the little things

I am pleased to say that as we approach 3 months in the clean and friendly city up North that we are still loving it here. There are so many things about it here that are good for us.

But not everything has turned out how I had planned/hoped. Mainly, I am not working yet, despite my diligence in applying for positions. I guess its just not in the plans... yet anyway.

In the meantime I try and keep busy, though some days I find myself bored, and late afternoon naps at my desk with the kitty on my shoulder have become common, so have early mornings in bed reading with a hot cup of tea (and a kitty very nearby, often on top of the book!) I enjoy the freedom and the time that allows me such luxuries... for now anyway.

A lot of little things get done, mainly cleaning (and cleaning up after kitty). Its not a very big apartment, doesn't take long to clean, and with a messy kitty its a good excuse to clean several times a week.

A lot of walking gets done. Little steps, and when we first got here, those little steps (oh, I should say about a hundred little steps up a steep hill) hurt so bad! Oh my, I had to rest nearly 5 minutes at the top. Now we can do that hill a couple times of day and say, thats not so bad.

This little summary of the Northern life is just that: a summary. One that I hope gets the point across that I (we) are happy here, and despite a few little things, it is such a positive change for us. A long time coming, and we are enjoying the rewards of many years of patient anticipation.

its just a tree

It happened a few weeks ago... One of the people who live upstairs knocked on our door and asked about the tree outside (small, pathetic looking oak tree in a 35 gallon black nursery pot that was sitting near the front door). She wanted to warn us, in a way.

Here is what she told me: The people who own the house next door saw her and asked if the tree was hers, she told them it was ours. The neighbors then proceeded to tell her the tree was ugly and 'dead.' To which she indicated again that it was not hers and they should talk to us. The neighbors then mentioned our landlord's name, saying they were going to complain to him.

She wanted to tell us just in case the tree went "missing" and we were wondering what happened to it. I thanked her then put a note in the pot and moved the tree to the side of the house.

I find a few faults with the entire scenario:

1. As soon as they were told they should talk to us, they should have. They did not.
2. The ugly part is debatable, but "dead?" Its winter, all coniferous trees look dead, were they thinking of cutting down the woods too?
3. What business was it of theirs anyway? Its my tree in "my" yard...

I guess no matter where you live, sometimes neighbors are a thing you can do without.

Oh, the note I put in the tree basically said that it belongs to me, is not dead, rather its dead appearance should be attributed to the fact that its winter. And I politely asked that no one disposes of my tree.

One might think its just a tree, what's even the big deal if they got rid of it? First, its a living tree, why destroy a tree if you do not have to. Second, it wasn't their tree to do anything with. And third, the tree actually has a bit of sentimental value to me.

When I was in elementary school I came home with this little sapling spruce tree. My Mom helped me to pot it and care for it, trimming here, fertilizing there. This little oak tree I now have started out as a tiny little stem with 1 leaf. I remembered Mom's teachings and wondered if I could bring this desperate little oak sapling to life. Sure enough, within 3 years its grown to about 3 feet tall, and (in the summer) looks very much alive.

what is courtesy anyway?

One thing that seems to really bug me about people in general is courtesy, rather, lack thereof. I think so many things in life could be "better" if people were a bit more old-fashioned in their ways of treating one another. Common courtesy is less and less common these days.

I have been known to blog (okay, rant) about cell phone usage, and to me this is an example of lack of courtesy. Just so happens to be a bigger one, in the regard that lack of courtesy while driving is dangerous and can have serious ramifications.

Nonetheless, there are many other experiences that could be improved if courtesy was considered to be an important attribute. Take my trip to the grocery store yesterday. There was an older lady (not tooo old, but a senior) who was just all over the place in the store with her cart. I witnessed her bang into people, and she bumped my cart once. I tried to notice if she had any discernible ailments, but I didn't notice anything. Perhaps it was her eyesight, she was wearing glasses.

But upon watching her a little, her actions seemed (to me) to be less affected by any ailment and more dictated by her needs at the moment. She needed that item on that shelf, and it didn't seem to matter to her that there might already be people where she needs to be. Hence the bumping into people.

Even if she had legitimate ailments that contributed to her behavior, not once was she heard to utter any form of apology or acknowledgement of the incidents.

