lost arts?
i was at my family reunion this past weekend and my father brought me a box of newspaper clippings from the early 1900s about my family members. my great grandmother did quilting, and she had put patterns that she had clipped from the newspaper in this box - and additionally, she had put a few stitched quilt pieces in this box too. as the weekend went on, we played white elephant/chinese bingo for 37 family members. the majority of the gifts were handmade. Cross stitching, paintings, quilts, wreathes, etc.
I thought about this: does anyone really do this stuff anymore? I know that Melissa does quilting, and i know a few girls who do scrapbooking, but beyond that i am completely unaware of people practicing hobbies like this.
I’m not sure where i’m going with this, really. i guess it made me think about the fact that i don’t really think some of these arts have been passed down from one generation to the next because we don’t have a need for them. we can easily buy this stuff in any walmart down the street. it sort of makes me sad. i know how to knit, i know how to crochet, i know how to paint, i know how to sew, but i don’t. i don’t because i don’t have to. so as time goes on, are these arts going to be lost arts?
i’ve decided that i want to do these things - they aren’t just necessities, they are creative hobbies. i’m going to pick a project and work on it. something with a final product - not just a goal. i don’t want to lose what i’ve been taught by the women of previous generations of my family.
changes
i know a lot of you know me really well (maybe too well), but i am going to write my first ever personal post so that i can clear my mind and give some insight into where i’m at right now.
i just got out of a 10 month on-and-off relationship. i think for the entirety of the 10 months i wasn’t sure whether i wanted to be in it or not, and i could think of a thousand reasons not to be, and one reason to be… and that one reason was good enough for me.
i guess ultimately things didn’t work out because we were incompatable. completely. and that’s the bottom line. i’m not really bitter and i think i should have seen it coming when i was apprehensive about how different we were from the beginning. don’t get me wrong, i wholeheartedly love him, and i always will. i think he’s got an amazing soul and great intentions that he just doesn’t know how express while not losing his identity (my opinion of course). i don’t think anything bad about him and i’d still beat some ass for his sake if necessary - and i’d stand by his side. i have his back. sometimes things just don’t work out. yes i’m hurt, but no, i don’t think that we could have been together unless a lot of things about both of us changed. and let’s face it, you can’t “love” someone if you’re not willing to love the good and the bad and take them for what they are (heart, soul, mind, and intentions).
we didn’t see eye-to-eye on anything at all, and i don’t think that’s good for a relationship. we also had different opinions on how a relationship should operate. i am at a point in my life where i believe that if a relationship is to have a firm foundation, the word “we” must supercede the word “me,” and that the relationship is a mutual partnership. i want to give AND i want to receive, because what’s the point of trying to make someone feel like the King of the World when he has no desire to make you feel like his Queen? if not, i may as well be pouring all of my emotion into raising a pet, because at least then every effort isnt in vain, at least they’ll put their head on your knee once in a while to show their appreciation.
we never went out. dates don’t matter honestly. all that matters in my book is experiences. i couldn’t tell you what my dates with past boyfriends were like, but i can tell you about jokes and good times and laughter. none of that will ever happen if the scenery never changes and there are no experiences at all. i can’t grow in a relationship or live life to the fullest if i can never take advantage of the opportunities that life throws at me… plus, that’s how you get to know someone. i don’t think my exboyfriend really knew me for anyone but the “me” that was pent up, and that’s unfortunate, because i think he would have really loved me more if he really got to experience things with me. maybe that is one of my biggest regrets in that relationship. not only did i want to give him the world (emotionally, supportively, as a friend, etc.) but i wanted to show it to him too, and experience the rest of it with him. i wish that would have happened.
for a while, i thought that asking for my needs to be met was asking too much, but today i have come to the realization that it isn’t too much, and it should never be. i have always claimed to not need a whole lot, and materialistically i don’t. however, i am now a firm believer that a partner needs to be emotionally generous, not materialistically generous. i’m not talking about love letters and songs and flowers. i’m talking about attention and affection. i want to feel wanted and i want to feel important. hold my hand once in a while. take me out and have fun with me (even if it’s going outside and throwing a football to me for 20 min). i want to feel unconditionally supported. i will never date another man where asking for those things is asking for too much.
