Everyone has at least one special place. It's that place that never entirely leaves you, but becomes a part of you in some little way. Maybe it's the place you met your first love. Maybe it's the childhood fort. Maybe the church you married in, or a dream house, or maybe the site of your first job.
I think most of us have a number of these places. Places you'd be hurt to see destroyed. Placed it'd make you sick or angry to see gang graffiti. Maybe it's just some beautiful or favored spot that means something to you. A beach. A favorite mountain. Your church. These can all become sacred spaces.
Would you casually shrug off finding a used and discarded condom on the church floor? You wouldn't want someone tossing their empty beer cans under the pews, would you? Cigarette butts?
And you certainly wouldn't toss those things on the floor when visiting someone else's church, right? Apparently you're more of a minority than you think.
There are sites and articles suggesting that Wicca is one of the fastest growing religions (at least in terms of percentage) right now. Wicca is one--probably the largest--subset of neo-Paganism. One mostly common theme among Pagan groups (and others, too, obviously...) is a reverence for nature. For an admittedly small yet growing number of people, nature is sacred.
I'm not Wiccan, but I do fall somewhere near or under that (neo-)Pagan umbrella. When someone asks me where I go to church, I tend to answer, "I pray outside, mostly." Anywhere in nature is my church.
Yet what do people leave on the "floor" there? Broken bottles, cans, cigarettes--you name it. Odd are that some of it is probably yours.
Now, I go to churches for weddings and the like, and I behave as the guest I am. I'm respectful and mindful of other people's churches, even if I don't agree one hundred percent with the sermon.
Maybe I'm more of a minority than I think...
[posted to Vocalo.org 10/30/07]
So we went to Minnesota for cousin Kevin's wedding a couple weekends ago (already). It was a good trip, but stressful... too far for the kids still. I think three hours is about the sane limit.
There was one little thing that irked me more than it probably should. Other than being in a city which claims the Mall of America as the number one tourist attraction in the country. Damn, but I hope that's not backed up by real numbers... 'cause that's just sad.
But I'm getting more and more annoyed at the omnipresence of advertising. There were huge stretches of forest we drove through. Large hills rising up, rolling the landscape around for fun and sport. And rising up out of the middle were billboards upped to some preposterous scale so that you could still read them at what had to be a mile or more off.
Even the cards for the hotel room doors had ad space sold out on them. Never mind that I have to be a bit beyond starving to actually order Dominos Pizza. I'd rather get a frozen one at some scary convenience store (not that we had a scary convenience store encounter on that trip...).
But, come on. Do we need every square inch of our lives leased out for advertising? They had a couple of sports stadiums... with corporate sponsor names. I can't decide which movie I'm reminded of more: Vanilla Sky, or They Live.
I drive to work and see the billboards lined up along the expressway like predatorial mile markers. Every now and then there's a missed spot with open sky. And I have to imagine that somewhere there's an ad or sales exec bemoaning that lost advertising space...
[posted to Vocalo.org 10/29/07]
In a brief glancing at political issues, I browsed some stances on same-sex marriage by Republicans and Democrats. Several were listed as opposing same-sex marriage but supporting the equal rights of same-sex couples as civil unions. I wonder if it's really realistic to have it both ways.
But what is marriage, really? And who gets to define it? If we define it with any religious origin, doesn't that mean that a couple married in a courthouse by a justice of the peace aren't really married? But it wasn't a religious union... Does that mean that those couples are just "domestic partners" and not husband and wife?
If we say it's a man and a woman for procreation, then doesn't that mean that childless couples aren't married yet until they have kids?
So what really distinguishes a marriage from just some shared living arrangement? It can't be about a priest waving hands over rings. It can't be about kids (which can be adopted, let's not forget).
I say what makes a marriage is the solemn reverence it's entered into with. It's the commitment to each other. It's two people joining to create a new "us" entity. It's the two each becoming more than they were by themselves. It's the intention to be that makes it.
I say--if it's deliberate and intentional (sacred in whatever way)... with promises made before witnesses... in some form of ceremony that makes the event meaningful... Do the other details really matter? Being married changes you. Maybe both parties should change their last names...?
Races can intermarry, right? People with different hair color can intermarry, right? Or they can be the same race, right? I don't see why gender need be any different.
So that makes me pro same-sex marriage.
Now, I will admit I believe children are best off with a mother and a father (although a "Mommy" and a "Daddy" is better still...). That doesn't mean I'm against two mothers or two fathers. More and more children only seem to have only one. That's the less-than-ideal situation. Kids are here to experience. I happen to believe that kids benefit from having both male and female influences around them. Then again, I'm not entirely sure that two parents are enough...
[posted to Vocalo.org 10/28/07]
So we went to Minnesota for cousin Kevin's wedding a couple weekends ago (already). It was a good trip, but stressful... too far for the kids still. I think three hours is about the sane limit.
There was one little thing that irked me more than it probably should. Other than being in a city which claims the Mall of America as the number one tourist attraction in the country. Damn, but I hope that's not backed up by real numbers... 'cause that's just sad.
But I'm getting more and more annoyed at the omnipresence of advertising. There were huge stretches of forest we drove through. Large hills rising up, rolling the landscape around for fun and sport. And rising up out of the middle were billboards upped to some preposterous scale so that you could still read them at what had to be a mile or more off.
Even the cards for the hotel room doors had ad space sold out on them. Never mind that I have to be a bit beyond starving to actually order Dominos Pizza. I'd rather get a frozen one at some scary convenience store (not that we had a scary convenience store encounter on that trip...).
But, come on. Do we need every square inch of our lives leased out for advertising? They had a couple of sports stadiums... with corporate sponsor names. I can't decide which movie I'm reminded of more: Vanilla Sky, or They Live.
I drive to work and see the billboards lined up along the expressway like predatorial mile markers. Every now and then there's a missed spot with open sky. And I have to imagine that somewhere there's an ad or sales exec bemoaning that lost advertising space...
[Submitted to Vocalo.org 10/29/07]
So a whole crapload of people stand at risk of losing their homes in the near future. The internet is chock full o' artles on why. I've read a few of them.
One on cnn.com/money names and summarizes 6 targets of blame.
Now, having worked sales, I can see that the real estate agents get some blame. I ain't saying they're all bad. They're certainly better than lawyers (Okay, not the most massive compliment ever...). Lenders and crew? Yeah, I think they should have been able to figure this was coming.
