I know there are all kinds of things going on with the Supreme Court pick (seriously people, she wasn't being racist with that comment, and if the boneheads at FOX had a longer than 30 second attention span and an OUNCE of sense they would know that—on the bright side, if this is all they have got on the woman than obviously she is a pretty sweet choice), and then there are the missile things in North Korea (oddly enough I have a friend that was just in South Korea last week while this nonsense started, I need to talk to her and see what living through that was like), so things are hectic on the world stage. But since I am finding it harder and harder to stay as super-connected to the world at large since I am no longer chained to a laptop 40 hours a week, I am not going to get into that right now.
What I am going to talk about is a book I recently read a review of—The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work by Alain de Botton. Dontcha just know dude is British. What intrigued me was that in the review is that the book apparently tries to dispell the myth that a job should feel good, that it is fun. Think about it. Most introductions to new people start off by saying "What do you do?" I mean please! And then we look down our noses at them if they say they are a sanitation worker. Admit it, I know that I do.
But being home has made me think about this. As I mentioned earlier, I don't miss work. I don't even super miss being able to say "I'm an editor." I mean yes I am, but I am more than that too. We are all more than what we do, we are the sum of our parts, be those parts mom or dad, single or married, tall or short, loud or quiet, democrat or republican. No one thing defines any of us, or at least it shouldn't.
And according to Mr. de Botton sometimes a job should simply be a job. Maybe we all need to stop thinking of our employment as our soul defining purpose in life and simply as a means to an end.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Serifs
If you have more than a passing familiarity with the Broad world you might have gleaned that I don't, shall we say "cotton" much to change. I tolerate it, I work with it, I handle it, but I never openly embrace it. Perhaps it is my Capricorn nature, or just some holdover glitch from a past life, because it is most certainly an anomaly with my rapid liberal ideology. No matter. I DO NOT LIKE CHANGE.
I am also a somewhat voracious reader—online articles, magazines and/or books. One publication, Rolling Stone (which I have subscribed to since about the dawn of time—or 1987 whichever came first) recently put me through a massive redesign that entailed the dramatic change of their page size. Most everything else stayed the same and I have moved on. Although I adore the new perfect binding, I would trade it for my over-sized, saddle-stitched version of yore any day.
And now it is happening again. I addressed the pending change of Newsweek in this post. Not only did it mark the final time Anna Quindlen would appear on the book's back page, it was the last issue in the weekly periodical's current incarnation. As of tonight I am about half way through the newly released redesigned issue and I am on the fence. So far I think some of the articles are simply too short and the layouts are leaving me cold. I am less than thrilled with the font choice (serifs, meh), the type seems like it is meant for the large print Reader's Digest edition, and the art is doing this wonky full page bleed stuff that just seems to be trying to hard.
But perhaps I shouldn't judge until I have lived with it for a couple of weeks. I am getting old and feeble minded, so I may not even notice the changes by the middle of the summer and just blissfully digest my weekly influx of news information as I have done in the past.
Until then, if you hear me muttering change is good under my breath without much conviction, you will understand why.
I am also a somewhat voracious reader—online articles, magazines and/or books. One publication, Rolling Stone (which I have subscribed to since about the dawn of time—or 1987 whichever came first) recently put me through a massive redesign that entailed the dramatic change of their page size. Most everything else stayed the same and I have moved on. Although I adore the new perfect binding, I would trade it for my over-sized, saddle-stitched version of yore any day.
And now it is happening again. I addressed the pending change of Newsweek in this post. Not only did it mark the final time Anna Quindlen would appear on the book's back page, it was the last issue in the weekly periodical's current incarnation. As of tonight I am about half way through the newly released redesigned issue and I am on the fence. So far I think some of the articles are simply too short and the layouts are leaving me cold. I am less than thrilled with the font choice (serifs, meh), the type seems like it is meant for the large print Reader's Digest edition, and the art is doing this wonky full page bleed stuff that just seems to be trying to hard.
But perhaps I shouldn't judge until I have lived with it for a couple of weeks. I am getting old and feeble minded, so I may not even notice the changes by the middle of the summer and just blissfully digest my weekly influx of news information as I have done in the past.
Until then, if you hear me muttering change is good under my breath without much conviction, you will understand why.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Girl Crush
I may have a new girl crush. It is still the early stages and she may yet disappoint, but thus far Elizabeth Warren gives me a warm feeling all over.
