2 out of 3 ain't bad

Its been just over 5 and a half years since my Mom passed away. I never knew that I would lose my father too.

No, he has not passed away, but he has moved on. He's moved on so much that he seems to have forgotten most of the life: family, friends, children, that he had while Mom was still alive.

Father's Day was a bit of a tough day, tougher than Mother's Day. You see, I have accepted that Mom is better off in heaven. Mind you there are still times that I grieve and miss her terribly, but I realize that she's still with me in spirit, and always in my heart.

Mom being gone because she's been taken home to heaven is a very good reason for someone to be gone. Dad being gone because he chooses to not be a part of my life is tougher. How do you grieve for someone who is still alive, and well (as far as I know...)

I couldn't call my Dad on Father's Day. I am not even 100% sure if I really wanted to, but even if I did, I had no way to call. He has moved to a new home, and has not provided me with his new contact information. I know I have done my diligence by ensuring he received my new address and phone number, but he has not returned the favor.

I try not to be bitter about the situation, but to me it feels as though I care a lot more than he does. Every now and again it takes its toll - on me. If he was a 'friend' or acquaintance I would have written him off already, but he's my Dad, and no matter what, I still love him. But I cannot continue to fret over the man, he has his life, and all I can do is hope that he is happy with it.

Besides... I have 2 other Dads (hubby's father and step-father) whom are reachable, and whom I have a better relationship with.

As they say... 2 out of 3 ain't bad!

irony of the e

Last month I wrote an entry about our fiasco with ING and our mortgage. Jeff had said something to the supervisor at ING that made me chuckle.

The issue was the fact that we deposited more than one item at a time. Jeff had said "to save paper, no?" Apparently she didn't appreciate that comment. Then Jeff said to her, "you know, I do good work, I try and be good to the earth, and this is how I am rewarded?" I don't think the lady had a response for him.

But the thought did strike me that he had a point. ING is a bank that is mostly paperless, and branch-less unlike traditional banks. One might think that for such an e-forward (as in digitally, or electronically forward) they would appreciate the savings and efforts, but no. Thankfully God appreciates it, and after all, its done for Him and for that reason alone its worth doing!

the un-unmortgage

Business can be tough... Take the business of getting a mortgage, or house insurance. Here describes two interesting, yet equally incomprehensible (if you ask me) decisions made by two companies.

First came the issue with house insurance. Lets rewind for a moment to August 2005 when we first purchased our home down south. We had house insurance through Allstate. We sold the house Sep 30, 2009. We (unfortunately) do not have tenant's insurance.

In April of 2006 we got vehicles and insured both of them with Allstate. We have had this policy ever since.

We asked Allstate for a quote on house insurance for the new house we are buying. Their decision? Declined. Why? Well, basically they told us that we have no history or loyalty with them. You see, from closing date to closing date, over 6 months will have passed, so we are apparently brand-new disloyal customers. No amount of discussion was going to change their minds, and the lady's attitude wasn't very friendly or helpful to the situation. (I will not name the specific lady, but I do not mind naming Allstate itself, as I believe these are Allstate mentalities and methods of practice, and not necessarily the "fault" of the individual, they were just doing their jobs).

Second issue came with Mortgage. We applied with ING Direct (and a couple of other places: A mortgage broker, and RBC). We were pre-approved by all 3 sources - nice! ING had the best rate, so we decided to go with them. We sent them all the paperwork they requested.

Then they asked for additional paperwork, provided. Then some more, again, provided. We were declined. Why? You see, my husband works for a not-for-profit organization. He is a regular salary-paid full time employee just like anyone else who works there. Just so happens that he is also one of the founding members, and just so happens that his brother is the President & CEO.

This was a problem for ING. Somehow this translated into them not being able to verify his income (even though we provided pay stubs, deposit records, letter from employer, etc...). They classified him as being self-employed. No amount of discussion was getting anywhere, their decision was final.

There was another slight problem too, a silly thing if you ask me. We both get paid via an actual cheque that we have to deposit. Because we can't have the funds be held, we have to deposit at the teller. We deposit both at once, and they show up as one deposit on the transactions. ING could not confirm that the deposits matched the pay stubs, even though all but a few were provided (and the few could easily have been provided). Apparently they didn't want to do the "math" to add the two pay stubs together and see they matched the deposit.

(I make note that I do not hold any ill-will towards our account rep, he did everything he could and we appreciate that. I disagree with the organization.)