some guys have given me TOO much, to the point of making me uncomfortable. they were great guys and probably deserved more from me, but i pushed them away because i don’t want all of that. and then there have been guys who didn’t even come close to giving me what i needed or expected from them, leading to lots of disappointment and therefore probably more attitude than they deserved. either way, too much or too little isn’t good, and i apologize to you guys that have been on either side and seen me run away or be unhappy/frustrated with you. but like my mom said, “when the right guy comes along, he’ll know how to give you exactly what you need and you’ll never have to say a word. he’ll keep enough distance so that you run to him and always keep trying to make him happier, and he’ll give you enough of a pick-me-up that you’ll never want to give him up.” mom is always right it seems.
i am pretty grateful to my ex in a lot of ways because he showed me where i had room to grow and improve. albeit, i didn’t like his delivery method of “constructive” criticism, but even though he wants to be out of my life, he will have a profound positive impact on how i grow. i never truly thought about this or believed it before, but personal growth is a lifelong mission. i’m now convinced that if you are truly 100% happy with who you are as a person and are unwilling to try to work on your shortcomings, you have a very inaccurate self-perception. i hope that even on the day i die, i’m still trying to work at being a better person. it’s exactly like being a Christian - a lifelong journey, which is another GOOD change that i’ve made. i’m growing with that too, and all it took was the first step down the path that i wanted to be on.
these are some of my qualities that are distinctly me that i’d like to change:
i’m long winded (obviously), maybe i should cut to the point. however, i’m long-winded because i like to understand, so i figure everyone else does too. i’m very sensitive and emotional, but i counteract that with a fairly good sense of what is realistic and what is not. but if i feel something is unreasonable then i get extremely thrown off and probably overreact to it a bit. and that leads me right back into being long winded… i’ll talk about it til i understand why i’m so worked up and why it is (or isn’t) a big deal. i show all my cards all the time. i need to take my heart off of my sleeve and have some self control, especially control of my emotions.
these are things that will not change over night, because mainly they define who i am. but the control of these things will make me stronger and will also help me stress out less and like myself better. that’s what matters.
bottom line is that we all have our faults. things don’t work out how we want them to. things fall apart. passion dies. constants disappear. we get hurt. we pick up. we learn. we move on.
i am learning who i am. i’m changing what i can. and i think for as many regrets as i have and as much as i wish things could have worked out with my ex, i think the most valuable thing is that all that can happen now is that i become better than i was.
as for what i want in a man… my uncle phil said that i needed to write it all down. i have a list started. it was started before i even met my ex. and now i have a few more things to add to it. surprisingly, nothing on that list is far-fetched, and i’ve seen all of them exist in other relationships between 2 very happy people. if i keep sticking to my guns, that’ll be me and the man of my dreams someday. And a big thanks to me following @RevRunWisdom on twitter so that i can find a few more to add that i didn’t think of (i hope that made some of you laugh).
victims versus assaulters versus the media
This morning on the radio, I heard Erin Andrews talk about her stalker a little bit. She mentioned that some people said that she “asked for it” by being in the role she is in. if you don’t know how mad that made me, you do not know me at all. If Erin Andrews was asking for it by doing her job, then we’re all asking to be killed in an accident by getting in our cars every day.
I feel badly for her. Sure, some people have harped on the fact that it brought her into the limelight and gave her lots and lots of media attention, but trust me, that is not the type of attention that most professional and self-respecting women want. She’s not happy about it, she didn’t want it, and if anything it was horribly degrading and sickening to her. I cannot imagine how horrifying that had to be for her – on so many levels.
Today, I’m just mad that someone said she asked for it. I’m tired of hearing that sexual assault victims are “asking for it.” My goodness, how naïve do you have to be to make that kind of statement?
Furthermore, professional athletes can and DO sexually assault women. Big Ben, I think you’re a prick. For some reason, the average person believes that a woman who claims to be assaulted by a famous person (Kobe, Ben, etc.) was actually consenting to the act, and then just begged for some media attention. Wrong.
