Tuesday was my first day at Motorola.
The first thing that overwhelmed me was the sheer size of the campus. I had to go to three separate buildings that day. First, I had to go to some corporate tower to turn in my remaining tax paperwork. That took about an hour in total.
After turning in my paperwork, I was told to just head to where I'd normally work. So I did. After talking with a few people, I think HR just got rid of me as quick as they could. A few years ago, supposedly, new employees would get a full tour of the campus, including the visitors' center, a tech museum, and some other stuff. Now, it's just, "Thanks, get your badge, see ya later."
It's nice to know there's consistency among big companies. I feel comfortable being just a number right away.
Guess I'll make do looking online for benefit info and such.
After the HR excursion, I went to network monitoring. Got introduced to some of the employees and managers. Sat down with a fellow, and he advised me in the ways of network monitoring. The info is helpful, but until I get access to my own computer with proper logins, I don't think I'll really understand what they do and how they do it.
Mind you, I accepted the job offer over three weeks ago, so it's not like they didn't know I was coming. Supposedly, my computer was ready for me on Wednesday.
However, I learned from an IT fellow that my user ID hasn't extended to the whole company yet (or something), so I can't log into any applications yet. I've been told I should have access already. Hearing that, I figure I should have my computer ready by mid-July.
Side note: the job also requires a background check. So, to anyone reading this, please please please be nice to me and don't screw around if the nice folks from Homeland Security come calling. Please. I got fingerprinted. Really.
At any rate, I suppose I don't care about any inefficiencies as long as I get paid.
It's nice to get out of the house.
30 May 2008
27 May 2008
Occasional Thought
Sometimes it is a scary thing to have an overactive imagination.
I was walking to my cube at the job site where I work, a seemingly droll event. Better than average because it's a spring day in California, but I digress. Slight breeze, sunny, 70, and just amazing to be outside. The breeze was kicking up some leaves from who knows where.
I saw some litter in the leaf piles and I started to get mad. Wonder if it would make any difference if one were to take all the litter and pile it on the lawn in front of your friendly state capitol building. It wouldn't, of course, but it would have a wonderfully dramatic effect.
Then I focused on the leaves. I began to think of two things at the same time; one where the office building had outdoor windows with screens and open-air conditioning, letting the breeze blow through the offices and cool people down. I know, how hippy of me. The second thought was of what the place would look like without all of the human development. Would it be grassy, or what passes in California as grassy, or would it be more forested?
I began to miss the cooler forest, even though the day outside was superb. The idea of walking on effectively mulched-by-nature leaves while just living life in the shade was so very appealing at that precise moment. It wasn't a resentment of development, more a romantic nostalgia of nature.
When the door closed behind me, I was back in the middle of the cube farm, with off-white walls and cubes with gray diagonal cross-hatch threading. Sun lights that hint that nature exists coupled with a seeming endless row of flourescent tubes, the "simulated daylight" versions that alledgely improve morale.
They say taupe is very soothing.
And then I sat back and reflected on the thoughts that I had while walking a total of 53 feet and wondered if my imagination was really going to waste like everyone tells me. If it is, it's a sad and scary thought to me.
I was walking to my cube at the job site where I work, a seemingly droll event. Better than average because it's a spring day in California, but I digress. Slight breeze, sunny, 70, and just amazing to be outside. The breeze was kicking up some leaves from who knows where.
I saw some litter in the leaf piles and I started to get mad. Wonder if it would make any difference if one were to take all the litter and pile it on the lawn in front of your friendly state capitol building. It wouldn't, of course, but it would have a wonderfully dramatic effect.
Then I focused on the leaves. I began to think of two things at the same time; one where the office building had outdoor windows with screens and open-air conditioning, letting the breeze blow through the offices and cool people down. I know, how hippy of me. The second thought was of what the place would look like without all of the human development. Would it be grassy, or what passes in California as grassy, or would it be more forested?
I began to miss the cooler forest, even though the day outside was superb. The idea of walking on effectively mulched-by-nature leaves while just living life in the shade was so very appealing at that precise moment. It wasn't a resentment of development, more a romantic nostalgia of nature.
