February is the worst month of year and it isn't even close.
The weather is cold, the days are short, it doesn't contain a real holiday, and nothing interesting happens in it other than the Super Bowl, which almost always disappoints with boring football and uninspired commercials. And don't even get me started on the horrors of Valentine's Day.
I know. January is cold too. And the weather is equally miserable on the warm side in August, which also lacks a real holiday. But January at least has two holidays, the NFL playoffs, and the tail end of the holiday season. August, at least, has daylight, and no begrudges you a summer vacation if you just can't take the brutal heat. In February, your boss still expects you to work extra to compensate for the lost productivity of the holiday season, and it's too cold to go anywhere anyway.
February just sucks. And as I type this I'm reminded that February sucks for an additional reason: it is wayyyyyyy too hard to spell. It has that unnecessary and largely unpronounced "r" as its fourth letter, inserted just to spite all of us. We can't even write about it without it causing aggravation.
Honestly, the month's only redeeming factor is that it only has 28 days. Whoever decided that the rest of the months should have 30 or 31, while February was so awful it should be limited to 28, obviously realized how horrible this month is. But they didn't do enough to STOP it.
Thankfully, it's almost over for this year. But once it ends Monday at midnight, it will still be out there, lurking, laughing under its cold wintery breath until it returns in early 2012.
So I suggest we go a step further than making February the shortest month of the year: we should eliminate it altogether. Really, wouldn't the world be a much better place if we had 11 months with 33 or 34 days each and just got rid of February?
I'm sure someone out there would argue that if we skipped February, March would suddenly just take its place as the month filled with cold weather and short days, and it would be just as bad. But that's ridiculous. For one thing, March is much easier to spell.
Besides, I'm pretty sure these skeptics are wrong. You can't believe everything you read on the internet, you know. And if by some weird stretch of logic they happened to be technically correct, we could still solve the problem by adding 28 days to January.
This would be much better, but it might cause problems for those only get paid at the end of the month. So, with this group in mind (which includes myself, now that I think about it), I offer the following compromise that should please everyone: shorten February to 1 day.
And get rid of that first "R" while we're at it.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
Chris Jericho told me it was time to blog again
Welcome back.
It's nice to be out of my self-imposed three-month blogging exile.
I never meant to be away this long.
December got busy with Christmas shopping, and by the endless array of holiday social gatherings and all the usual things. Then the first few weeks of January was spent recovering from December and compensating for all the life obligations that got shunned over Christmas. By late January, I wanted to blog again, but it had been too long to come back with just a routine observation or two complaining about my newest co-worker or a puzzling bumper sticker I saw. I had to come back with something big. But inspiration escaped me. I felt under-equipped to do something big, so I did nothing at all.
Such is life. Our dreams disappear slowly through steady, incremental neglect. If the things we want can't be immediately achieved, we often just try to forget we ever wanted them instead of moving labouriously in their direction. The story of why I stopped blogging is the story of why many of our dreams don't come true. But it's not the story in which I want to live.
I read a lot over the break. In between volumnes of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, I picked up what I expected to be a mindless guilty pleasure: the auto-biography of pro-wrestler/rock star/game show host/VH1 pop-culture commentator Chris Jericho. He's always amused me, and I was in need of something light to bridge me to the next series of Tolkein's epic battles. But in reading the backstory of how a skinny kid from a broken home in rural Canada became famous, it struck me not just how hard he worked, but his sense of joy while doing it, even through the awful parts. The hard work was worth it, because the goal, whether attained or not, was the purpose he envisioned for his life.
His tale reminded me that most dreams only come true through hard work. And if I settle for a comfortable but unfulfilling life doing something else, work will always feel like work. My current job pays the bills. It may continue to do so until the day I pass from this world. But it isn't my purpose. So while I continue to do what I have to in order to meet life's obligations, joy comes in working toward a bigger dream.
My ship will never come in if I don't bother to build a pier.
I'll see you soon. Very, very soon.
It's nice to be out of my self-imposed three-month blogging exile.
I never meant to be away this long.
