Remember when you were in junior high and high school and rumors spread like wildfire? I think the writers of Easy A had it right when Emma Stone explains about "The Accelerated velocity of Terminological Inexactitude."
Did you know that the workplace can be just as petty and complicated to navigate as when you were a teenager? It's like we never grew up. You could be close to 60 with grandchildren and be just as quick to spread and/or start a rumor as when you were 14. I know you can't tell, but I'm rolling my eyes right now.
When I first thought of this post a few days ago, it had to do with a rumor about myself that had just gotten back to me that people at work think I'm going to have to move because of my health. So NOT what was originally said. Namely, that my younger sister would like me to move back home as it would fix some of my health issues. That is what I told people about my sister's visit (and that we had a good time, despite the fact that she was here for a funeral).
However, since that wholly inaccurate account surfaced, we've had a bit of a kerfuffle at work and though the rumor of my move is premature, now the entire company is talking about an entirely different rumor, hopefully having nothing to do with me.
Our company decided to announce midweek that there is a company-wide meeting this coming Monday morning at 8:30 a.m. There was no explanation given; we all just received the appointment. I read the email and may have said out loud "let the rumors begin." Don't they know that when the corporate officers are vague that the employees guess? I decided to ask the people in my tiny satellite office if they had any good guesses. And by that I meant not anything based in reality. I figured that if we made up outlandish stuff that I could keep my mind off of actually speculating, which might lead to nervousness and panic and maybe eventually the dark side (if Yoda is right).
Here's what I came up with: we're all getting helper monkeys to assist us in our work, we will be made to wear uniforms in shades of pumpkin and puce, they are changing our company name *again* (actually possible), we will be allowed to bring pets to work as they'll lower our blood pressure and we'll be less likely to leave. Of course, more than one person said maybe we're all getting fired. Cue the nervous laughter.
Well, others must of have thought of the same thing because about one to two hours later we were sent an email that said that the rumor of massive layoffs was just that: a rumor. Layoffs are not anticipated. Hmmm. Couldn't they have been definitive and said layoffs weren't happening at all? Verbiage: it's important. It reminds me of The Emperor's New Groove when Yzma and Kronk are locked in the closet at Pacha's place and Yzma says: "Tell us where the talking llama is and we'll burn your house to the ground."
Kronk: "Uh, don't you mean or?"
Yzma: [Sigh] "Tell us where the talking llama is OR we'll burn your house to the ground."
Chaca: "Well, which is it? That seems like a pretty crucial conjunction."
Note that my division has a second meeting right after the first half-hour one. It means change. That I'm sure of. What is changing I have no idea. However, it can't be layoffs because that would be late on a Friday. This meeting should probably be at the end of the day because I can't imagine anyone wanting to work after bad news. Believe me, it will be bad. Not fired bad, but bad for my workload. Whatever changes they've made to the company since I was hired nine years ago has always added to the amount and type of work I do. I don't know how anyone could imagine that one person could possibly do all the things I'm asked to. But I'm not going to worry too much about it. Because I've been thinking about leaving...before the meeting was announced, even. If they offer severance (if it's that sort of meeting), it may be hard for me to not voluntarily separate.
Maybe it will be good news....
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Sugar-free Doesn't Work For Me
There are some people out there who are incredibly healthy and never have to take sick days. To you I say: bravo (or brava, depending on your gender)! I've also learned that the hyper-healthy don't usually seem to have either sympathy or empathy towards those who do get sick; that somehow those who "claim" to be sick are somehow faking it or...something.
I have no answers on how to help someone who is never sick to believe someone else who is. I probably don't have enough sympathy for the unsympathetic mostly because I'm trying not to be annoyed at people who think I fake MY illnesses. Amongst other health flaws, I've had food issues since high school and it's taken me a good bit to try to figure out what will set me off. Once I learn what each thing is I either try to work around it, avoid it, or eat it anyway. Sometimes I look at a food choice that I know will make me ill (either immediately or a few hours later or the next day, even) and I weigh its deliciousness with the future pain and/or discomfort. Some things are no longer worth it, like packaged name-brand Rice Crispy Treats. Don't get me wrong, I used to love them, but now I associate the taste with feeling bad, and that's hard to get over.
I once got a reaaaaaaaaallllly bad case of tonsillitis the same night I'd had fish at a family reunion. Even though the fever and sickness had nothing to do with fish, my mind still associated it together. It took me years before I convinced myself that not eating fish, which I used to love over almost anything else, was just silly. I'm back to loving fish and am glad that I got over that. Whew! Sorry, Charlie. Ha ha.
But back to Rice Crispy Treats. I can eat Rice Crispies for breakfast and not have a problem, as long as it's not what I eat every morning. I can also eat the homemade kind of treats if I wanted to, but the prepackaged kind has preservatives and I apparently can't abide them. Also, hydrogenated oils. I can't gorge myself on Reese's Peanut Butter Cups, Reese's Pieces, or anything made with modern peanut butter (and, really, I should never be gorging on anything). However, I *have* learned that I have no problems whatsoever with natural peanut butter. Yea! I would miss not being able to have a pb&j when I want one. ...Or a peanut butter and Nutella sandwich, which tastes an awful lot like a peanut butter cup.
Sugar substitutes give me heartburn. How frustrating do you think it is that when you try to eat Quaker's Weight Control oatmeal when it just makes you feel nauseated and burn-y in that region between your throat and stomach. Sigh. Oatmeal with actual sugar--NO PROBLEMS. It's like my body only likes natural stuff on one hand, but not too much (I won't over share my issues with fiber as it's not for polite company).
It makes me laugh when I see the commercials for the new sweetener from a different plant. The catchphrase involves going back to nature for sweetness. Um, isn't sugar from plants? And corn syrup comes from plants. How is that different? Are you trying to do a bait and switch? Or a shell game in the hopes that we'll be distracted by your rather offensive song about sugar making your butt fat that we don't notice that other sweeteners are also "natural?" Sheesh. Is anyone really falling for that? Sugar isn't really the culprit, despite the hype. It is the overindulgence of sugar that is the real problem.
So, yes, I'm sugar-substitute-sensitive. A whole bunch of diet stuff is out the window for me. Ahem, but too much sugar and being hot temperature-wise will lead me to a whole lot of ickiness. So I have to be careful about my sugar intake on hot days. And I can't eat any recipes that cook chicken with the rest of the ingredients, and I have to pat the grease off of my pepperoni pizza, and french fries did make me ill for awhile when all the fast food places switched their frying oil to, I think, canola, but now they use something different and fries are no longer toxic to me (in the short term). And I can't eat at Cafe Rio or Costa Vida anymore. At all. And I can't eat too many eggs, or at least the yolks, but I will sometimes feel rebellious and eat deviled eggs anyway!!!
