My personal work-life balance

As much as I may grumble about it, personally, I feel I have a pretty good work-life balance (WLB). Yeah, I'd love more vacation time, but, really, who wouldn't? That said, I have to work to get it. There will always be a pressure to do more: from work, from home, from your own ideas of personal growth. You have to (to a point) go after the balance on your own.

In a previous job, not so long ago, I was issued a Blackberry. At the time, I thought it was a good thing. I thought that I had hit a certain status. I didn't have any direct reports, but I liked the idea that I was important enough that I could be reached if they absolutely needed me. (I know, ego is an amazing thing.) The truth was, it messed with my own WLB. Was I at the Air and Space Museum on a Saturday checking my email? Yes, I was that jerk. The Blackberry kind of obsessed me. "I'm just checking!" became a regular statement.

Yes, I know that was on me, but if it's there, I'll check. That's my head. When I took this new job, I was offered a Blackberry and I refused it. As long as I don't have direct reports, I can think of no medical writing emergency. Whatever goes down can wait until I come into work the next morning. I have learned to say "no" every so often. I have to allow myself to ask for flexibility.

I think that some people get away from WLB because of ego. There is a feeling that if they don't do it themselves -- and quickly -- somehow the company will crumble around them. That's not to say it's not important to hit deadlines, etc. But when your coworkers can compare which teeth have been broken off due to grinding while sleeping (true story, by the way), maybe it's time to take a hard look at what you're doing to achieve balance. The company will somehow be able to push on if you don't respond to that email at midnight.

There are people out there who do want work to be the center of their lives. I get that. But if you need better balance, you have to work to get it. It's not always handed to you. It's scary to tell your boss that you need more time. Sometimes your boss will say no. You might even have to change jobs. But if it's what you need, you have to try.

Work policies

Hey, look! It's Part Two of my Work-Life Balance rant!

When committee such as this WLB group are formed, it's always an odd thing. The group was formed because some upper-management type has decided, based on this survey, that this is An Issue! Of course, upper management type doesn't actually have the time to be on a silly committee like this, so he appoints a leader gathers a few minions (I am a minion). You now have a group of about 10 people, all wanting different outcomes.

I would like to state for the record that this group has some really smart folks on board. There have been some spot-on statements and observations. The problem is that we don't actually have any power. We don't set policies and most of us aren't even managers. And our policies: oh my! One of the first tasks we did as a group was evaluate the WLB policies and they are a piece of work.

The first question is: What, exactly, is a WLB policy? My company has decided that WLB policies primarily deal with time off (okay) and gym memberships (not so much). HR gathered all the WLB policies and sent them out to the group. There is a total of 14. I found that two of them were no longer applicable (one was about a bonus day off we got last year and one was for a Sprint discount that expired. In 2008.) There were three about specific gym memberships, and the rest were about things like sick time, paternity leave, etc.

The HR rep shows up to these meetings and assures us that there is flexibility within the policies. Really? The sick leave policy is so specific, it reads almost like a joke. If you are sick, you need to call in and talk to your supervisor within 30 minutes of the start of the day (no, that's not exactly defined. The start of your day or your supervisor's? It's not clear, but it is 30 minutes, dammit!) No, you can't email and you can't leave a message. No, you can't have someone else call for you. This is spelled out very clearly in the policy. Technically, if you email your boss that you've been throwing up all night and won't be in, not only are you breaking the policy, but if your boss accepts this, s/he is also ignoring policy. And HR sort of stating that they can be flexible at some small group meeting doesn't exactly erase this.

Another thing: how is a gym membership WLB? It's a health benefit, sure. But the issue I have is that it is a membership to a specific gym. I applaud any company to acknowledges that people want to do more than work. But shouldn't they be funding everyone's hobbies? If you are demanding that people get in shape, then they should be paying for at-home exercise equipment, new tennis shoes, Weight Watcher's membership, any of that. It's not like they keep track of your visits to the gym. Not only that, you have to join certain gyms. If you have a gym a block away from you and it isn't in our policy, too bad. You have to pay for it on your own. So much for flexibility.

I suppose the good news is that there is so far to go here, it should be easy. I just hope that we're allowed to do something. That this committee isn't just for show.

Work-Life Balance

This will be the first in a series of posts, just as a warning to those of you expecting the usual stuff about "American Idol."

I have recently joined/been recruited to be part of a work-life balance (WLB) group. Here's what happened: they did some surveys at my place of work and the one thing that came back is that our WLB is not good. I don't think my place of work is that unusual in that most of us think we're overworked and want more time for our lives. And, as all typical corporate-type places like to do, they formed committees, and I got to be a part of one.

