Context
A colleague of mine at the library was telling me that after cleaning files and books off her desk that had been there for a long time, she was surprised to see that there were a bunch of ink stains on the surface from when she'd been writing and smeared. I told her that never happened to me as I rarely use an "ink pen" for my job.
Commentary
My parents were Southerners, but I don't usually consider myself one. Over time, though, I've taken on some of the speech patterns of American South. For example, I can't tell you the last time I actually pronounced the "g" at the end of an "ing" verb. I used "y'all" long before I moved to Shreveport, because it cures the omission of a second person plural in formal English, and now that I'm here I also find myself saying things like "buggy" for "grocery cart." Apparently "ink pen" has joined the mix.
I found myself wondering today why people in the South add the word "ink" to "pen." Don't all pens have ink? Well, pig pens don't, but I don't think that's the issue. It comes back to an inherent problem with Southern English, a drawback to the drawl, if you will: there is pretty much no difference between the short "e" sound and the short "i" sound. This is usually not a big deal, as context will tell the listener the difference between "bliss" and "bless" and between "tin" and "ten." How often does someone ask you to lend them tin dollars, after all?
"Pin" and "pen" are different though, because they're often used in the same context. Picture me sitting at my desk in the I.T. department. I can't see my colleague in the next cubicle, so if she says, "I need a pin," I don't know if she's asking for something to write with or the password for a web page she's trying to access. The problem is not relieved by the natural tendency of people to make a word longer in order to be clear. If I ask my workmate to repeat herself, no matter what she wanted she's going to say, "a pee-ye-nuh." No help at all.
You may think I'm ragging on Southern speech, but I'm not. A true drawl is a lovely, mellifluous thing, greatly to be admired. If you've never heard one, you probably think the name "Lynn" consists of one syllable. Nuh-uh. My late mother-in-law, who was from East Texas, routinely drew it out to four. Remember up above, when I was talking about "short e" and "short i?" That's how I was taught to describe them when I was in grade school, but that was a long time ago and I wasn't in the South. I don't know what students are taught here, because there's no such thing as a short vowel sound. Shorter, maybe, but not short. And the shortest of them all is what is technically classified as a long vowel sound: the "i" in "fire." It's pronounced "ah." That means it's difficult to tell the difference between "fire" and "far," but again, context helps.
Nor do I think my perception that there is no distinction between the "e" and the "i" is because I'm not from 'round here (Yup, I use all kinds of Southernisms). I honestly don't think native-born Southerners can tell the difference either, because I've heard conversations between them that sound like the one described a couple of paragraphs ago. Apparently some time ago someone decided to resolve the problem by adding "ink" in front of the appropriate "pen," and the solution caught on. Ironically, the similar-sounding vowels have not become a part of my speech yet, but the workaround has. I guess I am now prepared to ramp up my drawl.
What did you hear today?
Showing posts with label family. Show all posts
Showing posts with label family. Show all posts
11/09/2012
9/09/2012
I saw a quote about grandparents
Context
I read this at the end of Annie's Mailbox in the Shreveport Times today:
Annie's Snippet for Grandparents Day (credit Alex Haley): Nobody can do for little children what grandparents do. Grandparents sort of sprinkle stardust over the lives of little children.
Commentary
I don't usually celebrate what I consider to be "Hallmark Holidays." Sure, I commemorated Mother's Day and Father's Day when my parents were still alive, but after a while you start to feel like some things were just added to the calendar to push greeting cards. Boss's Day? Really? In fact, my mother was dismayed when we lived in Mexico that there was an official Children's Day celebrated there. She was of the not uncommon opinion that every day is Children's Day. So anyway, I didn't celebrate Grandparents' Day when my grandparents were living and the last surviving one died about 10 years ago. Nonetheless, I agree wholeheartedly with the quote above and I'm glad the Annie's Mailbox people posted it.
When I got to be of teenaged years and older, I learned some negative things about my grandparents. My maternal grandfather, who I never knew, was an alcoholic. Neither of my grandmothers was particularly nice to my mother, her mother-in-law being quite picky and her mother fairly self-involved. My paternal grandfather was a little distant.
None of these things mattered when I was a child. There was nothing I looked forward to more than my week of summer vacation alone with Mimi and Papa, watching TV, playing oh-so-carefully with Mimi's china, and listening raptly while Papa gave out wisdom in his slow and measured way. My other grandmother died when I was quite young, but I still remember snippets of the times I got to spend with her, as well as still having the stuffed tiger she gave me for my third birthday. I think she made it, but that's subject to some dispute. Whatever, she was my Grandma Russell and I can believe what I want! The point is: a child loves her parents, but Alex Haley is right, grandparents are magical.
I have no children of my own, but I saw some of the same things in my mom's life as a grandparent, too. My nephew is autistic, but my mother, in the stubborn way that is common to my family, refused to believe it. He was her Alex and he was just what he was meant to be, no disability at all. Her own great-granddaughter returned the favor when my mother was suffering from Alzheimer's. Actually, I should rephrase: my mother had no problem with her dementia at all; the rest of us did most of the suffering.