December got busy with Christmas shopping, and by the endless array of holiday social gatherings and all the usual things. Then the first few weeks of January was spent recovering from December and compensating for all the life obligations that got shunned over Christmas. By late January, I wanted to blog again, but it had been too long to come back with just a routine observation or two complaining about my newest co-worker or a puzzling bumper sticker I saw. I had to come back with something big. But inspiration escaped me. I felt under-equipped to do something big, so I did nothing at all.
Such is life. Our dreams disappear slowly through steady, incremental neglect. If the things we want can't be immediately achieved, we often just try to forget we ever wanted them instead of moving labouriously in their direction. The story of why I stopped blogging is the story of why many of our dreams don't come true. But it's not the story in which I want to live.
I read a lot over the break. In between volumnes of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, I picked up what I expected to be a mindless guilty pleasure: the auto-biography of pro-wrestler/rock star/game show host/VH1 pop-culture commentator Chris Jericho. He's always amused me, and I was in need of something light to bridge me to the next series of Tolkein's epic battles. But in reading the backstory of how a skinny kid from a broken home in rural Canada became famous, it struck me not just how hard he worked, but his sense of joy while doing it, even through the awful parts. The hard work was worth it, because the goal, whether attained or not, was the purpose he envisioned for his life.
His tale reminded me that most dreams only come true through hard work. And if I settle for a comfortable but unfulfilling life doing something else, work will always feel like work. My current job pays the bills. It may continue to do so until the day I pass from this world. But it isn't my purpose. So while I continue to do what I have to in order to meet life's obligations, joy comes in working toward a bigger dream.
My ship will never come in if I don't bother to build a pier.
I'll see you soon. Very, very soon.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Finally, a real vacation
So, I'm heading out tomorrow to fly to Miami for a seven-day Caribbean Cruise leaving Sunday. I've had an impossibly busy last 3 months dispensing justice to those least desiring it, so I'm counting down the minutes until my relaxing 10-day weekend starts.
At least I hope it's relaxing. I return from almost every single vacation more exhausted than when I left. One of my personality flaws is an unrealistic expectation of the number of things I can accomplish in a given time, so I tend to overbook every minute of my life. This is why I don't blog more often. And also why I forgot to call you back last night.
Anyway, my wife and I are vowing not to do that this time (Except in San Juan, where there's just too much we want to see to fit in the 8 hours we are there. You don't expect me to stop overcommitting cold turkey, right?). Instead, I'm hoping to sit in the sun and stare blankly into the sun for 7 straight days, taking the occasional crumpet or fruit-influenced drink that the poolside attendants bring my way.
Every day when you cruise you get a list of activities for the next day, which all sound fabulously entertaining on paper. Half of the time these things are great, but the other half, the champagne art auction is usually low on champagne and high on high pressure sales pitches for bad art; the trivia is filled with loud talkers and questions about obscure 1940s cinema; and the production shows are less entertaining than the karaoke in the back lounge.
I love crusing, but unless you are going for a non-stop party (which is in fact a very good reason to cruise), the endless supply of available activities can defeat the purpose of getting away from an overburdened life. I'm not going to let that happen this time. I'm going to sleep in, sit on my private balcony, eat well, and maybe sing some Elvis if there's the usual nightly karaoke.
I can't wait. I'll tell you all about it when I come back.
If I come back.
At least I hope it's relaxing. I return from almost every single vacation more exhausted than when I left. One of my personality flaws is an unrealistic expectation of the number of things I can accomplish in a given time, so I tend to overbook every minute of my life. This is why I don't blog more often. And also why I forgot to call you back last night.
Anyway, my wife and I are vowing not to do that this time (Except in San Juan, where there's just too much we want to see to fit in the 8 hours we are there. You don't expect me to stop overcommitting cold turkey, right?). Instead, I'm hoping to sit in the sun and stare blankly into the sun for 7 straight days, taking the occasional crumpet or fruit-influenced drink that the poolside attendants bring my way.
Every day when you cruise you get a list of activities for the next day, which all sound fabulously entertaining on paper. Half of the time these things are great, but the other half, the champagne art auction is usually low on champagne and high on high pressure sales pitches for bad art; the trivia is filled with loud talkers and questions about obscure 1940s cinema; and the production shows are less entertaining than the karaoke in the back lounge.
