Letter from a Penn Stater

I have been proud to call myself a Penn Stater since 2005 when I began taking night classes at Penn State Abington. Despite serving six memorable years in the United States Navy, I never felt more proud of myself than in 2007 when I was inducted into the Phi Kappa Phi National Honor Society – an honor that included my first ever trip to University Park at State College. My pride continued to swell later that same year when I could finally claim to be a Penn State graduate. And my pride grew even greater still when I learned I would be graduating with distinction.

Despite everything, my pride remains strong today.

Over the past couple of years, the sense of loyalty and belonging I felt to my alma mater has carried over to its football team – a sport I rarely paid much attention to aside from the occasional game I would catch here and there. That all changed last fall when I had the opportunity to go to Beaver Stadium for my first Penn State game, and only my second trip ever to State College. That particular game just so happened to be JoePa’s 400th win. It was a glorious experience I hope to never forget, and one that forever changed my opinion on what it means to be a fan of college football. This past fall I shared that experience with my Mom when I drove the five hours up to State College for a Homecoming weekend I will always remember sharing with her. My Mom became an instant fan, and although I’m sure she'll understandably be more of a quiet fan in the coming months, my loyalty to my school remains.

Despite everything, I am still a fan today.

I have read the opinions, blogs, tweets, updates, and the like from as many sources as I could find this week. I have read reports (yes, even that report) and felt like I’m sure the majority of other fans and alumni felt as they read them – disgusted, saddened, angry, shocked, and dumbfounded.

While I’ve had the time to process all the available information, I understand that an overwhelming amount of the public will not feel obligated to make the same effort and will rely upon their chosen media to provide the information they base their opinions. I can’t blame anyone not invested emotionally in this school to take the time to do otherwise. At the end of the day, so much blame is being tossed around and misplaced, that if those of us that are proud of our blue and white contribute to the turmoil, we are simply not living up to our name.

Because despite everything, We Are … Penn State.

For that statement to mean anything right now, we need to stand together, and be the fans, students, and alumni full of grace, kindness, and compassion we’ve become known for. The riots need to stop immediately. The anger needs to be replaced with a sobering humility that recognizes that we, as human beings, all have a responsibility in this and we have been given an opportunity that shouldn’t be missed. An opportunity to re-evaluate not just our University, but the social conditioning that is present within all of us.

There were a lot of missed opportunities discovered -- a High School wrestling coach that had an uncomfortable feeling, a High School Principal that also remembered questionable behavior, parents and educators that missed red flags, a Janitor that kept too quiet, an assistant that didn’t intervene – all adults, and all with the moral obligation to say or do more than what they did.

Not all of these missed opportunities were at Penn State, but we’ll take the blame. We need to take responsibility because we need to be the ones to help motivate change, not just at Penn State, but everywhere. Social experts from around the country have been quoted all week that reporting abuse of all kinds is rare, even sexual abuse, and even involving children. And therein lies the ultimate tragedy of this story: Rarely do we as individuals ever live up to the expectations we demand from our peers. So where does that leave the victims?

Hindsight is of course always 20/20, but we now have the opportunity to demand of ourselves to do better as human beings. To disengage the fear that has embedded itself in how we react to alarming social situations. Fear can no longer be an acceptable excuse to inaction. We must recondition ourselves to provide assistance when able. How many people would run in the other direction if they saw someone being mugged? How many people have heard a domestic dispute and turned up the radio or TV to drown out the noise? How many people have seen a situation that made them completely uncomfortable and did nothing?

Doing nothing can no longer be an option. We owe it to each other and to the next generation to lessen the desensitization that has corrupted our ability to be better people. This negative social conditioning is more important than football, and much bigger than a school.

This is without question a Penn State tragedy, and one that will define us for years to come. But it is also a human tragedy that should be examined, processed, and learned from by all of us.

Thirty-Something Syndrome....I Think.

I'm not entirely sure I can pinpoint the moment it happened. Perhaps it was while I was walking the streets alone in the middle of the night in Vegas. Or maybe it was finding out something I had once thought I wanted turned out to be a sham. Or, it could just possibly be because something just biologically "clicked" when I turned 30.

No matter the moment, the point is that it happened. I never really understood the overused phrase, "turning over a new leaf" because frankly, people rarely ever do. But something - and I'm not entirely sure what that something is - happened in the fall/winter of 2009. I became a true leaf-turner, though not entirely in the ways I would have imagined.

I've considered writing a blog about my not-so-subtle changes for awhile, but haven't felt compelled to until I finally realized that a lot of people that thought (or think) they knew (or know) me, well, they might not.

So here it is, the differences - whether good or bad - from the girl I used to be to the person I am now.

1. Cork the Bubbly:

I used to be quite friendly. This was something I was actually once known for. Sometimes shy and reserved around new people, I was still talkative around most people and always tried to make people comfortable. Now, both the effort and art behind the comforting attempts seem to be lost on me. It's not that I go out of my way to make someone uncomfortable, I just don't see the need to always fill the silence. Unless I'm around my best-friend, and a few select others when I really can't seem to put a cork in it. But for the most part? I rarely find myself in situations where I'm around someone I could talk to for "hours". That isn't to say that any of my long time friends should think I don't care. I care. I just don't see how bullshitting for the sake of bullshitting proves it.

2. Shit-can the Self-Conscious:

I also used to be known for being extremely self-conscious, almost to the morbid point of self-loathing. I'm being generous by saying "almost". I've wandered through various stages of self-pitying and self-loathing throughout my life, with a few months here and there where I gave myself a slight reprieve from it. But, for the most part, I genuinely set myself up for my own failure by constantly selling myself short. Never one to fully recognize my own potential, I just always took what came, usually with open arms, no matter how much shit was slung my way. The guy you like is in love with your friend? What do you do? I'll tell you what you do -- you set them up, of course! How many times do you do this? Let's just say I stopped counting after the first three. The guy that scares the bejesus out of all of your friends in high school wants to date you? Sure! Why don't we throw in a nice, romantic Valentine's Day dinner for three (yes, three - his friend came too) on me! Why? Because guys don't have purses, duh! They tend to forget to wear the pants with pockets so they can bring their wallets. And don't forget to make sure you drive 35 minutes to pick him up (and his friend) since neither has a car or a license, and they are both out of high school because they dropped out. Who has time for school when there are knives to play with and beer to drink? Wait, wait, wait... I'm getting ahead of myself, here. We have to pause and reflect on why said dude is being dated in the first place - because the guy you really like, the one you perfected your flirting skills on, is too shy to admit his feelings, so you (of course) misinterpret that as disinterest and think you have a snowball's chance in hell of ever dating 'good' dude. How many times do you pull this maddening maneuver of dating douche-y dude over 'good' dude? Let's just say it's right on par with setting up your friends with the guys you like. Douche-y dudes have radar for girls that have self-conscious issues. They know they can get away with almost anything because these girls just don't think they can get (or deserve) anything else.