We are fortunate though. These two experiences (that in my opinion should not have happened), could have broken the deal of buying the house, we'd be in trouble! But we had those other approvals, and we have other insurance connections. Nice to say that we have an almost equal mortgage rate from RBC, and we have a property insurance policy and a much better vehicle insurance policy with another organization (its great to have family in the business).

As for ING and Allstate, they do not get any of my business. Our 11+ year old savings account with ING will be closed (all the money transferred out, waiting to close it until they pay current interest earned). Our vehicles will no longer be insured with Allstate. Their business policies are not acceptable to us, and we will not do business with them.

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.

reaching my potential

** this post was written a long, long time ago, and left forgotten as a draft... but I will post it now anyway... **

I reacted somewhat poorly to a blog entry that a friend made. Not in any way to offend my friend, and I hope I didn't - but I reacted because sometimes I get tired of certain things.

Perhaps its bitterness, or just a longing for what I never had, but I don't always feel so special and privileged in the sense of automatically being more so than a person of color, a black person specifically, as the entry suggests...

Apparently I have more potential of growing up to be of higher class than I was when I was a child than a person of color does of growing up to be white.

Um, no kidding?

Seriously, I know this argument is more than about the color of skin, its the perceptions that people have related to that skin color. It is more likely for me to be in control of my future financial and social status than it is for a person of color to be in control of another's thoughts and opinions of them. However, my class and value, my worth in society are also dependent on other people's perceptions of me.

more on my favorite pet peeve

In case you hadn't gotten it from several of my previous posts, my favorite pet peeve has to be cell phone use. This post is going to be more about sharing two different news stories – yes, real stories that have been in the new somewhat recently, not just my own rantings on the subject.


The first story has to do with the 'fact' (I will use that term loosely for now, because the general population is not in agreement that this indeed a fact) that cell phone usage is ultimately dangerous.

A young woman in Toronto was killed and the only reason for her death was her cellphone usage. Her death was 100% preventable, and in my opinion 99.9% her own fault. Don't get me wrong, I am not at all happy in her death, I think its very sad, and very unfortunate. But it was also preventable. I feel especially bad for the driver of the truck, who couldn't possibly have seen her, as she was the one who walked into the truck. But maybe 0.1% was his fault, because if it were me, I would have noticed the woman on the corner chatting away on her cell, and honestly (this might be the saddest part yet) I probably would have expected her to do something stupid, like walk out in front of my car. I have been driving enough to see cell phone users (both pedestrian and drivers) do really stupid things, simply because they are not paying attention. It is sad that other drivers and other pedestrians now have to be prepared for even more craziness on the roads because of cell phone usage.

This story only affirms my belief that cellphone usage is too disruptive and too distracting to be in place 100% of the time.



The next story has a different twist, no one dies, no one is injured. However, this story also affirms my belief that cellphone usage is very much disrespectful. I do not like it when I am almost side-swiped, cut-off or rear-ended on the streets by cellphone using drivers. But I also don't like it when I am hit in the grocery store by a cellphone using buggy pusher. If you are anywhere and other people are around, YOU must be aware of your surroundings, and YOU must not infringe on other people's rights to be safe while upholding your own supposed right to talk on the phone wherever you want.

The setting is a high school in BC. Like many schools it has a cellphone ban in effect. And like many schools, the students (and even some teachers) are not respecting the rules. Putting effective disciplinary measures in place proves to be challenging, because (for some reason) these kids (and the few teachers) believe it is their “right” to use their cellphones whenever and wherever they want.
You may have guessed that I certainly don't agree that this is a RIGHT... A privilege maybe, but a RIGHT?? Nope, not in my books.

But back to the school. Seems the teachers and principal were at their wits end with this. The principal did something that is rather brave, and something that I could see myself doing if I were in a similar position, but unfortunately it was also something illegal. He went online and bought a cellphone jammer from China, had it delivered then installed it in the school.

Didn't take long for the students to notice their phones weren't working. I ask – if you (student) was obeying the cellphone ban, how would you have noticed the jammer? Its pretty obvious to me that the only way you could have noticed the jammer was when you went to use your cell and it wasn't working.
Unfortunately though, two wrongs don't make a right. The principal had to unplug and stop using the jammer. I agree with that. What I don't agree with so much are the rest of the arguments made by the students (and some parents, some teachers, even some government officials).