The first thing that's obvious about WLB is that everyone has different needs and wants. This makes companies crazy because what they want most of all is for us to all want the exact same thing. They want the easy fix. "Free soup on Tuesday!" "Yay!" The good news is that when you boil it down, most workers want more time off, a better working environment, more flexibility, and less work. The bad news is that companies don't really want to give that to them.

Being on this committee has gotten me to think about what I want. How would I get more balance? How much time off is reasonable; how much time off is crossing into slacker territory? Free coffee is nice, but should I get snotty if it's not Starbucks? What kind of perks help my WLB and which ones are just kind of nice?

If you ran a company, what would you do to give your employees WLB? Should this even be a question? Maybe it's better for a company to just lay down the law and say "suck it" to their employees. As long as people are still looking for jobs, maybe that's the better strategy.

Mother, may I?

Let's pretend you meet someone: maybe at a party, maybe at work. Let's say you start talking about this and that, and you find out they didn't go to college. Would you start saying things like "Why wouldn't you go to college? You seem smart enough?" Would you wonder about their financial situation or if they could cut it. Perhaps you might think some of these things, but you wouldn't say them out loud. You wouldn't be that rude. If later in the conversation, they commented on something, you wouldn't dismiss them with a "oh, you've never been to college; you wouldn't understand." And yet, people feel they can act this way towards people who haven't been parents.

For some reason, plenty of folks think that commenting on someone's status as a parent is fair game. I take that back: commenting about the fact that someone isn't a a parent is fair game. You'd never say to someone, "You're a parent? Good Lord, that must be some sort of train wreck!" And the assumption seems to be that everyone who chooses to be a parent must be amazing at it, and, frankly, I can't think of anything that everyone is good at.

The decision to be (or not be) a parent is a biggie. There's a lot of factors that go into it. Sometimes these factors are out of your control. I had a friend (yes, really; this is not me, so no sympathetic, off-to-the-side emails are needed) who was trying to have a child for years: lots of IVF and other treatments. It was really tough for her and she was pretty private about it. And yet, I saw coworkers go up to her and just flat out ask her when she was going to start having kids. "Oh, you'd be such a great mother!" And, unless she wanted to tell them about the pain she was going through (emotional and physical), she had to just fake smile and sort of shrug off the question.

There are hundreds of reasons someone might choose to not be a parent, many of them private. Maybe you can't afford it, maybe your partner has a secret drinking problem, maybe you think you might not be good at it. Maybe, like my friend, you are trying but not succeeding. Maybe it's just not your thing. Whatever the reason, it's most likely not something you want to talk about over the water cooler at work in front of semi-strangers. And saying things like, "I don't know what people like you do on Mother's Day" probably isn't helping.

I know that you're just making conversation or being friendly. You don't mean anything nasty by asking these questions. But before you comment on someone's status as a parent, ask yourself if you have a couple of decisions you've made in your life where you'd like to keep the reasons behind that choice private.

Sunrise

This morning when I woke up, the room was filled with orange light. Yesterday, it was a lovely shade of pink. And I thought about how much I love the sunrise.

I am an early girl, one of the dreaded morning people. I feel in the groove at about 7:30 a.m. and I'm crashing by 4-ish. I'm the perky girl at the coffee machine, already trying to have an actual conversation. (Dear world: sorry about that.) Because I like mornings, I do end up seeing the sunrise more often than not.

I'm like a little kid, running out to see it. Even though I've seen so many, I am still awed by the beauty of a sunrise. Yes, a sunset can be lovely, but there is something about the start of the day. A new day making its way into the world. Maybe it's a cliche, but when I see a sunrise, I think of all the potential magic that could happen that day.

I am such a dork, that sometimes when I look at the sunrise, I actually say, "Wow!" Out loud. I will just stop in my tracks and look at the sky. Isn't it amazing to live in a world where something so beautiful can happen every day? Yeah, I know: wow!

Working with my hands

Today I put together five bookcases. It was nothing too difficult; these were bookcases from Ikea, meant to be built fairly easily. I had to pound nails and move heavy boards around and screw things together. I'm sore and I'm sure my back will be screaming tomorrow, but I kind of love doing things like this. I don't often have days where I'm just physically working.

I've put together a bunch of things over these years. I almost always have at least one screw-up. It's usually a board put in the wrong way: I pull the whole thing together and there's a strip of pressboard showing. It's usually no big deal and wouldn't be worth the time to take apart and fix.