But let me boil the problem down to an over-simplified bottom line:
People bought big houses they couldn't afford.
Simple, huh? Yes, too simplified, I know. Yes there are and will be mitigating circumstances. People lose jobs. [Raises h and discretely at the back of the class.] People shouldn't have to be expected to plan for dropping property values, but maybe also shouldn't be surprised by it. It seems like you can't drive to the nearest Starbucks without passing multiple brand new croplands of subdivisions "starting in the high 500s" or worse.
Do we blame the developers? No, not really, much as we might like to. They're building because that's what people have been demanding.
Huge houses on tiny lots. Screw the white picket fence. Car in every garage? Quaint. Now it's one per person, and it better be newer and an upscale brand. Don't buy a Toyota if you can have a Lexus. These are the apparent standards success is now measured by.
Maybe if we (as a culture) had realistic expectations and less screwed up values and priorites we wouldn't see people losing houses they shouldn't have had in the first place.
On the other hand, dropping house prices makes it a buyers' market, which works in my favor right now. Hey, that means I can get a bigger house than I thought I could afford... Ack.
We rented some movies over the weekend so that we'd have something at the end of each day after making progress in Kayla's room. It's yellow now. Pictures coming when it's done. If nothing else, Amy's certain to post some. :-)
One of the movies was King Kong. Delightful film. At the same time adventure story, monster story, period piece, and social commentary. Even romance included. Now, I'm not sure I ever saw the original. Sure, I watched the King Kong cartoon in the mornings as a 70's kid, but that hardly counts.
Kong captured something in the film that I rarely see captured in a film. The other one that did it was Instinct.
Both movies deal in part with capturing wildness and breaking it. Both show what happens when you take something so purely free and cage/chain it. We are all still wild, at least some tiny part of us.
In Instinct, Cuba Gooding Jr's psychologist character takes Anthony Hopkins' anthropologist character Ethan Powell to a zoo to see live gorillas. The gorillas are sitting about lazily. Powell explains that it's been so long in a cage for the gorilla that he has forgotten that he was ever free. Now he just thinks freedom is something he dreamed once.
We are all caged by society. By its norms and expectations and taboos, by the money that drives it. We like to think we are free because we can gather to debate things, and print books and articles, and vote and have free speech. But our very days begin with an alarm clock telling us to get up.
Animals sleep and wake following day/night cycles. When they're tired they go to sleep or rest. When we're tired we still stay up because there's so much we "have" to do. We get up before we're ready because we "have" to.
Our society is built on rules. Some are enforced legally, some socially. Women can't leave the house without makeup. Just running to a store becomes a process. We drive to work, and how many laws affect just our commute. Not that those aren't necessary laws, but still.
We get in the car (that we have to have license plates on to drive, and village stickers to park). We buckle the seatbelts because that's a "primary enforcement activity" where we drive. We have speed limits, although that's one we seem to break freely, pretending to run free while we stay in our lane and supposedly use turn signals. We get to work and park between the lines.
Even the forest preserves have fences and marked boundaries. Everything in its spot, in its place. Our society puts things in neat boxes, and there are lines we can't see that mark where our yard ends and the neighbor's begins. There are even laws about mowing your lawn. I know because twice now I've gotten "citations" for letting my grass get long enough to seed. So instead of letting my grass get thicker naturally, by sprouting seeds to drop and grow, I cut it down before it gets that far just to go buy seeds that have been grown for me.
I can't even look out the window without seeing power lines. Every day I drive past forest preserves on the way to work. How I long to be able to just stop and run wild and free, even if just for a while. But is there any escape from our human zoo?
The following email snippet prompted my ranting reply:
> Nothing is wrong with Jury Duty! I just don't want to get pulled
> away from my life…So I am scared to vote now and
> sometimes I know people are not so fortunate to have jury duty
> finished in a day!
<rant>
I used to not want jury duty, back in my college years. Then I did jury duty. I served on a jury for a trial that lasted about a week. It gave me an insight (not flattering, mind you) into lawyers and some of the problems with our legal system.
I earnestly hope I never have to do it again.
However, I would never try to dodge it. It IS a civic duty.
I believe in our freedoms. I believe in our legal system. It's not the system that's broken. I believe all the blame lays squarely on the lawyers. I take these things seriously, and don't take them for granted.
The system works BECAUSE of regular people serving on juries. Without that we might as well still be proving innocence instead of guilt. Without that we might as well just have one professional judge/jury/executioner decide our fate for us with no hope of appeal.
We of all people should understand that you can't have the good without some of the bad. You can't have the freedoms without the responsibilities that go with it. Jury duty is one of those responsibilities. Voting is another. By, of, and for the people. WE are the government, and WE are the system.
It may sound overly simplistic, but there are some issues I get black-and-white on. If you won't accept the responsibilities, you don't deserve the freedoms. That's my view, and because people vote and serve on juries I'm allowed to have that view, and you're allowed to disagree.
</rant>
Just thought I'd share...
Hopefully everyone had a happy Thanksgiving. We did. It was one of the smallest Thanksgiving dinners we've done, but it was still a good time. I have to work today, but the cleanup is done, so I'm not leaving Amy with a huge work load today. Mom helped out a bunch cleaning pots and pans. She usually helps out. Thanks, Mom.
I got a cool email from one cousin, which I need to reply to, probably tonight or tomorrow morning.
But there was also the predictable "Happy Turkey Day" email from someone in one of the groups I get mail from. Thanksgiving isn't a religious holiday. It isn't a minority cultural holiday. It's a part of the core American culture. While I know she was going out of her way not to offend, part of me is a little offended by the "turkey day" euphemism.
You see, Thanksgiving is a holiday about something. It's about sharing and being thankful. Nothing offensive there. But it's rapidly turning into Turkey Day, which isn't about sharing or about being thankful. It's about indulgence and turkey and... well, that's about it. It's going from being a holiday to being an excuse.
So I'm hoping you had a happy Thanksgiving. I did.
Sometimes I just sit back and quietly sigh in disappointment. Usually it stems from other people. There are a few examples I've got in mind. I've mentioned The Cauldron a few times. It's a discussion message site for (typically) spiritual topics. But it seems that every good and long discussion inevitable involves someone apologizing for the way someone else interprets things. They'll end up saying, "I wasn't trying to attack you." But someone always feels offended or attacked when their ideas are challenged.