Sadly, I could continue my litany of food issues. But guess what? Despite all of that, I still enjoy eating out. Sometimes it's worth the risk of what might happen later, but usually I can find something that won't cause me any troubles at all. I am just more selective now than I used to be. Hopefully I will stop accidentally finding more food problems. I'd like to think I've discovered them all, but I hear as you get older and your body starts falling apart faster than you can repair it that you get food issues. I have enough, thank you. No more. NO MORE, I say!
Do you think defiant denial will work?
Me, neither.
I have no answers on how to help someone who is never sick to believe someone else who is. I probably don't have enough sympathy for the unsympathetic mostly because I'm trying not to be annoyed at people who think I fake MY illnesses. Amongst other health flaws, I've had food issues since high school and it's taken me a good bit to try to figure out what will set me off. Once I learn what each thing is I either try to work around it, avoid it, or eat it anyway. Sometimes I look at a food choice that I know will make me ill (either immediately or a few hours later or the next day, even) and I weigh its deliciousness with the future pain and/or discomfort. Some things are no longer worth it, like packaged name-brand Rice Crispy Treats. Don't get me wrong, I used to love them, but now I associate the taste with feeling bad, and that's hard to get over.
I once got a reaaaaaaaaallllly bad case of tonsillitis the same night I'd had fish at a family reunion. Even though the fever and sickness had nothing to do with fish, my mind still associated it together. It took me years before I convinced myself that not eating fish, which I used to love over almost anything else, was just silly. I'm back to loving fish and am glad that I got over that. Whew! Sorry, Charlie. Ha ha.
But back to Rice Crispy Treats. I can eat Rice Crispies for breakfast and not have a problem, as long as it's not what I eat every morning. I can also eat the homemade kind of treats if I wanted to, but the prepackaged kind has preservatives and I apparently can't abide them. Also, hydrogenated oils. I can't gorge myself on Reese's Peanut Butter Cups, Reese's Pieces, or anything made with modern peanut butter (and, really, I should never be gorging on anything). However, I *have* learned that I have no problems whatsoever with natural peanut butter. Yea! I would miss not being able to have a pb&j when I want one. ...Or a peanut butter and Nutella sandwich, which tastes an awful lot like a peanut butter cup.
Sugar substitutes give me heartburn. How frustrating do you think it is that when you try to eat Quaker's Weight Control oatmeal when it just makes you feel nauseated and burn-y in that region between your throat and stomach. Sigh. Oatmeal with actual sugar--NO PROBLEMS. It's like my body only likes natural stuff on one hand, but not too much (I won't over share my issues with fiber as it's not for polite company).
It makes me laugh when I see the commercials for the new sweetener from a different plant. The catchphrase involves going back to nature for sweetness. Um, isn't sugar from plants? And corn syrup comes from plants. How is that different? Are you trying to do a bait and switch? Or a shell game in the hopes that we'll be distracted by your rather offensive song about sugar making your butt fat that we don't notice that other sweeteners are also "natural?" Sheesh. Is anyone really falling for that? Sugar isn't really the culprit, despite the hype. It is the overindulgence of sugar that is the real problem.
So, yes, I'm sugar-substitute-sensitive. A whole bunch of diet stuff is out the window for me. Ahem, but too much sugar and being hot temperature-wise will lead me to a whole lot of ickiness. So I have to be careful about my sugar intake on hot days. And I can't eat any recipes that cook chicken with the rest of the ingredients, and I have to pat the grease off of my pepperoni pizza, and french fries did make me ill for awhile when all the fast food places switched their frying oil to, I think, canola, but now they use something different and fries are no longer toxic to me (in the short term). And I can't eat at Cafe Rio or Costa Vida anymore. At all. And I can't eat too many eggs, or at least the yolks, but I will sometimes feel rebellious and eat deviled eggs anyway!!!
Sadly, I could continue my litany of food issues. But guess what? Despite all of that, I still enjoy eating out. Sometimes it's worth the risk of what might happen later, but usually I can find something that won't cause me any troubles at all. I am just more selective now than I used to be. Hopefully I will stop accidentally finding more food problems. I'd like to think I've discovered them all, but I hear as you get older and your body starts falling apart faster than you can repair it that you get food issues. I have enough, thank you. No more. NO MORE, I say!
Do you think defiant denial will work?
Me, neither.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Compromise = Nobody wins OR loses
There is a joke about a husband and wife at a party. During a conversation with another couple the wife states that when she and her husband disagree and she gets her way it's a compromise. "What happens if I get my way?" asked the husband. She looks at him and says "It's a miracle."
Then we can reference The Office (American version) and talk about the Win-Win-Win. I don't know how Dunder Mifflin can really explain in their HR handbook about three wins, but it's in an episode. Now I feel like I should re-watch it.
Compromise does not actually mean that someone wins and someone loses. What it's supposed to mean is that both sides/parties give in a little bit and give up a little bit so they meet somewhere in the middle. For example: a couple wants to see a movie - the boy wants to see the latest shoot-em-up and the girl wants to see something romantic. How do they solve it? Well, if the boy convinces his date to see his movie, the compromise would be that she gets to choose the next movie they see together. The same goes if the girl convinces the boy to see the sappy movie, he gets the next choice. Another way to compromise is if they decide on a third movie that neither would mind seeing. What is NOT compromising is when one person always gets to choose to the detriment of the other.
We US citizens seem bent on stubbornness and pride and that it's "my way or the highway." I admit I'm stubborn, but I really don't like fighting. I like people and darn it, I want them to like me back. It doesn't always work out that way, but at least I try. There are many divisive issues out there. There's a reason why they say to avoid the following topics at parties: religion, politics, and ... I forget the third. I'll say the third is your health, because who wants to hear about that? I talk more about my health than I should, but I would avoid it at all costs at a party. It's a downer. And some people go into gross details. Also, don't talk about how fabulous your family/kids/job/whatever is soooooo much better than everyone else's. No one will like you anymore and good luck getting personal invitations in the future.
There are some hot-button items out there that are making people really mad. One is gun control. Many people are either for or against. And they can get loud about their passionate feelings on it. This is how I feel: passing more laws to limit guns will not affect criminals one bit. They're already breaking the law and you're just adding more laws they can ignore. We have plenty of laws about guns and we should follow/enforce them before adding more.
