I don't write a lot of letters. Letters also make me think of how we perceive communication as well.
Letter writing feels like a lost art to me now, and despite the long illustrious history of the mail I now associate it with bills and junk mail. However, when people talk about the future, it always seems to include video phones. Isn't that exactly what video chat is? But we don't see it that way at all. It is just a technology that we use all the time. So the old form of communication is dismissed, not even given it's fair historical due; while the newer forms of communication are just seen as mundane rather than a sign of the future ahead.
Besides all of the connotations that come with communication, that is a lot of what we strive to do as people. Perhaps it is the need to be understood, but we are always trying to tell someone something in some way.
Julia 2/14
In my mind, one of the most amazing things about communication in the technology age is how often it still fails. I mean, who hasn't been misinterpreted (or done some misinterpreting) in an email or in chat? Some things (sarcasm!) are difficult to translate into text.
--tangent--
Not to mention having a constant written record can get us into trouble. For instance, where I work old emails are archived on the computers. Doesn't matter if you hire someone new, all of his or her predecessor's emails are available (unless that person deleted them). Let me tell you, I've found some weird stuff, things have nothing to do with work and are none of my business. And yet, there they are for me to access.
I think because communication today appears to be so ephemeral (it has no physical presence, for instance), we forget that it's actually a lot more permanent. Calls can be traced, chats saved, emails archived. If you destroy a letter, it's gone forever. If you destroy a text...well, it might not be!
--end tangent--
But yes, even with all of these methods of communication (and I agree with you, there are hierarchies), communication breaks down. Some people argue that it's because we have too many ways to communicate, that we're actually destroying our own ability to interact with other people. Not true. It's more that communication always fails at some point because no two people have the same human experience. In some way, we diverge and that is why communication can be challenging. Whether it's in text or in person, sometimes we just miss the mark.
Good communication is about empathy. If you can understand where a person is, relate to their worldview, and then explain your own in a way they can understand -- that's communication. Doesn't matter if it's in person or on two computers halfway around the world.
It's amazing how many ways we have to talk to people and connect with one another today. Letters, phone, e-mail, several types of instant messenger clients, texting, and video messaging. Not to mention sites that are centered around human communication; Twitter Facebook, Myspace, Linked In and any others you can think of. We can communicate in so many ways that it is just a little bit mind boggling. And oh yeah, we can just talk to one another face to face. :D
I don't know how everyone else deals with it all, but I have a hierarchy of communication in my mind. It goes a bit like this: internet (fb, twitter ect), email, IM, phone (text or talk), video chat, and lastly face to face. Each level implies a different amount of trust and knowledge of a person. Also, notice now letter writing is not even on the list? I think it should be somewhere between video and face; however, I don't write a lot of letters. Letters also make me think of how we perceive communication as well.
Letter writing feels like a lost art to me now, and despite the long illustrious history of the mail I now associate it with bills and junk mail. However, when people talk about the future, it always seems to include video phones. Isn't that exactly what video chat is? But we don't see it that way at all. It is just a technology that we use all the time. So the old form of communication is dismissed, not even given it's fair historical due; while the newer forms of communication are just seen as mundane rather than a sign of the future ahead.
Besides all of the connotations that come with communication, that is a lot of what we strive to do as people. Perhaps it is the need to be understood, but we are always trying to tell someone something in some way.
Julia 2/14
In my mind, one of the most amazing things about communication in the technology age is how often it still fails. I mean, who hasn't been misinterpreted (or done some misinterpreting) in an email or in chat? Some things (sarcasm!) are difficult to translate into text.
--tangent--
Not to mention having a constant written record can get us into trouble. For instance, where I work old emails are archived on the computers. Doesn't matter if you hire someone new, all of his or her predecessor's emails are available (unless that person deleted them). Let me tell you, I've found some weird stuff, things have nothing to do with work and are none of my business. And yet, there they are for me to access.
I think because communication today appears to be so ephemeral (it has no physical presence, for instance), we forget that it's actually a lot more permanent. Calls can be traced, chats saved, emails archived. If you destroy a letter, it's gone forever. If you destroy a text...well, it might not be!