Personally, I want my ideas challenged. As long as you aren't attacking me, you're welcome to challenge any idea I put forth. It's through debate and discussion that we learn from each other and confirm our own views.
But some people just seem to be running through life looking to be offended. There's always someone who'll take a joke the wrong way. There's always someone who reads something into a statement that just isn't there.
I've lost friends over pointless misunderstandings before. It may still be happening. The friends from college that I've lost... that was my fault. I was an asshole. There are still friendships that aren't working. It gets to the point where I ask myself if I'm still treating people badly, or if people are just trying so hard to be disappointed with life that they'll create it if it isn't there.
I don't know, just one of those stupid rambling posts that I'd delete if I was smarter. Not the mood I wanted to be in before work, or before writing Quick Shtick for today.
But that's where I'm at. Maybe what I need is an anonymous blog. A place I can rant without worrying about who's reading and whether they'll take it wrong and be mad about it for months at a time. But there are things I just don't get to say that I'd like to get out. Not "out there" per se, just out of me. But I won't. Oh well, life goes on.
Think this is a long enough job description? Eep.
Position Description:Um, yeah. I'll pass, thanks.
Summary: Provide general/routine clerical support such as answering telephones, data entry, sorting and distributing mail, filing and making copies. Interacts with HP employees or external customers in performing these general support activities. Essential Duties and Responsibilities: Answers telephones, determines caller's business needs and refers callers as appropriate. May also be responsible for operating the paging system, switchboard or call attendant telephone system. Responsible for tracking call data. Call management responsibilities may span multiple locations. Greets and directs visitors, employment applicants, and customers to the appropriate party or location. Maintains and revises welcome board for customer events. May also be responsible for scheduling and coordinating conference rooms, catering and logistics. Receives deliveries, faxes and employment applications and forwards them to the appropriate party. May provide telephone or administrative support back-up to co-workers as needed. Sorts and distributes incoming mail and courier deliveries to appropriate in- house locations on an established schedule. May assist with large mailings. Prepares outgoing mail for delivery to the Post Office. Weighs letters and packages to calculate appropriate postage. Records postage charges for assignment to department accounts. Makes copies and collates as required. Files and keeps routine department records. Performs data entry to tables, charts, and spreadsheets using software applications. May produce graphics for presentations, manuals, or proposals. Distributes travel packets for pick up by traveler and maintains ticket logs. May type and/or consolidate materials for reports, manuals, or general correspondence using software applications. Maintains records retention center (including deliveries and retrieving records from storage area and administering annual records disposition program) according to company policies, guidelines and legal requirements. May maintain local HP Company car/pool records. Minimum Qualifications/Experience: Demonstrated ability to use arithmetic including decimals, fractions and percentages. Demonstrated knowledge of spelling, grammar, and composition. Demonstrated ability to effectively communicate both verbally and in writing. Skilled in the use of computer terminals, basic office equipment and related software applications. May be required to demonstrate the ability to lift materials per approved limits.
So Chicago has finally passed an ordinace banning drivers from using cell phones without a hands-free device as of July 8th.
Driving is the most dangerous thing we do on such a regular basis. For many people, it might just be the most dangerous thing they ever do. How many things do you do that can potentially kill someone if you mess up? How much money is wasted every year paying out insurance claims and repairing banged-up cars?
Now, will the ban save lives? Maybe one or two. If it's enforced and works will it reduce crashes? Very probably, if not certainly.
Now, here's where rant time comes in. Note I used the word 'crashes' and not 'accidents'. Yes, there are a few cases where you're driving along and a patch of oil or ice that you couldn't possibly have seen throws the car into somewhere it isn't supposed to be. But that's the rule, not the exception. For the vast majority of cases, crashes are a result of the driver.
People driving too close to each other, or too fast for conditions, or too distracted, or too tired, or too many substances...
I heard one person claim they couldn't stop in time because her anti-lock brakes kicked in. Nuh-uh. Too close and too fast for conditions on a wet street.
Amy got rear-ended once at a stop light because the guy didn't think she was going to stop, so he just followed her through the turn on red. Except she did stop, and he didn't.
Now, there was one time I was driving to or from work in rush hour. Coming up over a hill, not very fast, and I got high enough the sun was very suddenly and very brightly right in my eyes. I couldn't see that the lady in front of me had stopped. Yet I don't count myself without fault.
I don't doubt for a minute that someone will complain about this ordinance. Either it'll inconvenience them, or it'll be intruding on their (ahem) rights in their own car. Tough. The government passes laws because people show on a daily basis that they need them. It's like when we were kids. If you wanted fewer rules you had to show you could handle responsibility.
Remember that for every stupid warning label out there, somebody has done that. If children can't be responsible for themselves, then parents make rules to take care of them. In this case, the goverment is the parent. That's what government is for. Don't like it, learn to parent yourselves.
Today I got the following in my email:
Hello,I am very impressed with your background and experience. I would like to invite you to contact us to explore our career opportunity at my Des Plaines office for a professional sales position at Western-Southern Financial Group. Please call to schedule a personal interview. If you are not available at this time, please email me at [snipped] or call my office and ask for Scott Kaplan or any member of our management team and we will schedule and interview for you.
Location is as follows:
[snipped]For more information please visit www.westernsouthernlife.com. We look forward to hearing from you.
Thank you.
Scott E. Kaplan
District Sales Manager
Not so Mr. Kaplan. Yes, I received your form letter. In fact, I received it twice (both copies had the same typo even). I guess that's what I get for posting two resumes. If you happen to read this, consider this me declining you.
You're welcome.
Brian
At work yesterday someone left a Chicago Tribune by the water cooler. One of the headlines caught my eye, so I photocopied the article so I could read it. They also have it online: New menu at Sara Lee
Sara Lee is selling or spinning off businesses that account for about 40% of sales. Quite a bit, although looking at what they're getting out of, they're not going to see much drop in profit. Most of it is very low margin stuff or stuff that was managed poorly to begin with:
They're getting out of Branded Apparel (Hanes, L'eggs, Champion, Bali, Playtex, Wonderbra, Barely There --okay, some of those had money in them) US Retail coffee (Hills Bros, Chock full o'Nuts, Chase & Sanborn, MJB), Meats in Europe and a direct selling division that wasn't a good idea to begin with.