To me, controlling guns isn't the issue. The REAL issue is that we have more psycho- and sociopaths in our society than we used to. This is what happens when as a society we're so interested in our own pleasures that we don't care about others. So, goons with guns are a symptom of poor behavior and lack of caring for others. You could say the same for ignoring traffic lights, graffiti, shoplifting, embezzlement, prostitution, drug abuse, abuse in general, etc. Of those who break the law, how many of them have "good" intentions? Identity theft isn't done for "the greater good." It's purely for easy personal gain without the hard work. Funnily enough, if the people doing the sophisticated thieving would put their energy into being employed they wouldn't need to steal from other people--people they usually don't know...so why should they care that they're ruining someone else's life?
Because you should! You should always weigh your actions against how it could affect others. Your victims are family to someone. And as you're indirectly related to all humans, we're all your family. How would you like it if someone stole your grandmother's money? Well, if *you* stole your grandmother's money, then you're that sociopath I mentioned earlier.
Here's what I hope for my nation: that we can compromise. That both major parties in Congress and the Senate can work together on a solution that will satisfy some of the concerns for both, but neither side should get everything they want. They should meet in the middle!!!!! What I really hope is that they can work on getting guns out of criminals' hands and not out of the general population. It is really hard to limit something once it's out there, no matter how seemingly right or wrong. You know what would be even better: working on a way so less people in our country grow up to be career criminals. Why aren't we working on that? Wouldn't that benefit everyone and fix most of the issues? Hmmmmm.
Then we can reference The Office (American version) and talk about the Win-Win-Win. I don't know how Dunder Mifflin can really explain in their HR handbook about three wins, but it's in an episode. Now I feel like I should re-watch it.
Compromise does not actually mean that someone wins and someone loses. What it's supposed to mean is that both sides/parties give in a little bit and give up a little bit so they meet somewhere in the middle. For example: a couple wants to see a movie - the boy wants to see the latest shoot-em-up and the girl wants to see something romantic. How do they solve it? Well, if the boy convinces his date to see his movie, the compromise would be that she gets to choose the next movie they see together. The same goes if the girl convinces the boy to see the sappy movie, he gets the next choice. Another way to compromise is if they decide on a third movie that neither would mind seeing. What is NOT compromising is when one person always gets to choose to the detriment of the other.
We US citizens seem bent on stubbornness and pride and that it's "my way or the highway." I admit I'm stubborn, but I really don't like fighting. I like people and darn it, I want them to like me back. It doesn't always work out that way, but at least I try. There are many divisive issues out there. There's a reason why they say to avoid the following topics at parties: religion, politics, and ... I forget the third. I'll say the third is your health, because who wants to hear about that? I talk more about my health than I should, but I would avoid it at all costs at a party. It's a downer. And some people go into gross details. Also, don't talk about how fabulous your family/kids/job/whatever is soooooo much better than everyone else's. No one will like you anymore and good luck getting personal invitations in the future.
There are some hot-button items out there that are making people really mad. One is gun control. Many people are either for or against. And they can get loud about their passionate feelings on it. This is how I feel: passing more laws to limit guns will not affect criminals one bit. They're already breaking the law and you're just adding more laws they can ignore. We have plenty of laws about guns and we should follow/enforce them before adding more.
To me, controlling guns isn't the issue. The REAL issue is that we have more psycho- and sociopaths in our society than we used to. This is what happens when as a society we're so interested in our own pleasures that we don't care about others. So, goons with guns are a symptom of poor behavior and lack of caring for others. You could say the same for ignoring traffic lights, graffiti, shoplifting, embezzlement, prostitution, drug abuse, abuse in general, etc. Of those who break the law, how many of them have "good" intentions? Identity theft isn't done for "the greater good." It's purely for easy personal gain without the hard work. Funnily enough, if the people doing the sophisticated thieving would put their energy into being employed they wouldn't need to steal from other people--people they usually don't know...so why should they care that they're ruining someone else's life?
Because you should! You should always weigh your actions against how it could affect others. Your victims are family to someone. And as you're indirectly related to all humans, we're all your family. How would you like it if someone stole your grandmother's money? Well, if *you* stole your grandmother's money, then you're that sociopath I mentioned earlier.
Here's what I hope for my nation: that we can compromise. That both major parties in Congress and the Senate can work together on a solution that will satisfy some of the concerns for both, but neither side should get everything they want. They should meet in the middle!!!!! What I really hope is that they can work on getting guns out of criminals' hands and not out of the general population. It is really hard to limit something once it's out there, no matter how seemingly right or wrong. You know what would be even better: working on a way so less people in our country grow up to be career criminals. Why aren't we working on that? Wouldn't that benefit everyone and fix most of the issues? Hmmmmm.
Monday, February 18, 2013
I'm a recovering hopeless romantic
I was born boy-crazy. I don't think you can *get* this boy crazy without a wicked head start somewhere, so I'm pretty sure that I was mad for boys BEFORE I was born. And when I was the tiniest child I knew that my chosen career was motherhood, when I wasn't dreaming of being a princess, that is. Everything I did, studied, behaved, etc., was to make me a good mother. I learned how to cook. Found out I could sew but didn't pursue it as other siblings were awesome at it (and you know I don't like to compete). I'm really good with children. I was a certified babysitter, even. I changed diapers and such, you would have loved me watching your kids. My motto was that if I wouldn't be able to tell my kids about it, I didn't want to do it.
I also fell in love very, very easily. The guy didn't even have to love me back. Just a kind word every three months or so was enough to give me hope. Poor, poor, Dee. How I would love to travel back in time and tell my love-struck self: work on other things, it will happen when it happens, going all gooey over boys who aren't interested in you only drives them further and farther away. After failing to get men to love me numerous times, I finally figured out that I'd trained so hard at being a mom that I hadn't done anything on learning how to be a good girlfriend...which is usually a gateway to wife-hood, which is my preferred step to motherhood.
Part of the problem of being a hopeless romantic is that:
a) you hear stories about how others get together and you think it's going to happen the exact same way for you
b) you read romances and think that love happens the way it does on the pages
c) you believe Hollywood about soul mates and happily-ever-afters and finding "the one"
It's all bunk! Every single last bit! Your "love" story is not based on anyone else's experience. I had to stop reading romances so my expectations could come back down to normal levels. I have to be in the mood to watch romantic movies now because usually I just roll my eyes.