I'm not suggesting that all the guys I've dated have been d-bags. Quite honestly, I think I've dated some really great guys. They've all had their faults, but some faults are sexy - I'm not perfect, far from it, so I don't expect the person I'm with to be perfect either. But, knowing what kind of dudes I have a knack for attracting, I've pushed myself into a male-drought (that started out more painful than it really is) until I find the motivation to kick my ass back in gear so I have a better selection of the opposite sex. This isn't self-loathing or self-pitying behavior. This is being realistic. Acceptance of reality isn't a bad thing - it's a demonstration of sanity and it certainly doesn't bring me down. I've actually been enjoying the drought life, and that's why the motivation seems to be lacking. Which brings me to point 3...

3. Suck it Up! Solitude is Not for Sissies:

Growing up, I can't even begin to tell you how many times I cried over guys. Whether I was being asked out as a 'joke', looked at as a 'consolation prize' or found myself firmly planted in the 'friend zone', I never had it easy. Looking back, it's not hard to see where the self-conscious attitude came from. Add braces, gaining weight, and puberty to the mix and you have yourself a nice few years of misery. High School wasn't easy. I had to have a friend set me up on a blind date for my Junior Prom (a disaster of a story that will have to wait for another time), and for my Senior Prom, I had no one in the entire county I lived in that would take me. Now, lucky for me, I have an older brother with some pretty awesome friends who have always been like my adopted brothers, and after bawling my eyes out to my brother (who was in college) that I wasn't going to my Senior Prom because there was no way in hell I was going alone, a gift in the form of Michael came to the rescue (love you, buddy!) - one of my brother's 'awesome friends' who also happened to be his college roommate and heard about my situation. So, Senior Prom was saved, but the pattern continued.

College was a slap in the face to whatever self-respect I had left. Finally realizing there was nowhere to go but "up", I ditched my life and joined the Navy. Once in, it was so EASY to turn heads. If your head wasn't shaved in boot camp, you were immediately attractive to almost every guy there, just for being a girl. Hoo-ya! This was the place for me. All I needed was to have hair to be attractive, they made it so easy!

Once out of boot camp and at my very long technical school, it just kept getting easier. Now I could put the contacts back in, wear jeans and cute shirts, and actually make effort in the appearance department. Still destined to attract the d-bags, I faltered a little here -- I had the opportunity to break out of the pattern I had created for myself, and it was an opportunity somewhat missed. But, take heart! Once I found my footing, I went strong for awhile. 99% of the guys I really dated in my life happened quite consecutively, without much break in between. Growing somewhat cocky, I didn't see the pitfalls ready and waiting to claim my new-found confidence. But a few events here and there, and I was back down for the count. The blinking countdown on the console was begging me to put more coins in, to get back up and back out there, but my pockets were empty. Game Over.


The "drought" has lasted for longer than I'll share, simply out of self-respect (Ha! See, I have some now!) But, the good news is that it tends to grow on you. The first step is realizing the fear behind the sadness -- the fear of being alone that always caused the crying fits to begin with. Face that and somehow find a way to get past it and suddenly the self-pitying vanishes.

When the drought first started, I was miserable. Back to the self-loathing individual I thought I ditched in college, it was hard to not fall back in other self-pitying patterns of bad behavior. I stopped caring. Add to the stress of my life at the time, and it was a situation that seemed pretty desperate. I didn't want to go back to the way I was, crying over not feeling loved, feeling sorry for myself, but there it was. Like a damn itch you just can't scratch, I couldn't seem to pull myself out of the funk I was up to my neck in. The months turned into years, until finally I was back at feeling there was nowhere to go but "up." I was wrong. So down the rabbit hole I fell until the way up was too far out of reach to even consider trying to climb. A new exit strategy had to be put in place: Make the hole your home.

So, solitude was a welcome state. To be honest, I think everyone should experience being on their own, and mostly alone, for at least a small part of their life. You quickly learn what kind of person you are when you are only around yourself. With no one else to entertain or be concerned about, you do things for you. You cook what you like to eat. You watch what entertains you. You go where you want. You spend your money the way you want. You answer to no one. You finally own yourself completely. Once you embrace the power of complete independence, it makes you question whether you are now capable of having it any other way. Whether you would even want to have it any other way. You question a lot. Questions are good. Questions imply choices. Choices - your choices - give you power. Suddenly you feel you have a lot of potential. It's all up to you and what you want to do with it. I haven't decided yet. I'm still asking questions. But at least now I know what I can handle, what I can find comfort in, what I can thrive in, and what I can survive. Not everyone has those answers. I certainly never did before - all I had was the fear.

4. Silence the Sorry - Learning to Not Apologize:

"I'm sorry" was such a frequent phrase leaving my tongue that it started sounding meaningless to the people it was directed to. I would apologize for EVERYTHING. Even shit I had no reason to apologize for. I did this mostly with guys, desperately seeking the approval I felt would vanish if I stood up for myself. So here are just a few things I refuse to apologize for:

A. Swearing. I was a sailor for six years and have always enjoyed a 'colorful' way of speaking. I'll apologize when f-bombs become offensively frequent in conversation to someone I'm usually a little better mannered with. Say, for example, an older adult, or if I slip in front of a kid (this, if ever, rarely happens). But, if I feel compelled to use that language around someone that might normally not think it completely appropriate, tough! Words are not scary. They are consonants and vowels. Syllables. I would much rather you use the word "shit" in a sentence than use the word "ointment". And "God damn it" is no worse than damn it. Damn it.

B. Religion, or lack there-of. I'm not going to apologize for my opinions on this. I grew up Lutheran. My anti-religious resolve that started in High School has buckled a few times in my adulthood, but my beliefs in what is important are strong, and I've grown very stubborn over the years. Someone smart once said that "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Churches and organized religions have proven in a multitude of ways that they are corrupt in nature. They promise something they can't deliver, and that's the nicest thing they do. I won't turn this into an anti-Church rant, but when people say that churches and religion don't do harm, I have a sudden desire to talk about AIDS in 3rd world countries and the missionary preaching of the sinful use of contraceptives, but wait, this isn't a rant, and I won't go down that road. That's a conversation for another time.

C. Coming Out Swinging. I have never enjoyed confrontation. I was never the girl to really stand up for myself, and when I did, it was a muted effort at best. But, I no longer care if someone doesn't like what I have to say, and I no longer fear what someone will think if I disagree. I take great care in choosing my battles and knowing when to walk away, but if you paint me into a corner, see just how much I enjoy going to bat.

D. Hard-Hearted. I used to love tear jerkers. Romantic comedies were my favorite movie genre. I loved a good romance as much as the next girl. Not anymore. Romantic comedies are only enjoyable for me if the guy is funny and cute. Take away either one and I'm not likely going to want to see it. I need more than romantic dribble. I need eye candy if I'm going to make it through that kind of movie. Or an honest-to-goodness great script. Crazy, Stupid, Love for example had a great script. Great cast. That was a good movie. Another Steve Carrell vehicle, Dan in Real Life -- that was a great movie. Not your typical romantic comedy. Sure, they are all cliched. Boy meets girl. Boy loses girl. Boy goes running through an airport chasing girl. Girl forgives boy. Girl and boy live happily ever after. The plot is tired and predictable. Doing something - anything - to break out of the playbook risks losing your targeted audience that want the cliche. The characters have to have chemistry. The story has to be good. Or else it just needs to be an hour and a half escape with eye candy. It has to be one or the other (preferably both) for me to enjoy it. Now, give me an action movie or adventure any day of the week. Raunchy comedy? Yea, I like those too. And I certainly won't even begin to apologize for liking the eye candy in those movies. That's the benefit of being single, my friends, I can ogle anyone I want as much as I want. Who can possibly feel jealous?