Their portfolio summary had at one point been "packaged consumer goods," which was at least a useful definition, even if it's just consumerism.
Getting out of retail coffee, that one I get. Most of it's canned crap anyway. There's much less profit in there, and it's a harder market to play in. Price is a big enough market driver there that it's not necessarily worth competing there.
Getting out of apparel at first glance seems like a bad idea. There's some good brands there, some good products, and they're recently worked pretty hard to be innovative. Tagless t-shirts will be an industry norm pretty soon, probably, and they're the ones that started it.
On the other hand, the whole apparel group was managed poorly. Here's a little insider perspective from about a year ago:
Much of my job there (in the coffee end of things) was managing inventory for merchandising. That included a lot of shirts. When possible we used Sara Lee products for that. We had a lot of logos printed on Hanes t-shirts, for example.
Now, I could order shirts through a contact at the apparel group, and I could get them at cost. Then I just needed to get them printed, for which I was supposed to use a printer that the apparel group used. It was a preferred vendor kind of thing, and was supposed to leverage the large-scale purchasing power. But I had a local printer I used, because him buying the shirts, printing them, and selling them to me was still cheaper. Why? He was able to buy them below cost. And that makes sense how?
Yep, there were a few preferred-vendor things that didn't make sense. There was an official approved printer for all the paper stuff, business cards, letterhead, sales brochures, all that stuff. The theory was that every Sara Lee division all did their printing through that one source for a massive bulk discount.
Except it never worked. We were supposed to send all the printing there. Instead we gave them the chance to bid on every print job. They were never once the better deal. In ever case we had someone else who could do the same quality at less cost.
The trick is, the approved printer gave a rebate back to Sara Lee corporate for all the volume. So the individual branches paid more so that corporate would get this big rebate. The corporate bottom line won out. Steve McMillan got his multi-million dollar bonusses every year while the individual divisions had to freeze wages and hiring and lay people off to make their numbers every year.
The beverage division made solid profit every year I was there. And yet somehow the whole time we had raises frozen because we weren't quite making the numbers corporate targeted for us. How much of it was because we were carrying the burden so that corporate could get the benefit.
The good news is that Steve McMillan is stepping down. About damn time. I can't say enough good things about him. Okay, I can't say any. But I doubt the new CEO will be much different. She's the one starting this current round of restructuring. And it isn't to streamline the brand portfolio. It isn't to weed out brands and businesses that don't fit the corporate mission. No, it's because they considered underperforming on paper. It's the bottom line of the balance sheet. It's Corporate America.
I heard on the radio coming home about some of the protesting during the inauguration.
Now, I'm all for free speech and the First Amendment. But there's also a time and place, and I think maybe an inauguration is a good time to either show support or respectfully stand aside. Not a time to protest. I'm not saying it shouldn't be allowed, but I do find it somewhat inappropriate.
But what really struck me was a quote from protesters in the background during the news bit. "We're not gonna take four more years."
And how's that? 'Cause I got news for you. You are. So to everyone that got on a bus in the cold late last night to show up for to make your protest heard, you had your chance. Back in November.
Hell, I'm not even a Bush fan. But, like it or not, he's the President. The majority has spoken, more or less. Whining and complaining aren't going to change anything. If you want something changed...do something about it.
On that note, I'm tired and I'm going to bed. :-)
A little frustration to vent, and an opinion... uh oh, it must be rant time.
How many things these days do people want to blame on heredity. Now, heredity is real, but not the way most people think. I don't think genetics really has much to do with it.
Fat people don't pass on a gene that makes kids fat.
Addicts don't pass on a gene that makes kids addicts.
Abusive parents don't pass on a gene that makes kids violent.
Democrats and Republicans...
Religious groups...
Hate the holidays? Bet your kids will...
People tend to become what their parents are. But I don't believe that it's genes that make that happen.
Eat in an unbalanced, unhealthy way and end up fat. Raise a kid in that lifestyle and the kid will end up the same way.
Treat the kid like he's something you resent and how is he going to treat other people when he's older?
Drinking and smoking and gambling addictions? Leave that unaddressed and you'll pass on that reward-center dysfunction and those behaviors.
We all learned from our parents. At our most impressionable times we learn to mimic our parents. Jareth hasn't quite really started speaking, but he is already mimicking us. The Ahh after a drink. The way Amy and I both put our hands behind our head to stretch. He is already learning these behaviors.
As parents, we can give him the future we want him to have, but we have to live it first. Blaming genetics is just trying to avoid responsibility. It's shifting the blame.
My father isn't good at following through on things. I learned that from him. Just figuring that out was a huge moment for me. If I try to say that there's a gene that controls ambition it means denying having any control over my life. But I have the chance to learn how to fuel my own passions. Jareth can grow up with the belief that dreams can be caught, not just chased, and that things can matter. It's up to me. So pththtbth on you, genetics.
This week I heard and read two things that I wanted to respond to. One was a Northwest Herald article that I think was reprinted from one of the bigger papers. The idea was that global warming was melting the Arctic (north pole) ice cap (true) which was going to result in extinctions of arctic wildlife (probably true) and flooding of places like Florida (not true).
The second was a discussion on NRP (National Public Radio) about a group handing out flavored condoms (I think at a school, but I don't remember for sure). One person explained that it was because of the growing spread of aids among homosexuals.
Now, about melting polar ice:
Floating ice displaces as much water as it would if it was melted. Put a bunch of ice in a glass, and fill it the rest of the way with water. When you come back later and all the ice is melted, the water level in the glass hasn't changed. The northern ice cap is nearly completely floating. It melting (regardless of how long it takes) isn't going to change ocean water levels. There would be plenty of other effects, but not global flooding. The Antarctic (south pole) cap is sitting on land. If it melts there would be flooding, because it isn't already displacing all that water.
As for those flavored condoms, I think there was a very different problem being addressed. It's not oral sex between young gays that's the larger concern. The problem is that oral sex is becoming more and more common among younger and younger people. Ask the 15-25 or so demographic. Oral sex is more and more not being considered sex. Just another step past kissing.