I love crusing, but unless you are going for a non-stop party (which is in fact a very good reason to cruise), the endless supply of available activities can defeat the purpose of getting away from an overburdened life. I'm not going to let that happen this time. I'm going to sleep in, sit on my private balcony, eat well, and maybe sing some Elvis if there's the usual nightly karaoke.
I can't wait. I'll tell you all about it when I come back.
If I come back.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
3 Perspectives on Election Night
I like to flip between the three cable news channels when I watch election coverage. It's like traveling between three different dimensions without leaving your couch. Here's a recap of last night:
CNN: We welcome you to our live election coverage! We're bringing you analysis from a variety of perspectives tonight. In fact, we have so many analysts on our panel that our news desk is in the shape of an "L" just to fit them all! That's right, we have more commentators working tonight than you can actually see on your tv! We thought this was a good idea for some reason! Anyway, our panel includes: Donna Brazile, from the African-America perspective; Alex Castellanos from the Latin American conservative perspecitve; James Carville the crazy liberal cajun that we've just let out of his cage; Bill Bennet, the grumpy old conservative...
MSNBC: We welcome you to tonight's funeral. We had fun while our party lasted. Stay with us over the next five hours as we try to explain why America has lost its collective mind.
Fox News: We welcome you to tonight's HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is going to be GREAT!
CNN: We also have Gloria Berger, from the white feminist perspective; Anderson Cooper, our intellectual skeptic, Donald Martin, from the male African American perspective...
MSNBC: Breaking news: it's just been announced that the Republicans have won the House. Just as tragically, beloved Senator Russ Feingold has lost in Wisconsin. How did Wisconsin vote out Russ Feingold? This was RUSS FEINGOLD? What is wrong with you, Wisconsin? You've just voted out the best Senator of all time. Please turn the channel, we don't even want to talk to you.
Fox News: (News anchor #1) So it looks like the Republicans will take control of the House, but not the Senate. But we have the House, and home is where the heart is!
(News anchor #2) What is this Senate thing of which you speak? Don't you know the Republicans just won the House? Let's take a look at how Martha Roby won Alabama District 2, and then we'll proceed through the alphabet with an in-depth look at each of the 240 House races the Republicans have won so far. Meanwhile, in an effort to live up to our "fair and balanced" motto, we'll go live to every single victory speech by a Republican winner tonight.
MSNBC: You know, Russ Feingold truly lived up to his name. He really was as fine as gold. We're so bummed about him losing, that we're going to go live to the concession speech of Delaware witch-turned-losing Republican candidate Christine O'Donnell, just to cheer us up. Even though this has no news value whatsoever, she might say something dumb that we can laugh at. It's what Russ Feingold would have wanted.
CNN: And to the right, outside of your view, we have Wolf Blitzer, who will break in at inopportune moments and give you meaningless exit poll results, such as "56 percent of women wearing green preferred that their candidate wear sandals while on vacation, while 42 percent preferred loafers. But this was true only among independents and women named Jane."
MSNBC: We're now joined by GOP minority whip Eric Cantor. We're not sure why he agreed to this, but we will make him regret it. Mr. Cantor, will you admit tonight that all of your campaign promises were lies or will you lie again and deny it? Isn't it true that you've spent the last two years opposing Obama, but you have no actual ideas of your own? And what was so bad about Russ Feingold?
CNN: And on the "L" portion of our state, we have several other analysts from any other demographic group you can possibly imagine. This is to ensure that whenever we finally get around to finishing our introductions and start our analysis, we can be sure that (with this many people) someone will soon change whatever subject will be brought up, so we never have to come up with anything insightful!
Fox: And in Connecticut House District 13 the Republican managed to win by... wait, we now are joined by GOP minority whip Eric Cantor. Eric, would you say that the Democrats are incompetent and lazy or that they just hate America?
MSNBC: Stay tuned, everyone. We have two more concession speeches of losing Republican candidates to bring you, once we can actually find two more Republicans who lost tonight. There are also still three close Senate races we're keeping an eye on, but we aren't going to tell you which ones or what the vote total is, because then you might change the channel, and we didn't have that many viewers to begin with. We're sure you'd rather hear our overblown opinions than actual election results anyway.