Anyway, my favorite two pictures of my mother are from that time. She is sitting on the steps with Shelby, her great-granddaughter. In one of them they are leaning forward, in the other, leaning back. My sister (Shelby's grandmother) came by and asked the nominally more responsible party, my mother, what they were doing. My mom said, "I don't know," and they just kept rocking.
I guess that's what's at the heart of the special relationship between grandparents and grandchildren. It might be different if you're actually raised by your grandparents, but that generation of remove seems to help grandparents accept grandchildren as whole people in their own right, needing to be guided, sure, but never a stand-in for their personal expectations or a reflection of their own failings. Grandchildren, in their turn, think every grandparental eccentricity is just normal, possibly because they don't have to see them often enough to chafe against them.
If you still have grandparents, I hope you enjoy a special relationship with them, and if not, I hope you have some magical memories.
What did you see today?
I read this at the end of Annie's Mailbox in the Shreveport Times today:
Annie's Snippet for Grandparents Day (credit Alex Haley): Nobody can do for little children what grandparents do. Grandparents sort of sprinkle stardust over the lives of little children.
Commentary
I don't usually celebrate what I consider to be "Hallmark Holidays." Sure, I commemorated Mother's Day and Father's Day when my parents were still alive, but after a while you start to feel like some things were just added to the calendar to push greeting cards. Boss's Day? Really? In fact, my mother was dismayed when we lived in Mexico that there was an official Children's Day celebrated there. She was of the not uncommon opinion that every day is Children's Day. So anyway, I didn't celebrate Grandparents' Day when my grandparents were living and the last surviving one died about 10 years ago. Nonetheless, I agree wholeheartedly with the quote above and I'm glad the Annie's Mailbox people posted it.
When I got to be of teenaged years and older, I learned some negative things about my grandparents. My maternal grandfather, who I never knew, was an alcoholic. Neither of my grandmothers was particularly nice to my mother, her mother-in-law being quite picky and her mother fairly self-involved. My paternal grandfather was a little distant.
None of these things mattered when I was a child. There was nothing I looked forward to more than my week of summer vacation alone with Mimi and Papa, watching TV, playing oh-so-carefully with Mimi's china, and listening raptly while Papa gave out wisdom in his slow and measured way. My other grandmother died when I was quite young, but I still remember snippets of the times I got to spend with her, as well as still having the stuffed tiger she gave me for my third birthday. I think she made it, but that's subject to some dispute. Whatever, she was my Grandma Russell and I can believe what I want! The point is: a child loves her parents, but Alex Haley is right, grandparents are magical.
I have no children of my own, but I saw some of the same things in my mom's life as a grandparent, too. My nephew is autistic, but my mother, in the stubborn way that is common to my family, refused to believe it. He was her Alex and he was just what he was meant to be, no disability at all. Her own great-granddaughter returned the favor when my mother was suffering from Alzheimer's. Actually, I should rephrase: my mother had no problem with her dementia at all; the rest of us did most of the suffering.
Anyway, my favorite two pictures of my mother are from that time. She is sitting on the steps with Shelby, her great-granddaughter. In one of them they are leaning forward, in the other, leaning back. My sister (Shelby's grandmother) came by and asked the nominally more responsible party, my mother, what they were doing. My mom said, "I don't know," and they just kept rocking.
I guess that's what's at the heart of the special relationship between grandparents and grandchildren. It might be different if you're actually raised by your grandparents, but that generation of remove seems to help grandparents accept grandchildren as whole people in their own right, needing to be guided, sure, but never a stand-in for their personal expectations or a reflection of their own failings. Grandchildren, in their turn, think every grandparental eccentricity is just normal, possibly because they don't have to see them often enough to chafe against them.
If you still have grandparents, I hope you enjoy a special relationship with them, and if not, I hope you have some magical memories.
What did you see today?
11/24/2011
I heard my husband say something wise
Context
One of ads on the Thanksgiving Day Classic was for the Visa card Super Bowl ticket giveaway. In the ad, they say the Super Bowl is the most epic day in America. My husband Mark said, "No it's not; that's Election Day."
Commentary
Well, Mark said it all, but it's my blog, so I'll just add this: every four years we agree to govern ourselves instead of being governed. Frequently on these occasions, a new party comes into power and no guns are fired, except in what I consider a bizarre form of celebration. This has gone on for over 230 years. If that's not worth giving thanks for, I don't know what is.
What did you hear today?
One of ads on the Thanksgiving Day Classic was for the Visa card Super Bowl ticket giveaway. In the ad, they say the Super Bowl is the most epic day in America. My husband Mark said, "No it's not; that's Election Day."
Commentary
Well, Mark said it all, but it's my blog, so I'll just add this: every four years we agree to govern ourselves instead of being governed. Frequently on these occasions, a new party comes into power and no guns are fired, except in what I consider a bizarre form of celebration. This has gone on for over 230 years. If that's not worth giving thanks for, I don't know what is.
What did you hear today?