5. Desperately Seeking...Acceptance?:

Along with being self-conscious I also remember once being a person constantly seeking the approval of others. In my limited defense on this topic, I will say that my wanting to be accepted never led me down a path I wasn't already comfortable traveling on. For example, I've never used illegal drugs - ever. I don't smoke, nor ever felt a desire to, and although I did my fair share of drinking, binge drinking wasn't a regular weekend for me (sure, it happened a few times), but I did it because I wanted to, not because I thought others wanted me to. But I did seek approval from people in other ways. Whether it was liking their type of music, their taste in movies, or even their taste in food, I was ready and willing to do what I needed to in order to be accepted by the people I wanted the acceptance from.

I wouldn't seek approval from everyone, just people I felt worthy of giving it. Those people tended to not be the type to partake in illegal behavior, so the things I did were always innocent enough. But now I've narrowed down this desire even more. The people I want approval from are standard for everyone - your boss (we all want to do a good job, right?), close friends (there is no one worse disappointing than friends), and selected family. But this type of approval isn't the same, and is (I believe) standard in society.

But here's the difference: I won't alter my behavior to get that acceptance, even from these select people. I do a good job because I like feeling like I've earned my paycheck, and I enjoy feeling as though people at work know they can rely on me. I like being counted on, it makes me feel all warm and tingly inside. And I really get a rush knowing I'm the "go-to" person on a particular subject or skill. That goes with friends and family as well. I like feeling responsible, and it makes me feel good knowing people trust me. I still follow rules, so I'm not suggesting I have a big middle finger sticking up to the world. But I no longer have the desire to do something just because someone I want to be accepted by does something. I no longer need or want approval from anyone. If people don't like the decisions I make, tough.


A few other changes have been noticeable as well, some more than others. One that comes quickly to mind is the embarrassment factor. Sure, this sort of goes along with being self-conscious (so many things go along with that), but I think it's worth mentioning on its own. I used to embarrass incredibly easy. Now, I've shown my ass (literally) to a guy at work without any of the panic-induced attacks I would have had before over the situation. I sing at work at the top of my lungs some days, just because I feel like it, knowing full well my singing voice sounds like a dying cat struggling to get out of a container. I watch movies with extremely sexy actors and have reactions reminiscent of a 12 year old girl, and I don't care.

This is who I am. I'm still compassionate. I'm still kind. There is still a lot of the old me inside, but I am different. I'm stronger. I'm more relaxed. In my opinion, I'm a better me. And my opinion is the only one I can be concerned about.

So if I act differently than I used to, please stop asking if something is wrong -- it's not because something is wrong, it's just because I AM different.

Information v. Knowledge: And Why You Should Care

We live in an age where information is force-fed to us at every turn. We hear, read, and see information from colleagues, commercials, books, magazines, the internet, family, friends, newspapers, TV shows, movies, plays, and most importantly, through experiences in our own lives. Information is all around us; we all become unintentional conduits of the passage of information by habitually regurgitating to those around us the information that has found its way to our ears or eyes. Why does any of this matter? Because our species has a conditioned response to most forms of information: we believe what we're told.

Why is this a problem and why should you care? Because misinformation can affect change, and not in a positive way. Misinformation can lead people to believe they are making the right decisions because they "know" the facts, when really, their knowledge could be very limited on the subject they are making a decision on.

One definition of Knowledge - as one information source indicates -- is "acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation."

When we are given information and conditionally accept them as "facts" we in turn instinctively believe we are building our knowledge base about a particular subject. The more information we receive, and the more credible the delivery, the more knowledgeable we assume to be on that subject. Until at some point we are confronted with truths or facts that leave us flummoxed. How can this [Fact A] be true when I KNOW that [Info B] has been said so repetitively that it MUST be true?

What made me write about this topic now? One event that made me think of the difference in knowledge versus information was the recent Casey Anthony trial. Another event was a more personal experience that I will choose to not blog about here, but is important to mention because I will say something on personal experiences shortly. And finally, I recently was able to see the HBO documentary Hot Coffee (Dir. Saladoff, 2011). For anyone who has HBO or has the means to watch this documentary, I strongly encourage you to do so. These three events combined with other experiences I've had made me wonder if people really understand the difference between information and knowledge, and understand the repercussions of believing the two to be interchangeable.

First, I'll talk briefly about Casey Anthony's case which started my mind spinning on this topic once the verdict was announced. I, like many of my peers, was quite surprised at the 'not guilty' verdict. But more surprising for me was hearing that the jury took only eleven hours to deliberate and did not request to review any of the evidence. Do I 'know' this for a fact? Of course not. And even if these two facts were true, they could be taken out of context. I do agree with one of my friends that said only the people on that jury will really know how they came to the verdict they did. But without making any claims of knowing what happened in that courtroom, I'll ask a few questions that I believe will explain why this case belongs in this blog:

1. Was the jury given the legal definition of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'?
2. Was the jury given the legal definition of 'circumstantial evidence'?
3. Was anyone on the jury aware of the number of cases that relied solely on circumstantial evidence and resulted in convictions?
4. Did any of the jurors watch CSI or one of the other TV crime dramas on a regular basis?
5. If any of the jurors did watch these shows, did they set an evidentiary standard for this case based on what they 'learned' about evidence from these shows?
6. Were the jurors prejudiced against the expert witnesses because they didn't appear as well spoken and/or charismatic as their TV counterparts?

There are a great number of possibilities as to "what happened" with the verdict. It is quite possible that misinformation about everything from evidence collection to understanding motive could have prejudiced the jury in such a way that they were incapable of making any other decision. It is also possible that the negative connotation of 'circumstantial evidence' could have played a major role in her acquittal. Or perhaps, none of this is true and after reviewing all of the evidence presented to them, the jury felt there was just not enough to convict. It's not a perfect system. But being judged by a panel of your peers is still the most fair system available -- at least, this is what I've been told.

Personal experiences play an important role in shaping our knowledge base. Our convictions in what we 'know' are greatly influenced by first hand accounts. We could have fifty different people tell us the sky was green. We might even believe it after so many people claimed to have witnessed the same thing. But our convictions become much stronger at knowing the sky is green once we see it for ourselves. Experience based knowledge is great, except in the cases where our experiences were the exception to the rule. Convincing someone that what they 'know' is false after they've experienced that particular thing for themselves is very hard to do. For example, someone might believe that planes are the most unsafe and unreliable forms of travel. Perhaps that person has had some unpleasant experiences in a plane to make them feel that way. There are examples of how your personal experiences can affect the way you believe to be knowledgeable about a subject everywhere in every day life.