1. It's illegal to use the jammer. I agree with this, and understand why it is illegal.
2. It takes away the rights of the cell phone user. Not agreeing with this – its NO ONE's right to talk or text whenever they want, with complete disregard for their surroundings.
3. It takes away their ability to contact parents/guardians in cases of emergency. Not agreeing with this – there is always another way. Its called a regular phone, as old-fashioned as it might seem. Or a pay phone (even though they now cost a whopping 50 cents!) In cases of emergency, the school office should already know and make that call to the parent/guardian. And if the parent needs to reach the kid – again, call the school office, that is what they are there for.
4. It is archaic and contrary to the social develop needs of today – Though I understand why this argument is made, I still don't agree. I don't agree that society today should be so wrapped around their little gadgets. And they speak of social development... the last time I spoke in person to someone that does about 95% of their communicating electronically, well, lets just say that it was actually very hard to carry on a conversation with them – its almost as if they didn't even know how to talk in real-life. They kept saying - "wow, communicating is so much easier online." Though I myself use email as my primary method of communication, I am not inept in regular personal face-to-face encounters. And my preference towards email usage has a lot more to do with the fact that email allows both me and the recipient to communicate at a time most convenient to ourselves.

I guess I just wonder about the whole “its my right to use my cellphone” deal. Is it really your *right* to potentially danger yourself and others? Is it your *right* to be distracting? Is it your *right* to be an impaired nuisance or worse? If it is really your *right*, then it should also be MY RIGHT not to be bothered, inconvenienced, endangered or killed by your cell usage. Unfortunately your rights seem to outweigh my rights.

I remember something about my mother – who never had an answering machine or voice mail. She used to say “if its important enough, they will call back.” If its an emergency, someone will find some other way of reaching you, and you can find some other way of reaching them. Unfortunately for that woman in Toronto, she lost her life for her *right* to her cellphone use. And our children are giving up their right to a proper education, because for some reason their *right* to chat with their friends (which I believe is the MAIN reason for their cell using, NOT to call parents in emergency situations – because emergencies just don't happen that often) outweighs their right to be educated.

And this might even stem into another blog entry – what constitutes an emergency these days? I guess that since luxuries have turned into necessities, and privileges have turned into rights, that anything can be considered an emergency.

lights... but no camera, no cells, no action

A long time ago I blogged people's useage (or lack there of) of their lights while driving. I am surprised at how few people realize that not only at dusk, but also during drizzly/foggy/rainy days, that full lights are just a good idea.
Running lights are effective really only when they are your headlights (not dots like my car) and only effective for oncoming traffic. But tail lights should be essential. Say I am driving the speed limit, or just over. You are not. Maybe you are scared because of the weather, maybe you are just preoccupied with something else (talking on your cell maybe). So I come around a corner, and there you are, a slow poke, and I have to hit my breaks harder than I'd like. One might blame me, maybe I'm going too fast. Whatever. All I am saying is that if your tail lights were on, I would have noticed sooner that you were there.
I tend to think things like that are common courtesy. I also tend to think that we as a society have less and less of it as time goes on. Just like we have less and less common sense; less and less morals; less and less love. If we cared a little more about other people, then it would be easier for us to realize how selfish and unobservant we can really be.
Talking on cell phones/texting, even taking pictures on your camera phone while driving tells me that you don't fully *care* about everyone around you. Putting on makeup, or reading something (other than a map, and I still think you should pull over to do that) tells me that you don't fully *care* about everyone around you. Not using headlights and tail lights when the weather or light conditions require it tells me that you don't fully *care* about everyone around you.
Its not just you on the road, we are all on the roads. Your actions could result in serious accidents or worse. Your divided attention behind the wheel could propel your little rocket into someone else's car, whcih cause cascading crashes from there. You could seriously destroy property or other vehicles. You could hurt people and yourself. You could kill people.
Maybe I am being a bit over board on this, but I just want people to get it. When you are driving, you MUST be fully aware of everything going on around you. Even if travelling at slower speeds, but especially at high speeds, the risk is just too great for you to be so in your own little world, so much that you don't seem to have any regard for other people's safety.
I just want people to get it - perhaps reading this list from CAA will help.

has anything changed... for the better?

Recently I watched this video on YouTube. It is a speech by Severn Suzuki at the 1992 UN Earth Summit. I would highly recommend taking 6 and a half minutes from your busy schedule to listen to this (at that time) young girl, barely a teenager, who says things we should all be saying.

It amazes me that this speech is from 1992. The issues she talks about are still very much present today. I asked in the title of this post - has anything changed? Not for the better if you ask me. Things have really only gotten worse. All of the issue she talks about still exist today, and there are even more issues on top of that!