These bookcases don't have any obvious problems. Well, the first one I put together had a shelf with the wrong side exposed; luckily it was fairly easy to fix. One of the reasons I finished all the bookcases today is that I was feeling the pattern of putting them together: after the first one, the rest went together a bit easier.

A physical day means not so many deep thoughts. But it feels good to see what you did all day.

A love letter

Dear S,

I know we've been together for a while and I don't appreciate you the way I should. In fact, just yesterday, I forgot you completely. But somehow, my body knew. I could feel it; I just didn't feel right about myself. My stomach was upset, I had no energy. And yet, I dismissed that it was you. I blamed other things, I made excuses. But it was you all along.

Oh, Synthroid, you amaze me. So little, so subtle, but you change me completely. Yesterday I forgot to take you and I was tired and cranky (well, moreso than usual) and my tummy hurt. And then I remembered my forgotten friend. One small dose and within the hour, I was a new person. My head was clearer, my stomach was settled, I actually had some energy.

I know I shouldn't be writing a letter to a drug. It seems somehow trivial or dependent. And yet, I simply can't help it.

I promise to be true. I will stay loyal. Thank you for making me feel complete again. Synthroid, we are made to be together.

Love always,

The inevitable American Idol posting

Can we please set aside the idea that the kids on "American Idol" actually chose their songs? I've mentioned this earlier, but last night's show sort of proved it. There is no way they picked their own songs.

Let's talk about Haley's choice of "You and I" by Lady Gaga. You know it -- oh, wait, it's unreleased! How could anyone know it? And why would Haley ever pick it? If I'm looking to reach out to America and get votes, I'm not going to find a song that no one knows. And how does she even know that song unless it was handed to her by the producers? Was it just kicking around Haley's ipod? I don't have an issue with Iovine handing her a song, but let's not blame Haley for song choice, J-Lo.

The other piece of evidence is Jacob's choice of "Love Hurts." Did you see the exchange?
Iovine: You should totally do "Love Hurts"!
Lusk: I am not a heavy-metal guy.
Iovine: No, no, like Gram Parsons!
Sheryl Crow sings very pretty.
Lusk: Okee-dokee, although that's absolutely nothing like the way I sing.

Lusk obviously had no interest in the song, but it was given to him anyway. Sure, he messed it up, but I wonder how he would have done if he had a song he actually liked.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the producers picking songs, especially for the less-seasoned contestants. I get the feeling that Scotty and Lauren might have run out of their own choices around Week 3. ("No, Lauren, you can't do another Miley song.") They're young, and they need direction. But come clean. In fact, it might be interesting to explain why a particular song was picked and how they want to see these kids develop as artists. Let's not pretend some 16-year-old found some deep cut on an Elton John album that was recorded about 20 years before he was born.

The next book

I am between books and ready to pick the next one. It shouldn't be that difficult. But I am overwhelmed at all the possiblities. There is so much out there, too many choices. In this lovely piece by Linda Holmes, you can't help but realize that you're never going to come close to reading all the books you want to read (go here for details: Too many books!) And do I want to waste my time on a book that is just "meh"?

The wonderful, terrible thing about books is that you can't know until you read it. You can listen to critics, read reviews, look at best-of lists, but until you pick it up and read it, you just can't know. There are some books that grab me and sweep me away with their beauty. I don't want them to end but I can't help but read them as fast as I can to see what comes next. These books inspire and intimidate me. I'd love to write something that touches another person so deeply, but I fear that I don't have that talent or ability quite yet. Books like this are never a waste of time. I want every book to be like this. Unfortunately, this is often not the case.

I read "Catch-22" with all these hopes of greatness: after all, it's on all these "Best Books Ev-ah!" lists. I couldn't hate that book more than I do. I hated it so much that when I finished, I was afraid that I no longer liked reading. I though that, like eating too much dessert of some kind, it was too much, that I was finally sick of it. Sure, I had been reading stacks of books since I was six or so, but this was it. I had hit the wall. I kept thinking it might get better. Surely there was something that made it a great novel. But I never found it.

I usually gut books out until the end. I try to have a 100-page rule, but if I get that far, I can often see the halfway point, and then it should be downhill, so I'll make it to the end. I find myself resenting that book even more ("The Finkler Question": I'm looking at you, but that's for another post). But I want them all to have a level of beauty and/or plot and/or interesting characters. I want them all to be worth the time.