The next thing she did seemed to further my opinion that she was just being selfish. I was headed towards the checkout, closer to the available cash than she was. This older, senior lady noticed and picked up her pace, she pretty much was jogging by the time she passed me with her buggy and glided into the checkout just ahead of me. Hmm, I guess she was in a rush, which is exactly what I said out loud to her. She ignored me, and I went to another cash.

You might think the story ends here, but it does not. Coincidently I was parked right behind her in the lot. She was just finishing unloading her cart as I was approaching my car. She put her last two bags in the trunk, closed the lid, and then got into her car. The logical (and considerate) next step after closing the trunk would be to return the cart to the buggy area. No, she chose to leave it behind her car.

In Jessica fashion, I felt the desire to say something to her. I walked over to her window (she hadn't driven away yet). She wouldn't roll down her window (can't say I blame her) but I spoke loud enough for her to hear. "You're just going to leave your cart right there?" I asked, and was returned with a blank look and a shrug. "You're just gonna leave it, right there." I said again, and she nodded! "Suit yourself" I replied and put her cart away as she drove off.

I have been trying to come up with reasons, justifications, excuses, whatever you want to call them, and to try and see it from her perspective. What would cause someone to behave like that? Already stated, my first reaction is that it was done out of selfishness, lack of awareness, and definitely a lack of courtesy. But did she maybe have better reasons?

1. Was the parking lot icy/snowy? Nope
2. Was it raining/snowing/freezing cold or some other undesirable condition? Nope
3. Was the buggy area far away? Nope (15 feet maybe)
4. Was she in a hurry? I have no real way of knowing that, but even if she was, does that make for a good excuse?
5. Did she just get a call on her cell and there was an emergency somewhere? Highly unlikely as she wasn't witnessed (by me) to be using a cell at any point.
6. Did she have ailments (as I had already asked myself inside the store)? None that were apparent... And even if she had no ailments in the store, who is to say that she didn't hurt herself in some way between the store and her car, I wasn't in a position to witness such...

No matter how I try and think of it from her perspective, I have trouble coming up with something that would make her behavior acceptable... The most acceptable would be some ailment related thing, but then where was her consideration for others in terms of apologizing for her actions?

Maybe I missed something...

in⋅ap⋅pro⋅pri⋅ate

Lately I have been on the topic of the whole disclaimer policy related to being a part of an organization (work, etc) and having to specifically separate that from your personal identity. I am not going to regurgitate those entries, you can read them here, here and here.

What I do want to talk about is what affect such policies may or will eventually have on the hiring process. Will a potential employer ask you about your social online networking or blogs? And what if they did?

I believe that this would be a totally inappropriate thing to ask. I don't think it is a necessary thing, and I think it borders if not crosses privacy invasion.

But I wonder what you think, so I have included two polls (---> look to the right --->)...

I appreciate your comments too.


in⋅ap⋅pro⋅pri⋅ate the opposite of: ap⋅pro⋅pri⋅ate [uh-proh-pree-it]
as defined by Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009, courtesy of dictionary.com
1. suitable or fitting for a particular purpose

also known as: wrong [rawng, rong]
as defined by Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009, courtesy of dictionary.com
1. not in accordance with what is morally right or good
3. not correct in action, judgement, opinion, method, etc.
4. not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice
6. not suitable or appropriate
8. that which is wrong, or not in accordance with morality, goodness, or truth

or: im⋅prop⋅er [im-prop-er]
as defined by Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009, courtesy of dictionary.com
2. not in accordance with propriety of behavior, manners, etc.
3. unsuitable or inappropriate, as for the purpose or occasion
4. abnormal or irregular

repudiation

I still have some lingering and somewhat random thoughts related to the theme of the last two blog entries I made. The topic is: employment policies that relate to personal social networking and/or personal blogs, and how employees are being required to include a disclaimer on their personal things that separate them as an individual from them as the team-member affiliated with the employer.

I have been mulling about these ideas for days and still have not come up with a way to properly articulate my thoughts on them. So, I am going to cheat and take the easy way out and just list them as food for thought. Maybe I will add a note or two, but looking for your comments/thoughts as well.

1. Does the requirement of such a disclaimer on personal blogs/identities by existence show we have something to "hide" or possibly be ashamed of?
My thoughts here are kinda like this... By stating that "the thoughts or opinions in a personal blog do not represent the organization" to me gives an indication for the reader/viewer to EXPECT to read something that is not in line with say my day job. Does this disclaimer "set me up" so to speak, in terms of having people presume things before even reading?
These thoughts stem from my belief that people are inherently incapable of being objective.