7/02/2010
I saw a comment on social standing
Context
It is often the case that when I want to understand a problem better, I find a book on the topic. So now I'm in the middle of reading a book by Hilde Bruch called Conversations with Anorexics. This is a quote I read today: "Paula then went into much detail about the pain of growing up in a small town where she felt not recognized as belonging to a leading family."
Commentary
I grew up in one of the biggest cities in the world. And in a very small town. Let me explain: my family moved to Mexico City when I was eight years old, but because we're Americans most of our social interactions took place within the sizable-for-what-it-is, but still small, English-speaking community.
So my view of my place in the community during those years was different from what it would have been if I'd grown up in the country of my birth where nearly everyone spoke the same language I did. Here's an example: I went to the American School, an expensive, private, college-prep school, which my father's employer paid for as an incentive to accept a foreign assignment. While there, I socialized with the children of diplomats, high-level Mexican government officials (the college prep applied to both U.S. and Mexican institutions), missionaries, and others. These are the kind of people I would have never encountered at the public school a mile away from our family's home in Michigan.
The thing is, at the American School we didn't arrange ourselves according to the social strata our parents belonged to. This may be typical of kids thrown together everywhere, but we used kid standards (athletic prowess, physical beauty, what passes for sophistication when you're twelve, etc.) for status, not adult ones. I went out on a date with the son of the Mexican Secretary of Tourism one time. He was as low on the socially awkward totem pole as I was. On the other hand, there were girls in my social circle who used to belittle my ineptness all the time. It was only with time that I discovered two important realities:
1) My dad was their dad's boss.
2) I was going on to college. They were going back to rural Michigan to get married and have babies.
I am very grateful to my parents for the opportunity to grow up this way. I still feel a little out of place in my native culture (Why oh why don't you people kiss each other to say "Hello"?), but I think it gave me a good perspective on the malleability of social structure and an ability to be comfortable in my own skin under almost any circumstances. And I speak Spanish reasonably well.
¿ Que ha visto usted hoy?
It is often the case that when I want to understand a problem better, I find a book on the topic. So now I'm in the middle of reading a book by Hilde Bruch called Conversations with Anorexics. This is a quote I read today: "Paula then went into much detail about the pain of growing up in a small town where she felt not recognized as belonging to a leading family."
Commentary
I grew up in one of the biggest cities in the world. And in a very small town. Let me explain: my family moved to Mexico City when I was eight years old, but because we're Americans most of our social interactions took place within the sizable-for-what-it-is, but still small, English-speaking community.
So my view of my place in the community during those years was different from what it would have been if I'd grown up in the country of my birth where nearly everyone spoke the same language I did. Here's an example: I went to the American School, an expensive, private, college-prep school, which my father's employer paid for as an incentive to accept a foreign assignment. While there, I socialized with the children of diplomats, high-level Mexican government officials (the college prep applied to both U.S. and Mexican institutions), missionaries, and others. These are the kind of people I would have never encountered at the public school a mile away from our family's home in Michigan.
The thing is, at the American School we didn't arrange ourselves according to the social strata our parents belonged to. This may be typical of kids thrown together everywhere, but we used kid standards (athletic prowess, physical beauty, what passes for sophistication when you're twelve, etc.) for status, not adult ones. I went out on a date with the son of the Mexican Secretary of Tourism one time. He was as low on the socially awkward totem pole as I was. On the other hand, there were girls in my social circle who used to belittle my ineptness all the time. It was only with time that I discovered two important realities:
1) My dad was their dad's boss.
2) I was going on to college. They were going back to rural Michigan to get married and have babies.
I am very grateful to my parents for the opportunity to grow up this way. I still feel a little out of place in my native culture (Why oh why don't you people kiss each other to say "Hello"?), but I think it gave me a good perspective on the malleability of social structure and an ability to be comfortable in my own skin under almost any circumstances. And I speak Spanish reasonably well.
¿ Que ha visto usted hoy?
9/04/2009
I saw comments on a blog
Context
The library I work at has a new book by Kate Gosselin. I got to looking around on the Web for more information about her and came to the TLC website, which has a blog written by Kate herself. The posting I looked at had 235 comments on it.
Commentary
My husband thinks I'm addicted to tabloids. I say that can't possibly be true, since I've never paid money for one of them since they lied about Carol Burnett. But the truth is, I do read them in the supermarket checkout line or in the staff lounge and that's the only reason I know anything about Kate Gosselin at all, since I'm not a fan of reality TV.
As you might imagine, the tabloids give me a kind of skewed summary of the Gosselins' life; for example, I didn't know until today that their eight children consisted of one set of twins and one set of sextuplets. So it was interesting to me to read what the lady had to say about her own life in her blog. Mostly she sounded shallow and saccharine, writing in the mommy-blogger style, nothing particularly out of the ordinary.
Then I saw the comments. Most of them had nothing to do with the topic Mrs. Gosselin was writing about, but instead offered her sympathy and support regarding her recent divorce. This seemed kind of odd to me on two levels: why would the commenters care so much for a woman that they, frankly, only know from television and why would the support of anonymous strangers (nobody uses their real name when they comment on a blog, right? ;-)) be of any value to a woman going through a painful personal transition?