I look at my shelves of unread books. Which one do I choose? Which one will make my heart sing?

The Future!

The other day, I was talking to a friend and we mentioned a song as part of the conversation. After the call, I went to my desk and sent her a picture of that song playing on my ipod. Ha, ha, right? (I am hilarious!) But then I realized, this was The Future! In that short bit of time, I did a bunch of stuff that would have been unthinkable when I was in high school.

The friend I was chatting with was in New Jersey. Long distance! Precious, expensive long distance! Surely you weren't going to be calling long distance just to chat about Paul Simon. Then I went to my desk, not home to sort through a stack of albums or cds, and on this box about the size of a cigarette pack, I could pull up a song (out of over 8000! 8000 songs in this one little box! Holy cow!) Then I took my phone (not much bigger than that box of songs over there) and took a picture of the song playing! This would have blown my high school mind on a few levels:
* That music box is actually telling me what song is playing. From what album and by which artist! I don't have to listen for a while, trying to name that tune. How does it know?
* The phone has no cord. And isn't the size and weight of a brick.
* There is a camera in the phone. A camera mixed with a phone! What kind of craziness is this?

Let's talk about picture taking for a minute. Remember when you had to have film? And it was so expensive! You saved those 24 shots on that roll of film for really important stuff. And you had to use up the whole roll before you dropped it off to get developed (another expense) and wait at least a few days (overnight film development? Who am I? Rockefeller?!) Then you'd get the pictures back, hoping that you got a decent shot. Then, if you wanted to send a picture, you either had to give up the one print you have or pay for a print to be made (another expense and wait). Then you have to send it in the mail to the lucky recipient (who has, no doubt, forgotten that earlier conversation), who would look at the picture and wonder what you were wasting film on. At least postage was cheaper.

Do you realize how almost magical it is to snap a picture with a phone and send it to someone else's phone? To have thousands of songs at your fingertips? To be able to call your friend in New Jersey and not worry about how much it'll cost? It's not the future I imagined as a kid, but it's pretty incredible. And, frankly, I'd rather have the ability to carry around thousands of songs or call a friend where ever she may be, than have a jet pack.

You can try to hold the breeze

I slept through the president telling us that bin Ladnn was killed, having gone to bed before the press conference announcement interrupted my viewing of "The Apprentice" documentaries about very intelligent things. I woke to news of a man's death and celebrations of this killing.

I am not saying that he wasn't evil and that he didn't do a lot of really bad things. No, I don't know of an acceptable alternative punishment. And I do hope that there is a sense of some closure for all of his victims and people affected by his attacks. I just find something distasteful about celebrating anyone's death.

I understand feelings of relief or revenge-completed. But celebrating a death, to me, is crossing a line, no matter who the death is. It takes away from our humanity a bit. There's just something gross about choosing to celebrate the end of anyone's existence. It starts to let you draw a circle around the deaths you can celebrate. Did they kill 100 people? Did they kill 10? Did they cut you off in traffic? Were they just kind of annoying? I know that's an extreme, but I don't want to start making those judgments.

I applaud that it's been done. I hope that, as a nation, we can start moving forward and start fixing other things that are broken. But I will not celebrate that someone has died, no matter the person.

Math problems

Today I cleaned my closet. I may have a few pairs of shoes. And by "may", I mean I do and by "a few", I mean more than 50. It's a little embarrassing. If you know me, you know I'm not exactly fashion-forward. I hate the mall and I'm a big fan of comfort. As I try to decide if I should keep the plaid heels or pink slides, I wonder: how did I end up with so damn many shoes?

It's simple math. I have been roughly the same shoe size for over 25 years. Let's say at a minimum, I buy five pairs a year (two pairs for each season and an impulse pair), that's at least 125 pairs. And, let's be honest, ladies, five pairs is definitely the low end. Even when I'm trying to be good, I just need that next pair.

The thing is, there are so many kinds of shoes to have. Heels, flats, casual shoes, boots, sneakers. And they come in different colors! And different styles! I probably have about 20 pairs of shoes that are black: flats, boots, pointy, kitten heels, sweater boots (yeah, there is such a thing), wintery casual things, sandals, pumps...well, you get the idea. And that's just black shoes. Do I need red boots? No, of course not. But I've got some. And red heels and sneakers and flats...

I love that I've stayed the same size for so many years. The downside is that unless they wear out or are terribly uncomfortable or unfashionable, there's no reason to get rid of them, until I run out of space. Do I wear the brown slides with the animal print very often? Not really. But why would I get rid of them? they're surprisingly comfortable and if I need brown, fun shoes (it happens), I'm good to go. They might need a bit of dusting, but I'm ready to roll.