--end tangent--
But yes, even with all of these methods of communication (and I agree with you, there are hierarchies), communication breaks down. Some people argue that it's because we have too many ways to communicate, that we're actually destroying our own ability to interact with other people. Not true. It's more that communication always fails at some point because no two people have the same human experience. In some way, we diverge and that is why communication can be challenging. Whether it's in text or in person, sometimes we just miss the mark.
Good communication is about empathy. If you can understand where a person is, relate to their worldview, and then explain your own in a way they can understand -- that's communication. Doesn't matter if it's in person or on two computers halfway around the world.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Philanthropy
Julia 02/02
What with all the text-giving to Haiti and general interest in organizations of good will, I've been thinking quite a bit about philanthropy. As someone who works for an organization funded completely by charitable donations, I recognize the importance of responsible giving.
I think it's important to support causes financially whenever possible. I know some people get surly about spending their hard-earned money, but really, these programs often benefit the very people who disdain them whether they know it or not. I know nonprofits are often associated with dewy-eyed liberal thinking, but did you know the NRA is a nonprofit organization? As are many conservative religious groups.
So I think supporting advocacy organizations and philanthropic movements is just as important as voting, if not more so. If you can't get a representative who shares your views (this is a virtual impossibility -- no legislator is going to line up with your opinions 100%) then there are other means of representation, of having a voice.
And if you can't give your money, you can certainly give your time. Even if it's just clicking "yes" on a survey or signing an email petition or giving that one canvasser a second to explain his/her organization. Because otherwise, any spouting off about viewpoints or ideals is kind of just lip-service, isn't it?
Kelly 02/6
Took me a while to respond to this one, mostly because I feel like you have already touched on the main points of philanthropy. It is important, and it is a way to give voice to just about any kind of value someone may have. Also, you are right about backing up what you say. Money and actions talk louder than words, and giving to a cause you care about is a good way to make that work in favor of your values.
The only other side I can see of this one is how overwhelming everything can be. Take the huge outpouring of support for Haiti. While most have stepped up to the challenge of helping a country during a difficult time, I bet that there are people that are out there that want to give but haven't. There is just too much going on in their lives to push past and decide to give. Now, don't get me wrong, I am condemning no one with this, just merely voicing a thought.
Another way that things can get overwhelming is how MANY charities and organizations there are to give money to. Again, take the Haiti relief effort. There is the Wyclef John charity, the Red Cross effort, and the Haiti telethon that benefited Oxfam America, Partners in Health, Red Cross, UNICEF and Wyclef's Yele Haiti Foundation. I mean if you even google Haiti relief, you come up with A LOT. Sometimes it is hard to decide who to give to. It is hard earned money that an organization needs, but there are so many that need it. And that thought alone is daunting.
However, people should never let that stop them. If there is something you are passionate about, give to a charity that supports that. And it does not have to be a huge thing, and time is just as important as money. I think that is another reason that people don't give. A lot of the time it feels like you have to give a lot to make a difference. But imagine if someone set aside $5 a month to give to a charity and gave one time donations each time? That would be a good way to give to several different organizations, and make it a sustainable for them as a person. Or if you gave 3 hours of time to some organization a month? Feed the homeless one month, help build a house the next, help an organization send out info the month after that. Now that is a sure fire way to feel accomplished each month, and end up with some serious life memories/stories.
I feel like giving gets caught up in a lot of mental snarls sometimes (aka: my money, I need it more than *insert whatever here*, what will be done with it, what if I don't care, what if I don't have enough time, why should I help, is this the best charity, but I can't give a lot, etc.) Now, while all of those concerns should be addressed, it should never stop you from giving. It is an important thing, and a necessary thing in many ways. Plus it is a nice way to do good in the world. :)
What with all the text-giving to Haiti and general interest in organizations of good will, I've been thinking quite a bit about philanthropy. As someone who works for an organization funded completely by charitable donations, I recognize the importance of responsible giving.