CNN: (Gloria Berger speaking) So, what to make of tonight's events? Donna, do you see tonight's vote as a repudiation of democratic policies or merely as a sign of voter frustration with the economy?
(Donna Brazille): Well, I think that the key to understanding what happened tonight is...(loud music interrupts, and a voice speaks: WE INTERRUPT TO TAKE YOU BACK TO WOLF BLITZER IN FRONT OF OUR GIANT SCREEN OF DOOM WITH THE LATEST EXIT POLLING. WOLF?)
(Wolf Blizter): I have new exit poll results from Canada, which didn't actually vote tonight, but is a lovely place nonetheless. We found that 41 percent of Canadians prefer bacon, but only 38 percent would eat it on a chicken sandwich. But in Toronto, these numbers are reversed.
Fox: We are now joined by Fox News analyst Greta Van Sustern, here to revel in the glory of taking control of the House, which everyone knows is the only legislative body that matters. Greta, do you think tonight's vote reveals that America has finally come to its senses?
(Greta): Well, the first thing I noticed was that Russ Feingold lost his Senate seat in Wisconsin. Which is good, because there isn't a redeeming thing about that guy.
CNN: BREAKING NEWS: exit polling finds that 82 percent of Americans are just thankful to finally have a break from politics, regardless of the ultimate outcome of this election. And the other 18 percent of Americans are sitting on this panel.
CNN: We welcome you to our live election coverage! We're bringing you analysis from a variety of perspectives tonight. In fact, we have so many analysts on our panel that our news desk is in the shape of an "L" just to fit them all! That's right, we have more commentators working tonight than you can actually see on your tv! We thought this was a good idea for some reason! Anyway, our panel includes: Donna Brazile, from the African-America perspective; Alex Castellanos from the Latin American conservative perspecitve; James Carville the crazy liberal cajun that we've just let out of his cage; Bill Bennet, the grumpy old conservative...
MSNBC: We welcome you to tonight's funeral. We had fun while our party lasted. Stay with us over the next five hours as we try to explain why America has lost its collective mind.
Fox News: We welcome you to tonight's HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is going to be GREAT!
CNN: We also have Gloria Berger, from the white feminist perspective; Anderson Cooper, our intellectual skeptic, Donald Martin, from the male African American perspective...
MSNBC: Breaking news: it's just been announced that the Republicans have won the House. Just as tragically, beloved Senator Russ Feingold has lost in Wisconsin. How did Wisconsin vote out Russ Feingold? This was RUSS FEINGOLD? What is wrong with you, Wisconsin? You've just voted out the best Senator of all time. Please turn the channel, we don't even want to talk to you.
Fox News: (News anchor #1) So it looks like the Republicans will take control of the House, but not the Senate. But we have the House, and home is where the heart is!
(News anchor #2) What is this Senate thing of which you speak? Don't you know the Republicans just won the House? Let's take a look at how Martha Roby won Alabama District 2, and then we'll proceed through the alphabet with an in-depth look at each of the 240 House races the Republicans have won so far. Meanwhile, in an effort to live up to our "fair and balanced" motto, we'll go live to every single victory speech by a Republican winner tonight.
MSNBC: You know, Russ Feingold truly lived up to his name. He really was as fine as gold. We're so bummed about him losing, that we're going to go live to the concession speech of Delaware witch-turned-losing Republican candidate Christine O'Donnell, just to cheer us up. Even though this has no news value whatsoever, she might say something dumb that we can laugh at. It's what Russ Feingold would have wanted.
CNN: And to the right, outside of your view, we have Wolf Blitzer, who will break in at inopportune moments and give you meaningless exit poll results, such as "56 percent of women wearing green preferred that their candidate wear sandals while on vacation, while 42 percent preferred loafers. But this was true only among independents and women named Jane."
MSNBC: We're now joined by GOP minority whip Eric Cantor. We're not sure why he agreed to this, but we will make him regret it. Mr. Cantor, will you admit tonight that all of your campaign promises were lies or will you lie again and deny it? Isn't it true that you've spent the last two years opposing Obama, but you have no actual ideas of your own? And what was so bad about Russ Feingold?