She is a well-spoken, bold young lady. The things she says really made me pause and think of what I can do about things, now. I do some things already to help the environment. I recycle, big time. I conserve, big time. I re-use things. And with all of that, I try to educate people. However, it is never going to be enough, even if every household in the world conserved as much as possible, there are still all those industrial factories consuming more than I ever thought possible.

I have shared before the website called StoryOfStuff. There is another great video there too, but you will need to set aside about 20 minutes. Educating ourselves and each other is one way that we can hopefully stand united against the governments and businesses of this world that are consuming at such an alarming rate, its scary!

I think that especially as a North American society, we need to stop consumerism. We need to stop planned and perceived obsolescence. What we need to do is go back to perhaps the days of our grandparents, when throwing out a used milk bag was unheard of, because didn't you know that you can wash it and then use it for a storage bag?

I will stop now, before I aimlessly go on and on. Preserving and repairing our Earth is something that we must all do together. But ultimately its a personal choice. Only you can decide if you will think twice about tossing something that really can be re-used. Only you can decide to go green.

we've been that time for awhile now

I have been reflecting on this passage from the Holy Bible. Its from Timothy, the author of many of the instructions to the "church."

"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." 2 Timothy 4:3 (New International Version)

As this blog entry title may indicate, I feel that we (all humans) have been in this time already, and probably have since Timothy first wrote this. Maybe even before he wrote it! I think its human nature to surround ourselves with those who are like us, but more than that, I think that people generally like hearing what they *want* to hear.

I heard someone in a church leadership position use this quote: "if you aren't getting the answers you seek, you are either asking the wrong questions or asking the wrong people." It never occurred to this person that maybe they were seeking the wrong answers in the first place! It never dawned on them that the answers they got were in fact 'sound doctrine.'

The "church" has changed its beliefs many, many times since Timothy wrote this. The "church" has altered its rules in order to adapt to the changes in the world. As more and more things become acceptable in society, they become acceptable in the church. Fundamentally this is wrong. We are to be in the world but not OF the world. Meaning, we are to live here, but not to become what is considered worldly as opposed to what is Biblical. We are NOT to change our beliefs every time society changes it's.

Where would we draw the line? We already allow women in office (as deacons, elders and even pastors). We already allow gays and lesbians in office. We already run our churches like businesses as opposed to the 'movement' it is supposed to be. The church is a communion of saints, not a building full of expenses to be managed like widgets on an inventory line. But society accepts women being equal to men, the entire women's liberation movement achieved that for us (didn't do ME any favors!). Society says that its okay, so now the church does too. I ask, if society ever ends up saying that if someone murders your child you will have the right to shoot them, will the church then think that murder is acceptable? Right now that seems ludicrous, but as recent as 10 years ago the church felt that women in office was ludicrous.

If you ask me, its only a matter of time before the church becomes the world. We are called by God to be disciples. We are called by God to teach His word, and to instruct in the ways of God. We are NOT called by God to set aside our fundamental beliefs simply because it might be deemed offensive to society as a whole. If you read the gospels on how Jesus himself behaved as a child and an adult you will find that He was not afraid or intimidated by the world. Jesus broke all kinds of worldly rules and even some church rules - all in the name of what is Biblically appropriate. He showed us HOW to live, and how to be a Christian. He lead by example, so why aren't we following that example?

I have been accused of hating the church. Well, hate is a very strong word. Even the Bible has something to say about HATE. "He who hates his brother is a murderer and no murderer has eternal life." (1 John 3:15). No, I don't hate the church. I do, however, have some issues with the "church" - which is likely apparent to anyone reading this blog entry, or other blog entries I have written. No, I don't hate the church, but I don't like what organized religion has done to the "church." I am a Christian. I believe in God, His Son, and the Holy Spirit. Its organized religion that I have a problem with, and how man (humans) have taken what God has commanded and made it something other than what God had intended it to be.

I am in no way trying to imply that I am perfect, far from it. I am a sinner just like all the other billions of people in this world. I am not even trying to imply that I feel I am better than anyone else. I just feel that the "church" has steered off course somewhere along the way. I could go into all kinds of examples, but this blog entry is long enough already. Bottom line, I feel that everything we need to know is in the Bible, and I feel its pretty explicit. Sure, we are all different and therefore there is a lot of interpretation, however, when some things are written very clearly, I just have a lot of trouble when human beings spin it to be what they want it to be at the time they want it to be that. I have heard the same person use the same passage to either support or negate the exact same cause, the only difference was how that person *felt* at the time. That kinda summarizes my entire point - we read the Bible and take from it, the only thing that changed was us, not the Bible.