And then there's the pairs that have been barely worn that I tell myself that I could make work. I know if I could stand a day or two in those shoes, they might loosen up, and they would be in the rotation. I also have the shoes that are supposedly made for walking or comfort that I'm sort  of afraid to wear on any serious walk because they feel a little "rubby" and I've had those blisters before. But if I could get past that rub and fix it...

Most boys don't get it. They have it easy: one pair of work-ish/casual shoes, one pair of sneakers, and a pair of dress shoes in the closet for the three times a year they might have to wear a suit. There are times I'm jealous of that. Then I pull out my floral flats and giggle in delight.

Today the closet is cleaner and I have gotten rid of a few pairs (the pink slides didn't make the cut this time), but most of them, I couldn't bear to let free. I swear, the red patent-leather flats would be amazing if I could just loosen the back a bit.

May Day!

Sometimes I like to give myself little challenges. I have decided to post every day in May. It'll be good for me to get into the habit again. These might not be the deepest posts but my goal is to give you something to read everyday. At least a couple of paragraphs.

So watch this space in May. And bring your friends!

Oh, Pia: American Idol, Part 3

The results show has lead to the dismissal of Pia and weren't we all so shocked? Outrage! Unfair! J-Lo weeping openly! How could this happen? Oh, please, if it wasn't for Lusk lecturing America, how was anyone surprised? (I really did think he was going home, even though he is one of the better performers.)

Despite the hollering and cussing, the judges have no one to blame but themselves, and not because they've already used their save for the year. Everybody is not awesome every week. I know that two of the judges are new, so maybe they need to explain to J-Lo and Steven that every week, someone is going to go home. And if all you give us is, "Baby, you know I love you and, once again, you were amazing," or "Be-bop-a-lu-la, I'm shaking a tree!" we're going to vote for our already established favorites and Casey (because we don't want that to happen again.) I'm not saying you have to tear these kids apart or pit them against each other, but Randy hasn't even used the word "pitchy" in weeks and I just find that hard to believe. Start judging!

Pia may have been one of the best singers this year, but she wasn't the best performer. She was pretty but forgettable. Another one of those female belters which "American Idol" usually loves, but she went away from her strength this week. I believe that if Pia had sung either song she sang the night of the elimination ("I Love Rock n' Roll" or "I'll Stand by You"), she would have made it through. I love "River Deep, Mountain Wide," but it wasn't Pia. Pia needs to belt. it. out. Before she sang a note this week, I said, "Pia's in trouble."

I always wonder how much control the kids have in their song choice. This week was the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. That's a gazillion possibilities! And these were the songs they picked? I imagine song choice often goes like this:
Producers: You can pick any song from the whole catalog of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame!
AI Kid: Wow! Look at all these choices! I'd like to sing "XXXX"!
Producers: Hold on there! We made you a list of three songs.
AI Kid: Um, okay. I pick that one.
Producers: Not that one.
AI Kid: That one?
Producers: Good choice!
(Later that week the judges will tell the kid he made a poor song choice. The kid will have to smile anyway.)

I'll bet the producers thought it would be a good week for Pia to "mix it up." That was not the right thing. Pia wasn't established enough to have an off week. And I don't know what she did to Gwen Stefani to make her dress her the way she did. It was not pretty. Let's sum up: a kind of boring girl best known for Whitney-type ballads performs an up-tempo, wall of sound number dressed like a train wreck and trying to work the stage (even Jennifer made a point of telling her she needs to learn how to move.) And why were we surprised she didn't make it through?

Ryan needs to force the judges a bit. Give us a couple of minutes at the end for each judge to comment on the best of the night and who needs help. Push them into picking a bottom one or two. Someone is going home. You can't cry for all of them, J-Lo.

P.S. Can someone teach Scotty how to hold a microphone? And someone tell Haley to stop holding her head to the side? Thanks.

American Idol, Part 2

Just so you know: I wrote this post once and then blogger stopped saving (it happens: I just copy it and leave the window, then paste over the old version.) Not this time: it only copied the picture, I pasted over all that lovely text, realized that it was deleted, tried to recover, but blogger had already saved. I am cranky. Also note that because of this, this post covers a couple of weeks.

Let's talk about American Idol so far. Are we liking this season? I must admit, I'm liking it better than I thought I would. I tuned in just to see how it might shake down with the new judges and I'm sticking around. You won again, Nigel Lythgoe! Curses!