The negative responses were even more incomprehensible. Again, why would she care about the disapproval of people she's never met, but even more, why on earth do they disapprove so much? Kate Gosselin may be vapid, vain, and moneygrubbing. She may even be a bad wife and/or mother, but she's not your wife or mother! Why effect could she possibly have on your life that would inspire you to spend time carefully crafting a hatchet job? Of course, I'm never going to get back the time I spent writing this blog post either, so maybe I'm just feeding the beast.
What did you see today?
The library I work at has a new book by Kate Gosselin. I got to looking around on the Web for more information about her and came to the TLC website, which has a blog written by Kate herself. The posting I looked at had 235 comments on it.
Commentary
My husband thinks I'm addicted to tabloids. I say that can't possibly be true, since I've never paid money for one of them since they lied about Carol Burnett. But the truth is, I do read them in the supermarket checkout line or in the staff lounge and that's the only reason I know anything about Kate Gosselin at all, since I'm not a fan of reality TV.
As you might imagine, the tabloids give me a kind of skewed summary of the Gosselins' life; for example, I didn't know until today that their eight children consisted of one set of twins and one set of sextuplets. So it was interesting to me to read what the lady had to say about her own life in her blog. Mostly she sounded shallow and saccharine, writing in the mommy-blogger style, nothing particularly out of the ordinary.
Then I saw the comments. Most of them had nothing to do with the topic Mrs. Gosselin was writing about, but instead offered her sympathy and support regarding her recent divorce. This seemed kind of odd to me on two levels: why would the commenters care so much for a woman that they, frankly, only know from television and why would the support of anonymous strangers (nobody uses their real name when they comment on a blog, right? ;-)) be of any value to a woman going through a painful personal transition?
The negative responses were even more incomprehensible. Again, why would she care about the disapproval of people she's never met, but even more, why on earth do they disapprove so much? Kate Gosselin may be vapid, vain, and moneygrubbing. She may even be a bad wife and/or mother, but she's not your wife or mother! Why effect could she possibly have on your life that would inspire you to spend time carefully crafting a hatchet job? Of course, I'm never going to get back the time I spent writing this blog post either, so maybe I'm just feeding the beast.
What did you see today?
2/18/2009
I saw an article about a crime
Context
I read an article from yesterday's Shreveport Times today. It may be at this link, or it may not, depending on how long they archive the material. The article concerned the murder of a local woman, Ashley Scott, by her husband in Tennessee. Here is a direct quote from this article:
"Stephens said there were signs of domestic violence -- Ashley would wear heavy makeup or high collars to hide bruises -- and concerns by faculty. But when he talked to Ashley, offering Employee Assistance Program help, she said, 'Everything will be OK.'
Said Stephens: 'I don't think anybody realized how bad it was, how bad it was getting.'
It was, Stephens now realizes in hindsight, 'this perfect facade of a relationship.'"
"Stephens" is the principal at the school where Mrs. Scott taught.
Commentary
I understand that Mr. Stephens is under an extraordinary amount of pressure, but I feel compelled to point out that although his first statement is likely factual, the second one is mistaken at best and the third one is an outright lie. If you see a woman dressing to cover the signs of spousal abuse, you know exactly how bad it is, and she and her husband are not maintaining anything resembling a perfect facade of a relationship.
So why say it? I think it's likely that Stephens has heard, possibly more than once, or maybe just in the privacy of his own head, this accusation: "if you knew what was going on, why didn't you stop it?" So he backs off, pretends he didn't know what was going on. It's a more palatable answer than what seems to be the truth, "she wouldn't let me."
I blame the afterschool specials. The media has done such a good job of convincing us that domestic violence is a simple situation involving one monster and one victim that we think curing the problem should be equally simple. Just walk away. Accept the help an outsider offers you.
But real life isn't like that. Abuse is only part of a relationship. It may be a constant part or an intermittent one, but it's still only one element. And the person who's being abused may not see it as important enough to outweigh all the other elements.
My father used to hit my mother. Not regularly, but certainly more than once. I know I just wrote that in a universally accessible blog, but up until this moment I have kept that information relatively close to the chest. My close friends know; I've told church groups I was close to, but I've never made a big announcement or been all crusady about it.
I think one of the reasons I'm reluctant to talk about it is because I'm wary of the oversimplifications. The stereotypes I'm accustomed to don't fit the situation. My mother was neither too stupid to know what was going on nor too helpless to walk away. She was a woman who weighed her alternatives and made her decisions. And forgive me for straying off the P.C. ranch, but she wasn't always particularly nice to my dad either.
The conditions did not match Ashley Scott's. My father never cut my mother off from her friend and relatives and her life was never in danger. But if I'm really, really honest, I have to admit that the two people I'm ashamed to have never discussed this with are my mother and my father. Would it have helped? Can a daughter actually say to her parents, "your relationship is really screwed up and I think you both could make better decisions"? They're both gone now so I'll never know.
And now Ashley Scott is gone as well and we're all left feeling like there's something more we could have done . . .
What did you see today?