One of the more unfortunate consequences of misinformation results in change that negatively impacts lives. I'll use one example from the movie Hot Coffee, as it is the more famous of examples and one most people will be familiar with. The McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit. What do you KNOW about this case? Do you believe it was a frivolous lawsuit and our civil system was in such a state that badly needed reform? Do you believe that this case opened the door for more ridiculous lawsuits after she 'won' her case? Do you believe that when people sue companies, doctors, hospitals, etc., that it is really the taxpayer that pays for it? What would you say if you heard some additional facts specifically for the McDonald's case, such as:

1. Contrary to popular belief, the elderly woman was NOT driving her car.
2. The woman's grandson went through the drive-thru to get his grandma a cup of coffee and breakfast for the both of them. He pulled into a parking spot to get "situated".
3. The car was NOT moving when the burn happened.
4. The elderly woman put the coffee cup between her legs to steady it as she poured her cream into the coffee. During this process, the coffee spilled into her lap, more specifically, along her inner thighs - a sensitive region.
5. The elderly woman (this is someone's Grandma) had to have multiple surgeries -- her burns were so severe that she had to have skin graphs done and for a time, her family and doctors were not completely sure she would make it through.
6. Her family asked McDonald's if they would help pay for the surgeries and asked them to please check the temperature setting on their coffee pot, because they were quite sure it was malfunctioning.
7. Eventually, when McDonald's did not offer to pay, lawyers were called. Through discovery, and in McDonald's own records, the woman's lawyers found that the fast-food place had received over 700 complaints of people being burned by their coffee -- and these were just the people that reported the incidents.
8. The jury awarded the woman damages to cover the cost of her medical expenses and then awarded over a million dollars in punitive damages to encourage change as McDonald's stated they had no plans on turning down the temp of the scalding beverage. The woman and McDonald's eventually settled out of court.

With just those 8 points of information -- how knowledgeable do you still feel about the case?

I bring this up because during my severely short stint in law school, I had a class on Torts (this type of law), and my Professor used this case as an example of a frivolous lawsuit. She presented the case to the class the same way the media did: A woman (driving) went through the drive-thru, ordered a cup of coffee, put it between her legs, and drove off -- and got burned in the process. She sued McDonald's for millions and won. This case was used as a perfect example of why we (the USA) needed tort reform. Interesting that a Professor in law school paints a much different picture than the documentary that researched the case and provided footage of interviews with the woman's family, lawyers on the case, and jurors. Not to mention the photographs of the burns (I really can't explain just how gruesome these burns were) and the photos of the skin graphs. Who do you believe? A Professor of Law or a documentary filmmaker?

I use this example last because I mentioned earlier about credibility. A Professor of Law would seem to have a lock on her credibility. A perfect example of how easily people can be misled to see what others want them to see.

Because of the outrage people felt about 'frivolous' lawsuits, several states have implemented capping on civil suits. A jury can award punitive damages to a company to affect change and not even know that the cap exists. They can award a $2 million dollar punitive damage decision and the company may only have to pay $500K because of a state mandated cap - a sum that a company large enough will gladly pay and carry on business as usual.

There is no solution other than to be skeptical and hope to pass that skepticism on to future generations. To teach our kids to be skeptical and not discourage debate and curiosity. To teach them that questions are good and that questioning authority is not always bad, if done so respectfully.

Do You Know What You Believe?

I have a love/hate relationship with religious conversation. On the one hand, I find the topic incredibly interesting, but on the other, I often find the people I end up in debates with know very little about the topic they speak very passionately about. "Blind faith" is quite the perfect term to describe what these particular debaters claim to have.

Awhile back, a Facebook friend had posed this question on his page, "For those of my friends that voted for President Obama, would you still have supported him if he had said he was an atheist?"

The response this particular friend received in his comments section was quite predictable. Not surprisingly, the majority said they would not have felt comfortable supporting (and voting for) a President that didn't have faith in God. The reasoning was usually something to do with religion providing a "moral compass" without which he might make decisions that they would find uncomfortable or not in keeping with their own belief systems.

An interesting spin on what it means to be an atheist President, considering the most religious President we've had in my lifetime (George W. Bush - self-professed born-again Christian) brought our country to not one, but TWO wars, decided that debt didn't matter and wouldn't affect us personally, put a ban on life-saving stem cell research, instituted policies that kept a large minority population from having basic civil rights, etc, etc, etc. Yes, obviously having a strong religious background is a requirement for that moral compass to point due North.

But, I didn't start this blog to talk about W. Bush, or President Obama, for that matter.

The most interesting response out of that comment section was one about "religious persecution" and of course, the always noted "Christian" founding fathers in any debate about the separation of church and state. I wanted to write a blog that not only highlighted her response since it is one us atheists that get into debates come across often, but more importantly, provide you with an understanding of WHY these debates can be so frustrating. Following her comment is my rebuttal. Keep in mind, this was an original thread about President Obama's ability to perform as President if he were an atheist.

I have a portion of her response in quotations, so as not to be confused with anything that might come from my mouth (or hands, haha.)

FB Commentor:

"So this is one of those topics that can be debated all day. I used the Osama example as just that an example. Some of our greatest leaders were of other religions, ie Malcolm X. So it's not about the religion, it's the relationship. I believe in God, and I would want a leader that believes in God. Your beliefs whether people will admit it or not, have an effect on your character, morals, and ideologies.

I agree with u [FB Topic Starter], people have killed in the name of "religion." And, there should always be a separation of church and state. That's what makes the US so great. The govt can't force u to be any certain religion.

But, things that have changed in our history b/c we had people who voted for things, and leaders who had the same ideologies or morals allowed them to pass. Ex. Taking prayer out of school. Before anyone comments, I understand the fact that if u don't believe in God, u may not want to pray in school, well opt out. It takes away liberties for those who do want to pray and believe in God.

Finally, this is a Christian nation. Our whole country was founded on separating ourselves from Catholicsm. But the great part about Christianity is the basis is to "love thy neighbor." So it doesn't matter that ure Buddhist, or Hindu or aeitheist. We can all function and flourish in society and I love and respect u the same.

And as Mr. Gump would say "that is all I have to say about that." :) Good convo, [FB Topic Starter]."

Now, please disregard our friend for all of the spelling errors, as I'm sure they were just typos and not good indicators of intelligence.

Here was my response - I tried to stay brief, keep in mind, this was a comment on a FB friend's status.