I like the mix of the new judges. Truly, they could have put anyone in place of Kara and I would have been happier with the judging situation. J-Lo needs to get tougher, but she is getting there. Steven brings a certain amount of random. I could still do without Randy, but he's not trying so hard this year, which makes him better. The best thing about the judges is that they seem to actually listen to each other, nodding at each other's comments. It feels more like a conversation than a group of people waiting to jump in with their opinion, thinking, "Me next! Me next!"

I miss the meanness of Simon, but I don't miss his "you're not pretty enough to make it in the business" comments. That said, the judges need to toughen up. The singers not all amazing every week. Someone is going home. Not every one of these kids is going to have hit records: tell them what they need to know. At this point they all have fans, they have people who will tell them they were awesome, even if they just burp out "The Star Spangled Banner." Give them something they could use. Otherwise, why are you there?

I think it needs some more real criticism by the judges, but I'm afraid they'll bring in someone "mean" next year and that would be a mistake. Three judges is plenty; four judges always felt rushed to me. I think this chemistry is working, they just need to be willing to be honest with some of these kids. They have it in them. I get the feeling that J-Lo isn't all sweetness and light, and Steven just needs to allow himself to be booed a bit. He lets his ego and need to be liked get in the way. Someone should point out to him that they booed Simon all the time, but he was the one they came to see.

More than most years, I think this group has a much better sense of who they are. There's the deep voice country guy, the guy who does gospel-y stuff, the rocker guy who seems pretty sweet, the crazy woman who's gonna try to make everything reggae, the female belter who will only do ballads, etc. On one hand, this is actually a good thing for an artist, but, from an "AI" perspective, it's kind of boring. Sometimes it's fun to watch a kid develop, figure out what they are (or want to be). These kids mostly know (especially the boys), which means you could probably call about half of the songs they were going to do. I really like the one rocker-kid (James), but, of course, on Elton John night, he picked "Saturday Night's Alright for Fighting." It would have been cool to see him nail a ballad. Or make something unexpected rock out. (Note: last night he did pick a ballad -- nice!)

Scotty is the country guy. He's got a good voice but, honestly, he does the same stuff every time. Casey's the guy they saved. He's one of my favorites and I was glad they used the save on him. I truly think he got the bottom last week because people assumed he was safe. And with only 11 people (math warning), you get 12%: you're in the top, 8%: bye-bye! I think these early rounds, a lot of people vote for folks they think might be in trouble. Say I've got 3 people I like: Casey, Scotty, and that scared 16-year-old girl. Casey and Scotty do well but the kid struggles. If I were a voter, I might just throw my votes at the kid, assuming the other two will be fine.

Which brings me to my idea of saving the ones that had an obvious good night or had a bad night but are usually consistent. (Or, like on "So You Think You Can Dance", during the first half of the season, the callers pick the bottom 3, and then the judges decide who goes home.) I'd love if, during the Top 11 or less, the judges each get to save three for the night (maybe they each pick one); Top 10 - 8, save two; Top 7 and 6, save one -- Top 5 is all America! They could even use this sort of thing to help promote it when it gets dull in the middle: "The judges can only save ONE tonight -- the rest is up to you!"

There's not enough crazy going on here, and, possibly, having these types of saves might shake that up a bit. You can't help but wonder who Steven would save. And this might let the kids step outside their box for a bit. Let's say Scotty tries a funkier thing and it just doesn't happen. Can you just see J-Lo going, "oh honey, that was not you, so we're gonna have to save you this week because we need you around." I would have absolutely no problem with that. Well, except I don't really like Scotty.

I still have a lot of the same issues with "American Idol": the show's too long (I'd rather they had a Top-18 and do some double eliminations in the early weeks), it's pretty much decided by tweens so the cute guys go further than they should. But I am pleasantly surprised by this year.

Seeing the colors

I watched "Please Give" today, a lovely, little movie about people and emotions and relationships and all that. It was a great movie, one of those films that you find yourself going over again and again in your head, little bits of scenes coming back to you. (Ahead is not so much a spoiler, but a bit about a scene -- you may not want to read about it if you plan to see the movie.)