2. I think that having to put a disclaimer on my personal stuff says more about the reader than me the writer.
I have stated before that while I am able to compartmentalize and separate people at work from people not at work (in terms of who they are and how they may act) and that other people are not. My first, and not necessarily nice or politically correct reaction, is that this fact is actually more of an insult to those others. Therefore such a disclaimer says less about me and more about someone else's ignorance or inability.

3. I believe that what people at work think or know about who I REALLY am doesn't necessarily matter too much in the grand scheme of things.
In the summary of my first entry on this topic I indicated that it really only matters what God thinks. But to extend that a little further, I believe that Biblically God has set my life's priorities for me, and because of this, my "not really caring what strangers think" isn't specifically un-Biblical. The priorities set for me are as follows, in order (which is important). 1. GOD 2. HUSBAND 3. FAMILY 4. FRIENDS and 5. EVERYONE ELSE. So the people I really have to "answer to" are already the ones who know me best and quite frankly, the ones who can see right through me. They know how to "take things" that I say, they know whether or not I am offensive, and when they talk to me I really listen because they get to the root of the issue and I don't have to sort through all kinds of fluff to determine what their problem really is.

I guess that is it for now... But I did have an interesting conversation the other day about this whole topic and how it relates to the hiring process, and what affect my personal blog has on me being an ideal candidate. I have a few interesting things to write about, and even have a poll or two in mind... stay tuned for that!

extended caution

I am continuing with my thoughts on the topic of disclaimers/warnings/cautions as they relate to having a personal identity that is separate from any affiliations with groups/companies/organizations. I originally blogged about the fact that many places of employment require their employees to put a disclaimer on their personal blog or social networking identity.

In that entry I indicated that though I do not disagree with such policies, I do however feel that something is missing, especially for Christian organizations. Here are a few of those:

1. Individuals have the right to personal thoughts and the expressions of those thoughts
This point doesn't really need a whole lot of explanation, especially from a societal perspective. But lets take a moment and look at it from a Biblical perspective. God created us with free will, free thoughts, and the ability to make choices. I think its implied here that He never intended us to be all uniform in our ways, because He could easily have made us into whatever He wanted. God chose not to create mindless drones. He chose to create us as individuals, and the importance of this is not lost on me. I think that God had planned all along for us to have differing views on things, and to have ideas that someone else may not have come up with. These things spark collaboration and networking, they spark new and creative ways of doing things. Yes, they also tend to spark debates, arguments, hatred and worse. (But that only happens when we take things too personally and allow pride to get in the way of the greater good).
What I am really trying to say here is that if God wanted me to "be just like you" He would have made me that way. The fact that He didn't tells me that I am not necessarily wrong or evil to have my own thoughts on a subject.

2. Individuals have the right to NOT read, watch or listen to things that they disagree with, or are offended by
I have definitely touched on this in various entries over my blogging history. I am going to keep this simple by letting you read this post. The most important line in that entry that I want to highlight here is this:

The last time I started to read something that offended me, do you know what I did? I STOPPED READING IT! And the last time I read an entire thing that offended me, do you know what I did? I contacted that person and had an open and healthy discussion about it!

Too many times people make assumptions. In most forms of communication (even sometimes in face-to-face encounters) its hard to tell the "tone" or implications of writing. Some things are taken the wrong way, taken out of context, etc. Sometimes people assume that you mean things a certain way, simply because they think you are always that "way..."

3. As Christians, we have the responsibility to pray for people who we feel are off-base with their personal facebook statuses, or their personal blog entries.
This is unfortunately the most important part that is too often overlooked. I will speak of personal experiences. I have had people tell me that my words or actions have offended them (no real surprise there) and its not something that makes me proud or happy. In fact it sometimes makes me feel sad and ashamed (depending of course on the issue and/or the person). I have had people tell me that I am a terrible person who needs "help" (help of the professional kind). I have had people say things like "I am only telling you this because I am concerned for you..." A typical but unspoken response of mine would likely be to refer to Luke 6:41-42, but I have found that gets me into even more trouble, and often incorrectly mistaken as a defence mechanism. So instead my "new" typical retaliation is to ask that person "Have you prayed for me?"
This is where it gets interesting... After the initial awkward reaction of fidgeting, staring at toes or ceiling, accompanied by a shade of red in the cheeks, the conversation is often over. Its interesting to me how few (Christians) have replied with the answer YES. Many simply do not respond, but worse than that are the responses that would make me feel that I am not even worthy of being prayed for.
You see the point here is this: As Christians, we are responsible not only to God and ourselves, but we are responsible to each other. We are to hold each other accountable and do what we can (within Biblical means) to maintain or restore each other to a right relationship with God. That is to be our ONLY motive - bringing glory to God. If someone is offended by something I write/say/do, and they do not pray, that is a significant problem.