CNN: And on the "L" portion of our state, we have several other analysts from any other demographic group you can possibly imagine. This is to ensure that whenever we finally get around to finishing our introductions and start our analysis, we can be sure that (with this many people) someone will soon change whatever subject will be brought up, so we never have to come up with anything insightful!
Fox: And in Connecticut House District 13 the Republican managed to win by... wait, we now are joined by GOP minority whip Eric Cantor. Eric, would you say that the Democrats are incompetent and lazy or that they just hate America?
MSNBC: Stay tuned, everyone. We have two more concession speeches of losing Republican candidates to bring you, once we can actually find two more Republicans who lost tonight. There are also still three close Senate races we're keeping an eye on, but we aren't going to tell you which ones or what the vote total is, because then you might change the channel, and we didn't have that many viewers to begin with. We're sure you'd rather hear our overblown opinions than actual election results anyway.
CNN: (Gloria Berger speaking) So, what to make of tonight's events? Donna, do you see tonight's vote as a repudiation of democratic policies or merely as a sign of voter frustration with the economy?
(Donna Brazille): Well, I think that the key to understanding what happened tonight is...(loud music interrupts, and a voice speaks: WE INTERRUPT TO TAKE YOU BACK TO WOLF BLITZER IN FRONT OF OUR GIANT SCREEN OF DOOM WITH THE LATEST EXIT POLLING. WOLF?)
(Wolf Blizter): I have new exit poll results from Canada, which didn't actually vote tonight, but is a lovely place nonetheless. We found that 41 percent of Canadians prefer bacon, but only 38 percent would eat it on a chicken sandwich. But in Toronto, these numbers are reversed.
Fox: We are now joined by Fox News analyst Greta Van Sustern, here to revel in the glory of taking control of the House, which everyone knows is the only legislative body that matters. Greta, do you think tonight's vote reveals that America has finally come to its senses?
(Greta): Well, the first thing I noticed was that Russ Feingold lost his Senate seat in Wisconsin. Which is good, because there isn't a redeeming thing about that guy.
CNN: BREAKING NEWS: exit polling finds that 82 percent of Americans are just thankful to finally have a break from politics, regardless of the ultimate outcome of this election. And the other 18 percent of Americans are sitting on this panel.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Birthday blog
It's a day of milestones for both the blog and myself. One of us just turned 33-years old, and the other 6 months, but I'll let you guess which is which.
I decided to start doing this blog last spring because I felt like life was missing something-- that somehow I was supposed to be doing more with my life than what I was. As another year of my life has passed, I again start to think about how what I want life to look like this time next year.
The two-part answer I invariably come to is simple: rich and well rested!
But neither of those is likely to happen.
So I'll settle for 10 other things instead:
1) I want to wake up in the morning and see the purpose of my day;
2) I want to look forward to daily interactions with those I love;
3) I want to feel God's presence and direction in my life;
4) I want to go to sleep at night without fear of how I'll pay the bills in the morning;
5) I want to look forward to my next adventure;
6) I want to gain more than 9 followers of this blog;
7) I want to be proud of what I did yesterday instead of stressed about all I'll have to finish before tomorrow;
8) I want to reach the point in life where I celebrate my own accomplishments instead of those of my favorite football team;
9) Also, I want to celebrate those of my favorite football team;
10) I want the world to be a better place because I existed in it.
That's what I want for next year.
Right now, I just want some ice cream.
ps: I'll be back November 3 with post-election thoughts. Thanks for reading, everyone.
I decided to start doing this blog last spring because I felt like life was missing something-- that somehow I was supposed to be doing more with my life than what I was. As another year of my life has passed, I again start to think about how what I want life to look like this time next year.
The two-part answer I invariably come to is simple: rich and well rested!
But neither of those is likely to happen.