And yet it's one of the most common ways to spread herpes. Here's what the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has to say about how common herpes is:
Nationwide, at least 45 million people ages 12 and older, or one out of five adolescents and adults, have had genital HSV infection. Between the late 1970s and the early 1990s, the number of Americans with genital herpes infection increased 30 percent.One out of four.Genital HSV-2 infection is more common in women (approximately one out of four women) than in men (almost one out of five). This may be due to male-to-female transmissions being more likely than female-to-male transmission.
Read that again.
Got it? That is a staggering number. One out of four. And yet is there a public outcry about the epidemic? Somehow not. Sure, herpes doesn't kill. But it is untreatable, and the number is only getting higher. There are implications there for how society views sexuality. How wide-spread does it have to get before people start thinking about it? It makes me glad I'm not single.
One out of four. Shudder. And yet somehow it's the gay behavior that the conservative-morality crowd is worried about...
I'm more than a little tired of the this-or-that two-party mindset that people get stuck in.
There was some discussion about voting at work, and I don't think I overheard anyone voting for anyone, just against the other one.
There was a third candidate. There was a write-in slot.
But everyone has the bi-partisan blinders on.
At least the voting was a breeze (for me at least). I got there at 6:15. There were two cars in the parking lot ahead of me. There were four election officials and me. I was home dropping off a note for Amy by 6:30.
By morning we'll find out which bad choice the country made.
<rant>
I'm really getting tired of seeing stuff about a draft. Earlier tonight there was even a banner ad across the top of the Opera window:
Worried about the draft?Where do people keep coming up with the idea?
You're not alone.
Yes, Virginia, there was a draft proposal in Congress.
But guess what? It was defeated. 402 to 2. That's about as crushing a defeat as you can ask for.
So I'd say if things stay at all like they are, there is just about no chance in hell we'll have a draft.
Maybe Bush wants more troops. Maybe we need more troops. But a draft is the last way to go. There's plenty of world experience that conscripted troops don't generally make good soldiers. A draft is purely a desperation move.
Our total forces are in the low hundred thousand range. 200,000 or 400,000, I don't remember exactly. But in that neighborhood.
So maybe we want to add a hundred thousand or so, tops. Big increase. That'll take some good recruiting. Patriotism can do that just fine.
Drafts are for when you need troops in the millions. We sent a couple million in WWII.
The military is working on doing more with less, and getting good at it. More special forces type approaches are more like the way things are headed. The odds of ending up in another meat-grinder variety conflict are pretty slim.
To actually have a draft would take something big-time major. There are only so many groups capable of mounting something so major. It probably takes either an invasion, or large-scale weapons. If any group actually did something to us that warranted a draft-level response, you can bet easy money we won't be the only one calling up troops.
Worried about a draft? Stop listening to scare-tactic propoganda. (You'll probably have to turn off the TV to do it, though, so no more MTV for you.)
</rant>
The more answers in To Our Childrens Children I answer, the more I realize how many of my problems stem back to the public schools I went to.
Trouble with self-discipline. Trouble with self-motivation. Low self-esteem. All are items that I can pretty much point to the schools and say, "there's where it started."
I went to college having never learned any real study skills. School taught me how to take multiple-choice tests. As far as I'm concerned it failed in almost every other way.
Questions I've been answering recently (I'm a bit behind Amy) have been about school. Today's was about gym class specifically. I've been trying to do two or three a day to catch up, but I think it's only going to be one today. Here's part of what I said on the matter:
In grade school was dodgeball. I wasn't good at throwing, and I wasn't good at catching. I can't ever recall any gym teachers trying to help me learn. Dodgeball in particular emphasises those two skills. If you catch a ball that someone throws at you, they're out and have to go stand aside somewhere. They're eliminated for a round. If you get hit, you're eliminated. If you get a ball but can't throw it hard enough, it'll get caught and you're out. If you can't catch, you're an easy target. When you're out you're not safe, you just stand at the wall instead of in the middle arena area. People tend to pick on the easy targets, even those standing against the wall (out). Most of what I remember about it is shielding my face with my hands a lot. The more that happened, the worse my flinch reflexes got, and the harder a time I had catching anything. From as early as second or third grade I was the one people enjoyed picking on.
Part of me has struggled my whole life because of that. And other, similar things. Sometimes school comes up in conversations, and I talk about how much I dislike them, at how strongly I disapprove of the Lake Zurich shool system (and the public school system at large by extension). I talk at those times about how badly it failed in many ways. And every time I downplay just how strongly I feel about it. I still have a lot of anger, a lot of hurt from it, that I still haven't been able to address and deal with.
Amy and I plan to home-school Jareth. When we explain why I always try to find some better way to explain it than, "I won't send him there because I think that child abuse is wrong." But child abuse is about the level I put the public education system that I went through at.
I can't picture myself as one of those parents proud of the school my kids are going to. Because I was never, ever, proud of mine. I didn't graduate. I survived it, at best. The school system I was in was a god-awful, miserable failure that no one deserves to be subjected to.
Pet Peeve time:
Web sites with background music. Can't stand 'em. My first reaction is to close the window immediately.
See, my speakers don't work very well. The volume knob is touchy, and it takes careful adjustment of the volume or the left speaker goes out about half the time.
So all volume changes happen from the control panel. Most day to day sounds are on the quiet side. I have it adjusted about right for the games I play. Winamp has its own volume control for music I play.
But web page volume always ends up loud. So it startles the crap out of me. Hence the knee-jerk reaction.
Sometimes I'll check for a Stop Music button. Most sites with music don't have one. Please, if you have a web site with theme music, put a stop button on it.
Simple courtesy, no?
[This message brought to you by a page I'm not going to re-open just to link...]
In case you haven't read this ESPN article about Elizabeth Tweddle, please do so now. I'll wait.
Now, Amy has already posted her thoughts. Some of them are similar to my own, but I'm going to share mine anyway. Hey, it's my blog, right?
To me, the consistent theme of the Olympic gymnastics this time about was determination. There were a lot of problems, but people pushed on. Fairly high-end athletes fell off their equipment and had to get back on. For the most part they managed to keep focus after that and finish without major problems. Determination.
But of all of them I saw that determination in two in particular.
Paul Hamm is being talked about aplenty, no doubt. Coming back from 12th! In a word: awesome. He shone, and more than that he showed determination, he showed how badly he wanted it. It was a passion that burned within him. He SO deserved that medal. And when he was told he won? Stunned disbelief. It was one of the most...human moments of TV I've ever seen.