A lot of these men will never fit your idealization of them, nor become the role models we’d love for them to be. And most of these men are not used to hearing the word “no.” In their mind, who wouldn’t want them? The fact of the matter is that not every woman wants to sleep with someone because of their social, economic, political, power, (etc.), status.
True, many of these men who are rich and famous who pursue a woman are not used to hearing “no.” And it doesn’t surprise me at all that something like this would happen…. They don’t believe it themselves that someone said no to THEM. As many of you know, I have outright refused an advance by a professional athlete on numerous occasions. He didn’t want to hear no, and he didn’t believe me when I told him no.
I’m not denying that some women do, in fact, accuse famous men of sexual assault for media attention. It happens, probably a lot. But we absolutely cannot accuse every one of these women of lying. Sadly, because of the attention and subsequent investigations into very personal details of their lives that they do not want exposed, these women drop the charges or settle, which just encourages the behavior even more from the high profile offenders, and gives the media and general public more fuel to the fire that sexual assault victims of famous people are just liars.
Trust me, the women who cry wolf make me just as angry as the assaulters themselves.
Earth to Matilda
Why is everyone so mad about the air traffic controller who let his kid talk to pilots? I understand the importance of the job and how absolutely critical it is to the safety of hundreds (thousands) of people on a daily basis, but how was anything that was done jeopardizing anyone?
The kid cleared a jet for takeoff. Undoubtedly, the child’s father had told him what to say and was sitting there ensuring nothing went wrong. As kids, i’m sure most of us fantasized about being able to do our dream job, and if we were ever given the opportunity, took it extremely seriously, had a great time with it, and felt very accomplished when it was over. I sure did. These kids weren’t running around giving bs transmissions to pilots. Who cares if it is the voice of an ATC veteran, tom brokaw, alvin and the chipmunks, or a kid? As long as the proper information is relayed, that is what matters.
Would this be appropriate if it happened on 9/11? Absolutely not. Was anyone endangered? No. What is the big deal?
I really don’t even understand how anyone could get so upset about this, especially knowing that it was in a very controlled and supervised environment. FCC, NATC, we understand that you’re important, but stop taking yourselves so seriously. It only makes you appear entirely incapable of adapting to anything ever. Maybe if your controllers worked in a less hostile environment, they’d hate their jobs less and stop falling asleep behind the desk….
CNN reports on Social Psychology Quarterly
Here is an article about the most poorly researched and presented study I’ve ever encountered:
(CNN) — Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds.
Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.
The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning — on the order of 6 to 11 points — and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say. But they show how certain patterns of identifying with particular ideologies develop, and how some people’s behaviors come to be.
The reasoning is that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans’ evolutionary past. In other words, none of these traits would have benefited our early human ancestors, but higher intelligence may be associated with them.
“The adoption of some evolutionarily novel ideas makes some sense in terms of moving the species forward,” said George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey, who was not involved in the study. “It also makes perfect sense that more intelligent people — people with, sort of, more intellectual firepower — are likely to be the ones to do that.”
Bailey also said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ. In fact, aligning oneself with “unconventional” philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be “ways to communicate to everyone that you’re pretty smart,” he said.
The study looked at a large sample from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), which began with adolescents in grades 7-12 in the United States during the 1994-95 school year. The participants were interviewed as 18- to 28-year-olds from 2001 to 2002. The study also looked at the General Social Survey, another cross-national data collection source.
Kanazawa did not find that higher or lower intelligence predicted sexual exclusivity in women. This makes sense, because having one partner has always been advantageous to women, even thousands of years ago, meaning exclusivity is not a “new” preference.
For men, on the other hand, sexual exclusivity goes against the grain evolutionarily. With a goal of spreading genes, early men had multiple mates. Since women had to spend nine months being pregnant, and additional years caring for very young children, it made sense for them to want a steady mate to provide them resources.
Religion, the current theory goes, did not help people survive or reproduce necessarily, but goes along the lines of helping people to be paranoid, Kanazawa said. Assuming that, for example, a noise in the distance is a signal of a threat helped early humans to prepare in case of danger.