In summary, Timothy was very enlightened (of course he would be, seeing as the entire Bible was written with the inspiration and guidance of God through the Holy Spirit). And who would know better what God intended for the world than God himself??? I think we should stop playing God, and stop pretending that we know better than He. To me, that is the greatest sin of all, changing His Word, because His Word is our cornerstone, our instruction manual, our guide of right vs wrong. The more we change it, the scarier this world becomes. Inevitably we will change His Word so much that it will be our words, then we are truly of the world. That's a problem.

no real surprises here...

I just read a friend's blog and did this personality test. Thanks 'Rain!
well, honestly, I didn't perceive myself to be so "judging"... hehe

But for a lot of the answers, the ideal choice would have been:

• “sometimes both, it all depends on the circumstances!

can't make it happen before it's supposed to

I had this pretty cool opportunity to do something... well, something AWESOME. It doesn't even matter what the awesome thing was, because it is not something that is actually going to happen.
Why? The opportunity was flawed.

1. It was MY opportunity, not OURS. It was most likely completely unrealistic of me to think it could have happened, and unfair of me to even have suggested/requested it of my 'other half.'
2. If there was any US in the opportunity, the other was another guy! Don't go reading into it, it would have been a platonic thing, however, still the very thought of that to a husband is indeed scarier than I gave credit to.
3. If the tables were turned, I would not have been okay with it. Realistically, there probably wouldn't be anything my husband could say that would make me feel comfortable with him being out with another woman, no matter the circumstances, and I just asked him to be okay with it for me. (I am thinking the word hypocrite may apply here!?) I was blinded by my selfish excitement at this opportunity that I didn't stop and think about it. I would have come to this conclusion before even starting down the path, instead of at midnight the night before it was to happen!
4. It is supposed to be OUR opportunity. There are some basic plans for my husband and I to explore this opportunity together. Its not something that can happen for us right now, but something that is likely achievable in the not too distant future. I am feeling like a heel for thinking that it would be okay for me not to wait for us to do it together.

So the choice or decision was made, and as stated previously, its not happening... just yet. But I do look forward to the day when it can happen, when the circumstances are right. And won't that make the experience all the more better anyway?

the choice

Today I kinda feel like I am at a crossroads. I feel that I need to make a choice. An ultimatum is here, though not that anyone specifically or even indirectly gave me one, its just something that I feel.

I feel that I need to choose between two worlds. There is me, the me that is tangible, alive and well. There is me, the me that is virtual, alive and well. I'm talking about facebook, msn, and others, vs me in real life. Its not that I am a different me in terms of my values and *who* I am, its just that they are kind of two different aspects of me.

In real life I have interests that I don't really pursue too actively, and I don't really have anyone to pursue them with. Online is nice because I can find people who have similar interests and I don't feel like I have to subject the people in my real life to things they are not interested in.

However, it really does create a division, and its awkward at best. At what point do I agree that the virtual me has become an idol...?

i am the inevitable

"Perhaps the future is predetermined by the character of those who shape it."

The other day while watching an episode of Stargate Atlantis, I heard this quote...

In the show there were 2 characters discussing whether or not the future was predetermined or "what we make it." I have often had those very questions. This quote is quite interesting to me. In its simplicity it says so much - it suggests that who we are today (our morals, ethics, values, and most importantly, our actions) can in a sense, alter the future. Its the interesting concept that the future is both predetermined and what we make it...

Its hard for me to truly articulate what I *feel* about this quote. But at the least I wanted to share it with others, and wonder, does this quote *do* anything for you?

goodbye - but i said hello instead

I wasn't going to blog about this, but I am going to. For a couple reasons, and actually the least of which is that it is nice to rant and rave in my blog!

I stopped by my former place of employment. It was kinda a whim, I was in the area. I didn't go past the main lobby at first (I no longer assumed I was free to roam about, regardless of the nature of the environment) and I was even whispering so very few would know I was there. I felt very out of place in that building.

But then some people came around the corner and were so happy to see me. People missed me. People made the difference. I ended up going past that front lobby area and roaming about (accompanied at all times, cause I try to be proper, and certainly don't want to do anything that could be somehow in some way used against me).

Uh oh, prolly too late!

While I was sitting in the lobby waiting, a person came through. This was 1 of 3 people that I specifically wanted to avoid at all costs. I had nothing, absolutely NOTHING to say to any of them. I admitted readily that it was my own bitterness that caused me to feel this way. I *knew* exactly what was going to happen with this particular person...