Here's my problem: the way I loved boys when I was 19 is not the way I love men 20-some-odd years later. When I was too young to know better (what, 12?) I worshipped "Somewhere In Time." It was sooooo romantic <cue the gushy happy sigh>. He went back in time for her after she'd found him. Okay, so when I hit my later teens I realized that the watch never existed as it never had a creation point. Perhaps if he'd made a replica and went back in time with it, it would have worked. But I digress. NOW, I can't stomach the story at all. She had a successful career and threw it all away for a guy she knew for a week WHO DISAPPEARED IN FRONT OF HER?!?!?! Well, she's crazy. Certifiable. She probably would have needed years of therapy. Why, after he disappeared, didn't she eventually pick herself up and, if not go back to the stage, find a nice man to settle down with? It's not as if she wasn't gorgeous. So the story doesn't work for this woman who is living on her own and is now older than Jane Seymour's character would have been.
And now for a tiny bit of criticism for "He's Just Not That Into You." I didn't read the book, so this opinion is purely based on the movie. I thought the ending was inauthentic to the message the movie portrayed throughout its entirety and they had to go pull out a happy ending from left field. Aren't they still allowing girls to think that every one of them is the exception to the "not being into you?" You gave them hope instead of proper instruction. What the hey? I was disappointed by that resolution. I wanted a little realism to sink into other hopeless romantics' brains to help them with their own recovery. Does the self-help book have a happy ending? Are there guaranteed ways to get a guy to like you? Because I finally decided that if a guy doesn't like me he's not worth my time. Where's *that* movie? The one where the girl has two horrible choices and walks away from both with her dignity intact? It doesn't exist? Pity.
Apparently, some people find it surprising that at my "advanced" age that I still hope to marry for love instead of just companionship. It's true. I'm not interested in marrying just anyone or I would have already done that. If I was so desperate for marriage instead of a proper match, I wouldn't have cared that the only guys that seem to be brave enough to approach me creep me out to no end. One of my sisters thinks I should give those guys a chance. I think if she met these guys she wouldn't want them as a relative. It's sad that my strengths seem to alienate eligible men of my faith. It's also sad that guys outside my faith don't care about my brain and only want something I'm not willing to give.
So, yes, I'm an old-fashioned girl in a modern world who refuses to live with her parents purely because she's unmarried. So if guys think my independence is an indication that I don't need a man, let me be clear: I would love to share my life with the right guy. I would give up my "career" in an instant if the opportunity of raising children became a possibility. Would it be healthy for me to stay helpless in hopes of a man who wouldn't be intimidated by my modicum of success of holding down a job in this economy? Get *that* guy a reality check. Also, I have slowly gained weight over the years and am not as slender as I used to be. I understand that this makes me less desirable even to guys who are also overweight.
Are there no men of faith who don't mind brainy chicks with geekish tendencies who happen to be really curvy?
If there aren't then my last romantic desire will be shattered and that will be that. Don't make me into a Pandora who lets all hope go. Even though I am not interested in manufactured fictional love, I do have a plaque in my apartment that states "It's never too late to live happily ever after." So, there's still some romance in me, it just no longer drives me to seek out men and chase them. But I *am* ready to be sought after....
I also fell in love very, very easily. The guy didn't even have to love me back. Just a kind word every three months or so was enough to give me hope. Poor, poor, Dee. How I would love to travel back in time and tell my love-struck self: work on other things, it will happen when it happens, going all gooey over boys who aren't interested in you only drives them further and farther away. After failing to get men to love me numerous times, I finally figured out that I'd trained so hard at being a mom that I hadn't done anything on learning how to be a good girlfriend...which is usually a gateway to wife-hood, which is my preferred step to motherhood.
Part of the problem of being a hopeless romantic is that:
a) you hear stories about how others get together and you think it's going to happen the exact same way for you
b) you read romances and think that love happens the way it does on the pages
c) you believe Hollywood about soul mates and happily-ever-afters and finding "the one"
It's all bunk! Every single last bit! Your "love" story is not based on anyone else's experience. I had to stop reading romances so my expectations could come back down to normal levels. I have to be in the mood to watch romantic movies now because usually I just roll my eyes.
Here's my problem: the way I loved boys when I was 19 is not the way I love men 20-some-odd years later. When I was too young to know better (what, 12?) I worshipped "Somewhere In Time." It was sooooo romantic <cue the gushy happy sigh>. He went back in time for her after she'd found him. Okay, so when I hit my later teens I realized that the watch never existed as it never had a creation point. Perhaps if he'd made a replica and went back in time with it, it would have worked. But I digress. NOW, I can't stomach the story at all. She had a successful career and threw it all away for a guy she knew for a week WHO DISAPPEARED IN FRONT OF HER?!?!?! Well, she's crazy. Certifiable. She probably would have needed years of therapy. Why, after he disappeared, didn't she eventually pick herself up and, if not go back to the stage, find a nice man to settle down with? It's not as if she wasn't gorgeous. So the story doesn't work for this woman who is living on her own and is now older than Jane Seymour's character would have been.
And now for a tiny bit of criticism for "He's Just Not That Into You." I didn't read the book, so this opinion is purely based on the movie. I thought the ending was inauthentic to the message the movie portrayed throughout its entirety and they had to go pull out a happy ending from left field. Aren't they still allowing girls to think that every one of them is the exception to the "not being into you?" You gave them hope instead of proper instruction. What the hey? I was disappointed by that resolution. I wanted a little realism to sink into other hopeless romantics' brains to help them with their own recovery. Does the self-help book have a happy ending? Are there guaranteed ways to get a guy to like you? Because I finally decided that if a guy doesn't like me he's not worth my time. Where's *that* movie? The one where the girl has two horrible choices and walks away from both with her dignity intact? It doesn't exist? Pity.
Apparently, some people find it surprising that at my "advanced" age that I still hope to marry for love instead of just companionship. It's true. I'm not interested in marrying just anyone or I would have already done that. If I was so desperate for marriage instead of a proper match, I wouldn't have cared that the only guys that seem to be brave enough to approach me creep me out to no end. One of my sisters thinks I should give those guys a chance. I think if she met these guys she wouldn't want them as a relative. It's sad that my strengths seem to alienate eligible men of my faith. It's also sad that guys outside my faith don't care about my brain and only want something I'm not willing to give.
So, yes, I'm an old-fashioned girl in a modern world who refuses to live with her parents purely because she's unmarried. So if guys think my independence is an indication that I don't need a man, let me be clear: I would love to share my life with the right guy. I would give up my "career" in an instant if the opportunity of raising children became a possibility. Would it be healthy for me to stay helpless in hopes of a man who wouldn't be intimidated by my modicum of success of holding down a job in this economy? Get *that* guy a reality check. Also, I have slowly gained weight over the years and am not as slender as I used to be. I understand that this makes me less desirable even to guys who are also overweight.