When the door closed behind me, I was back in the middle of the cube farm, with off-white walls and cubes with gray diagonal cross-hatch threading. Sun lights that hint that nature exists coupled with a seeming endless row of flourescent tubes, the "simulated daylight" versions that alledgely improve morale.
They say taupe is very soothing.
And then I sat back and reflected on the thoughts that I had while walking a total of 53 feet and wondered if my imagination was really going to waste like everyone tells me. If it is, it's a sad and scary thought to me.
23 May 2008
Vacation
The past few weeks have been a bit crazy between preparing to rejoin the ranks of the employed and a few other things.
So, I decided to use the last bit of unpaid vacation time I have left and leave town for a few days.
Flew to Grand Junction, Colorado. From there, went with a friend to Zion national park and Bryce Canyon, both in Utah.
Note to self: take more time to see the individual parks should I visit them again. Reason is, there's just so much stuff to see.
Zion seemed to me to be appropriately named. There's a really stunning mix of desert, vegetation and wildlife there. Also, there's some fantastic views if you're willing to do a bit of hiking. Words can't ever fully express the sort of beauty you'd find there.
Just be prepared to gasp for breath and drink lots of water.
Bryce Canyon didn't have as much wildlife or vegetation as Zion, but some of the rock formations were also wonderful. If you walk down into the canyon, you'll get a much better perspective.
Still, remember the bit about the gasping and the water. At least, if you're as out-of-shape as me.
Got to see some more great views driving back to Grand Junction.
Stayed there Wednesday, and flew home Thursday.
After seeing such fantastic stuff, I'm sure I'll feel great looking at cubicle walls again come next Tuesday. Yay.
I'll have to go back out there again someday.
So, I decided to use the last bit of unpaid vacation time I have left and leave town for a few days.
Flew to Grand Junction, Colorado. From there, went with a friend to Zion national park and Bryce Canyon, both in Utah.
Note to self: take more time to see the individual parks should I visit them again. Reason is, there's just so much stuff to see.
Zion seemed to me to be appropriately named. There's a really stunning mix of desert, vegetation and wildlife there. Also, there's some fantastic views if you're willing to do a bit of hiking. Words can't ever fully express the sort of beauty you'd find there.
Just be prepared to gasp for breath and drink lots of water.
Bryce Canyon didn't have as much wildlife or vegetation as Zion, but some of the rock formations were also wonderful. If you walk down into the canyon, you'll get a much better perspective.
Still, remember the bit about the gasping and the water. At least, if you're as out-of-shape as me.
Got to see some more great views driving back to Grand Junction.
Stayed there Wednesday, and flew home Thursday.
After seeing such fantastic stuff, I'm sure I'll feel great looking at cubicle walls again come next Tuesday. Yay.
I'll have to go back out there again someday.
16 May 2008
Presidential Polling
(cue "Hail to the Chief")
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html
Truman had the lowest ratings records, below 25% (close to 22%).
Since 1946 (Truman), six presidents have had their approval ratings precipitously drop below 50%. Three were Republican (Bush I, Bush II, and Nixon). Three were Democrats (Truman, Johnson, and Carter). A fourth Democrat showed signs of dropping, but was assassinated (Kennedy) before the approval rating could change further.
Most of the presidents that were below 50% presided over a prominant military action that lasted longer than a week: Korea (Truman), Vietnam (Johnson, Nixon), Kuwait/Iraq (Bush I), Afghanistan/Iraq (Bush II). Only Carter managed to do so without war; he did so by presiding over the oil embargos. Consider, then, that Bush has presided over both historically high oil prices and a war, and is still not the lowest rated president ever.
Look up and read Jimmy Carter's "Crisis of Confidence" speech. And don't ever, EVER, tell me history doesn't repeat itself.
Nixon ratings were actually quite good, in the high 50s or low 60s, until Watergate. Until then, his handling of Vietnam, of China, and the Soviet Union kept people not hating him the way you might think we did.
Clinton was the only president in poll history that ended higher than when he started, though Ford and Reagan were pretty close. Even Bush I left on a significant uptick. Clinton dropped some initially with the approval of NAFTA. He went up afterwards with occasional missile strikes and turning victimization to his advantage over his impeachment.
The average presidential poll approval change when a change in the office occurs is about +17%. The numbers after Truman and Nixon left office balance out the lack of change since 1988, which is 0%.