“It helps life to be paranoid, and because humans are paranoid, they become more religious, and they see the hands of God everywhere,” Kanazawa said.
Participants who said they were atheists had an average IQ of 103 in adolescence, while adults who said they were religious averaged 97, the study found. Atheism “allows someone to move forward and speculate on life without any concern for the dogmatic structure of a religion,” Bailey said.
“Historically, anything that’s new and different can be seen as a threat in terms of the religious beliefs; almost all religious systems are about permanence,” he noted.
The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines “liberal” in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people. It does not look at other factors that play into American political beliefs, such as abortion, gun control and gay rights.
“Liberals are more likely to be concerned about total strangers; conservatives are likely to be concerned with people they associate with,” he said.
Given that human ancestors had a keen interest in the survival of their offspring and nearest kin, the conservative approach — looking out for the people around you first — fits with the evolutionary picture more than liberalism, Kanazawa said. “It’s unnatural for humans to be concerned about total strangers.” he said.
The study found that young adults who said they were “very conservative” had an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas those who said they were “very liberal” averaged 106.
It also makes sense that “conservatism” as a worldview of keeping things stable would be a safer approach than venturing toward the unfamiliar, Bailey said.
Neither Bailey nor Kanazawa identify themselves as liberal; Bailey is conservative and Kanazawa is “a strong libertarian.”
Vegetarianism, while not strongly associated with IQ in this study, has been shown to be related to intelligence in previous research, Kanazawa said. This also fits into Bailey’s idea that unconventional preferences appeal to people with higher intelligence, and can also be a means of showing superiority.
None of this means that the human species is evolving toward a future where these traits are the default, Kanazawa said.
“More intelligent people don’t have more children, so moving away from the trajectory is not going to happen,” he said.
Did either of these researchers ever take a statistics class? No, I didn’t read the whole study or analyze their data (it’d be a waste of time because I can make the same data set give different results), but I’m fairly certain they never really understood how to do correlation factors to begin with. The first rule of statistical analysis is that you can make statistics say whatever you want them to.
I’m not about to propose that liberals are not intelligent regardless of how much I disagree with them.
There are a few vital flaws in this study. Firstly, many young adults consider themselves liberal, especially in their early to mid 20s due to life experience. Honestly, I’d consider my political views during college as quite liberal. Now, I’m quite conservative. Does it make my IQ any relevant? No. It makes my life experience relevant.
Secondly, personality traits have been aligned with certain evolutionary traits in tons of studies. I’m ok with that. However, the presence of personality traits in people (such as pride (national)) align with the evolutionary trait such as behavior in a group or pack. Those who show strong allegiance to the pack showed stronger national pride - conservatives. Those who displayed more individualism and less of a pack mentality were considered to align with others with liberal views. Personality traits (and therefore political views) align with intrinsic evolutionary behavior, not with IQ.
Thirdly, IQ and sexuality are not related. Period. Monogamy/fidelity is aligned with the balance of human nature and morality. You can be smart and immoral. You can be dumb as a doornail and moral. No correlation. As for men with higher IQs being more monogamous - that is also total crap. I had a lot of trouble with the claim that monogamy had not changed for evolved (higher IQ) women. Women don’t have a need for a single partner. Women today have the same needs as always, and nowadays it is manifested in financial support which laws have so nicely provided regardless of the presence of a male. I’m really confused by this sexuality claim. It holds no water.
If fighting against instict makes you “liberal” then anyone who is claiming to be religious is going to fall into that category. Whereas claiming to believe in God may be “safe” according to this article, it is also not popular. So where is the rebellion there?
I think a little more research is going to show that IQ has nothing to do with political alignment. Like i said, you can make statistics say whatever you want. Too bad that kind of stuff had to be published… because now we have to listen to more crap about how the democrats may actually know what they’re doing, because someone thinks that science (and math) says they’re smarter.
Gag me.
Failing Grades
Budget cuts, tuition hikes, “no child left behind.” All of these things are helping us make the American education system into yet another failure.