Are there no men of faith who don't mind brainy chicks with geekish tendencies who happen to be really curvy?
If there aren't then my last romantic desire will be shattered and that will be that. Don't make me into a Pandora who lets all hope go. Even though I am not interested in manufactured fictional love, I do have a plaque in my apartment that states "It's never too late to live happily ever after." So, there's still some romance in me, it just no longer drives me to seek out men and chase them. But I *am* ready to be sought after....
Saturday, February 9, 2013
War: The Ultimate Competition
Disclaimer: these opinions are my own. Perhaps you see life differently from me and that's okay. I believe that people can disagree with one another and still be friendly. And if you are my sibling and don't see yourself in my memory, that's okay, too. I was (usually) younger with a different viewpoint. It doesn't make me right, nor does it make me particularly wrong. If I ended up with the opinion, there was probably an incident that I need to let go of that you don't remember. Also, we've gotten older/wiser since then and I know that if you had the same issue that I had, you most likely have grown out of it. As for the rest of you, feel free to dislike my opinions if you wish. What I believe is right for me and me only. This is a forum where I feel free to express my thoughts and it is not meant to offend anyone. I promise that I am a rational person and I hope you will read my post with that in mind.
I believe I may have mentioned that I'm a poor loser *and* a poor winner when it comes to games and such. When I was in high school I spoke to my mom about how uncomfortable I am with competition and she said it's because I'm TOO competitive. This does not compute. If I'm ultra competitive, wouldn't I love to compete? Our parents pitted us against one another (due to family tradition, which I only found out in the last few years) but didn't give us the proper skills to deal with gracious winning, losing, and good gamesmanship. Poor gamesmanship was our lot.
I've discovered that the only competition I truly enjoy is against myself. Can I do better than last time? Can I beat my last score? I tend to play a lot of single-person games. It's probably why I love computer games and single-person games on my PS3. Have I mentioned that I'm not allowed to play Halo anymore? Not after I bonked a friend on the head after he continuously killed me, even though I'd asked him nicely to stop. I was appalled that I let my temper get away from me. So, no, yet another thing that I stay away from--it's a self-imposed ban (I also don't like blood and gore and was initially playing it in the hopes of getting a date - which I was mistaken in being interested in guys who played Halo at every opportunity, even when they could have gone to the movies with the real live girls who lived next door). I'm proud of myself that the last time I played Monopoly with a group I did NOT, in fact, fling the board across the room when I was last (though I really, really wanted to). One of my friends was the banker and loaned me some money when she saw how much I wasn't enjoying myself. What she did wasn't in the rules, but it helped, and I love her for it.
It was eye-opening, though, to play a couple of games with a friend who loved competition WAY too much. He was a bad winner and a horrible loser, and more so than me. That was weird. I'd never met anyone worse than me (and [some of] my other siblings). In my family we like to win and are only happy when we win and we rub it in others' faces when we do. We hate to lose because we don't like it when others rub it in our faces. Oh, yes, we can dish it out and definitely not take it.
I'm going to assume that in a "healthy" competition, if there is such a thing, that winners are nice and those who do not win are happy for the person(s) who do(es). This is a rare thing or at least I'm completely unfamiliar with it. One girl at church was looking for someone to play tennis with. She asked if I played and I said, yes, but that I have the most fun when nobody keeps score and we're all happy if we can hit the ball over the net. She gave me a funny look and never asked me again. She loves to compete and didn't like the fact that I was suggesting to play different from the norm.
School rivalries mystify me. Who cares about who wins or loses this year? Why does it matter? Can't people get a good education at either school? Seriously! I prefer playing sports to watching them; however, I always get injured playing them. So you can take from that that I really don't prefer sports. I was good at Chinese Checkers, but never learned chess. There seemed to be too many parts/rules to keep track of.
So, war, what is it good for? ...I think you know the next line. Someone decided to invade or they're offended or just mean or (insert foolhardy reason to fight here). But it's not enough that they want to physically fight with someone, they have to rally others to fight, too. Usually those who get others into a frothy anger or conditioned hatred are the ones furthest from the field. There are times to fight: when it's in defense of your home, family, or freedom, but no other reason is just. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Etc.
When the USA had it's own "civil" war, there were impassioned feelings on both sides that they were right and God was with them and not with the other side. There were foreign countries camped in the territories north and south of us, some even contributing to the Southern cause in the hopes of swooping in and claiming (or reclaiming, in Great Britain's case) the States after the chaos that was sure to occur if the South won. So, it was good that the North won, not just because it aided in the abolition of slavery. And those in the South who are still impassioned about a loss over a hundred years ago, please stop caring that you "lost." If you'd won there wouldn't be a USA. And those who are of a violent vein living anywhere: please stop trying to secede. If you don't like the way the government is run, go out and vote, or campaign for someone/thing you believe in, or run for office yourself (on a logical platform, please), or find a new nation to live in. Shooting or bombing people who disagree with your opinion is not right.
I also wonder if our nation should rethink being the world's police? True change comes from within. I don't know if you've noticed how resentful some nations are that we're in their countries helping with their freedom in their own "civil" wars. What we've usually accomplished is getting them to stop fighting each other, with the losing side often fighting us. Is it worth our people dying? For their freedom from oppression to work, they have to work it out amongst themselves. As hard as it is for us to watch, a nation must save themselves from their own home-grown oppressors or they face one despotic ruler or regime after another. If those countries are invading our soil, I say have at it. But otherwise, we ought not to fight others' battles when we're not welcome, even when we answered a desperate cry for help in the beginning.
As for those who decide to leave their countries instead of fighting an oppressive or corrupt government: why *didn't* you stay and fight? I've noticed that some immigrants, whether legal or not, are trying hard to remake where they now live into a little piece of the place they loved (or hated), but left. If you moved in the hopes of a better life, why are you trying so hard to make the "better" place just like the last place that you no longer believed was good? I don't understand this at all. My ancestors came from several different countries and when they came to the US they joined the big ol' melting pot and though they held onto familial traditions, they forged bonds with their newly chosen nation. If you prefer the culture of where you lived, but left for more opportunity, please know that you have to live around others who aren't from your culture and may not understand why you try so hard to cling to your old ways. Also, know that just because your last culture did things that were considered socially acceptable there, they may be illegal in your new home. If you chose to leave, then you should also expect to adjust to where you land. These are things that I would probably consider if I chose to move to a different country. But I'm a big rule-follower and would do my best to learn the language of my new home as soon as possible. Hopefully, wherever I moved would (ideally) speak English or French as I would have an easier time with those, having grown up with one and briefly flirted with the other.