I think it's important to support causes financially whenever possible. I know some people get surly about spending their hard-earned money, but really, these programs often benefit the very people who disdain them whether they know it or not. I know nonprofits are often associated with dewy-eyed liberal thinking, but did you know the NRA is a nonprofit organization? As are many conservative religious groups.
So I think supporting advocacy organizations and philanthropic movements is just as important as voting, if not more so. If you can't get a representative who shares your views (this is a virtual impossibility -- no legislator is going to line up with your opinions 100%) then there are other means of representation, of having a voice.
And if you can't give your money, you can certainly give your time. Even if it's just clicking "yes" on a survey or signing an email petition or giving that one canvasser a second to explain his/her organization. Because otherwise, any spouting off about viewpoints or ideals is kind of just lip-service, isn't it?
Kelly 02/6
Took me a while to respond to this one, mostly because I feel like you have already touched on the main points of philanthropy. It is important, and it is a way to give voice to just about any kind of value someone may have. Also, you are right about backing up what you say. Money and actions talk louder than words, and giving to a cause you care about is a good way to make that work in favor of your values.
The only other side I can see of this one is how overwhelming everything can be. Take the huge outpouring of support for Haiti. While most have stepped up to the challenge of helping a country during a difficult time, I bet that there are people that are out there that want to give but haven't. There is just too much going on in their lives to push past and decide to give. Now, don't get me wrong, I am condemning no one with this, just merely voicing a thought.
Another way that things can get overwhelming is how MANY charities and organizations there are to give money to. Again, take the Haiti relief effort. There is the Wyclef John charity, the Red Cross effort, and the Haiti telethon that benefited Oxfam America, Partners in Health, Red Cross, UNICEF and Wyclef's Yele Haiti Foundation. I mean if you even google Haiti relief, you come up with A LOT. Sometimes it is hard to decide who to give to. It is hard earned money that an organization needs, but there are so many that need it. And that thought alone is daunting.
However, people should never let that stop them. If there is something you are passionate about, give to a charity that supports that. And it does not have to be a huge thing, and time is just as important as money. I think that is another reason that people don't give. A lot of the time it feels like you have to give a lot to make a difference. But imagine if someone set aside $5 a month to give to a charity and gave one time donations each time? That would be a good way to give to several different organizations, and make it a sustainable for them as a person. Or if you gave 3 hours of time to some organization a month? Feed the homeless one month, help build a house the next, help an organization send out info the month after that. Now that is a sure fire way to feel accomplished each month, and end up with some serious life memories/stories.
I feel like giving gets caught up in a lot of mental snarls sometimes (aka: my money, I need it more than *insert whatever here*, what will be done with it, what if I don't care, what if I don't have enough time, why should I help, is this the best charity, but I can't give a lot, etc.) Now, while all of those concerns should be addressed, it should never stop you from giving. It is an important thing, and a necessary thing in many ways. Plus it is a nice way to do good in the world. :)
Monday, January 25, 2010
.... Rebuttal?
Kelly 1/25
I think dolphins with top hats and monocles would be awesome.
Rebuttal?
Julia 1/28
I'm kind of curious how the top hat and monocle would be secured to the dolphin.
...could the female dolphins wear those top hats with the little veils attached? I know it's stuffy and Victorian, but I think they're awesome.
I think dolphins with top hats and monocles would be awesome.
Rebuttal?
Julia 1/28
I'm kind of curious how the top hat and monocle would be secured to the dolphin.
...could the female dolphins wear those top hats with the little veils attached? I know it's stuffy and Victorian, but I think they're awesome.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
the f word
Kelly 1/19
Ok so this is not about THAT f word but another f word that I will introduce with a story. *ahem*
The other day I made a quiche. Not just any quiche, but MY quiche. I just decided, randomly in the store, that I wanted to make a quiche. So I bought a bunch of random stuff, looked at 10 or 11 recipies and then made up my own. I was excited, and happy and really pleased with this adventure. But then I put it in the oven. It started to spill, and it took FOREVER to cook. The whole time I started to freak out. My "happy experiment" quiche had become the "OH MY GOD WHAT IF IT TASTES NASTY AND I HAVE JUST WASTED ALL THIS FOOD?!??!!?" quiche. I had already deemed it to a failure, and appropriately was feeling badly.