DACIA:

[FB Topic Starter], you certainly know how to pick topics to get people to comment! Religion has always been a favorite topic of mine, and I genuinely find Obama so likable that it pains me when people rush to not give him a chance, so I always respond about him. Especially considering the difficult mess(es) he inherited. Add these two topics together and I just can't seem to help myself :)

Just to clarify from the comment above, Catholics ARE Christians too :) And the religion of the U.K. at the time of the American Revolution was specifically called the Church of England which was different from the Catholic church (though not by much). Henry VIII was the monarch who broke the Church of England from the Catholic institution reigned by the Pope, mainly due to his desire to divorce his wife. The Church of England continued to transform under different rulers, and it was James I that gave Christians the King James version of the Bible. So it is important to note that the church we broke from after the American Revolution was a *Christian* church. Also, in the U.S., the churches established in the colonies for the Church of England eventually morphed into what we know as the Episcopal church today. Interestingly, this church - still part of the Anglican communion (and not entirely Catholic or Protestant, sort of a mix, but Christian nonetheless) - formally announced that they believed gay and lesbian people were children of god and deserved the same civil liberties as the rest of us -- and that was back in the 70's. Given the current climate for this oppressed minority in our country, I find that fairly remarkable, especially considering this announcement came over 30 years ago. To my knowledge, (I could be wrong about this fact) they were also one of the first churches to speak out against apartheid and formally apologize for slavery and the Jim Crow laws, but again, another church might have beaten them to the punch, I'm not 100% sure.

As for our 'Founding Fathers', many of them were Deists, not Christians. They believed -- largely in part because they had no other scientific understanding at that time -- that there must have been a creator, but they did not believe "he" interfered with the world after it was created, nor did they believe he answered prayers.

I was in the military for 6 years, and I always wanted a President that didn't search for answers from a God, but searched for answers from gathered intelligence, people from differing points of view, and experts in whatever field the question came from. I would rather have a President who believes that life is precious and finite than have a President that ultimately believes that if hundreds or thousands of troops die, at least they'll be going to a "better place." Or worse, having a President believe that nuclear war has an "upside" since it could be the sign of the Rapture. This is a valid fear of mine, I just want to add, since a very high percentage of Americans believe that the second coming will be in their lifetime. If you understand what this means based on the descriptions of the Bible, you can see why issues such as nuclear proliferation and global warming are alarming for me if a President seeks answers from his faith.

As an atheist, I understandably don't enjoy hearing people say that you need a god to have morals or good values. I believe that each life is equal and precious and I completely understand its brevity, which is why I believe everyone should be able to live their life having equal rights no matter their religion, sexual orientation, gender, race, etc. I only hope that the current trend continues. Obama lifted the ban on stem cell research, thank goodness! And I believe that the GLBT community will soon be enjoying the same civil rights as their peers.

But, we all have our opinions, and I agree, that's what is enjoyable about living in this country.

I of course had to end on a much nicer note than I would normally close with, but again, this was in response to a person on a FB friend's page. I didn't want to be too abrasive.

I'm bringing all of this up because I have been told on more than one occasion that I'm quite "opinionated." I usually get nailed with this tag after I've responded to or started a religious discussion. So I leave you good people with this:

Yes, I AM opinionated about religion and the effects the religious majority have on not just me, but the entire world. All I ask is one thing: if you want respect from me about what you believe and what your opinions are about your faith, the least you could do is actually read the book you defend so damn diligently.

Now, I don't mean reading just certain passages, and I certainly don't mean having priests or pastors read bits and pieces aloud for you every Sunday.

I mean this: sit down. Shut up. Turn off the TV with its Fox News and 700 Club. Dust off the Holy divine-inspired Bible you have collecting dust on a shelf. Open it up, probably for the first time in months or years. And start reading. Don't stop until you've finished cover-to-cover.

If, after you've read the 'Holy Book' in its entirety, you STILL want to have a religious discussion with me, and want to defend its great example of morality, I welcome the debate.

Until then....I'm not listening.

You can't keep defending a book you've never actually read.

And that's an opinion worth fighting for.

Unleashing Observational Judgment: PEOPLE vs. PETS

Passing judgment. We all do it. Whether you do it in your head or out loud, you can't shake the urge to shake your head at someone walking by you that has made a public choice that you don't understand. Whether that choice walking by takes the form of a girl with blue hair, a guy covered in piercings and tattoos, or a couple that seem to be grossly disparate in attractiveness, you as a human being will find it natural to pass judgment.

Of course, not all judgments are the same. If you are a girl with blue hair, perhaps seeing another girl with blue hair will cause you to make a positive judgment instead of a negative one. Or perhaps your judgments will be dedicated to those passing by who seem to live a boring life with their mousy brown hair or plain, dull blond hair.

Most of us have "filters" that cause us to have inner judgments we choose to keep to ourselves, and conversely, we have outer judgments we don't mind passing along to anyone who will listen.

I'm sure over the course of adding posts to my blog, I'll choose to vent many of my "outer" judgments. This particular post is a somewhat brief rant on a topic that recently found my head shaking in fervor: Parents (and people in general) who are unable to distinguish between PET and PERSON.

There are quite a few things that irritate me about this topic. To make this a shorter post and for increased readability, allow me to break it down in just a few paragraphs:

* Despite what the image above indicates, parents should NEVER put a child on a leash. Dogs + Leash in Public = Good Pet Ownership. Child + Leash AT ANY TIME = BAD PARENTING. The parents that try to dress it up or disguise the effort by buying one of those cute animal backpack/harness rigs are just fooling themselves. We all know it isn't a backpack. You have literally leashed your child. If you can't keep track of them in a public place, consider honing your parenting skills or strapping your child into a stroller, or...maybe...just maybe...hold their hand? And no, I have yet to come across an example where there is an exception to this rule and I do not see this as a viable alternative to dealing with a child that has special needs. I'm sorry, but just because a child is more challenging to monitor than another does not make it right to tether them like pets.

* Phrase Play: The phrase "putting down" when referring to children usually is referencing putting them to bed for a nap or for the night, while "putting down" a pet means killing them, or what we politely call "euthanizing".

* Stop telling me that having a pet is a great way to practice having a kid. Why? Because it's NOT! Pets are EASIER to take care of than kids. I have a dog, so I'll use him as an example: I have a full time job. My dog sleeps in a crate all day while I'm at work. He eats on his own, I just have to make sure his bowls are full. He lets me know when he needs to go outside - through the week this is only twice (maybe 3 times) a day. When I want to go on vacation, I can call the kennel and arrange for his overnight care with ease, as long as his shots are up to date. Most kennels cost about $25 a day, though I'm lucky and take Neko to a kennel that only charges $7/day. Neko plays for about an hour a day and sleeps the rest of the time. Oh, and the cost is fairly minimal considering I don't have to clothe him, put him in daycare, etc.

* Stop telling me that having a pet is a great way to practice having a kid. Why? Because it's NOT! Pets are HARDER to have than kids. Yes, you read that right. While in some respects, pets are easier to care for, there are many ways that make pets harder to deal with. For one thing, kids can go almost anywhere with you when traveling. If you want to take your child on vacation with you, you usually don't have to try to find a "kid-friendly" hotel. Most, if not all, will allow them. National Parks allow children -- despite, I'm sure, the many cases of parents not picking up after their kids in parks, there is a zero risk that children will ever be banned from public parks the way pets have been. As children grow older, they also become more intelligent and more rational. You can explain to a child why it isn't a good idea to run out in the middle of the road or why it's important to not eat strange things found outside. Try having that discussion with your pet. Friends and family are more willing babysitters than dog-sitters. Though it could be argued that cat owners have the best luck in that department. And it's easier to bring a child along to a restaurant, out with friends, over to a friend's house, to a movie, etc. You get the idea.