Bush II was the first president inaugurated with a lower approval rating than his outgoing predicessor.
Truman, Bush I, and Bush II all had the highest recorded poll ratings in recorded history.
Truman started at 86%, the Bushes got their ratings on the start of wars in Iraq.
Bush II is currently at about the same level that Carter and Truman were in their last years.
Only two presidents have ever had their entire presidencies polled over 50% approval for the entire time in office- Eisenhower and Kennedy.
Two effects are constant in approval changes: ratings go up following military activity, and ratings go down when "the people" are given either large social change or business is given obvious advantages.
Crude trending over the span of the data implies that respect for the office has dropped about 40 points since the start of polling.
What does all this mean?
It means that despite the president's affiliated party, the nation still knows what they like and dislike. It means that neither (or both) parties are equally effective, bad, and/or good, but there is no clear favor of one over the other. And mostly it means that America will roll along despite all the Chicken Little Pundits and Info-tainment Shock News that exist.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html
Truman had the lowest ratings records, below 25% (close to 22%).
Since 1946 (Truman), six presidents have had their approval ratings precipitously drop below 50%. Three were Republican (Bush I, Bush II, and Nixon). Three were Democrats (Truman, Johnson, and Carter). A fourth Democrat showed signs of dropping, but was assassinated (Kennedy) before the approval rating could change further.
Most of the presidents that were below 50% presided over a prominant military action that lasted longer than a week: Korea (Truman), Vietnam (Johnson, Nixon), Kuwait/Iraq (Bush I), Afghanistan/Iraq (Bush II). Only Carter managed to do so without war; he did so by presiding over the oil embargos. Consider, then, that Bush has presided over both historically high oil prices and a war, and is still not the lowest rated president ever.
Look up and read Jimmy Carter's "Crisis of Confidence" speech. And don't ever, EVER, tell me history doesn't repeat itself.
Nixon ratings were actually quite good, in the high 50s or low 60s, until Watergate. Until then, his handling of Vietnam, of China, and the Soviet Union kept people not hating him the way you might think we did.
Clinton was the only president in poll history that ended higher than when he started, though Ford and Reagan were pretty close. Even Bush I left on a significant uptick. Clinton dropped some initially with the approval of NAFTA. He went up afterwards with occasional missile strikes and turning victimization to his advantage over his impeachment.
The average presidential poll approval change when a change in the office occurs is about +17%. The numbers after Truman and Nixon left office balance out the lack of change since 1988, which is 0%.
Bush II was the first president inaugurated with a lower approval rating than his outgoing predicessor.
Truman, Bush I, and Bush II all had the highest recorded poll ratings in recorded history.
Truman started at 86%, the Bushes got their ratings on the start of wars in Iraq.
Bush II is currently at about the same level that Carter and Truman were in their last years.
Only two presidents have ever had their entire presidencies polled over 50% approval for the entire time in office- Eisenhower and Kennedy.
Two effects are constant in approval changes: ratings go up following military activity, and ratings go down when "the people" are given either large social change or business is given obvious advantages.
Crude trending over the span of the data implies that respect for the office has dropped about 40 points since the start of polling.
What does all this mean?
It means that despite the president's affiliated party, the nation still knows what they like and dislike. It means that neither (or both) parties are equally effective, bad, and/or good, but there is no clear favor of one over the other. And mostly it means that America will roll along despite all the Chicken Little Pundits and Info-tainment Shock News that exist.
14 May 2008
180,000 Miles and Still Rolling
My car recently rolled over 180,000 miles. It's the first car I bought new. I bought it in July of 2001.
Yes, that means I've put over 25,000 miles per year on my car. According to those that know, the average amount of miles put on a car in a year is 15,000.
It is both an extremely long time and relatively no time at all to own a car. My parents have gone through three cars, my sister two. But really, the car's in good shape otherwise. And I really can't afford to get a new car, what with trying to save for a house.
Since I got the car I've had the wiring harness fixed, a new set of gaskets, two sets of brakes, two sets of new tires, a new front end, new tie rod and wheel bearings, a new transmission, a new knob for my climate control, a new windshield, and a few burnt out lightbulbs. The passenger rear door is significantly dented, the trunk tailgate light molding is cracked, there are paint scratches, and the windshield looks like it was washed in high-pressure gravel. The jack is broken, sheared in half. The oil is burning at a rate of about a quart every 4,000 miles.