And I saw that determination in Svetlana Khorkina. On one hand, she struck me as cold. But she was honest about herself, and I can appreciate that. I can also appreciate the weight of heritage, and the circumstances she came from. Look at the facilities she came from, and then look at where Carly Patterson came from. Svetlana didn't have the hand guards that so many others had. I saw brief scenes of both training areas, and my what a difference.
And my view on Carly? Spoiled brat. She strikes me as someone who has never not gotten what she wanted. And she got it again. It would have meant so much more to Svetlana, but her age caught up with her. So Carly got it. Not because she was the best athlete. She's not. She's just the highest scoring.
And we're not done hearing about her. Her life will be defined by that one moment. America's new princess will not be defined as the one who got the gold, but as the "next Mary Lou." That's a shadow she'll never be able to tumble or vault out of. Years from now there's an after school special in it, or she'll write the book. Living in the shadow of greatness.
For Carly, it'll still never be good enough. For Svetlana, it would have been the perfect end to a career. It's a shame. But who said life's fair?
The WebSense filters are in place at work. The president's secretary got one of those e-cards from a friend. She couldn't open it. It was a blocked page.
Just one more bit of control taken by I.T.
We can't change the desktop image. We just get the corporate logo on a glaring blue background. It's so high-contrast I get headaches if I don't leave a window maximized.
We can't change the screen saver. It kicks on in five minutes, with wavy lines, and requires the password. The display properties control panel doesn't even have the screen saver tab.
We can't use Add Hardware wizard to install a different mouse or keyboard. Nothing can be installed without the Administrator password.
We can't even Add Printer. If you have a printer (which I do) and it's installed with the wrong driver by I.T. (mine is), you can't fix it even if you know how and have the damn disk in your drawer.
Oh, and we've also been warned that they're installing new security and virus software, and our computers might spontaneously reboot themselves after giving us a pop-up window with as much as five minutes of warning. They reminded us that we should be saving documents every time we leave our desks anyway.
I think I.T. and H.R. are competing to see which can be more disliked. Personally, I'm not placing any bets.
Secretaries' Day I understand. One of the secretaries that sits next to me got showered with cards and flowers from the sales group she supports. As I joked to her later, at least she knows once a year that she's appreciated here. Her group is actually pretty good, so she doesn't feel unappreciated specifically.
So I get the value of reminding people now and then to be appreciative of the people that support others. That's one I can support. The corporate world is thankless enough. Bringing some light of appreciation into the darkness is a good thing.
And then there's Bosses' Day. That one I just don't get. Maybe I've just never had a boss that went out of their way to anything specifically for me. Maybe I'm just cynical about the corporate world. Well, I am, but maybe it's not just that.
We work for bosses. Are we supposed to thank them for that? We do the hard work, and they take the credit. The Hallmark aisle just doesn't have a card for the sentiment.
Dear Boss: Thanks for driving me too hard, for less pay than others in my field get, for a job that nobody thanks me for doing. Thanks for not sharing with me the things I need to do that job. Thanks for not giving me enough time staying home caring for my wife and newborn boy. I've always appreciated the way you made decisions that affect my job without telling me. I just wish I could work harder to make you look better.Admittedly, my boss hasn't directly been to blame for all of those, sometimes it was higher up the chain, which doesn't help. Look if you want, but you won't find that card.
Maybe I'll buy him pretty flowers. Maybe he'd appreciate that. Then again, I don't even see it on my calendar, whereas Secretaries' Day is listed. So I can probably just blow it off anyway, which is much better. Thanks for not firing me, boss... :-)
More from the wellspring that is the company Intranet...
Dow Jones and the Wall Street Journal refer to a study of low-carb dieters recently done by the NPD Group. NPD is one of the biggest market research firms, and puts together decent stuff.
One interesting result they found was that of the large chunks of people doing low-carb, only about a quarter of them are reducing levels to the lows recommended by their diets. Most are only going about half as far as they're supposed to. So, while a lot of people are jumping on this bandwagon, most are only hanging on to the edges, ready to hop off at any time.
The low-carb thing will be around for years to come, but it does look like it will be the fat-free craze of the decade. Low-carb is driving the food industry to respond, but there isn't true lasting power. This is not the true shape of things to come.
And yet the food industry is scrambling to conform. In the current economy, corporations are living in fear, quarter-to-quarter—the corporate equivalent of paycheck-to-paycheck. Even where I work they're rushing to be first-to-market on at least one reduced-carb item.
And one segment hit hard is juices and juice drinks. Sugars from liquids hit the system differently than sugars from whole fruits. So the Atkinsers and South Beachers are cutting out (or for some just cutting back on) juices. The juice industry isn't entirely sure how to respond. Proctor & Gamble just spun off Sunny Delight to focus on core products (specifically Folgers coffee and Pringles chips according to Progressive Grocer). P&G is a consumer food and beverage company. Them spinning off Sunny D is big. It means that they either can't afford to invest in it to grow it, or they don't see it as having a worthwhile life span—this for a product that had good potential to profit on the growing interest in health. They were positioning it strongly as the healthy alternative to sodas for kids. Juice drinks are still heavy in sugars and calories, but at least they have more vitamin and nutritional value than sodas (and no caffeine).
We live in a free market democracy. Every purchase is a vote. I believe that very strongly, and I think we're seeing that in action with the low-carb craze. People are voting with their wallets, and corporations are responding. We can work that in our favor if we choose to. The corporations will never do what's in our best interests on their own, they'll only do what we pay them to do. Corporations care only about money and profit. That's the nature of them, and I suspect that that will never change. But maybe money can be the carrot on the stick that we goad the corporate mule with. Maybe corporations can become the tools we use to get the things we need, rather than us being slaves to the big corporations. But it means we have to make our own decisions and stand by them, not just do what the commercials tell us to.
It's refreshing to see that companies are anticipating people backing off the low-carb craze in favor of balanced nutrition. At the same time, I can see it as a little overly optimistic.
Societally, we tend to favor the easy answer. Low-fat. Sugar-free. Low-carb. The more restrictions a diet has, the more likely people are to fail with it. Look at the popular trend diets, and you see a similar summary. "As long as you avoid X, you can eat as much of everything else as you want."