* Dogs and cats have naturally shorter life spans. It's natural to outlive them. It annoys me when people that have only had pets their whole lives say that losing their pet is equivalent to losing a child. No, it isn't. I don't have a child, and I love my dog, but I can guarantee that losing Neko would not even be in the same league, let alone ballpark, as losing a child. I get this. It's time for all the pet owners/ non human parents to get this as well.

* On the same note...the sensitivity our society has towards animals desperately needs transferred to children as well. Yes, most people are compassionate enough to not want to see a child suffer, but our society finds it more appalling to hurt defenseless animals than children. I understand that inclination -- animals can't speak for themselves and are mostly unconditional loving creatures that can't defend adequately against human cruelty. But the same can and should be said for children. Don't believe I have a point? Take this as an example: Michael Vick is one of the most hated men in sports. The justice system put him behind bars for his animal cruelty and a great number of people in our society believed he shouldn't be allowed to play football -- a career that does not provide him with immediate access to dogs -- even after he served his time. Now I'm not saying I agree or disagree with those judgments. But then consider this: For years priests have been sexually molesting children in their congregations. Mostly targeting boys, the priests caused not only physical trauma, but psychological and emotional damage to the abused kids on a horrific scale. We are not talking hundreds, but estimates in the thousands -- the Church swept the cases under the rug, moved the priests to new congregations with new pools of victims within their reach without punishment. It was never a priority of the Church officials to find the abused children, because they weren't even a consideration from a religious perspective. Because these acts occurred within the walls of a recognized and respected religious organization, society as a whole heard stories of the atrocities happening but passed them off as rumors or someone else's problem that they had no business getting involved in. How many people in our society demanded these priests brought to justice? How many of them demanded they have to turn in their white collars and robes and never be allowed near another child again? A story recently broke about several priests in Philadelphia -- just another city in a long list of cities to report such news -- who were finally prosecuted for sexually abusing children. Did anyone actually hear about this story? Are we that desensitized to human suffering that Michael Vick deserves more air time on his animal cruelty charges than an entire group of priests that molested the youngest followers in their congregations? And don't tell me that it's just because Michael Vick is famous. I have yet to find one special series dedicated to uncovering the priest molesters in the world, but can name about 5 shows off the top of my head that deal directly with animal cruelty cases.


While I pass my judgments on all the parents that have leashes on their children, I have to laugh at the people that believe single parenting (by choice), gay and lesbian couples/parents, the number of divorces, or the irreligious in society are the people/things contributing mostly to the degradation of good ole' family values. From my own observations, every kid I've seen on a leash has come from a family of a married (or at least together) Mom and Dad.

FTD: Failure To Deliver

I promised a blog about FTD awhile ago and am just now getting around to it. Unfortunately, I've had time to cool off so the burn I was dying to throw their way has waned just a little.

That being said, I would HIGHLY recommend NOT using FTD for any floral/basket delivering needs and here's why:


The Dad of one of my co-workers recently passed away. He had been out of work off and on for about two weeks leading up to his Dad's passing, and we didn't get information about a memorial service until just a couple of days before it was to take place.

Now, this co-worker is one of our guys that sometimes can have one of those "the world is against me" kind of attitudes -- especially toward the workplace. (This coworker is none other than "George" from the Can-Can blog, if you read that one.) With that in mind, he is definitely a co-worker we wanted to make sure we took care of since no one from our Richmond office was going to be able to make the memorial service (it was in the middle of the day during a very hectic week and the service was 2 hours away).

As the person responsible for sending an arrangement on behalf of our company, and knowing how George is, I thought it would be nice to send an arrangement to the Church where the memorial service was going to be held and send a basket of goodies to George's home here in Richmond. My go-to flower delivery company is 1-800-flowers, but they changed their website since the last time I had been on it and now have a separate basket site and it just seemed like they didn't have 2 of the things I wanted. So then I tried ProFlowers (my next choice) and couldn't find what I wanted there either. As a last resort, I went to FTD, hearing good things about them in the past.

With their site, I found immediate success. They had the arrangement I wanted, fairly priced, and a sympathy "tin" of scrumptious cookies that I knew he would appreciate that I could send to his house. When I added my items to my cart and clicked on "check out" a pop up would appear that said I had no items in my cart.

I tried putting the 2 items in my cart 3 TIMES. Then I decided to "sign up" for an account on FTD, sign into the account, and try adding the items to my cart again. Again, no luck. The site was temporarily bugged. At this point it was Wednesday morning, the memorial service was on Friday and I was getting desperate.

I should have gone back to one of the other sites and found something else. But I was sold on FTD's sympathy tin because I just knew George would love those damn cookies. So I called the 800# to order the items over the phone.

My customer rep was actually very helpful and courteous. After about 30 minutes (we were dealing with a slight language barrier getting the two items ordered -- they were being shipped to 2 different addresses so it took us awhile making sure the order was correct, not to mention the fact that it took him awhile to get the card message right since the 2 items I ordered had different messages attached to them.) But, after 30 minutes, all seemed good.

The email confirmation of my order came in within minutes of getting off the phone with the rep. I had to chuckle a little because instead of "St. Francis of Assisi" he put "Saint of Francis Assisi" (I thought it was funny), and the message he fumbled a little on the cookies, but it wasn't enough of a big deal to get upset over (although I did spend 30 minutes making sure these things were correct and he and I repeated EVERYTHING at least 3 times to ensure accuracy.)

The cookies were to be delivered on Thursday to George's house and the floral arrangement was to be delivered to the Church on Thursday as well. I knew George would be in Richmond to accept the cookies, but wouldn't be home on Friday because the service was two hours away. Because the service was starting at 11 a.m., I wanted to make sure the arrangement was delivered on Thursday so it was there in time.

I received an email confirmation on Thursday afternoon letting me know the cookies had been delivered to George. Great!

I didn't receive anything referencing the arrangement to the Church, but didn't panic because it was still early. By 4 p.m. I decided to email a customer inquiry on the status of the delivery (they have a specific email for this). I didn't receive anything back.

Friday morning at 10:50 AM (10 MINUTES BEFORE THE START OF THE SERVICE) I get a call at the office from FTD. The female rep calling is letting me know that the florist near the Church was unable to deliver the arrangement THURSDAY and they want to know if it is okay if they deliver today.

Now, I tried to stay calm, and at first, I was successful at this. I explained to the rep that the service was starting in 10 minutes and it would only be okay for them to deliver that day if they could deliver the arrangement within the next 10 minutes. She said she would need to call the florist and call me back.

She called me back 10 minutes later to let me know that it would not be possible for the florist to deliver the flowers before the start of the service because the florist was over 30 minutes away from the Church.

Now, keep in mind that the flowers were $45.99 and shipping was $16.99 for the flowers. (The cookies were 19.99 and the shipping was $23.99 -- ridiculous, right??) But as they were both planned for "next day" delivery, I didn't complain about the shipping prices.