And THAT is the f word I meant. Failure. I found it defined in seven ways:
1. an act or instance of failing or proving unsuccessful; lack of success.
2. nonperformance of something due, required, or expected: a failure to do what one has promised; a failure to appear.
3. a subnormal quantity or quality; an insufficiency
4. deterioration or decay, esp. of vigor, strength, etc.
5. a condition of being bankrupt by reason of insolvency.
6. a becoming insolvent or bankrupt
7. a person or thing that proves unsuccessful
Now looking at these definitions, it make sense why people fear failure. It is something to be avoided at all costs. It is shameful and irreversible. However, none of these definitions explain what failure actually dose.
Failing, in a way is inevitable. You will fail at something, perhaps even several times. So why avoid it? When done correctly, failure teaches us things, and helps us identify and avoid mistakes. Not to mention that mistakes can sometimes be fun and open you to new possibilities.
So yes, one should not wallow or seek out failure; but nor should we fear it as much as we do. I mean really what happened to the Miss. Frizzel motto?
"Take chances, make mistakes, get messy!"
Julia 01/24
Talk about weighty issues! It took me a while to sort out my thoughts on this one, particularly because failure and I got to be pretty good acquaintances during the four months I was looking for a job. Failing is depressing. It becomes easy to believe that you have never succeeded at anything, that you never will succeed at anything and should just give up as soon as possible.
I'm, of course, talking about the failure called rejection in this case. It doesn't really matter where you are in life, the possibility of rejection is always around the corner. Prospective employers reject us, friends and family reject us, love interests reject us. Or they might. It's that distinct likelihood that often keeps people from trying.
Because, let's face it, if you fail by yourself while no one's looking or depending on you, it's not so bad. I might fail to dust my furniture or learn how to play the guitar and, while those are personal failures, I don't see them as being nearly so bad as failing to get into graduate school or get a decent job. Because (1) there are people rejecting me and (2) there are people watching me get rejected.
I think, too, that because we live in a society that measures so much by personal success, we really leave ourselves open to the anxiety that we will fail. And in part, I do mean material success. If you're not aspiring to the American Dream, well, a lot of Americans might say you're kind of a loser. I think it's sufficient to take care of yourself and your family and hopefully find some personal fulfillment, but every family and community has different expectations. And those expectations scare the hell out of us.
Which comes back to people. We hate to have others see us fail. It's a little humiliating, even if those people love you no matter what. It might be worse, in fact, to fail in front of the people who matter most because you know they empathize with you more.
So, how do you deal with failure? One way is by changing the definition of success. When I was applying for jobs, I concentrated not on the response I got but the quantity and quality of my applications. I want to apply well and apply often, so I did, and the more I applied, the better I got at it. I actually applied for three different jobs with MPP and guess what? None of them are the position I hold now. I decided the only way I could really fail was by giving up or undermining my own beliefs (by applying to places I didn't consider ethical). And, not to be corny, but I learned a tremendous lot about myself during those four months.
Because the truth is...you never know what you're capable of if you succeed constantly with few obstacles. The true measure of your ability is how you deal with the prospect of failure and failure itself.
Or simply to agree with Ms. Frizzle, get a little messy.
Ok so this is not about THAT f word but another f word that I will introduce with a story. *ahem*
The other day I made a quiche. Not just any quiche, but MY quiche. I just decided, randomly in the store, that I wanted to make a quiche. So I bought a bunch of random stuff, looked at 10 or 11 recipies and then made up my own. I was excited, and happy and really pleased with this adventure. But then I put it in the oven. It started to spill, and it took FOREVER to cook. The whole time I started to freak out. My "happy experiment" quiche had become the "OH MY GOD WHAT IF IT TASTES NASTY AND I HAVE JUST WASTED ALL THIS FOOD?!??!!?" quiche. I had already deemed it to a failure, and appropriately was feeling badly.