But really, the car's in good shape otherwise.
It's a smooth ride, it gets about 28 mpg on a V6, the sound system is great, and its the car we prefer to take when we're in a car for an extended period of time. Most people get into my car and say "wow, it's lot more comfortable than I thought it would be. (place your backseat jokes on hold, please.)
I hope to get a replacement for it, considering the mileage is still really good for a non-hybrid. It just costs a few duckets.
Yes, that means I've put over 25,000 miles per year on my car. According to those that know, the average amount of miles put on a car in a year is 15,000.
It is both an extremely long time and relatively no time at all to own a car. My parents have gone through three cars, my sister two. But really, the car's in good shape otherwise. And I really can't afford to get a new car, what with trying to save for a house.
Since I got the car I've had the wiring harness fixed, a new set of gaskets, two sets of brakes, two sets of new tires, a new front end, new tie rod and wheel bearings, a new transmission, a new knob for my climate control, a new windshield, and a few burnt out lightbulbs. The passenger rear door is significantly dented, the trunk tailgate light molding is cracked, there are paint scratches, and the windshield looks like it was washed in high-pressure gravel. The jack is broken, sheared in half. The oil is burning at a rate of about a quart every 4,000 miles.
But really, the car's in good shape otherwise.
It's a smooth ride, it gets about 28 mpg on a V6, the sound system is great, and its the car we prefer to take when we're in a car for an extended period of time. Most people get into my car and say "wow, it's lot more comfortable than I thought it would be. (place your backseat jokes on hold, please.)
I hope to get a replacement for it, considering the mileage is still really good for a non-hybrid. It just costs a few duckets.
08 May 2008
New job
Got a call from Motorola yesterday. They offered me a job, and today I formally accepted.
The job's pretty close to the work I did previously, but there is still some monitoring of routers and switches involved. So, it's sorta Cisco-related type work, but not like being a network administrator. The job is monitoring and responding to alarms on government and police two-way radio networks. I interviewed pretty well, and shockingly, I expressed confidence in myself and said as much to the folks interviewing me.
Yay, confidence.
The hours suck: I'll work four nights a week, 9 pm to 7 am. I remember another job I worked nights, and it sucked changing my sleep schedule. Once again, I'll be low man on the totem pole.
But, it's a job, and it's a step up from my last job, which is really the most important thing.
Drawing a paycheck again will be nice.
I still have a couple of weeks before the job starts. I plan to travel a bit while I still have the time off, as I won't get vacation for at least a little bit after I start.
It's nice to know I'll have a job again and can stay local. I really like the Chicago area.
Yay.
The job's pretty close to the work I did previously, but there is still some monitoring of routers and switches involved. So, it's sorta Cisco-related type work, but not like being a network administrator. The job is monitoring and responding to alarms on government and police two-way radio networks. I interviewed pretty well, and shockingly, I expressed confidence in myself and said as much to the folks interviewing me.
Yay, confidence.
The hours suck: I'll work four nights a week, 9 pm to 7 am. I remember another job I worked nights, and it sucked changing my sleep schedule. Once again, I'll be low man on the totem pole.
But, it's a job, and it's a step up from my last job, which is really the most important thing.
Drawing a paycheck again will be nice.
I still have a couple of weeks before the job starts. I plan to travel a bit while I still have the time off, as I won't get vacation for at least a little bit after I start.
It's nice to know I'll have a job again and can stay local. I really like the Chicago area.
Yay.
07 May 2008
Jury duty, medical malpractice, and the cost of a human life
Last Friday, I had to journey to the Daley center for a jury summons. The deal is either one day or one trial. Lucky me, I was selected to serve on a jury for a medical malpractice lawsuit.
I tried a bit to get out of it. I was scheduled to have a job interview tomorrow.
There's a bit of a process in jury selection. The judge first asks a series of prescreening questions. Those questions are designed to weed out folks who may be favorable to one side or the other. Supposedly, those questions are also designed to give folks a chance to convince the judge that they have something coming up that they may prevent them from serving on the jury.