When I told the rep that it was completely unacceptable for them to have not notified me the day before that the flowers couldn't be delivered the day as promised, she offered a refund on the item price (keep in mind, she didn't offer a refund on shipping). I explained to her as nicely as I could that a refund was not a good solution to the problem. I now have a coworker and his entire family who think the people at his job are a-holes. Not only did NO ONE from the company go to the service, but we didn't even send flowers?? Do you think it's easy to explain to a co-worker after he comes back to work that we had good intentions but the flower company didn't come through? A guy who thinks the world is against him anyway?? I was getting more upset by the second.

After explaining all of this to the rep (yes, I did tell her all of that), I asked her what her next solution was since refunding my money and not delivering the flowers at all would create an even bigger issue.

She then offered to deliver the flowers to George on Saturday. And ACTED LIKE SHE WAS DOING ME A FAVOR BY NOT CHARGING FOR A SATURDAY DELIVERY. I politely expressed my annoyance that I had paid for next day delivery, they were supposed to be delivered to the church on Thursday, now the flowers were arriving at his home two days late, they weren't there for the service, and FTD isn't going to offer anything to make me happier about this scenario??

She then gave me a scripted line that she could offer 10% off the item price. Okay. I asked if she meant 10% off from the $45.99 or 10% off the total price of the flowers + shipping, and she said 10% off the item price. Since she seemed reluctant to do the math, I did it for her. Here's a breakdown of our conversation:

Me: "You mean, these flowers are being delivered 2 days later than promised, not there for the service, and you are seriously offering to only refund me $4.60 from my $62.98 cost?"

Rep: "Yes ma'am."

Me: "Well, that doesn't work for me. You're going to have to try again because that's a joke. The shipping alone is $16.99. Why am I paying $16.99 for next day delivery when the flowers are being delivered 2 days late???"

Rep: "Well, ma'am, we could deliver the flowers to the recipient's address today, we just can't get the flowers to the Church before the service."

Me: "Since I've already explained to you that the service is 2 hours away from where my co-worker lives, and he'll be at the service, who is going to be at his home to accept a delivery today? They can't be delivered today at his home, no one will be there! Not to mention, even if they would have been delivered today, it's still a day later than promised, and I paid for next day delivery when I ordered on Wednesday!"

Rep: "Yes ma'am. I understand. That is why we are offering to deliver the flowers to his residence on Saturday, at no extra charge at a 10% discount from the item price for you."

Me: "10% off the item price is only $4.60!! That does not work for me when I paid over $60 to have flowers delivered to the Church, YESTERDAY."

Rep: "Ma'am, yes I understand your frustration, please hold."

[On hold for approx 3 minutes.]

Rep: "Ma'am, I do understand your concern and that is why we can offer you 20% off your item price for your inconvenience, what address can we deliver the flowers to on Saturday?"

(Nice try lady)

Me: "Let me get this straight. I just got put on hold for 3 minutes so you can come back with an offer of knocking $9.20 off my bill? The shipping charge alone was $16.99, I don't understand why you aren't offering to at least remove the shipping charge since the flowers were not shipped as promised."

Rep: "Yes ma'am, I understand but at this time we can only offer 20% off the item price, if you let me know what address we can ship the flowers to, we can get those delivered for you on Saturday."

(What, is she a robot? And if she says she understands ONE MORE TIME I'm going to stab something...)

Me: "That does NOT work for me. Let me repeat this. I should NOT be charged for next day delivery when the item was NOT delivered next day. I don't understand what is so difficult. If you can't offer me a discount that covers the shipping charge then I want to speak to someone that can."

Rep: "Please hold"

[This time I'm on hold for a solid 7 minutes, and I'm being generous here because I had the call on speaker and it felt more like 20 minutes.]

Rep: "Ma'am, we can offer you 30% off the item price and $2.00 off the shipping price, and that is the most we can discount your purchase unless you'd prefer to have a full refund and we can cancel the order."

(Now she's just pissing me off.)

Me: "Okay. Let me get this straight. You are offering 30% which is $13.80 plus $2.00 off the shipping, making it a total discount of $15.80. The shipping charge was $16.99. This is not a discount that satisfies me as I'm still paying for shipping that didn't happen as promised. A full refund and order cancellation is not a workable solution for me because since your company waited until Friday to call me and tell me the flowers could not get delivered as promised, I'm unable to use another company that can have flowers delivered to him at a comparable - and at this point reasonable - price before he gets back to work on Monday and comes in to work thinking we are all a bunch of jackasses. By waiting until Friday to notify me about this issue you've effectively removed any option I had in using another company to fix this."

Rep: (Getting testier by the minute with her tone) "YES ma'am. I UNDERSTAND. But we are offering you 30% off the item price, delivering the flowers on Saturday, and offering $2.00 off the shipping charge. If this doesn't work for you, we can offer a full refund and cancel the order."

Me: "Please wait a minute."

(I hurry up and bring 1-800-flowers up on the screen to check and see if they can deliver an arrangement on Saturday - the Peace Lily I picked out is not available for Saturday, next day delivery, so I can't use another company to get him flowers before Monday.)

Me: "I'm not satisfied with either option. Again, your company by waiting until today to call me about the flowers not getting delivered has stripped me from any chance of getting another company to fix YOUR mistake. I understand that it was the local florist that made the error, but that isn't my problem. You are just notifying me today that a delivery that was supposed to happen yesterday afternoon didn't happen and that you are unable to deliver today."

Rep: "MA'AM, as I've explained before, we CAN deliver the flowers today, but not to the Church for the service."

Me: "And as I've explained, if you couldn't deliver the flowers to the Church by 11 a.m. today then we are done talking about delivering the flowers today since there are ZERO options of having someone present in his Richmond home to accept the delivery. Do you understand that the Southside of Richmond and the service in Triangle, VA are almost 2 hours apart? I get that you are not from here, but I need to make sure you understand that no one will be at his home in Richmond today."

Rep: "Yes, I do understand, which is why we can offer a Saturday delivery. There is nothing else I can do. We are already discounting both the item price and the shipping cost as you requested."

Me: "But not enough to actually cover the shipping cost!"

Rep: "No ma'am. I'm sorry but that is the final offer."

Me: "If you are incapable or unauthorized to offer me a discount that covers at the MINIMUM my shipping cost, then I want to speak to someone that can."

Rep: "Ma'am, the 30% and $2 discount is the best we can offer -- "

(Cutting her off)

Me: "I want to speak to your supervisor. Now."

Rep: "Please hold"

[On hold for a brisk 4 minutes this time]

New Rep: "Ma'am, I'm truly sorry for the inconvenience you are experiencing. Let me assure you this is not the normal customer experience. I can offer you a 40% discount from your item price, Saturday delivery, a $10 coupon on your next purchase, and I will personally call the recipient to let him know that we failed to deliver the arrangement as scheduled so he understands the fault is not with you."

(Nearly shocked into silence....)

Me: "THANK YOU. Yes, the 40% discount is reasonable since now the shipping is essentially free - as it should be. You can keep the coupon because I'll never use FTD again, but here is the recipient's name and number, and a phone call would be outstanding to explain to him what happened with his delivery."

New Rep: "Yes ma'am, I'll call him personally. We'd still like to send you the coupon, but we'll get the discount applied to your charge right away. You will be emailed with a delivery confirmation, now can you give me the details of the new delivery address and contact information?"