And THAT is the f word I meant. Failure. I found it defined in seven ways:
1. an act or instance of failing or proving unsuccessful; lack of success.
2. nonperformance of something due, required, or expected: a failure to do what one has promised; a failure to appear.
3. a subnormal quantity or quality; an insufficiency
4. deterioration or decay, esp. of vigor, strength, etc.
5. a condition of being bankrupt by reason of insolvency.
6. a becoming insolvent or bankrupt
7. a person or thing that proves unsuccessful
Now looking at these definitions, it make sense why people fear failure. It is something to be avoided at all costs. It is shameful and irreversible. However, none of these definitions explain what failure actually dose.
Failing, in a way is inevitable. You will fail at something, perhaps even several times. So why avoid it? When done correctly, failure teaches us things, and helps us identify and avoid mistakes. Not to mention that mistakes can sometimes be fun and open you to new possibilities.
So yes, one should not wallow or seek out failure; but nor should we fear it as much as we do. I mean really what happened to the Miss. Frizzel motto?
"Take chances, make mistakes, get messy!"
Julia 01/24
Talk about weighty issues! It took me a while to sort out my thoughts on this one, particularly because failure and I got to be pretty good acquaintances during the four months I was looking for a job. Failing is depressing. It becomes easy to believe that you have never succeeded at anything, that you never will succeed at anything and should just give up as soon as possible.
I'm, of course, talking about the failure called rejection in this case. It doesn't really matter where you are in life, the possibility of rejection is always around the corner. Prospective employers reject us, friends and family reject us, love interests reject us. Or they might. It's that distinct likelihood that often keeps people from trying.
Because, let's face it, if you fail by yourself while no one's looking or depending on you, it's not so bad. I might fail to dust my furniture or learn how to play the guitar and, while those are personal failures, I don't see them as being nearly so bad as failing to get into graduate school or get a decent job. Because (1) there are people rejecting me and (2) there are people watching me get rejected.
I think, too, that because we live in a society that measures so much by personal success, we really leave ourselves open to the anxiety that we will fail. And in part, I do mean material success. If you're not aspiring to the American Dream, well, a lot of Americans might say you're kind of a loser. I think it's sufficient to take care of yourself and your family and hopefully find some personal fulfillment, but every family and community has different expectations. And those expectations scare the hell out of us.
Which comes back to people. We hate to have others see us fail. It's a little humiliating, even if those people love you no matter what. It might be worse, in fact, to fail in front of the people who matter most because you know they empathize with you more.
So, how do you deal with failure? One way is by changing the definition of success. When I was applying for jobs, I concentrated not on the response I got but the quantity and quality of my applications. I want to apply well and apply often, so I did, and the more I applied, the better I got at it. I actually applied for three different jobs with MPP and guess what? None of them are the position I hold now. I decided the only way I could really fail was by giving up or undermining my own beliefs (by applying to places I didn't consider ethical). And, not to be corny, but I learned a tremendous lot about myself during those four months.
Because the truth is...you never know what you're capable of if you succeed constantly with few obstacles. The true measure of your ability is how you deal with the prospect of failure and failure itself.
Or simply to agree with Ms. Frizzle, get a little messy.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
About sports
Julia 01/10
Around high school, I started a period of really hating professional sports. I thought the athletes were overpaid and the industry in general completely was unethical (as much of the entertainment industry is, in all honesty). It irritated me when people announced their sports allegiances in class or tried to use a game as a current event in AP US History. Looking back, I think this was in part because disliking athletics is a major part of your indie/alternative street cred. Sports are mainstream and therefore lame -- just another mind-numbing drug for the uneducated masses.