The movie takes place in New York City in the fall, and everyone is talking about seeing the colors of the leaves changing. About midway through the movie, Rebecca, her grandmother, her date, and his grandmother drive out of the city to see the autumn leaves. Rebecca's grandmother is a bit, well, cranky. She's 91 and just not having fun anymore. They get to the park where they've been told there would be a wonderful view, and they look out and no one sees much of anything. The whole group is so disappointed. Rebecca's grandmother is looking off towards the park benches and just really upset at the whole thing. The rest of the group makes a slight shift from where they are standing, and they look out and: amazement! They gasp; they go on and on about the beauty. But grandma is still looking in the wrong direction, still mad at the world.

You have to remember that sometimes if you just shift a few steps, you can see something amazing. But if you just keep looking in the wrong direction, it just never gets any better.

Wondering about literature

There are times I wonder about my reading ability. Obviously, I get the words and the sentences and all that, but sometimes I read a book that some would consider a classic, and I just don't get it. Not even a little bit. Which makes me wonder if maybe I just don't have the tools to fully understand certain literature.

I'm not trying to get people to come around and convince me that I am smart or educated or deep. The fact is, I'm not a trained reader. Besides a couple classes in high school and the world's greatest bookclub, I'm mostly self-taught, exploring books on my own, and while there's really nothing wrong with that, it does have limits. (After all, you wouldn't want a self-taught surgeon taking out your gall bladder.) I am trained as a scientist, and although I am sure you could pick up the latest issue of The Journal of Bacteriology and make comments, I'd like to think that I would be able to read it at a different level. We all bring different skill sets and tools to the table.

When I read these so-called classics and I just don't get them (not that this happens all the time, but it does happen), I start to wonder if it's my lack of training  that is getting in the way. I'll read passages full of description and details, and instead of loving the words, I am thinking, "just spit it out, already!" Or I'll miss some symbolism. ("What do you mean that the fish represented his long-lost brother? I didn't even know he had a brother!")

A few years back, I read "Catch-22" and I can't tell you how much I hated it. In fact, as I was reading it, I started to worry. Let me explain. You know how you might love a certain food, but you don't get it as much as you would like. Say there was a certain type of cake you loved, but you only got it for special occasions. But then a bakery who specialized in that cake opened right across the street from you, so you could get it whenever you wanted. So you got that cake once a week, maybe more. Then one day, you went to get a piece and you thought to yourself, "I am really tired of that cake. In fact, I'm not sure I like it anymore." And you really never do want that cake again. What does this have to do with "Catch-22"? When I was reading "Catch-22", I hated it so much, I was actually afraid that I was tired of reading. That, after all these years, this was the breaking point: I no longer even liked reading. (Luckily, this was not the case.)

But I do wonder: what am I missing here? This novel consistently shows up on those "great books" lists, and I simply did not get it at all. Do we really need a book to tell us that war is bad and ridiculous? The characters were all so unlikable and boring. I didn't really notice any great writing or interesting turns-of-phrase. I had to push myself to finish (I kept hoping it would get better or there would be some clever thing that got me in the end, but no such luck.) There is a part of me that thinks maybe I should try again, but then my soul starts weeping.

How much training should one have to have to enjoy "great" literature? Should it need that much explaining? Should it be easy? I won't stop reading and I won't stop pushing myself, but I'm staying away from Joseph Heller.

Hosanna Heysanna Sanna Sanna Ho

Do you have the album that you don't listen to for years, but when you pull out and give it a listen, you just are blown away at how awesome it is? Today I am listening to "Jesus Christ Superstar" and it is blowing. me. away.

This is not a post about criticism of "JSS" -- it's far from perfect. There are the clunkers, it's firmly in the seventies. It's a bit (a bit?!) melodramatic, but I adore it anyway. This post is not about who's the cooler Jesus (hint: not the "Godspell" one.) This is also not about what Andrew Lloyd Webber became (hint: bleh!) This is about stumbling upon things you love.

I love this album like one loves an old friend who stops by after being away for a few years. Admittedly, it's one of those friends who, after a while, you remember why it's been a few years. I'm sure I'll listen to this album for a day or two and then put it away for another couple of years. But when I listen to "JSS", I am pulled into it completely. Do I want to sing along at the top of my lungs, complete with diva poses, in the middle of this coffeehouse? Maybe. (hint: yes. Totally.)

I am listening to this on headphones and I am picking up little things I never heard listening to it on my parents' old victrola. Today I am hearing the sadness in Jesus' voice. He knows he's doomed, but he's not telling anyone. He's marching into town, pushing himself to sing "Hosanna" with a forced joy that isn't there, but he's got to keep the crowd into it. He's tired, everyone is telling him how to do his job, he's literally begging for his life. It's not a good week for the guy. You almost get the feeling that he hands himself over to Pilate to just end all this craziness. He just wants it over.