But fat is not to blame. Carbs are not to blame. Sodium is not to blame. Food is not to blame. We crave fat because it makes things taste good, or gives foods good texture. We crave carbs because carbs are energy, and energy makes us feel good (at least in the short term). We crave salt because it enhances other flavors, and makes food tastier. So, because our society doesn't seem to place a high value on self-discipline, we eat what we crave. White Castle is basically nothing but fat, carbs, and salt. 'What you crave' indeed
And there you have the crux of the problem. Look at the proliferation of fat- or carb-blocking supplements, diet pills, and the like. Stacker. Stacker 2. Ultracarb or whatever it's called that Q101 (Chicago) endorses in the morning. The commercials so often include comments from people who couldn't handle healthy eating because they "couldn't give up all that good food."
"But cheesecake and ice cream and chocolate just taste so good..." On the other hand, people say that heroin feels good, but follow that to it's logical conclusion and see where you end up.
To quote Solaris, "There are no answers. Only choices." Every time you eat something, you're making a choice. One of the greatest lessons this life has to offer is that choices have consequences. You can make those choices to find compromise with those consequences if you want. Or you can choose to learn about consequences a harder way. But in the long run, pointing fingers and trying to lay the blame on anything other than your own choices is childish.
Forgive me if that sounds harsh. I tend to make solutions to problems sound simple. They are simple, unless you make them complicated. That's where I stand. Have you ever stopped to wonder where you stand?
Many people have said that PowerPoint is evil. Some of those were people who don't know how to use it, and find it frustrating. And some of them are people who *do* know how to use it, and therefore know it to be true.
As pervasive as it is becoming in Corporate America, it seems that for every company full of people who can just barely do the basics, there is but one person who actually knows it. Hundreds who can type bulleted lists, and know just enough to really screw things up. But just one who can actually fix their crap or do what they wanted to do in the first place.
At my job, I am that one person. I say that not as something to brag about. I say it as the condemmed man says, "Yes, I'm the one that got caught."
Leave it to presidents and vice presidents and directors to panic when the new president from The Parent Company gives them a deadline. The new uber boss makes a complicated request (justify everything you plan to do and why you need a budget to do it, in a one-hour presentation).
So these people realize (correctly) that they can't possibly get a presentation put together in time. They barely have enough time to figure out the content, let alone put slides together.
But that's ok, because Brian can do it.
Never mind that he does in fact have a job to do. Never mind that next week you're going to yell at him for not getting it done. Yes, he'll spend the next two weeks doing your job for you, and saving your ass, because you're his boss's boss. But you better remember that when you get phone call after phone call over the next two weeks about the things Brian *isn't* going to get done now.
So yes, he'll take care of you. Yes, he'll make it look better than you envisioned. Yes, he'll make you look good to the next two levels of senior management above you. You'll look professional and organized. You can impress your boss with a slick presentation that is understandable and not "busy." And he'll even create the one piece of really slick animation that very neetly ties together what you would have struggled to explain.
And he'll even be patient with everyone else when he has to explain to product managers why they can't roll out their new product yet, and why customers are being delayed on the first product shipments for their vending machines (and Sales really hates when they close an account, and the machine is in place, but there's no product).
But you damn well better thank him when you get back. And you really should consider two important things: That if he doesn't get a raise, and if you don't hire or train somebody with some computer skills past hunt-and-peck, then you might just find yourself having to do your own damn job. Because Brian has a lot of patience, but he's practically rehearsing the telling-off he's saving for his last day.
Rant complete.
I feel better now.
Well, I've been waiting to see how the Janklow sentencing would go. So I checked CNN's article on it.
He's had 13 tickets since 1990. He has repeatedly bragged about his lead-footed driving.
Then one day he's driving too fast, possibly not all there because he's diabetic and hadn't eaten, and he blows off a stop sign. He didn't see the motorcyclist, who died in the collision.
The defense at his trial tried to pull a "his diabetes made him sick so it wasn't his fault" defense, which the jury properly ignored as the horseshit of an excuse it was.
Yesterday was the long-awaited sentencing. I had it on my calendar because I didn't want to miss it. I had told myself during the trial phase that if he got off, I'd be obligated to start some kind of Internet campaign.
He was found guilty, second-degree manslaughter, speeding, failing to stop, and reckless driving. I told myself that if he got off with a really light sentence, that I'd have to speak up about it.
So, here's what he got:
100 days of jail time. 3 years probation, during which he can't drive. If that time goes by without incident the whole thing drops off his record.
But now I'm torn. On one hand, a lot of people figured he'd get off without jail time, but he did get some, in a county and state where the judge didn't have any minimum sentencing requirements. He could have gotten off with a wrist-slapping. Maybe the judge saw the potential for public outcry if it was too light.
Because here's what it boils down to. He has a long track record of driving irresponsibly. That irresponsibility killed someone. Because he thought himself above the law he was expected to be creating, he killed someone by doing something stupid. In that aspect, 100 days seems pretty light for killing someone. In three years, there will be no official penalty left. In three years, that motorcyclist will still be dead. I hope he wasn't a father.
Admittedly, he (Janklow) has lost his position in Congress. I sincerely hope that he sees the lesson he's being offered, and changes some of his attitudes. I also hope he never tries his hand in government again. I find behavior like his especially appalling when it comes from someone in Congress. If you're making the laws, and you don't like one, change it. Don't just be a sanctimonious asshole and blatantly place yourself above it.
I guess I expect better from role models. I don't expect people to be perfect. But I expect them to live up to reasonable expectations. I have no problem with a president who experiments with drugs in college. But a president who goes on MTV and essentially tells students that they might as well try drugs, now that I have a problem with.
<sidenote>
What happened was Clinton was interviewed on MTV about his famous, "but I didn't inhale" statement. He said that if he had it to do over again, he would inhale. When you're the President, allegedly the most powerful person in the free world, and you make a statement like that, you tell teens that they should try drugs. That's not he message I want the president giving.
</sidenote>
As a further aside, while I agree with some of Dubya's views, his stance on the definition of marriage and his siding with the sugar industry on recommending against changing health guidelines has probably cost him my vote.
But back to Mr. Janklow. Was the sentence light for killing someone? There will probably be public service involved. I guess for now it's as just as the system allows for right now. It sounds like he's genuinely remorseful about it. If he turns himself around and makes some changes, and maybe makes some effort to encourage safer driving, I could stand behind that.