I read an article from yesterday's Shreveport Times today. It may be at this link, or it may not, depending on how long they archive the material. The article concerned the murder of a local woman, Ashley Scott, by her husband in Tennessee. Here is a direct quote from this article:
"Stephens said there were signs of domestic violence -- Ashley would wear heavy makeup or high collars to hide bruises -- and concerns by faculty. But when he talked to Ashley, offering Employee Assistance Program help, she said, 'Everything will be OK.'
Said Stephens: 'I don't think anybody realized how bad it was, how bad it was getting.'
It was, Stephens now realizes in hindsight, 'this perfect facade of a relationship.'"
"Stephens" is the principal at the school where Mrs. Scott taught.
Commentary
I understand that Mr. Stephens is under an extraordinary amount of pressure, but I feel compelled to point out that although his first statement is likely factual, the second one is mistaken at best and the third one is an outright lie. If you see a woman dressing to cover the signs of spousal abuse, you know exactly how bad it is, and she and her husband are not maintaining anything resembling a perfect facade of a relationship.
So why say it? I think it's likely that Stephens has heard, possibly more than once, or maybe just in the privacy of his own head, this accusation: "if you knew what was going on, why didn't you stop it?" So he backs off, pretends he didn't know what was going on. It's a more palatable answer than what seems to be the truth, "she wouldn't let me."
I blame the afterschool specials. The media has done such a good job of convincing us that domestic violence is a simple situation involving one monster and one victim that we think curing the problem should be equally simple. Just walk away. Accept the help an outsider offers you.
But real life isn't like that. Abuse is only part of a relationship. It may be a constant part or an intermittent one, but it's still only one element. And the person who's being abused may not see it as important enough to outweigh all the other elements.
My father used to hit my mother. Not regularly, but certainly more than once. I know I just wrote that in a universally accessible blog, but up until this moment I have kept that information relatively close to the chest. My close friends know; I've told church groups I was close to, but I've never made a big announcement or been all crusady about it.
I think one of the reasons I'm reluctant to talk about it is because I'm wary of the oversimplifications. The stereotypes I'm accustomed to don't fit the situation. My mother was neither too stupid to know what was going on nor too helpless to walk away. She was a woman who weighed her alternatives and made her decisions. And forgive me for straying off the P.C. ranch, but she wasn't always particularly nice to my dad either.
The conditions did not match Ashley Scott's. My father never cut my mother off from her friend and relatives and her life was never in danger. But if I'm really, really honest, I have to admit that the two people I'm ashamed to have never discussed this with are my mother and my father. Would it have helped? Can a daughter actually say to her parents, "your relationship is really screwed up and I think you both could make better decisions"? They're both gone now so I'll never know.
And now Ashley Scott is gone as well and we're all left feeling like there's something more we could have done . . .
What did you see today?
11/22/2008
I saw the price of gas
Context
Thus far the poor economy has not affected me much, as both my husband and I are employed and don't plan on retiring soon. However, I keep an eye on the price of gas as an economic indicator. It's falling like a rock around here, down below $1.70 a gallon in some places.
Commentary
In some ways I know falling gas prices are like the silver lining to the current economic situation, but even when it benefits us personally deflation is a problem in a free market economy. It indicates a lack of demand, which indicates a lack of growth, which leads to more job loss and credit problems.
So this got me thinking about who else in the United States' economy is dealing with falling demand. The Big 3 auto companies who are requesting a bailout from Congress, that's who. And this is not just an economic indicator to me. I have an emotional connection to the fate of General Motors because my dad worked there from the time he left the Air Force until his retirement over 30 years later.
Ever since I became an adult I've looked at GM differently than my dad, because he was a Republican and I'm so liberal that even the Democratic party doesn't satisfy. He died several years ago so I can't ask, but I imagine he would feel some ambivalence about the proposed buyout. He'd probably be generally in favor of it but have some choice words on the side for corporate folks who had mismanaged the company into this position in the first place. He might have even loaned a slightly sympathetic ear to the people who say General Motors should declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy just for the opportunity to stick it to the United Auto Workers. By the way, as the daughter of an executive, it's weird for me to see management and labor so united on something. Well, sort of. This is the UAW's take on the situation.
Anyway, that was my speculation about what a specific conservative would think, here's what this specific liberal thinks: government should not be helping business; it should be helping people. A lot of the pro-bailout rhetoric emphasizes that helping the Big 3 would help people, but I'm not completely convinced. At the very least, I would not hand automakers a blank check, either in terms of amount or conditions. When I'm in a really ticked off mood I think, "if this industry is so important to our nation's wellbeing we should nationalize it." So there!
In the end I'm hoping for one relatively minor silver lining to this whole mess. As a government employee, I'm sick to death of people saying my agency should be run more like a business. So at least I can say to the next person who proposes it, "like what business? GM?"
What did you see today?
Thus far the poor economy has not affected me much, as both my husband and I are employed and don't plan on retiring soon. However, I keep an eye on the price of gas as an economic indicator. It's falling like a rock around here, down below $1.70 a gallon in some places.