Firstly, I feel badly for teachers. American children are required to be in school whether they want to be or not. Teachers are required to attempt to teach them. Subsequently, the government is blaming teachers for “failing” by judging their students’ performance. I don’t care if you have a teacher who is the perfect blend of Einstein and Mister Rogers - if a kid doesn’t want to learn, he’s not going to. There’s no need to explain this any futher; we can even look at our politicians and see how even a perfect explanation with sound logic and pure intent can fall on deaf ears. How many times have we told our politicians that this is case? And how many times have they failed to listen, acknowledge, and take action?
The longer I sit here and write this stream of conscious, the more i realize that what this all boils down to is quite possibly the fact that people refuse to be accountable, and when they are held accountable and are displeased with the outcome, they place blame.
It’s the kids’ fault. But no one wants to blame the angelic innocent child (or their parents). So there are no repercussions for the actions of the child: failure is not an option. Even if a child is a “failure,” we’ve made it so that it isn’t their fault - it’s their teacher’s fault. Teachers cannot make kids care. Instead of making students (and/or parents) accountable, we are making teachers accountable for the failures of others. Ridiculous.
Secondly, I do not believe that everyone should go to college. The recent global economic crisis should be another clear example of this rationale. Countless college graudates sat idly unemployed for months - even years - with degrees that did not fulfill a business or economic need. The perception that a college degree is necessary for success is one of the most untrue statements that have ever been made. People who were meant to be great will rise to the top and will find ways to take advantage of any beneficial resource, but a “beneficial resource” is not necessarily a formal education. It may be anything from hands-on experience, to military/police training, to vocational school, to daily activities… and beyond. Unfortuantely (and fortunately for some), the only thing that many college degrees prove is that an individual is willing to enroll in something beyond a requirement and to complete that undertaking. But in my eyes, a meaningless American history (i’m just picking on history - it’s nothing personal) degree to a person working as an “administrative assistant” is an enormous waste of time and money. Investment versus return… is your ROI what you had expected? Probably not for most people. And the worst part is the sense of entitlement that many people feel because they have that degree. “I have a college degree, so I should have a job.” No, not necessarily. And now, because nearly everyone has a college degree, those who actually are meant to rise to the top oftentimes have to jump through a few more hoops such as an extra degree (that they may not actually need because they already know the concepts in both theory and practice due to experience), or a few more training classes (that are unnecessary but they need that completion certificate). That is quite unfortunate for our society as a whole. A sense of entitlement is making everyone lazy.
Success is not contingent upon the actions of others. It is the sole responsibility of the person who desires to be successful. Because no one who makes decisions regarding education (or the future of education) realizes this, we are failing, and will continue to do so.
Irresponsible? That’s Fine!
This riled me up today: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/22/children.choking/index.html?hpt=C1
Mark today on your calendar: we are officially one step closer to being completely unaccountable for every single one of our actions. As I shared this link with a few of my friends, the first remark was something along the lines of “of course you can choke if you eat - everyone knows that!” Obviously. And although I think it is asinine to even have to tell that to someone, that is not what frustrates me either.
Requiring a food producer/manufacturer to put a warning label on food immediately makes the manufacturer liable. If your kid eats a Nathan’s hot dog and chokes on this hot dog, sure, you should have known it was a very feasible and tragic turn of events - logic tells you that. But what lies deeper is that Nathan’s had to tell you that. And if your child chokes and Nathan’s didn’t tell you, that’s their fault for not telling you something you should have already known. You can sue. We are taking away accountablity and handing out liability.
The fact of the matter is that coffee is hot, food can make you choke, you can get hurt in a car accident, your electrical outlet can shock you, if you drop something heavy on your foot, you might break your foot. However, in America, if no one told you, and you learned that lesson the hard way, you can place the blame on someone other than your own moronic self.
Requiring food to have warning labels is new fodder for lawyers. I’m sure they are drooling over this.
All of this unaccountability drives me crazy. I wish we could just go back to “survival of the fittest.” Turns out sometimes doing something really dumb and blaming someone else can really play in your favor - because laws are so skewed and this society refuses to use logic. What a bitch slap to Darwin… and unfortunately the rest of us as our costs for literally everything goes up. Don’t get me wrong - I understand the importance of safety and being aware when something is not safe and it is not obvious.