So I'll settle for 10 other things instead:
1) I want to wake up in the morning and see the purpose of my day;
2) I want to look forward to daily interactions with those I love;
3) I want to feel God's presence and direction in my life;
4) I want to go to sleep at night without fear of how I'll pay the bills in the morning;
5) I want to look forward to my next adventure;
6) I want to gain more than 9 followers of this blog;
7) I want to be proud of what I did yesterday instead of stressed about all I'll have to finish before tomorrow;
8) I want to reach the point in life where I celebrate my own accomplishments instead of those of my favorite football team;
9) Also, I want to celebrate those of my favorite football team;
10) I want the world to be a better place because I existed in it.
That's what I want for next year.
Right now, I just want some ice cream.
ps: I'll be back November 3 with post-election thoughts. Thanks for reading, everyone.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Please hurry, November 3rd
Sometimes I wish I'd stuck with my original plan to go into political science just so I could replace all those ridiculous political ads with something halfway decent.
Ninety-eight percent of tv ads insult our intelligence and, most puzzlingly, seem designed to appeal to those who've already decided to vote for the advertising candidate anyway. For example, if you're a Republican politician and your ad says your opponent is a "crazy wack-job, communist liberal JUST LIKE NANCY PELOSI," well, anyone who that ad appeals to was going to vote for the Republican in the race anyway. And if you're a Democrat and you ad says your opponent only cares about rich people and/or the oil business, you're only attracting people who feel antagonistic toward those groups-- in other words, people who were going to vote for whoever had the "D" beside their name. But almost every ad see (from either party) plays on some variation of a theme like this. Why do ads never seem aimed to attract political independents, the people whose vote an ad could possibly influence? I get that firing up your base is part of the deal, but must every election be promoted as the final battle of good versus evil?
I don't think so.
We have on other troubling aspect of campaigning in Tennessee. Political ads here seem to be a contest of who can appear to be the biggest redneck. One prominent gubernatorial candidate built a whole campaign on the fact he wears cowboy boots. Another guy appears on a tractor in every ad and uses the phrase "Plow Washington" as his campaign slogan. (Never mind the fact that he's a Democrat whose party is in power has presumably done whatever it is that he thinks needs to be plowed). Our likely next governor has an ad in which a thickly accented guy speaks in incomplete sentences (which is just as well because half of his words are incomprehensible anyway) to describe how this candidate helped get a construction project started on his behalf. And these ads are still better than his opponent's.
I love politics, and even I'm sick of these ads. I can't imagine how fatigued the average person out there is.
I voted earlier today (highlight: A 90-ish year-old woman tried to show up after the polls had closed and was turned away. In response she yelled: "Those Damn Republicans!" and walked away). I just wish voting early came with the added benefit of opting out of heaing political ads for the next 5 days.
That would be a change I could believe in.
Ninety-eight percent of tv ads insult our intelligence and, most puzzlingly, seem designed to appeal to those who've already decided to vote for the advertising candidate anyway. For example, if you're a Republican politician and your ad says your opponent is a "crazy wack-job, communist liberal JUST LIKE NANCY PELOSI," well, anyone who that ad appeals to was going to vote for the Republican in the race anyway. And if you're a Democrat and you ad says your opponent only cares about rich people and/or the oil business, you're only attracting people who feel antagonistic toward those groups-- in other words, people who were going to vote for whoever had the "D" beside their name. But almost every ad see (from either party) plays on some variation of a theme like this. Why do ads never seem aimed to attract political independents, the people whose vote an ad could possibly influence? I get that firing up your base is part of the deal, but must every election be promoted as the final battle of good versus evil?
I don't think so.
We have on other troubling aspect of campaigning in Tennessee. Political ads here seem to be a contest of who can appear to be the biggest redneck. One prominent gubernatorial candidate built a whole campaign on the fact he wears cowboy boots. Another guy appears on a tractor in every ad and uses the phrase "Plow Washington" as his campaign slogan. (Never mind the fact that he's a Democrat whose party is in power has presumably done whatever it is that he thinks needs to be plowed). Our likely next governor has an ad in which a thickly accented guy speaks in incomplete sentences (which is just as well because half of his words are incomprehensible anyway) to describe how this candidate helped get a construction project started on his behalf. And these ads are still better than his opponent's.