Commentary
In some ways I know falling gas prices are like the silver lining to the current economic situation, but even when it benefits us personally deflation is a problem in a free market economy. It indicates a lack of demand, which indicates a lack of growth, which leads to more job loss and credit problems.
So this got me thinking about who else in the United States' economy is dealing with falling demand. The Big 3 auto companies who are requesting a bailout from Congress, that's who. And this is not just an economic indicator to me. I have an emotional connection to the fate of General Motors because my dad worked there from the time he left the Air Force until his retirement over 30 years later.
Ever since I became an adult I've looked at GM differently than my dad, because he was a Republican and I'm so liberal that even the Democratic party doesn't satisfy. He died several years ago so I can't ask, but I imagine he would feel some ambivalence about the proposed buyout. He'd probably be generally in favor of it but have some choice words on the side for corporate folks who had mismanaged the company into this position in the first place. He might have even loaned a slightly sympathetic ear to the people who say General Motors should declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy just for the opportunity to stick it to the United Auto Workers. By the way, as the daughter of an executive, it's weird for me to see management and labor so united on something. Well, sort of. This is the UAW's take on the situation.
Anyway, that was my speculation about what a specific conservative would think, here's what this specific liberal thinks: government should not be helping business; it should be helping people. A lot of the pro-bailout rhetoric emphasizes that helping the Big 3 would help people, but I'm not completely convinced. At the very least, I would not hand automakers a blank check, either in terms of amount or conditions. When I'm in a really ticked off mood I think, "if this industry is so important to our nation's wellbeing we should nationalize it." So there!
In the end I'm hoping for one relatively minor silver lining to this whole mess. As a government employee, I'm sick to death of people saying my agency should be run more like a business. So at least I can say to the next person who proposes it, "like what business? GM?"
What did you see today?
2/22/2008
I saw a letter in an advice column
Context
Annie's Mailbox is the successor column to Ann Landers. In today's column a woman wrote in asking advice about her relationship with a man she loves very much, but who is not interested in marriage and more children (she already has two) like she is.
Commentary
I think the Annie's Mailbox people gave this questioner very sound advice, saying that if marriage and children were what she considered essential in a long-term relationship, she should seek a partner who shares her values. Seems like a no-brainer, right?
"But," I can hear the romantics cry, "what about love?" Well, in our society we slap the label "love" on a variety of different feelings. Like when we say "love at first sight," what we really mean is attraction at first sight, which is great, but cannot carry a relationship forever on its own. That butterflies-in-the-stomach, weak-in-the-knees kind of feeling is inextricably bound to novelty and curiosity, both of which cannot help but fade with familiarity. And generally speaking, once the immediate attraction has gone away, you're not going to want to spend a lifetime with someone who doesn't share your view of what's important.
For me, even that sharing doesn't count as love. Love doesn't come until you know a person well enough to see that you generally agree with them about the important things in life and you're generally able to deal respectfully with the things you don't agree about. I say "generally," because yes, people who love each other do fight. In fact, I don't think you should make a commitment to a person until you see how they fight. If you keep a clear head, in thirty minutes you'll learn more about a person's real values than you would in a month of lovey-dovey talk.
I felt sorry for the woman who wrote in because I was in a similar situation to hers when I was in college. I stayed with a guy who really didn't share my values for way too long because I "loved" him, which in my case meant mostly that I wanted to take care of him. I think part of the problem was that we weren't very good at talking about our individual values, either because we weren't clear enough about them yet or because we didn't have enough confidence to stand up for them. Whatever the reason, we ended up being pretty darn contemptuous of each other by the time we split up. Which doesn't really fit any definition of love.
What did you see today?
Annie's Mailbox is the successor column to Ann Landers. In today's column a woman wrote in asking advice about her relationship with a man she loves very much, but who is not interested in marriage and more children (she already has two) like she is.
Commentary
I think the Annie's Mailbox people gave this questioner very sound advice, saying that if marriage and children were what she considered essential in a long-term relationship, she should seek a partner who shares her values. Seems like a no-brainer, right?
"But," I can hear the romantics cry, "what about love?" Well, in our society we slap the label "love" on a variety of different feelings. Like when we say "love at first sight," what we really mean is attraction at first sight, which is great, but cannot carry a relationship forever on its own. That butterflies-in-the-stomach, weak-in-the-knees kind of feeling is inextricably bound to novelty and curiosity, both of which cannot help but fade with familiarity. And generally speaking, once the immediate attraction has gone away, you're not going to want to spend a lifetime with someone who doesn't share your view of what's important.
For me, even that sharing doesn't count as love. Love doesn't come until you know a person well enough to see that you generally agree with them about the important things in life and you're generally able to deal respectfully with the things you don't agree about. I say "generally," because yes, people who love each other do fight. In fact, I don't think you should make a commitment to a person until you see how they fight. If you keep a clear head, in thirty minutes you'll learn more about a person's real values than you would in a month of lovey-dovey talk.