But come on… take some responsibility. Think! Don’t let your kid run down the hall with a pen in its mouth! Don’t put your coffee in between your legs when you’re driving. Don’t put the bag that your xbox live headset came in over your head! I think it is sad that manufacturers, companies, and designers now have to constantly consider people’s incompetence.
addicted to facebook
one time on facebook (heh), i was “married.” someone who was my “friend” on facebook called my dad and asked him when i got married. my dad called me and asked me when i got married. i immediately retorted with “of all people, when were YOU the one to believe everything on the internet?”
i’ve noticed this unbelievable dependence on facebook by people that i know. some people update their status every 15 minutes (which for some reason i can’t stop reading whether i care what they’re doing or not), and some hardly go near it for fear of information release. job recruiters lurk online and scout out their prospective employees, and we all have checked to see what the hot guy in high school is up to now.
this is complete and utter crap in my opinion. there have been countless articles written about how our dependence on social networking is actually making us less social. but when it all boils down to it, it makes us less personable and more picky. i work with this girl who is the sweetest thing ever. i’d love to be better friends with her and i think she deserves the absolute best of men. two other coworkers and myself are on a hunt to find a suitable man for her, and (guilty as charged) we turned to our friends list on facebook. we’re reliant on it! we’re dependent on it! why!? (what i should have done was gone through my phone because i only keep people in my phone that i will call at any given moment for anything, or whose numbers i need to know so that i can screen the call.) my “friends” on facebook are hardly that. i have 478 facebook friends. what the heck is up with that?
everyone has facebook!
alright, i am calling myself out in an attempt to explain the addiction. right now. i do not have 478 friends. at least not 478 real, true friends. i probably have 3. maybe 4 if i catch someone on a good day. so what the heck am i doing? in fact, i find myself annoyed when i have some of their crap pop up on my home screen.
a few years ago, benjamin and i would have a little competition to see who could cut down their facebook friend list to the fewest amount of people without lying or diminishing a friendship. we called it “the cut.” i think benjamin got down to 22, and i could only narrow it down to 31. but… i just said 3 to 4 true friends, right? i guess the point is that you’re either socially networking or you’re not, and going out of my way to say “here are my real friends” is not the way to do such a thing.
maybe i have 478 people because some of them want to keep tabs on me or see what i’ve been up to, otherwise they would have deleted me, right? maybe some of them want to look at my AWESOME (cough cough) pictures. surely some of them want to see who i’m dating now. some of them want to know where i live, or where i’m working. and maybe i want them to see this so that i have some sentiments of self-worth. having people interested in me definitely is appealing whether i want to admit it or not. i (and probably lots of people) like to be liked. so maybe facebook is my way of doing that. if i have 478 “friends” maybe that means that 478 people give a crap about what i’m doing… and that makes me feel wonderful.
too bad the truth is that only 3 or 4 of them care enough to keep up with it on a regular basis.
and i’m not saying that i’m free of this either. clearly i have friended people for the same reason. vicious cycle, i’d say. so is it social networking, or is it another way to give us little confidence boosts and a sense of importance?
i think i almost just convinced myself to delete my account…. but not quite. i’m still addicted to facebook, whether for its entertainment value or for my fix of self-esteem.
the inability to speak proper english
i feel the need to first mention that i am no linguist, and that i certainly do not have the largest vocabulary or greatest grammar in the world. regardless, there are a few words and phrases that literally make my skin crawl when i hear someone say them. in fact, i lose a bit of respect for the person uttering them. i once had a conversation with my father in which i asked him if it were shallow that i was about to stop seeing a man because of how inarticulate he was and the fact that a second grader could compose a more eloquent email. (literally, words were severely misspelled to the point that they were unrecognizable, sentences were missing verbs… the list goes on. example “how doing tody?” interpretation: “how are you doing today?”) dad said that it was not shallow because i valued educated men and found education, wit, sarcasm, and knowledgeable humor to be attractive traits. therefore, i feel entirely justified in my gripe because dad said it was ok.
i was interviewed one time by a man who used the following words over and over again. i was unable to concentrate on the interview because of my intense focus on the incorrect pronunciation.