I love politics, and even I'm sick of these ads. I can't imagine how fatigued the average person out there is.
I voted earlier today (highlight: A 90-ish year-old woman tried to show up after the polls had closed and was turned away. In response she yelled: "Those Damn Republicans!" and walked away). I just wish voting early came with the added benefit of opting out of heaing political ads for the next 5 days.
That would be a change I could believe in.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
No Loitering
The last refuge for the weary in downtown Nashville is gone.
I'm speaking, of course, of the exquisite downtown library, which still exists, but will no longer welcome me if I'm not sufficiently productive while there.
For the past three years, the library has been my sanctuary of idleness, the place I could go to let my mind wander unproductively for 45 minutes in the middle of a stressful work day.
But sadly, those days are gone. Last week, I noticed a sign by the front door that read: "No eating, drinking, smoking or loitering."
I understand, and generally obey, the first three. The fourth is a genuine source of bafflement. No loitering? At the library? Why not?
Isn't that like a "no loitering" sign at a public park?
Why, exactly, can't I loiter at a public space funded by my tax dollars? Who is the victim if I choose to sit aimlessly in a library chair for half an hour? Why am I allowed to to go inside the library and take things for free, but not to go in and do nothing?
The policy isn't just senseless, it leaves open an endlessly perplexing list of ambiguities. For example, what level of productivity must I achieve to be in compliance with library policy? If I can't just idly stare out the library window, what if I stare out the window but have a book in front of me? Must the book be open? What if I'm not actually reading it? If I was actively reading it, how long of a break from it can I take without facing the wrath of those notorious library security goons? And if they are serious about this "no loitering" thing, why did they buy all those comfy leather chairs?
With all these gray areas, I'm not sure how they actually enforce this rule. But at least it isn't self-contradictory, like one of the others. As I mentioned, the sign by the front (and only) entrance also prohibits food. But the library's second floor, which cannot be reached without walking past through that front door, contains an outdoor square with a sign reading: "Enjoy our outdoor courtyard: a perfect place to read, relax or enjoy your lunch!"
Ok, but how do you get your lunch to the courtyard? And when does relaxing become loitering?
One day I'm going to find a librarian and ask these questions. I'm pretty sure the librarian will think I'm crazy. And then the librarian will ask me to either find something more productive to do with my time or get out of the library.
I'm speaking, of course, of the exquisite downtown library, which still exists, but will no longer welcome me if I'm not sufficiently productive while there.
For the past three years, the library has been my sanctuary of idleness, the place I could go to let my mind wander unproductively for 45 minutes in the middle of a stressful work day.
But sadly, those days are gone. Last week, I noticed a sign by the front door that read: "No eating, drinking, smoking or loitering."
I understand, and generally obey, the first three. The fourth is a genuine source of bafflement. No loitering? At the library? Why not?
Isn't that like a "no loitering" sign at a public park?
Why, exactly, can't I loiter at a public space funded by my tax dollars? Who is the victim if I choose to sit aimlessly in a library chair for half an hour? Why am I allowed to to go inside the library and take things for free, but not to go in and do nothing?
The policy isn't just senseless, it leaves open an endlessly perplexing list of ambiguities. For example, what level of productivity must I achieve to be in compliance with library policy? If I can't just idly stare out the library window, what if I stare out the window but have a book in front of me? Must the book be open? What if I'm not actually reading it? If I was actively reading it, how long of a break from it can I take without facing the wrath of those notorious library security goons? And if they are serious about this "no loitering" thing, why did they buy all those comfy leather chairs?
With all these gray areas, I'm not sure how they actually enforce this rule. But at least it isn't self-contradictory, like one of the others. As I mentioned, the sign by the front (and only) entrance also prohibits food. But the library's second floor, which cannot be reached without walking past through that front door, contains an outdoor square with a sign reading: "Enjoy our outdoor courtyard: a perfect place to read, relax or enjoy your lunch!"
Ok, but how do you get your lunch to the courtyard? And when does relaxing become loitering?
One day I'm going to find a librarian and ask these questions. I'm pretty sure the librarian will think I'm crazy. And then the librarian will ask me to either find something more productive to do with my time or get out of the library.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