I felt sorry for the woman who wrote in because I was in a similar situation to hers when I was in college. I stayed with a guy who really didn't share my values for way too long because I "loved" him, which in my case meant mostly that I wanted to take care of him. I think part of the problem was that we weren't very good at talking about our individual values, either because we weren't clear enough about them yet or because we didn't have enough confidence to stand up for them. Whatever the reason, we ended up being pretty darn contemptuous of each other by the time we split up. Which doesn't really fit any definition of love.
What did you see today?
6/09/2007
I heard Friends talk about goals.
Context
At Friends Meeting today we were talking about male and female personality characteristics. In that context, Friend A asked, "so do you have goals for your life?" A couple of us said, "no," but Friend B said, "yes, I have lots!" Then Friend A said to Friend B, "so you're a more goal-oriented person than the rest of us," and I thought to myself, "no, I'm a goal-oriented person; I just don't have goals!"
Commentary
What's going on with my seemingly contradictory view of goals? Well, when someone talks about a person "having goals," I think of long-term visions for the future. I have those; I just lack the motivation and discipline to carry them out. For example, I would like to shed about 30 pounds. However, I have so little intention of either eating significantly less or exercising significantly more that it seems wrong to call that a "goal."
"Goal-oriented," on the other hand, means something different to me. It makes me think more in terms of my actual activities, as opposed to the things I want to do or think I ought to do. Frequently as I go through my day I ask myself, "why are you doing this?" In other words, what goal am I hoping to accomplish?
I find that asking myself this question helps me in a couple of ways. One, it prevents me from walking down fruitless paths. So if I ask myself, "why are you doing this particular activity?", the answer might be, "in order to teach people to use the computer." If I then realize that the activity I'm doing doesn't actually help people to learn, I can just stop doing it! It's easier to do that if I'm focusing on a goal instead of my own ego, a la "wah! I really like that activity!"
On the flip side, being goal-oriented helps me examine not only my activities, but also the goals themselves. I've had this internal conversation more than once:
"Lynn, you're gossiping. Why are you doing that?"
"Well, I really want to impress the people I'm with."
"Really. So your goal is to impress the sort of people who are impressed by gossip. Is that really a worthy goal?"
My mother tried to inculcate this idea in me countless times when I was a teenager. 30 years later, I'm finally getting it. She's currently practicing her "I told you so" speech in heaven.
Mind you, "worthy" doesn't necessarily mean "lofty." Sometimes the conversation goes more like this:
"Why are you watching this episode of Sports Night on DVD that you've seen five times before?"
"I'm tired, I like Aaron Sorkin's writing and Peter Krause is easy on the eyes."
Resting and appreciating the whole of God's creation. Perfectly worthy goals.
What did you see today?
At Friends Meeting today we were talking about male and female personality characteristics. In that context, Friend A asked, "so do you have goals for your life?" A couple of us said, "no," but Friend B said, "yes, I have lots!" Then Friend A said to Friend B, "so you're a more goal-oriented person than the rest of us," and I thought to myself, "no, I'm a goal-oriented person; I just don't have goals!"
Commentary
What's going on with my seemingly contradictory view of goals? Well, when someone talks about a person "having goals," I think of long-term visions for the future. I have those; I just lack the motivation and discipline to carry them out. For example, I would like to shed about 30 pounds. However, I have so little intention of either eating significantly less or exercising significantly more that it seems wrong to call that a "goal."
"Goal-oriented," on the other hand, means something different to me. It makes me think more in terms of my actual activities, as opposed to the things I want to do or think I ought to do. Frequently as I go through my day I ask myself, "why are you doing this?" In other words, what goal am I hoping to accomplish?
I find that asking myself this question helps me in a couple of ways. One, it prevents me from walking down fruitless paths. So if I ask myself, "why are you doing this particular activity?", the answer might be, "in order to teach people to use the computer." If I then realize that the activity I'm doing doesn't actually help people to learn, I can just stop doing it! It's easier to do that if I'm focusing on a goal instead of my own ego, a la "wah! I really like that activity!"
On the flip side, being goal-oriented helps me examine not only my activities, but also the goals themselves. I've had this internal conversation more than once:
"Lynn, you're gossiping. Why are you doing that?"
"Well, I really want to impress the people I'm with."
"Really. So your goal is to impress the sort of people who are impressed by gossip. Is that really a worthy goal?"
My mother tried to inculcate this idea in me countless times when I was a teenager. 30 years later, I'm finally getting it. She's currently practicing her "I told you so" speech in heaven.
Mind you, "worthy" doesn't necessarily mean "lofty." Sometimes the conversation goes more like this:
"Why are you watching this episode of Sports Night on DVD that you've seen five times before?"
"I'm tired, I like Aaron Sorkin's writing and Peter Krause is easy on the eyes."
Resting and appreciating the whole of God's creation. Perfectly worthy goals.
What did you see today?
6/15/2006
I saw my coworker encourage someone to fill out a form
Context
A patron at the Shreve Memorial Library saw us giving a computer class today. When she asked about registration, I handed her this form. She then asked about scheduling, and I told her that we have a months-long waiting list. She said she couldn’t wait that long, so my coworker showed her a self-help program on the computer. Then she encouraged the patron to fill out the form anyway.