Okay, some of that is actually true, indie street cred or no. In the past few years, however, I've come to realize that sports do play an important role in our culture and -- gasp -- can actually be entertaining. For instance, I've always enjoyed watching the summer and winter olympic games. Should we raise some eyebrows about the inflated medal counts? Of course! But that doesn't decrease the pride of a community in sending a son or daughter off to the games, regardless of their country of origin. I think the honor is what gets lost in American sports, actually, and that honor is what appeals to me most. You can see in when you watch the smaller contingencies of athletes walk into the stadiums. The look on their faces is unmistakable: whatever the outcome, they are thrilled to be there. And you know there are folks back home who are even more thrilled.
And I don't even need to knock Americans, because we care about our athletes more than we should. But we care about all of our celebrities too much, so why should I criticize only the sports industry for this? The answer: I probably shouldn't. The last few years, I've started hanging out with my brother while he watches football games (by the way: GO RAVENS!). And they can be genuinely entertaining, in part because I'm watching them with my family. We have our teams and we scream at the television and that all can be fun.
So why do the academic and cultural elites often reject athletics as a viable form of culture? Certainly some of their complaints are legitimate, but is there something else there?
Kelly 01/11
Took me a while to digest this one. Primarily because I am one of those people that does not actually attach that much emotion to sports. In fact most of the time I would say that I don't care for sports. But then again, as you point out there is something fun about watching the olympics. And the pride and honor factor there makes it all the more satisfying to watch. However, over all I don't care for sports and god help you if you are trying to get me to play them. (My reaction is generally "You want me to chase after that little ball?..... and possibly hurt myself doing it?.....why?.... think I'll pass")
Now I have a few theories about why so called "intellectuals" reject sports as a form of culture. The first is due to what you have already mentioned. We pay WAY too much attention to our athletes. I mean if half the fun of sports is thinking about honor, then that aspect is kind of crushed when you know that the sports star you are so in love with is cheating on his wife, running illegal dog fights, or cheating with illegal steroids. All of that cheapens the victory of that person and in a way the team (if they have one). You become so interested in what that one individual is doing that the team gets caught up in the scandal. When these types of stories break it is not "just about the game" any more. How can you root for someone that you know is an awful person? So if you take all of the gossip into account, sports is no longer a noble pursuit.
My second theory about why sports are rejected is due to something other things that are considered "culturally relevant" have in common. They leave something timeless behind. Paintings, poems, music, theories, philosophies. All of these were left behind by some form of activity that is usually considered to have some higher cultural merit. That and the triumphs of the future do not decry the trumps of the past. Is a Monet painting any less beautiful simply because someone now can build this same masterpiece in a 3d environment? Most would say no. However, when a record is broken it's done. The person that broke the record is now on top while the first person to do it is now a historical foot note. And this cycle not only continues but it strived for. People that play sports want to be the new person on top. Now while I sound like I am decrying this, I'm not really. I understand that sports is about pushing yourself and going beyond what has already been done. But I think that is partly why people see it as incopral and fleeting.
There are other pet theories I have about why sports are ignored (blood sport nature of them, the games changing, and the simple "oh you geeks just can't play so it's us vs them" syndrome) but those are my top two. Now while I don't care about sports personally, I don't really hate those that do. It does still confuse me why people care to such great extents though. I mean it's not like you personally are achieving anything by your team winning. I guess that returns us to the honor aspect, but I still don't 100% get it. I mean as a country at the olympics? Yes I get how national honor is caught up in those particular events, but I don't feel like anything of mine is lost when my state's football team looses. And then, what about those that root for teams that are not their home state? Or those that root for a team that lives in a state they may have never even been to?
Hmm... Well looks like I can cover why people dislike sports, but not why people like them. Other side of the coin fail. xD
Julia 01/17
I thought I had mused all I was going to muse on this topic, but then I went to DC Roller Derby yesterday and, well, suffice it to say that I've had a few more thoughts on the matter. I want to remove athletics from "sports entertainment" for a moment. True, the two are related, but they are not one and the same and I know I'm often guilty of lumping everything together.