A typical "disclaimer policy" will read similar to this:
...any personal blogs or other information shared online that could reflect on the [organization] must have a disclaimer stating that the author does not represent the [organization]...

Here is what I think would be a more effective, and more respectful, disclaimer policy:
...we recognize and respect your right to personal thoughts and opinions, however, some readers may not be able to separate your individual avocations from those of our organization. We ask that you make special note such that these misunderstandings can be reduced/eliminated.
...we ask that all of our employees remember that your co-workers are also people who are not necessarily 'just like you' and bear in mind that your differences are what make us work better as a team towards our overall mission.
...furthermore, we promise to pray continually for us all. We pray that no matter our thoughts, words, actions, we will recognize that we are all children of Christ, and we deserve to be treated as such.

warning

Many companies/organizations out there either have for quite some time or are just instituting employee policies when it comes to personal accounts on social networking (facebook, for example) or personal blogs. They are requiring that their employees put a disclaimer (A repudiation or denial of responsibility or connection -- American Heritage Dictionary) of sorts, stating that this is the personal space of so-and-so and the thoughts, ideas, etc... are not representative of the organization.

Sometimes I think or ask, why do we need to do this? Who I am at work and who I am at home are not necessarily the same, and can't people compartmentalize? The short and easy answer is, no, people cannot...

Just the other day I was watching a re-run of Stargate SG-1 on DVD. The episode dealt with this issue - sort of... it dealt with something very similar anyway, the fact that when you are part of a group, even when you are acting alone, outside of the group, people will make the assumption that you are still acting as part of the group.

Teal'c (an alien) is part of the team SG-1, which is made up of two earthlings from the military, two aliens, and one earthling civilian. In this episode Teal'c decided to seek revenge on another alien, part of a group that has a somewhat weak alliance with earth. The people from earth, the US military to be exact who run the SG program, were worried that his actions would be mistaken as represenative of earth, and would therefore jeopardize and progress made. Teal'c, like me, thought that people should just "know" the difference. But all across the galaxy everyone made the assumption that the SG command were worried about. You see, Teal'c has been an integral member of SG-1 for about 10 years, and often has gone out alone, but on earth business. Why would this be any different, especially because the guy he was going after was a bad guy to a lot of people, and it would even be conceivable that earth would want to "do something" about this guy too.

So, their concerns were justified.

To add to the situation, and to extend the point of people's assumptions... Even when Teal'c specifically told people in the galaxy that his revenge was not an earthling plan, and that he was acting alone, people still had difficulty separating Teal'c the individual from Teal'c the team member.

So, their concerns were not only justified, but if anything, they underestimated the extent of Teal'c's affiliation with earth...

I wonder then, will a disclaimer really even help? Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting that organizations flat out prohibit their employees from having personal blogs, etc... I don't think that is right, or fair, or even legal?? But I wonder if a disclaimer is enough...

I wonder if I have to put a disclaimer on my blog because my ideas are so radically different from the organization I work for, then is there a misalignment between me and the organization in general, should I even be working there?

I wonder why the whole warning/disclaimer issue is so one-sided... There are other aspects here, and I will summarize:

• Individuals have the right to personal thoughts and the expressions of those thoughts
• Individuals have the right to NOT read, watch or listen to things that they disagree with, or are offended by
• As Christians, we have the responsibility to pray for people who we feel are off-base with their personal facebook statuses, or their personal blog entries.

Why these things are never mentioned in conjunction with the whole disclaimer thing is (to me) something that is lacking (I do plan to blog in more detail on these three points soon)...

Ultimately... it doesn't matter what I do or do not write, read, watch, say, think, when it comes to other people's reactions to them. Really, it matters what God thinks of it. I may be out of line sometimes, but God will help straighten me out, especially if those people who tell me "you shouldn't write that" also prayed to God "please help her not to write that again, and/or help me understand and be sympathetic..." you get the idea, I think.