“supposebly” (supposedly)
“expecially” (especially)
“excape” (escape)
“nucular” (nuclear)
“upmost” (utmost)
“excetera” (et cetera)
am i the only one who has an issue with this? does anyone else have this complete lack of respect for people who cannot formulate a sentence properly, or mispronounce common words on a regular basis? i was told a story about a guy who applied for a refrigeration technician job, and although the man was the most qualified for the position based on experience, the employer refused to hire him for one reason. When the prospective technician submitted his resume, the receptionist asked him to write the position he sought in the top margin so that she could direct it to the correct manager. He hastily scribbled “r-e-f-r-i-d-g-e-r-a-t-i-o-n t-e-c-h-n-i-c-i-a-n” above his name and handed it to her. He heard nothing back from the company for weeks and was completely puzzled since he knew his resume was extremely strong. The secretary passed him to the hiring manager who said one thing only to him: “I will never hire someone who cannot spell the name of the position they desire.”
again, let me reiterate that i do not claim to have the most amazing grammar, spelling, or pronunciation. in fact, it is probably lacking a bit. but please please please… pronounce the easy words correctly! it’ll make me feel so much better! and will likely make me respect you much more than the die-hard Napoleon Dynamite fans.
the new and improved airline ticketing policy
benjamin and i tend to entertain ourselves throughout the day with random banter, and recently he sent me the following article:
OTTAWA (Reuters) - Obese people have the right to two seats for the price of one on flights within Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Thursday.
The high court declined to hear an appeal by Canadian airlines of a decision by the Canadian Transportation Agency that people who are “functionally disabled by obesity” deserve to have two seats for one fare.
The airlines had lost an appeal at the Federal Court of Appeal in May and had sought to launch a fresh appeal at the Supreme Court. The court’s decision not to hear a new appeal means the one-person-one-fare policy stands.
The appeal had been launched by Air Canada, Air Canada Jazz and WestJet.
(Reporting by Randall Palmer)
how is this even remotely fair? i am being punished for the “disability” of those who are unwilling to change the physical condition in which they have been living? - ultimately by paying higher prices for my own plane tickets. i have a very very huge problem with obesity because a healthy lifestyle is a choice, and whereas obesity is certainly a genetic trait, the sedentary lifestyle is not. i have an even bigger problem with paying more. i have always been an advocate of the pay-per-pound airline tickets. trust me, i will GLADLY step on a scale and take advantage of the fact that i am the size of an average 12 year-old girl and shell out a little bit less money.
benjamin, however, gave the ultimate solution to this problem and has figured out how to price tickets. i suggest he submit it to delta:
There is a baseline there for which the airline must account. If the total cost of flying an empty plane from point A to point B is X, and flying a full plane (with average weight for passengers and baggage) is Y, then you would have to charge a base of X/C, with C being the capacity (in no. of seats), plus a weight based charge of WI(Y-X)/C, with WI being a weight index of your weight (plus baggage) over the average weight. Total cost of a flight is [X+WI(Y-X)]/C
pretty good, huh!?
on a somewhat related note, my father and i have been having dialogues about the comments we receive about our physical appearances. dad is 5′7″ and about 130 on a heavy day (mom is 5′3″ 100), so you can see where i get my tremendous size. regardless, people are always telling both of us that we need to eat more, or that we look unhealthy. for those of you who know me and have seen me with less-than-conservative clothing on, would you consider me too small? dad can lift a ridiculous amount, runs more (and faster) than i do, and has a fabulous diet (diet does not mean less food, it means better dietary choices). i have an appointment with a nutritionist on 12/6 so that i can work on losing some of the “extra fat” that my nutritionist says that i am storing. to be honest, i’m pretty stoked. i’m working on that jessica biel/evangeline lilly body. oh, it’s gonna get here. just in time for bikini season and my 25th birthday cruise.
Jessica Biel
i love how in the movie wall-E, all of the humans have robots and machines doing everything for them to the point that they cannot think for themselves and are entirely overweight. i honestly think that we are well on our way to that point. it is just a shame that nature’s rules of survival of the fittest does not seem to apply anymore. sigh.