Some people need to whack trees to turn their lives around. Maybe sometimes just a tree isn't enough. At some level, the motorcyclist agreed to be there, to be a part of that experience. Mostly I hope that the message didn't go unnoticed.
CNN.com ran a story about corporate sponsorship of schools, Reading, writing and revenue. Schools that have bad budget problems are selling ad space on school grounds, and letting corporations sponsor building additions.
One example is a school with a Dr. Pepper billboard. Another example, "Coca-Cola has contracts with at least 6,000 of the nation's more than 14,000 public school districts."
How far is this likely to go? I wouldn't send my child(ren) to a Coca-Cola High School. I already object to the constant bombardment of advertising and marketing. What if a church offered a school $1,000,000 to put a 50-foot cross on top of it. Next to the Dr. Pepper billboard, perhaps. People would scream. Crosses, Stars of David, dollar signs, none of them belong as part of public school property.
And who decides what corporations can advertise on school property. I think we can assume that tobacco and liquor companies are already out. I suspect that Smith & Wesson would get turned down. Maybe Wonderbra should sponsor the girls' locker rooms? I'll assume you won't find Victoria's Secret sponsoring the boys' locker room. Maybe every school should have a Nike Auditorium. Hey, gyms are expensive, right?
If the school cafeteria is "proudly serving Ballpark Hotdogs(TM)," what message are children being taught day in and day out?
Schools are probably not the place to teach family values. Schools shouldn't be trying to make our children good [Christians/Jews/Buddhists/etc.], or good [Republicans/Democrats] or espousing the values of Consumerism. Some people push for school uniforms, because it prevents children being discriminated against or ostracized for not wearing the right brands. But now we'll tell them which brands are approved and which aren't.
And it still feels like the over-riding messages will be the same.
Obey. Conform. Consume.
I may have to go rent They Live.
On the way to work now and then I hear a commercial for an Illinois program called "Click it or Ticket." "Illinois police are cracking down on those who aren't wearing seatbelts." Here's their reasoning (I memorized it):
"7 out of 10 people who died in car crashes in Illinois died for one simple reason, they weren't wearing seatbelts."
Go back and read it again. I'll wait.
At first, it sounds good. Years ago I would have supported the idea. Nowadays, I see seatbelt violations a little closer to a victimless crime. But that's entirely beside the point. I can believe their 70% not buckled up figure. The hole in their idea falls instead at the end of their argument. I propose that all 10 of those 10 died for a different reason: they were in car crashes!
Perhaps—just perhaps, mind you—the money spent on this campaign could be better spent enforcing the causes of the accidents. Treat the disease, not the symptoms.
Perhaps ticketing people who drive aggressively? Or people driving and romancing their cell phones? Or women doing their makeup while piloting 1800+ pounds of hurtling steel. What about what is probably the most violated law in the land (the speed limit)? Tailgaters? People with newspapers or maps between them and their steering wheels? Maybe we prioritize.
I propose that every car accident is caused by recklessness. Maybe not from a driver. Maybe a pedestrian steps out, making someone swerve into someone else. More likely, someone was in too much of a hurry, going too fast, not paying enough attention, swerving around slowpokes, cutting them off on the other way around-oh, sorry. I will allow for some extraordinary circumstances, but for the vast majority of the time, if you hit someone with your car, it was for one of two simple reasons. Either you were going too fast for conditions, or you were not paying enough attention. It’s not the snow’s fault. It’s not the road conditions. It’s not your tires—if they’re bald, change them.
I’m reminded of an anti-drug commercial I kind of like. A young (eight- to ten-year-old?) child is shown entering a backyard pool, and nobody else is around . The voiceover says something to the effect of, “Just tell them you weren’t paying attention because you were busy getting high. They’ll understand.�
If responsibility can be the anti-drug, I think it can have benefits in the rest of our daily lives.
Welcome to the gene pool. No lifeguards on duty. They’re busy getting high. Or driving. Maybe both.
A month or so ago I came across a quote on the Internet. I forgot to note where, or who the source was. I didn't even write the exact quote down. But the idea rang out to me, and stuck in my head. I have the quote, paraphrased, posted outside my desk at work.
No single raindrop believes it is responsible for the deluge.
Every action (or non-action) has a consequence. There is a huge amount of water in the world. But is that any reason not to conserve? It is finite—after all. Whenever corporate money is wasted, it impacts the ever-popular bottom line, which justifies why there isn't money for raises.
Every light left on uses electricity. At least in the U.S., the majority of our electricity is coming from fossil-fuels, predominantly coal. Your electric bill probably comes with a statement (yearly or more often, I think I get one quarterly) of what percentages are coming from what. I think coal was 85% in Suburban Chicago. Coal isn't the most ecologically friendly power source. The more electricity you use, the more pollution there is in the world. If you use less, then less is created, and therefore less of the waste product. Maybe the difference in the end is small. Just a raindrop. But it's there.
Look at elections. How many people don't vote just because they don't believe that one vote matters? I think at least in Florida, they all matter. Some people don't vote because they don't believe there is a "good" candidate to choose. But on the other hand, all those uncast votes are still votes. When you don't vote you're checking the box that says, "I don't care, do whatever you want." If the actual majority isn't voting, and doesn't care, why do we even have elections? There are countries struggling to even have a vote, and we don't seem to care. If you don't normally vote, I urge you to go this one time, write me in as King, and I'll make sure you never have to worry about voting again. Fair enough? Isn't that basically what you're already doing?
You are responsible for everything in the world that you are unhappy about. If you get a defective product and don't complain to the company, you're telling them that you don't mind paying for defective products. If you buy from companies that use sweatshops, you tell those companies that you endorse their use of sweatshops. If you use coupons you tell stores that price matters to you. You vote every day. You express an opinion with every action, or every inaction.
I'm not saying we should all devote every moment of every day to causes. We have to pick our battles. But when an opportunity comes along to matter, shouldn't we take it? Vote. Don't be wasteful. Don't live beyond your means. Don't lie. Don't simply accept things you don't approve of. Speak up. Matter.
Single raindrops are at the very beginning, throughout, and at the very end of every flood, of every rainstorm.
And they all make a splash.
Why can't we?