Job interviews don't count, and I found that out the hard way.
The judge's exact words to me? "Nice try."
Thanks, your honor.
I should have lied and said I watch every law drama, whether fictional or fact-based, and expected the Law and Order sound effect every time a witness took the stand.
Clink clink.
So, I got sworn in for jury duty on Friday. Once I learned I had to return for the trial Monday, I returned home.
All potential jurors were advised about the case. A woman sued a pathologist for a missed stomach cancer diagnosis. About 5 years ago, she visited her doctor, who ordered a biopsy of some stomach tissue. Slides were created and sent to a pathologist for review. This particular pathologist said the tissue was noncancerous.
So, the woman thinks she's basically fine. She's prescribed some antacid for digestive problems. But, her problems persisted, and 15 months later, she visited her doctor again. They get some more stomach tissue, and she gets the bad news she has stomach cancer.
Ultimately, the original slide was reviewed, and it was determined that she in fact had stomach cancer five years ago. Problem is, the cancer was at a much earlier stage and therefore more easily treatable compared to what she had to endure, which included surgery, radiation and chemo. That, and she really doesn't trust doctors much anymore.
I won't go into too many specifics. Basically, cancer is more treatable and the patient has a higher survival rate the earlier it's detected and operated on. The plaintiff's case was that the delayed diagnosis would end up costing her a lot, including ultimately her life to a degree of likelihood.
So, she wanted money. A pretty darned big amount of money. More money than I'll ever see.
Her attorneys asked for $12 million in total damages. The defense thought $550,000 was a fair amount.
Seeing that there was such a discrepancy in figures, the jury had to decide how much to award this woman. I'd hoped that the two sides would settle before the trial, but that didn't happen.
Let me tell you about one particular oddity. We were told not to speculate about what the plaintiff endured, but we were told to come up with a figure for not only past, but future pain, suffering, etc.
So, we didn't speculate, but we did speculate.
It's an interesting thing, sitting in a crowded room with 11 other people, trying to figure out what a life is worth. On one hand, we agreed that the woman should be compensated. On the other, we agreed that the pathologist shouldn't be punished about this forever.
There was very little about this case that was concrete. The woman missed work for about four months during her chemo and radiation treatment, and she provided receipts for medical treatment. The plaintiff attorneys also had a doctor testify about her chances for relapse and possible medical expenses if she does relapse.
Other than that, we poor jury folks had to figure how much to award this lady, and that award was gonna be somewhere between $550,000 and $12 million.
There was a fair amount of discussion between us, and from what I could tell, a desire to not be asked to place a dollar value on this case. How do you put a figure on a life that hasn't even been fully lived? How can you award damages based on a chance that she'll relapse, even if that chance is significant? How are all parties involved, both plaintiff and defense, affected by your decision? Are we just part of the whole medical malpractice lawsuit problem?
Some folks wanted to award a total of $6 million, some a bit less. Honestly, I wasn't comfortable discussing such big sums of money, but I'd said under oath that if warranted, I could vote for a significant amount of damages.
After a couple hours of finagling and such, we ultimately decided on a total figure of $4.5 million in damages.
I hope we did right by both the plaintiff and defendant.
We spoke to the sheriff's deputy about the decision, asking what he thought the judge would think. He advised the judge wouldn't tell us directly, but he thought we came up with a figure that was about what was expected.
So, what did I do today? I got paid $17.20 and a sammich to award someone a lot of money.
I hope it was fair.
I hope it was just.
I hope I'm never asked to do something like this again.
I need a drink.
I tried a bit to get out of it. I was scheduled to have a job interview tomorrow.
There's a bit of a process in jury selection. The judge first asks a series of prescreening questions. Those questions are designed to weed out folks who may be favorable to one side or the other. Supposedly, those questions are also designed to give folks a chance to convince the judge that they have something coming up that they may prevent them from serving on the jury.
Job interviews don't count, and I found that out the hard way.
The judge's exact words to me? "Nice try."
Thanks, your honor.
I should have lied and said I watch every law drama, whether fictional or fact-based, and expected the Law and Order sound effect every time a witness took the stand.
Clink clink.
So, I got sworn in for jury duty on Friday. Once I learned I had to return for the trial Monday, I returned home.