When I listen to albums I've ignored, I realize I need to dig deeper in my music collection. Tomorrow I'll pull out another album that I've forgotten about. But today, it's back to "What's the buzz..."

P.S. Dear stoned guy singing back-up -- I kind of love you!

Shut up, Phil Collins

A few days ago, Phil Collins announced his retirement from music. To which I say: really? I am not here to bash Phil Collins (as I have done this previously) (although I probably will), nor to question his music choices/"artistic" direction, but I do have to wonder the purpose of this announcement, because I have a few question for Mr. Collins.

What, exactly does he mean by "retiring" from music? I get that the drumming thing is not a good idea these days, but he's probably as well known for being a singer. He is a songwriter. (Now, now, we're not here to bash his work. Please save your comments for the end.) Does this mean he won't sing or write? At all? No tribute concerts for the Queen, no reunion tours? Where is the line? How do you retire from art except not do it anymore? Does this mean no "Happy Birthday" at his kid's parties?

I call bullshit on this statement. If he's any sort of artist, it'll pull him back. If he can walk away from music completely, well, then it's just a job for him, and he needs to get over people bashing him for selling out. Because if he feels nothing grabbing him and getting him to create, even if it's just in his basement, then he did sell out. He did it for the money. There's nothing wrong with that. He made buckets of money, so he knows what we want (or what we wanted in the eighties.) But don't tell me you did it for the love of the music, then just put it on the shelf one day.

Here's another question: didn't he just release an album? (He did: late September this year.) That's less than six months ago. He was that drawn to music less than a year ago that he made a whole album and now he's done? That smells funny. Could this, just possibly, be a grab at publicity/bump in sales or even a bit of a pity party? This just feels like a "if you don't start paying attention to me, I'm taking my ball and going home!" sort of thing. Like he put it out there so that all these newspapers, radio stations, artists, whatever, would be all,"No Phil, no! We can't lose you! You're too important and super relevant with your note-by-note covers of Motown songs!" I'll bet he was a bit shocked when people actually started bashing him. (Note: I just read that this retirement is a "false alarm." I'm sure that he and his publicist are so very happy that they've gotten a few more days of media coverage.)

I really do hate what Phil Collins has become. In the eighties, sure, I was a big fan. Yeah, I always do the drum solo from "In the Air Tonight" -- I'm only human! I have a weird love of pop music. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing it for money. Really. If you have the magic for a few years, take what you can. But you have to understand that this run rarely lasts, so just sit on your stack of cash and enjoy yourself. Do things you love, but don't get all upset when the rest of us don't appreciate it. It's okay. But you need to accept that your career peaked over 20 years ago, and you won't be getting the spotlight as much. Just do what you love and count your blessings that you have the money to have this freedom. And, seriously, shut up!

Breaking up with Starbucks

Dear Starbucks,

I know we've been seeing each other for a couple of years, but it’s official: today I’m breaking up with you. I’ve tried to be patient, I thought we could work out our issues, but, frankly, there are other fish in the sea.

There are so many little reasons. I hate to point to the physical, but the truth is that you’re a bit too old. You don’t have outlets for my computer and your set-up is so open, noise just bounces around. I can live with the coffee shop-type noises, but when you have to run the vacuum cleaner for a half hour when I was hoping to get some writing done, I get a bit cranky.

Your slow customer service just confuses me. I see five people running around behind the counter, but there’s only one person who seems to actually be taking orders and serving coffee. Perhaps that long line feeds your ego of being needed but it works my last nerve. 

I’ve had it with the internet that doesn’t seem to work. And when it does, it’s so slow, it takes me back to the days of dial-up. Yes, I like reminiscing about old times as much as the next girl, but there are things I don’t mind moving past. And then to add insult to injury, you’re kicking me off after an hour? That just hurts!

I see so many other beauties around: the local coffee shop, Panera, even Dunkin Donuts. Better food, better service, a dependable internet connection. I'm a simple girl with simple needs. Why should I let you continue to hurt me? No, I will seek out a new place to squat for a few hours and nurse a cup of coffee.

I'll admit that there will most likely be moments of weakness when I come back to you or visit an attractive cousin of yours. I may try to revisit the old times, but I do want to make it clear that it really will never be the same between us. I am seeing other places and I may not come back at all.

Yes, Starbucks, it is time to move on. I will miss your overly hot coffee but we need our space.

Sadly,
Angie