Me: "Keep the coupon, here's the information..."

FINALLY!!!! Now, if FTD had led with that last offer when they FIRST called, I wouldn't have felt the need to write this blog. But, as my assistant can corroborate, this entire FTD exchange took FORTY NINE MINUTES. That doesn't include the first call letting me know the flowers hadn't been delivered and my wait time as she called the florist and then called me back.

Whew. That was a long story. Turns out, I'm still pretty fired up about the whole experience.

My point is this: If you are a company that boasts 100% customer satisfaction GUARANTEED on your website, and in your delivery/shipping small print do NOT mention anything about the possibility of an item actually NOT arriving as promised.... then you should be providing your best offer at the start of the call in order to minimize irreversible customer dissatisfaction. ESPECIALLY when you already know that the arrangement is for a time-sensitive memorial service that you are MISSING completely.

On a side note, after the fact - turns out that the B*tch of a "New Rep" did NOT make any calls to my co-worker. In fact, the icing on the cake: the only call he received from FTD was from the local florist on Friday very rudely asking him where she can deliver the arrangement - and she called in the middle of the memorial service (he didn't answer but had a voicemail from her.)

Unbelievable. Was I wrong? Did I get heated over nothing?

I don't think so....

A Full Moon at the Can Can

Getting Dethroned: Knowing When To Just OWN It.


I have a pretty funny story to tell. I think the funniest part is that it has been in the making for quite some time.

It's no secret that I love my job. When I say that I love my job, I mean that I GENUINELY love my job -- it's a rare condition that seems to affect very few people in this world, unfortunately.

Part of the reason why I love my job so much is because of the people I work with. My boss is a truly remarkable person. He's one of those bosses that doesn't even realize how great of a boss he is. The rest of my "boys" all have their individual personality quirks, but are still all equally lovable in their own right. I have joked in the past that it should be easy for people to understand why I never want married in my personal life when I spend the majority of my time with 5 different husbands that I work with. I have the husband that lets my "honey do" list go in one ear and out the other, I have one husband that is super sensitive to my every facial expression and always has a quick "What's wrong?" waiting for me if I don't 'look' right, I have the husband that delivers friendly and flirty banter, and then the husband that bickers with me every chance he gets, etc., etc., etc.

It is the husband that bickers with me every chance he gets that stars in this particular comedy.

We'll name him "George" to keep things anonymous.


George and I have been bickering for what feels like years. Everyone in the office often jokes that we sound like a real married couple - and whenever someone makes this joke, both of our faces immediately wrinkle up in disgust at the thought. I'm not his type. He's not my type. This doesn't prevent him from occasionally flirting -- in between getting red-faced and fired up about the latest thing he's pissed at me about. I take it in strides. He is very much like a female in the sense that he never lets anything go - and will quickly throw a past argument back in your face even months later if it suits his current argument. He's a frustrating person to argue with because his complaints and rants are completely irrational. We have had a couple of pretty nasty verbal bouts in the past, the last one of which occurred just a couple of weeks ago. But, as with most working relationships, we manage to make up and get the job done with genuine smiles on our faces.

It's important to note that George is the only person in the office with whom I have this kind of volatile interaction.

Last Friday I came in to work early to help interview a potential new hire. I normally get to the office a few hours after the boys, but on this particular day I was at the office before the boys. The morning went well, and being there earlier than normal allowed me to get quite a bit of work done, even after spending time in the interview.

The boys were in the back warehouse getting their schedules out and the day started. I had already had one cup of coffee at this point and by 7:30 my bladder was feeling the pressure.

We have one toilet/bathroom in our building. This bathroom is shared by both sexes as it is, like I just said, the only bathroom in the building.

Now, I should probably stop here (since you already know where I'm heading) and talk about the history of our particular bathroom.

Yes, our bathroom has "history" -- and quite a funny one.

First, there was the 'Bare Necessities': When I first started - there was no hand soap, no paper towels, and you were lucky to get toilet paper because this is a bathroom only guys frequented at the time.

Then, there was the 'F'ed up Flusher': We had the lid off the back of the toilet on the floor for weeks because you had to reach in and pull up on one of the arms on the inside to flush the toilet manually. We finally rigged this somehow with a coat hanger that replaced a 'flusher' for several more weeks.

Then, we had 'Impaired Illumination': The electricity in our bathroom didn't work for awhile -- so while we had the flusher rigged, we also had a construction lamp inside the bathroom (which is like a HUGE spotlight) that we needed to plug in during each bathroom use.

Then, we had the 'Defective Door Knob': For a solid week before we got it fixed, our bathroom door had the remarkable ability to lock a person inside the bathroom. Yes, you were locked in the bathroom from the inside. One of the guys that works in the warehouse got himself locked in the bathroom one day when I was the only one in the office. It was quite the experience trying to explain to him through a wooden door how to use the screwdriver on the shelf in the bathroom to unlock the door -- did I mention he didn't speak English? It was really funny...


Which brings us to the 'Warped Door': Now that we've had a fully functioning bathroom for almost a year now, we weren't too surprised when we started noticing that the door sometimes doesn't shut all the way unless you put your weight into closing it. It can "click" shut and still technically be open. Which brings us to last Friday...

Now, I hope you are reading this and understand that I am describing our little bathroom with love -- the bathroom is just one of those quirky things that provides character to our office.

But, you aren't honestly thinking about the 'character' of the office when you have your pants around your ankles, ass in the air, and you are bending over getting ready to pull your pants up when a coworker walks in on you.

It might not have been as funny if it was anyone else walking in on anyone else. But it was George walking in on good 'ole me. Yep, that's right -- he got a full moon. And out of sheer shock and humiliation, he actually FROZE in the doorway staring at me (and making eye contact) before I called out his name and he snapped into action and closed the door.


Now, when a coworker sees your rear in full pale glory... you can handle it one of two ways...

You could either A) Freak out, get mortified and hide in your office embarrassed beyond belief, debating on whether or not you'll ever come out of your office again or ever come back to work for that matter...

Or...

B) Take a deep breath and walk out of the bathroom into the warehouse and say, "Bathroom's all yours, George."

I, of course, opted for option B. I decided to face down the embarrassment by walking into the warehouse laughing off the entire incident. To be fair, George was more humiliated than me, so it was easy to aim the teasing jokes in his direction. He joked about how we might get along better now that we are so much 'closer.' My response? "Well, if I had known showing my ass to you would have made you act nicer to me, I would have done it much sooner." All of the guys couldn't believe how UN-embarrassed I was about the whole situation.

Now had it been ANYONE other than George, like say, my boss for example...I probably would be typing a very different story with a drastically different tone...because I honestly don't know if I could have taken it so well if it had been anyone else.

The story has been told to just about everyone affiliated with our work and my boss' wife came in to the office today and told me how my boss told her the story and couldn't get over how I "took it like a champ."

Is there a lesson to be learned here? Well, aside from making sure the door is actually locked?

I think so -- when faced with an impossibly embarrassing situation, there is ALWAYS an alternative way to reacting that makes you come out on top. :)