But someone told me it wouldn't happen, that the 3 would be more mature and respectful than to even talk to me! I disagreed, and commended my friend on her faith in humanity, cause mine was not so bold. Its very unfortunate that I was right.

Here's the scene. I am sitting there, magazine in hand. Another former colleague (who I happen to like a lot) was chatting with me. The 1 of 3 came through and saw me. This person did some interesting yet awkward bending down while turning around motion, reminded me of an ostrich actually (if you know who I am talking about, I am guessing you can picture it in your head). Then it came. The *smile* and the very *sweet* "Oh, HI Jessica! How are you???" [end smile here]

Wow. As prepared as I tried to be, I still felt an overwhelming sense of annoyance. I soooo wanted her to prove me wrong, that she wasn't going to be as audacious as to pretend that everything was forgotten, and to pretend that she didn't play a role in the things that have happened, a BIG role.

I soooo wanted this representative of the church, a specific denomination, to be bigger than that. I expected this member, employee, consultant, praise team leader and elder to realize that those kind of behaviors are actually frowned upon not encouraged! I question this choice of church leadership, for two main reasons:

1. The Bible also questions it.
1 Corinthians 11:10 states "For this reason... women ought to have a sign of authority on her head." and more so 1 Timothy 2:11-12 "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man, she must be silent."
Before all you women's rights activists go crazy on me, think of the source! These are not my words, rather the words of God that He gave us in this handy little book called The Holy Bible. How can you or I or anyone question these words? Women in the world, the secular world, the general society, now have "equal rights" (though by the time we reach the glass ceiling we still have our windex bottle in hand to clean the damn thing, women's lib movement did NOTHING to help me be a wife in this world!). Just because of that, we now need to push that movement into the church?
I understand that all throughout history Christianity has struggled to be in the world but not of it. However, when there is no clear direction from the highest leadership of the church to uphold the Word of God, what is one simple member to do? How can the church allow women to be in authority over man when the Bible clearly instructs against it?

2. The Bible also questions it.
Regardless of the "gender issue" the Bible would still question this choice in leader. 1 Timothy 3 talks about the qualities needed to be an overseer or deacon. Things like above reproach, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable... Must be able to manage his own family. Verse 5 specifically asks "If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?"
This particular person in my opinion (bordering on judgement, but I leave that to God, obviously!) is not above reproach, self-controlled, hospitable or respectable. To me, their behavior is despicable, abhorrent, and I loathe the thought of this person being part of the running of anything, let alone a church.
But Timothy also talks about family. As verse 5 suggests, I believe that single people should not be leaders of the church, and probably not even someone who is "just" part of a couple. A church leader should have a family!

I am still disappointed that this person didn't prove me wrong. I got what I expected, because I expected very little of this person. My brother was right, lowering expectations usually means you get what you expect! I just wish it was more satisfying.

So, at the end of the 10 seconds of seething, I managed to mutter a civil one word response to the ridiculous and disrespectful exuberant display.

"hello"

when all I wanted to say was "goodbye"

what about nobodys?

I heard this anti-drunk driving commercial on the radio, and I have a bit of a beef with it. What could possibly be wrong with such a commercial? The overall message, DON'T DRINK and DRIVE - nope, nothing wrong with that.

Its the fact that the message couldn't stop there. For some reason we need all these incentives, all these reasons not to. Okay, here is my list.

• It's stupid. I don't use that word often, so I will actually apologize if it offends you.
  

Okay, not much of a list, only 1 good reason I can think of! But the radio commercial included a few more reasons, here are some of them.

• You could hurt (or worse) a mother with small children in her car.
• You could hurt (or worse) someone on their way home to a family that relies on them.
• You could hurt (or worse)... insert some other person of value here
  

I question these. Not that these people in any way deserve to be hit by a drunk driver, but what about the people that don't have the same value or worth that is implied by this list? What about the nobodys?

What about the guy who just lost his job, on his way home to a house the bank just foreclosed on, a guy with no family, no friends. He does not seem to be cherished by anyone. Why is he not included as an incentive?

I understand that people need these incentives, because logic and reason on their own are not enough to impact them when they choose to get behind the wheel after one or more too many. I understand that the potential of taking away something that is cherished by another can be a powerful incentive, but I have trouble with the whole thing still...

I have trouble that there is some apparent arbitrary assignment of worth. Implications seem to be there that some lives are just more valuable than others. Maybe I am just reading too much into it...