Again, I realize that I am stating a side and an opinion on which you may not find yourself or agree with. I do not believe that contention is healthy, whether on a personal level or a world-wide stage. For those that believe in almost any religion: compassion for others is a key element. If we all practiced the true tenets of our belief systems, the world would be a better place. Peace comes with a nation's attitude which is based on each individual. As long as the majority chooses peace, it has a chance of being upheld. But when the majority chooses selfishness, the nation falls. I fear for the United States. As a whole I see an increasing amount of selfishness amongst almost every group. United we stand, divided we fall. We must find common ground and love one another, despite our flaws and theirs, if we are to continue as a free nation. We are allowed to be nice to one another and I suggest we do so.
Hoping for less divisiveness in both politics and personal relationships,
Dee
PS: just because I believe something doesn't make me more right that someone who believes something else. It just makes us different. I could also be wrong and may need to time to gain different perspective.
I believe I may have mentioned that I'm a poor loser *and* a poor winner when it comes to games and such. When I was in high school I spoke to my mom about how uncomfortable I am with competition and she said it's because I'm TOO competitive. This does not compute. If I'm ultra competitive, wouldn't I love to compete? Our parents pitted us against one another (due to family tradition, which I only found out in the last few years) but didn't give us the proper skills to deal with gracious winning, losing, and good gamesmanship. Poor gamesmanship was our lot.
I've discovered that the only competition I truly enjoy is against myself. Can I do better than last time? Can I beat my last score? I tend to play a lot of single-person games. It's probably why I love computer games and single-person games on my PS3. Have I mentioned that I'm not allowed to play Halo anymore? Not after I bonked a friend on the head after he continuously killed me, even though I'd asked him nicely to stop. I was appalled that I let my temper get away from me. So, no, yet another thing that I stay away from--it's a self-imposed ban (I also don't like blood and gore and was initially playing it in the hopes of getting a date - which I was mistaken in being interested in guys who played Halo at every opportunity, even when they could have gone to the movies with the real live girls who lived next door). I'm proud of myself that the last time I played Monopoly with a group I did NOT, in fact, fling the board across the room when I was last (though I really, really wanted to). One of my friends was the banker and loaned me some money when she saw how much I wasn't enjoying myself. What she did wasn't in the rules, but it helped, and I love her for it.
It was eye-opening, though, to play a couple of games with a friend who loved competition WAY too much. He was a bad winner and a horrible loser, and more so than me. That was weird. I'd never met anyone worse than me (and [some of] my other siblings). In my family we like to win and are only happy when we win and we rub it in others' faces when we do. We hate to lose because we don't like it when others rub it in our faces. Oh, yes, we can dish it out and definitely not take it.
I'm going to assume that in a "healthy" competition, if there is such a thing, that winners are nice and those who do not win are happy for the person(s) who do(es). This is a rare thing or at least I'm completely unfamiliar with it. One girl at church was looking for someone to play tennis with. She asked if I played and I said, yes, but that I have the most fun when nobody keeps score and we're all happy if we can hit the ball over the net. She gave me a funny look and never asked me again. She loves to compete and didn't like the fact that I was suggesting to play different from the norm.
School rivalries mystify me. Who cares about who wins or loses this year? Why does it matter? Can't people get a good education at either school? Seriously! I prefer playing sports to watching them; however, I always get injured playing them. So you can take from that that I really don't prefer sports. I was good at Chinese Checkers, but never learned chess. There seemed to be too many parts/rules to keep track of.
So, war, what is it good for? ...I think you know the next line. Someone decided to invade or they're offended or just mean or (insert foolhardy reason to fight here). But it's not enough that they want to physically fight with someone, they have to rally others to fight, too. Usually those who get others into a frothy anger or conditioned hatred are the ones furthest from the field. There are times to fight: when it's in defense of your home, family, or freedom, but no other reason is just. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Etc.
When the USA had it's own "civil" war, there were impassioned feelings on both sides that they were right and God was with them and not with the other side. There were foreign countries camped in the territories north and south of us, some even contributing to the Southern cause in the hopes of swooping in and claiming (or reclaiming, in Great Britain's case) the States after the chaos that was sure to occur if the South won. So, it was good that the North won, not just because it aided in the abolition of slavery. And those in the South who are still impassioned about a loss over a hundred years ago, please stop caring that you "lost." If you'd won there wouldn't be a USA. And those who are of a violent vein living anywhere: please stop trying to secede. If you don't like the way the government is run, go out and vote, or campaign for someone/thing you believe in, or run for office yourself (on a logical platform, please), or find a new nation to live in. Shooting or bombing people who disagree with your opinion is not right.
I also wonder if our nation should rethink being the world's police? True change comes from within. I don't know if you've noticed how resentful some nations are that we're in their countries helping with their freedom in their own "civil" wars. What we've usually accomplished is getting them to stop fighting each other, with the losing side often fighting us. Is it worth our people dying? For their freedom from oppression to work, they have to work it out amongst themselves. As hard as it is for us to watch, a nation must save themselves from their own home-grown oppressors or they face one despotic ruler or regime after another. If those countries are invading our soil, I say have at it. But otherwise, we ought not to fight others' battles when we're not welcome, even when we answered a desperate cry for help in the beginning.
As for those who decide to leave their countries instead of fighting an oppressive or corrupt government: why *didn't* you stay and fight? I've noticed that some immigrants, whether legal or not, are trying hard to remake where they now live into a little piece of the place they loved (or hated), but left. If you moved in the hopes of a better life, why are you trying so hard to make the "better" place just like the last place that you no longer believed was good? I don't understand this at all. My ancestors came from several different countries and when they came to the US they joined the big ol' melting pot and though they held onto familial traditions, they forged bonds with their newly chosen nation. If you prefer the culture of where you lived, but left for more opportunity, please know that you have to live around others who aren't from your culture and may not understand why you try so hard to cling to your old ways. Also, know that just because your last culture did things that were considered socially acceptable there, they may be illegal in your new home. If you chose to leave, then you should also expect to adjust to where you land. These are things that I would probably consider if I chose to move to a different country. But I'm a big rule-follower and would do my best to learn the language of my new home as soon as possible. Hopefully, wherever I moved would (ideally) speak English or French as I would have an easier time with those, having grown up with one and briefly flirted with the other.