The thing is, that an amateur golfer has very little to do with our famous adulterer. It's too easy to criticize both of them in the same breath, simply because they are both players in the same sport. And athletics do help people achieve self-actualization. The women I watched yesterday were athletes. They worked hard to be good skaters and good team members. I hear the DC League Teams practice five times a week. They have goals . . . and achieving those goals boosts their self esteem, allows them to set more goals, achieve more. And striving for those goals as a team gives them a community and a sisterhood. And it's not only a community of their team, it's a community within their city: fans, volunteers, competitors. They have the opportunity make connections with each other because of the sport they play. And hey, exercise is never a bad thing either. They were pretty buff-looking women.
I observed similar effects as a college student. One of the most unexpectedly fun things I did my senior year was attend my roommate Cheryl's fencing tournament. Fencing takes skill and precision and grace. Man, did Cheryl have those things. When she made it to the final round, she called us (we had gone to lunch) and we went running back to the gym so we could see her win the championship. And knowing how hard she had worked and how much she enjoyed it, it was truly rewarding to watch.
So good athleticism is more than just running or hitting a ball or breaking a record. Sometimes it's a lot more like art. If it isn't something that we can achieve just by being mobile, if it requires time or effort or practice, then it's more of skill than we realize. And watching people do anything with skill -- whether it's painting or sculpting or playing the guitar -- is about more than entertainment.
Again, are professional athletes overpaid? Yes! Is there something strange about only being a spectator of sports, never a participant? Yes! Do pro-athletes get away with ridiculous things because they are celebrities? Yes! But in the same way that we can't dismiss all actors because some cheat on their wives or threaten them with axes, we can't dismiss all athletes. Especially when they're volunteer athletes or student athletes. Because the energy they put into what they do isn't really that different from the energy I put into writing.
As for playing sports, I've always been into the more solitary forms of exercise (hiking, bikeriding, swimming). But I can see the appeal, I certainly can.
Around high school, I started a period of really hating professional sports. I thought the athletes were overpaid and the industry in general completely was unethical (as much of the entertainment industry is, in all honesty). It irritated me when people announced their sports allegiances in class or tried to use a game as a current event in AP US History. Looking back, I think this was in part because disliking athletics is a major part of your indie/alternative street cred. Sports are mainstream and therefore lame -- just another mind-numbing drug for the uneducated masses.
Okay, some of that is actually true, indie street cred or no. In the past few years, however, I've come to realize that sports do play an important role in our culture and -- gasp -- can actually be entertaining. For instance, I've always enjoyed watching the summer and winter olympic games. Should we raise some eyebrows about the inflated medal counts? Of course! But that doesn't decrease the pride of a community in sending a son or daughter off to the games, regardless of their country of origin. I think the honor is what gets lost in American sports, actually, and that honor is what appeals to me most. You can see in when you watch the smaller contingencies of athletes walk into the stadiums. The look on their faces is unmistakable: whatever the outcome, they are thrilled to be there. And you know there are folks back home who are even more thrilled.
And I don't even need to knock Americans, because we care about our athletes more than we should. But we care about all of our celebrities too much, so why should I criticize only the sports industry for this? The answer: I probably shouldn't. The last few years, I've started hanging out with my brother while he watches football games (by the way: GO RAVENS!). And they can be genuinely entertaining, in part because I'm watching them with my family. We have our teams and we scream at the television and that all can be fun.
So why do the academic and cultural elites often reject athletics as a viable form of culture? Certainly some of their complaints are legitimate, but is there something else there?
Kelly 01/11
Took me a while to digest this one. Primarily because I am one of those people that does not actually attach that much emotion to sports. In fact most of the time I would say that I don't care for sports. But then again, as you point out there is something fun about watching the olympics. And the pride and honor factor there makes it all the more satisfying to watch. However, over all I don't care for sports and god help you if you are trying to get me to play them. (My reaction is generally "You want me to chase after that little ball?..... and possibly hurt myself doing it?.....why?.... think I'll pass")
Now I have a few theories about why so called "intellectuals" reject sports as a form of culture. The first is due to what you have already mentioned. We pay WAY too much attention to our athletes. I mean if half the fun of sports is thinking about honor, then that aspect is kind of crushed when you know that the sports star you are so in love with is cheating on his wife, running illegal dog fights, or cheating with illegal steroids. All of that cheapens the victory of that person and in a way the team (if they have one). You become so interested in what that one individual is doing that the team gets caught up in the scandal. When these types of stories break it is not "just about the game" any more. How can you root for someone that you know is an awful person? So if you take all of the gossip into account, sports is no longer a noble pursuit.