Commentary
I am the youngest of four children by quite a bit and, as any of my siblings will gleefully tell you, that means I’m spoiled rotten. I guess they say that because I only do what I want to do. In some ways, this makes me a wretched person. I have almost no sense of obligation, and I get royally hacked off at people who try to make me obliged to them. I’m even suspect of gifts, in case they come with strings attached. Also, when I don’t like the situation I’m in, I tend to bail. Hence my checkered employment history.
However, I think there’s something good about being spoiled rotten. For one thing, I’m not subject to peer pressure at all. Also, in my case at least, it tends to be a global mindset. I want everyone to do what they want. It’s one of the reasons I’m good at customer service, but would be terrible at sales. I don’t try to convince people to do something, I try to make sure they’re able to do what they want. In fact, I sometimes frustrate the people who sign up for computer classes, because they’ll ask, “what should I take?” Ick! “Should” sounds like an obligation! So I ask them right back, “what do you want to learn?”
My coworker’s actions today puzzled me, because her mind went in a direction mine never would have. My way of working is the patron asks us for something she wants, and we let her know if we can provide that. Yes, we have computer classes. No, you can’t take them right away. End of transaction.
My coworker took extra steps, showing the patron the self-help program and talking her into filling out the registration form anyway. I think the former was a case of trying to make our available services fit the patron’s wants, which was absolutely appropriate. The latter, however, shaded into trying to make the patron settle for what we have. It felt like my coworker was saying, “go ahead and sign up to wait for a few months. You said you didn’t want to, but maybe you didn’t really mean it.” I think that’s wrong. I know what I want. I try to spoil everyone else by assuming they do too.
What did you see today?
A patron at the Shreve Memorial Library saw us giving a computer class today. When she asked about registration, I handed her this form. She then asked about scheduling, and I told her that we have a months-long waiting list. She said she couldn’t wait that long, so my coworker showed her a self-help program on the computer. Then she encouraged the patron to fill out the form anyway.
Commentary
I am the youngest of four children by quite a bit and, as any of my siblings will gleefully tell you, that means I’m spoiled rotten. I guess they say that because I only do what I want to do. In some ways, this makes me a wretched person. I have almost no sense of obligation, and I get royally hacked off at people who try to make me obliged to them. I’m even suspect of gifts, in case they come with strings attached. Also, when I don’t like the situation I’m in, I tend to bail. Hence my checkered employment history.
However, I think there’s something good about being spoiled rotten. For one thing, I’m not subject to peer pressure at all. Also, in my case at least, it tends to be a global mindset. I want everyone to do what they want. It’s one of the reasons I’m good at customer service, but would be terrible at sales. I don’t try to convince people to do something, I try to make sure they’re able to do what they want. In fact, I sometimes frustrate the people who sign up for computer classes, because they’ll ask, “what should I take?” Ick! “Should” sounds like an obligation! So I ask them right back, “what do you want to learn?”
My coworker’s actions today puzzled me, because her mind went in a direction mine never would have. My way of working is the patron asks us for something she wants, and we let her know if we can provide that. Yes, we have computer classes. No, you can’t take them right away. End of transaction.
My coworker took extra steps, showing the patron the self-help program and talking her into filling out the registration form anyway. I think the former was a case of trying to make our available services fit the patron’s wants, which was absolutely appropriate. The latter, however, shaded into trying to make the patron settle for what we have. It felt like my coworker was saying, “go ahead and sign up to wait for a few months. You said you didn’t want to, but maybe you didn’t really mean it.” I think that’s wrong. I know what I want. I try to spoil everyone else by assuming they do too.
What did you see today?
1/03/2006
I saw a photograph of my sister's haircut.
Context
My sister is planning to start chemotherapy in a few weeks, so she got her hair cut as a preemptive measure and I just received my first photo of her newly-short 'do. By the way, she donated her hair to Locks of Love.
Commentary
She looks different. She looks older. She looks better. That's kind of weird; we're accustomed to think that in middle age older-looking is never better-looking. It's not true though. She looks like a different, more mature, more relaxed person. Better.
I wonder if some other positive changes will come along with this haircut. It's odd to think that something as nerve-wracking as chemotherapy would actually be the door into a new life, but God has a flair for the odd. Especially the "it looks like a bad thing, but it's actually a good thing" kind of odd. Like Good Friday.
What did you see today?
My sister is planning to start chemotherapy in a few weeks, so she got her hair cut as a preemptive measure and I just received my first photo of her newly-short 'do. By the way, she donated her hair to Locks of Love.
Commentary
She looks different. She looks older. She looks better. That's kind of weird; we're accustomed to think that in middle age older-looking is never better-looking. It's not true though. She looks like a different, more mature, more relaxed person. Better.
I wonder if some other positive changes will come along with this haircut. It's odd to think that something as nerve-wracking as chemotherapy would actually be the door into a new life, but God has a flair for the odd. Especially the "it looks like a bad thing, but it's actually a good thing" kind of odd. Like Good Friday.
What did you see today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)