Again, I realize that I am stating a side and an opinion on which you may not find yourself or agree with. I do not believe that contention is healthy, whether on a personal level or a world-wide stage. For those that believe in almost any religion: compassion for others is a key element. If we all practiced the true tenets of our belief systems, the world would be a better place. Peace comes with a nation's attitude which is based on each individual. As long as the majority chooses peace, it has a chance of being upheld. But when the majority chooses selfishness, the nation falls. I fear for the United States. As a whole I see an increasing amount of selfishness amongst almost every group. United we stand, divided we fall. We must find common ground and love one another, despite our flaws and theirs, if we are to continue as a free nation. We are allowed to be nice to one another and I suggest we do so.
Hoping for less divisiveness in both politics and personal relationships,
Dee
PS: just because I believe something doesn't make me more right that someone who believes something else. It just makes us different. I could also be wrong and may need to time to gain different perspective.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
A Friend In Need
I know that the actual saying is "a friend in need in a friend indeed." Since English can be interpreted in many ways the phrase looks like it's saying that when your friends are needy, that's when they're at their best. Nope. That's not what it means. What it's trying to convey is that when you have a friend who sticks around when YOU are in need, that is a true friend.
But I am going to write about my friend who is in need and how many of her friends don't quite know how to help her. I just found out yesterday that one of my dear friends has been diagnosed with a late-stage cancer. The doctors feel that the cancer they've found has moved from somewhere else and they have to find the rest of it before they can start proper treatment. This friend is my age with two young children and is recently divorced (which began while she was pregnant with their second child).
I have been thinking constantly about her situation since I heard about it last night. If I and other friends (who have left messages on the blog which explains her diagnosis) have been obsessed with her situation, I cannot fathom the depths of her emotions right now. She's been given a few years if treatment works, a few months if it doesn't. It is fortunate that she has family in the area that can give her comfort and support that friends, no matter how close, are not able to achieve. I don't know what I can personally do, but as she asked for specific advice on her blog, I sought after a small piece of it. So when she's ready to deal with that aspect, I have the information.
What I *wish* I could do would involve a magic wand to remove all cancer. But I can't do that. I also wish I had money so I could help with a) her treatment and b) providing for her children's future. But I don't have enough funds to help in that way. I wish I could tell her that I was in a great position to take care of her kids if she chose to place them outside of family. But I am single and work 40 hours a week and only make enough for my own needs.
Though there's a lot I can't do, there are some things I can. I can pray for her, send her silly jokes so she can laugh, spend time with her when she needs a distraction, be a sounding board for all types of things, etc. Perhaps all of us who know her should write down stories about experiences we've had with her so that her children have a record of the type of woman their mother is.
What does one do for a friend in need? It's just tragic. Her burden is so heavy right now. I hope that somehow, some way, we'll be able to help lift that weight off her shoulders as much as we can for as long as she's here. And when we are no longer able to actually help her, I hope that what we've done will have helped her family for the long road ahead without her.
But I am going to write about my friend who is in need and how many of her friends don't quite know how to help her. I just found out yesterday that one of my dear friends has been diagnosed with a late-stage cancer. The doctors feel that the cancer they've found has moved from somewhere else and they have to find the rest of it before they can start proper treatment. This friend is my age with two young children and is recently divorced (which began while she was pregnant with their second child).
I have been thinking constantly about her situation since I heard about it last night. If I and other friends (who have left messages on the blog which explains her diagnosis) have been obsessed with her situation, I cannot fathom the depths of her emotions right now. She's been given a few years if treatment works, a few months if it doesn't. It is fortunate that she has family in the area that can give her comfort and support that friends, no matter how close, are not able to achieve. I don't know what I can personally do, but as she asked for specific advice on her blog, I sought after a small piece of it. So when she's ready to deal with that aspect, I have the information.
What I *wish* I could do would involve a magic wand to remove all cancer. But I can't do that. I also wish I had money so I could help with a) her treatment and b) providing for her children's future. But I don't have enough funds to help in that way. I wish I could tell her that I was in a great position to take care of her kids if she chose to place them outside of family. But I am single and work 40 hours a week and only make enough for my own needs.
Though there's a lot I can't do, there are some things I can. I can pray for her, send her silly jokes so she can laugh, spend time with her when she needs a distraction, be a sounding board for all types of things, etc. Perhaps all of us who know her should write down stories about experiences we've had with her so that her children have a record of the type of woman their mother is.
What does one do for a friend in need? It's just tragic. Her burden is so heavy right now. I hope that somehow, some way, we'll be able to help lift that weight off her shoulders as much as we can for as long as she's here. And when we are no longer able to actually help her, I hope that what we've done will have helped her family for the long road ahead without her.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
How is it only Tuesday?
It has been a very long work week already. I'm in denial that it's only Tuesday and that I have three more days of work. On the upside, I have a three-day weekend coming up as next Monday is a holiday my company observes.
I've been super stressed at work and it hasn't helped that I've been sick for almost a month. I'm at the end of my second illness in that time and am glad that I did NOT get the flu that has taken a nasty turn in epidemic proportions in the USA. I find it funny when people are surprised that people can die from the flu. "Flu" is the nickname for influenza. If you're up on your history you'll know that lots of people have died from different waves of that sickness. Sure, it's no Black Plague, but for some it's just as deadly. One of my friends had a sister-in-law just lose her baby because of the flu. The woman had gotten so sick that she had to be hospitalized and two days later the baby died. There is a reason why pregnant women are urged to get a flu shot. It's true that those that develop the vaccine are just guessing that the flu antibodies you'll develop with this year's serum will be the right ones for when the flu shows up. You are free to not get your flu shot if you don't want to, but it can be beneficial.
There are some people that believe and spread information that the flu vaccine can be worse than the flu. If it is, I bet it's for a smaller portion of the population than those whose lives would be saved by getting the vaccine. This is probably also true for those that refuse to inoculate their babies for serious diseases because the shot may or may not cause autism (or, let's face it, they don't want to see their baby hurt and crying, even if it's very brief and they'll never remember it). Considering that there are lots of different types of the condition on the Autism Spectrum and no one has truly figured out what causes it, basing it on one thing (shots) may not be true. So it may only be the fear that it might be true that causes some people to loudly protest, spam you on facebook about it, etc. Again, you're free to believe what you will, but if your lack of desire to prevent disease helps bring an "extinct" disease to the area I live in and my immune system doesn't work well enough, even though I was given boosters, I'm not going to be happy with you. One of my sisters got diphtheria as a young adult. Yes, she'd been immunized as a baby. But it's also true that lots of women where she was living at the time were not getting their kids the recommended boosters. Not immunizing your children has consequences. Maybe not to you, but what you choose to do or even not do affects others. Almost always. You're never just choosing for yourself.