My second theory about why sports are rejected is due to something other things that are considered "culturally relevant" have in common. They leave something timeless behind. Paintings, poems, music, theories, philosophies. All of these were left behind by some form of activity that is usually considered to have some higher cultural merit. That and the triumphs of the future do not decry the trumps of the past. Is a Monet painting any less beautiful simply because someone now can build this same masterpiece in a 3d environment? Most would say no. However, when a record is broken it's done. The person that broke the record is now on top while the first person to do it is now a historical foot note. And this cycle not only continues but it strived for. People that play sports want to be the new person on top. Now while I sound like I am decrying this, I'm not really. I understand that sports is about pushing yourself and going beyond what has already been done. But I think that is partly why people see it as incopral and fleeting.
There are other pet theories I have about why sports are ignored (blood sport nature of them, the games changing, and the simple "oh you geeks just can't play so it's us vs them" syndrome) but those are my top two. Now while I don't care about sports personally, I don't really hate those that do. It does still confuse me why people care to such great extents though. I mean it's not like you personally are achieving anything by your team winning. I guess that returns us to the honor aspect, but I still don't 100% get it. I mean as a country at the olympics? Yes I get how national honor is caught up in those particular events, but I don't feel like anything of mine is lost when my state's football team looses. And then, what about those that root for teams that are not their home state? Or those that root for a team that lives in a state they may have never even been to?
Hmm... Well looks like I can cover why people dislike sports, but not why people like them. Other side of the coin fail. xD
Julia 01/17
I thought I had mused all I was going to muse on this topic, but then I went to DC Roller Derby yesterday and, well, suffice it to say that I've had a few more thoughts on the matter. I want to remove athletics from "sports entertainment" for a moment. True, the two are related, but they are not one and the same and I know I'm often guilty of lumping everything together.
The thing is, that an amateur golfer has very little to do with our famous adulterer. It's too easy to criticize both of them in the same breath, simply because they are both players in the same sport. And athletics do help people achieve self-actualization. The women I watched yesterday were athletes. They worked hard to be good skaters and good team members. I hear the DC League Teams practice five times a week. They have goals . . . and achieving those goals boosts their self esteem, allows them to set more goals, achieve more. And striving for those goals as a team gives them a community and a sisterhood. And it's not only a community of their team, it's a community within their city: fans, volunteers, competitors. They have the opportunity make connections with each other because of the sport they play. And hey, exercise is never a bad thing either. They were pretty buff-looking women.
I observed similar effects as a college student. One of the most unexpectedly fun things I did my senior year was attend my roommate Cheryl's fencing tournament. Fencing takes skill and precision and grace. Man, did Cheryl have those things. When she made it to the final round, she called us (we had gone to lunch) and we went running back to the gym so we could see her win the championship. And knowing how hard she had worked and how much she enjoyed it, it was truly rewarding to watch.
So good athleticism is more than just running or hitting a ball or breaking a record. Sometimes it's a lot more like art. If it isn't something that we can achieve just by being mobile, if it requires time or effort or practice, then it's more of skill than we realize. And watching people do anything with skill -- whether it's painting or sculpting or playing the guitar -- is about more than entertainment.
Again, are professional athletes overpaid? Yes! Is there something strange about only being a spectator of sports, never a participant? Yes! Do pro-athletes get away with ridiculous things because they are celebrities? Yes! But in the same way that we can't dismiss all actors because some cheat on their wives or threaten them with axes, we can't dismiss all athletes. Especially when they're volunteer athletes or student athletes. Because the energy they put into what they do isn't really that different from the energy I put into writing.
As for playing sports, I've always been into the more solitary forms of exercise (hiking, bikeriding, swimming). But I can see the appeal, I certainly can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)