All potential jurors were advised about the case. A woman sued a pathologist for a missed stomach cancer diagnosis. About 5 years ago, she visited her doctor, who ordered a biopsy of some stomach tissue. Slides were created and sent to a pathologist for review. This particular pathologist said the tissue was noncancerous.
So, the woman thinks she's basically fine. She's prescribed some antacid for digestive problems. But, her problems persisted, and 15 months later, she visited her doctor again. They get some more stomach tissue, and she gets the bad news she has stomach cancer.
Ultimately, the original slide was reviewed, and it was determined that she in fact had stomach cancer five years ago. Problem is, the cancer was at a much earlier stage and therefore more easily treatable compared to what she had to endure, which included surgery, radiation and chemo. That, and she really doesn't trust doctors much anymore.
I won't go into too many specifics. Basically, cancer is more treatable and the patient has a higher survival rate the earlier it's detected and operated on. The plaintiff's case was that the delayed diagnosis would end up costing her a lot, including ultimately her life to a degree of likelihood.
So, she wanted money. A pretty darned big amount of money. More money than I'll ever see.
Her attorneys asked for $12 million in total damages. The defense thought $550,000 was a fair amount.
Seeing that there was such a discrepancy in figures, the jury had to decide how much to award this woman. I'd hoped that the two sides would settle before the trial, but that didn't happen.
Let me tell you about one particular oddity. We were told not to speculate about what the plaintiff endured, but we were told to come up with a figure for not only past, but future pain, suffering, etc.
So, we didn't speculate, but we did speculate.
It's an interesting thing, sitting in a crowded room with 11 other people, trying to figure out what a life is worth. On one hand, we agreed that the woman should be compensated. On the other, we agreed that the pathologist shouldn't be punished about this forever.
There was very little about this case that was concrete. The woman missed work for about four months during her chemo and radiation treatment, and she provided receipts for medical treatment. The plaintiff attorneys also had a doctor testify about her chances for relapse and possible medical expenses if she does relapse.
Other than that, we poor jury folks had to figure how much to award this lady, and that award was gonna be somewhere between $550,000 and $12 million.
There was a fair amount of discussion between us, and from what I could tell, a desire to not be asked to place a dollar value on this case. How do you put a figure on a life that hasn't even been fully lived? How can you award damages based on a chance that she'll relapse, even if that chance is significant? How are all parties involved, both plaintiff and defense, affected by your decision? Are we just part of the whole medical malpractice lawsuit problem?
Some folks wanted to award a total of $6 million, some a bit less. Honestly, I wasn't comfortable discussing such big sums of money, but I'd said under oath that if warranted, I could vote for a significant amount of damages.
After a couple hours of finagling and such, we ultimately decided on a total figure of $4.5 million in damages.
I hope we did right by both the plaintiff and defendant.
We spoke to the sheriff's deputy about the decision, asking what he thought the judge would think. He advised the judge wouldn't tell us directly, but he thought we came up with a figure that was about what was expected.
So, what did I do today? I got paid $17.20 and a sammich to award someone a lot of money.
I hope it was fair.
I hope it was just.
I hope I'm never asked to do something like this again.
I need a drink.
Girls like me are annoying
Being my inaugural post--and since my daily mode is to assume that I'm misunderstood--I feel the need to clarify:
Now my self-introduction: I'm a science researcher on the verge of leaving the nest of academia. I live in Japan, for the moment, and recently I survived a trial by fire: a big break-up. I'm molting, perhaps. I'm relearning a lot about me, all the while trying to be aware of where I'm heading. I'm 32 and finally starting to mature a bit.
Anyway, let's get to the sexist girl bashing.
You know how being similar to someone is supposed to be a good thing? Not necessarily. I've been trying to like a particular girl for quite a while. She speaks great English (like me!), she has #3 above down pat (fantastic!), she is in touch with many of her faults (yay maturity!). But God she's got some bad points that I wish I could say to her face:
Always late. OK, you told me that you'll be late, but you waited until the originally agreed time to say it. "Sorry, I'm still 30 minutes away!" And the one time I tried to compensate for that, by being late myself, you were on time. :| Fantastic.