There are a lot of "anti-" movements in the United States. Freedom of Speech, when not tempered with tact or good taste, can get way out of hand. Like PETA. If you don't want to eat meat or wear fur/leather because you don't want animals to be killed for your meal or clothing, sure, feel free to abstain. However, pushing your views on others isn't kind. Ever. Instead of just letting someone wear their fur and just thinking of them as amoral you have to go and throw paint on the coat? What? Have you met a mink? They're stinky, yet shiny, weasels. They're vermin. They're not friendly or cuddly or anything like that. In fact, they might try to eat your bunnies that you're working so hard to remove from any type of manufacturing. Perhaps the concepts of the "circle of life" and the food chain elude them. I'm not sure. But I *do* know that I will not try to push my meat-eating ways onto vegans. That's just a lost cause. I wish they'd give up on trying to convert us to food that only makes me hungry and cranky because it's really not that filling. Or delicious.
Just so you know, I think it's silly to buy a fur to show off your status, like in parts of the South where it never really gets that cold. However, if you live in Alaska animal pelts can keep you warm enough to survive their brutal winters. I don't think we should judge people who buy fur for warmth. I love my feather blanket and it keeps me toasty at home wherever I need it during Fall/Winter (mostly when I sleep, sometimes on my couch, never in the kitchen).
Also, since most of you reading this don't actually know me personally, I wanted to report that last week the weather conditions got so bad that our corporate office decided to send people home at 1:30 p.m. Our sattelite office had to find out if our clients were closing early, too. Enough of mine were staying open that I knew that some of our office staff would be asked to stay, so I volunteered. I have a very short commute and knew I could wait longer and still get home okay. This is what I was trying to convey in the last post. Due to circumstances, I usually stay. Mostly it's because it makes sense that I do. But for holidays....
Anyway, work has been hard lately for many people in my company. Transitioning to a new computer program where you do most of your work can be traumatic. Especially if it doesn't work the way the company promised, as well as it should, or do anything you'd like it to. This is probably why most everyone at work has gotten sick. Stress lowers your immune response. Fortunately, I have people who have confidence in me, even if I'm not getting the usual amount of work done. It probably helps that no one else is as productive as before, either, so we're all in the same proverbial boat. And yet, my ease at learning computer programs has led several people to seek me out for additional training, even when I haven't done what they do. Interesting, no?
I've been super stressed at work and it hasn't helped that I've been sick for almost a month. I'm at the end of my second illness in that time and am glad that I did NOT get the flu that has taken a nasty turn in epidemic proportions in the USA. I find it funny when people are surprised that people can die from the flu. "Flu" is the nickname for influenza. If you're up on your history you'll know that lots of people have died from different waves of that sickness. Sure, it's no Black Plague, but for some it's just as deadly. One of my friends had a sister-in-law just lose her baby because of the flu. The woman had gotten so sick that she had to be hospitalized and two days later the baby died. There is a reason why pregnant women are urged to get a flu shot. It's true that those that develop the vaccine are just guessing that the flu antibodies you'll develop with this year's serum will be the right ones for when the flu shows up. You are free to not get your flu shot if you don't want to, but it can be beneficial.
There are some people that believe and spread information that the flu vaccine can be worse than the flu. If it is, I bet it's for a smaller portion of the population than those whose lives would be saved by getting the vaccine. This is probably also true for those that refuse to inoculate their babies for serious diseases because the shot may or may not cause autism (or, let's face it, they don't want to see their baby hurt and crying, even if it's very brief and they'll never remember it). Considering that there are lots of different types of the condition on the Autism Spectrum and no one has truly figured out what causes it, basing it on one thing (shots) may not be true. So it may only be the fear that it might be true that causes some people to loudly protest, spam you on facebook about it, etc. Again, you're free to believe what you will, but if your lack of desire to prevent disease helps bring an "extinct" disease to the area I live in and my immune system doesn't work well enough, even though I was given boosters, I'm not going to be happy with you. One of my sisters got diphtheria as a young adult. Yes, she'd been immunized as a baby. But it's also true that lots of women where she was living at the time were not getting their kids the recommended boosters. Not immunizing your children has consequences. Maybe not to you, but what you choose to do or even not do affects others. Almost always. You're never just choosing for yourself.
There are a lot of "anti-" movements in the United States. Freedom of Speech, when not tempered with tact or good taste, can get way out of hand. Like PETA. If you don't want to eat meat or wear fur/leather because you don't want animals to be killed for your meal or clothing, sure, feel free to abstain. However, pushing your views on others isn't kind. Ever. Instead of just letting someone wear their fur and just thinking of them as amoral you have to go and throw paint on the coat? What? Have you met a mink? They're stinky, yet shiny, weasels. They're vermin. They're not friendly or cuddly or anything like that. In fact, they might try to eat your bunnies that you're working so hard to remove from any type of manufacturing. Perhaps the concepts of the "circle of life" and the food chain elude them. I'm not sure. But I *do* know that I will not try to push my meat-eating ways onto vegans. That's just a lost cause. I wish they'd give up on trying to convert us to food that only makes me hungry and cranky because it's really not that filling. Or delicious.
Just so you know, I think it's silly to buy a fur to show off your status, like in parts of the South where it never really gets that cold. However, if you live in Alaska animal pelts can keep you warm enough to survive their brutal winters. I don't think we should judge people who buy fur for warmth. I love my feather blanket and it keeps me toasty at home wherever I need it during Fall/Winter (mostly when I sleep, sometimes on my couch, never in the kitchen).
Also, since most of you reading this don't actually know me personally, I wanted to report that last week the weather conditions got so bad that our corporate office decided to send people home at 1:30 p.m. Our sattelite office had to find out if our clients were closing early, too. Enough of mine were staying open that I knew that some of our office staff would be asked to stay, so I volunteered. I have a very short commute and knew I could wait longer and still get home okay. This is what I was trying to convey in the last post. Due to circumstances, I usually stay. Mostly it's because it makes sense that I do. But for holidays....
Anyway, work has been hard lately for many people in my company. Transitioning to a new computer program where you do most of your work can be traumatic. Especially if it doesn't work the way the company promised, as well as it should, or do anything you'd like it to. This is probably why most everyone at work has gotten sick. Stress lowers your immune response. Fortunately, I have people who have confidence in me, even if I'm not getting the usual amount of work done. It probably helps that no one else is as productive as before, either, so we're all in the same proverbial boat. And yet, my ease at learning computer programs has led several people to seek me out for additional training, even when I haven't done what they do. Interesting, no?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)