Boy clothes. OK, freedom of choice. Self-expression. I get it. But there are boy jeans and there are girl jeans. There are boy t-shirts and there are girl t-shirts. One kind gives a man a signal, one kind screams *Platonic!* Girls as young as 10 understand this. Maybe you're self-conscious, or maybe you actually were born with an unflattering body shape and face that from certain angles looks like it was smashed with a flat metal surface--that's not the point. I'm trying to say that I'd appreciate the effort, regardless.
Breath check! What the hell did you have for lunch--black mold? Raw skunk butt?
Let's be honest: it's a jungle out there, and mating rituals involve competition. There are differences between men and women, and romantic philosophical notions of equality usually don't work. Whether we actively realize it or not, the signs one gives to initiate and maintain a relationship are based on those inequalities.
...
Perhaps it's more accurate to say, "Girls like the old me are annoying."
For better or worse, I'm not as idealistic as I once was. Sure, I'm still respectful and polite--as proof I'm venting to a blog instead of to her face. But I see a "we're just friends" conversation looming in the future. Oh well.
(PS. If anyone knows of a full proof mental technique for remembering breath-checks, please post a comment.. )
- I'm not a girl.
- I don't find it annoying if & when girls like me. (OK, if & occasional when.)
- I like myself, generally.
Now my self-introduction: I'm a science researcher on the verge of leaving the nest of academia. I live in Japan, for the moment, and recently I survived a trial by fire: a big break-up. I'm molting, perhaps. I'm relearning a lot about me, all the while trying to be aware of where I'm heading. I'm 32 and finally starting to mature a bit.
For reference, Japan is a good place to
grow mature. One could call it "Playground
for your id." I also choose to call it
"solitary confinement."
(Which, strangely, was good for me.)
Anyway, let's get to the sexist girl bashing.
You know how being similar to someone is supposed to be a good thing? Not necessarily. I've been trying to like a particular girl for quite a while. She speaks great English (like me!), she has #3 above down pat (fantastic!), she is in touch with many of her faults (yay maturity!). But God she's got some bad points that I wish I could say to her face:
Always late. OK, you told me that you'll be late, but you waited until the originally agreed time to say it. "Sorry, I'm still 30 minutes away!" And the one time I tried to compensate for that, by being late myself, you were on time. :| Fantastic.
Boy clothes. OK, freedom of choice. Self-expression. I get it. But there are boy jeans and there are girl jeans. There are boy t-shirts and there are girl t-shirts. One kind gives a man a signal, one kind screams *Platonic!* Girls as young as 10 understand this. Maybe you're self-conscious, or maybe you actually were born with an unflattering body shape and face that from certain angles looks like it was smashed with a flat metal surface--that's not the point. I'm trying to say that I'd appreciate the effort, regardless.
Breath check! What the hell did you have for lunch--black mold? Raw skunk butt?
Let's be honest: it's a jungle out there, and mating rituals involve competition. There are differences between men and women, and romantic philosophical notions of equality usually don't work. Whether we actively realize it or not, the signs one gives to initiate and maintain a relationship are based on those inequalities.
...
Perhaps it's more accurate to say, "Girls like the old me are annoying."
For better or worse, I'm not as idealistic as I once was. Sure, I'm still respectful and polite--as proof I'm venting to a blog instead of to her face. But I see a "we're just friends" conversation looming in the future. Oh well.
(PS. If anyone knows of a full proof mental technique for remembering breath-checks, please post a comment.. )
05 May 2008
Why I'm only playing Executive
Organization: We're committed to quality.
VP: We need to put quality on the shelf for a couple of weeks.
(three months later)
Organization: We're committed to quality.
VP: We need to put quality on the shelf for a couple of weeks.
Quality (that's me!): Can we be committed to quality when we put quality on the shelf?
VP: What's more important, quality or making money?
(uncomfortable stares around the room)
Chaos. Panic. Disorder. One step at a time, one day at a time.
VP: We need to put quality on the shelf for a couple of weeks.
(three months later)
Organization: We're committed to quality.
VP: We need to put quality on the shelf for a couple of weeks.
Quality (that's me!): Can we be committed to quality when we put quality on the shelf?
VP: What's more important, quality or making money?
(uncomfortable stares around the room)
Chaos. Panic. Disorder. One step at a time, one day at a time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)