The overseer of the TARP money, Ms.Warren (Professor if you're nasty!) has quite a little job ahead of her, but methinks she might be equal to the task. I first noticed her when she appeared on The Daily Show awhile back.
I, like Jon, was comforted by her no nonsense approach. Then there was her appearance with Bill Maher on Real Time. After that I was a goner. She is concise, clear, and completely cognizant of the nature of what we are facing financially. Nothing makes more sense to me than when she details how we went for almost 50 years without a financial disaster as a result of the rules put in place after the Great Depression, and how by starting to lessen those restrictions back in the late 70s and early 80s we have allowed everything from the Savings and Loan scandal to the housing bubble to our current crisis to occur.
I know a lot of people want less government, and it isn't that I think government should be running our financial industries or Wall Street, but I do think they need to put some hard and fast rules into place PRONTO to keep those guys (and gals) in check. While most humans probably strive to be altruistic, we more often than not fail and indulge our inner greed. By putting rules in place to stop bankers and brokers from that we will be doing ourselves and any future generations a huge favor.
The overseer of the TARP money, Ms.Warren (Professor if you're nasty!) has quite a little job ahead of her, but methinks she might be equal to the task. I first noticed her when she appeared on The Daily Show awhile back.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Elizabeth Warren Pt. 1 | ||||
| ||||
I, like Jon, was comforted by her no nonsense approach. Then there was her appearance with Bill Maher on Real Time. After that I was a goner. She is concise, clear, and completely cognizant of the nature of what we are facing financially. Nothing makes more sense to me than when she details how we went for almost 50 years without a financial disaster as a result of the rules put in place after the Great Depression, and how by starting to lessen those restrictions back in the late 70s and early 80s we have allowed everything from the Savings and Loan scandal to the housing bubble to our current crisis to occur.
I know a lot of people want less government, and it isn't that I think government should be running our financial industries or Wall Street, but I do think they need to put some hard and fast rules into place PRONTO to keep those guys (and gals) in check. While most humans probably strive to be altruistic, we more often than not fail and indulge our inner greed. By putting rules in place to stop bankers and brokers from that we will be doing ourselves and any future generations a huge favor.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Talk is Cheap
My last post was April 30 at 11.01 am. Approximately 29 minutes later, I once again became a statistic. I was terminated. Laid off. Let go. Kicked to the curb. Pick your euphemism of choice.
It is a weird feeling being laid off. Frankly, almost two weeks later it still kind of feels like a dream or an extended vacation. Interestingly enough, I don't miss the work. I have on occasion missed the autonomy of leaving the spouse and the spawn and venturing out solo into the world. I have most definitely missed the knowledge of a steady income and provided health insurance. I have even missed the uninterrupted time in front of the computer (as I type this the spawn is requesting water and ice—a mother's duty is never done). But I have not missed the work.
I know some people feel lost without the identity of what they do for employment. Regardless of whether or not some corporate entity is sending me a paycheck every two weeks I know I am a writer. That continues and is not subject to change. Presumably I will find future employment, at some time, somewhere again as a writer. I suppose I should be open to changing my career path, but I am a bit of an old fogey in that way and set in my ways. And after 19 years of education, I feel I have reserved the right to say enough.
I ended my previous post with a quote from Anna Quindlen so it seems fitting that I should do it again, although the essay I am quoting from brings me much sadness. Gentle readers, if you have not gathered, Broad minded is not fond of change and the May 11/18 issue of Newsweek not only marks the publication's last issue before a significant redesign, it is notable for being the last time Quindlen will contribute to The Last Word. She writes:
I will miss Quindlen's thoughtfulness and insight every other week. It has been a joy to read her for the last nine years. I appreciate that she thinks media will continue. I agree. And I applaud her lack of vanity that allows her to see that after almost 40 years as a working writer, it is time for her to give someone else the opportunity she has had to speak to Newsweek's readers.
However, it is still my turn and while I am slightly older than the new generation Quindlen speaks of, I hope that someone like her, somewhere out there, some day soon, will look at me and see the future.
It is a weird feeling being laid off. Frankly, almost two weeks later it still kind of feels like a dream or an extended vacation. Interestingly enough, I don't miss the work. I have on occasion missed the autonomy of leaving the spouse and the spawn and venturing out solo into the world. I have most definitely missed the knowledge of a steady income and provided health insurance. I have even missed the uninterrupted time in front of the computer (as I type this the spawn is requesting water and ice—a mother's duty is never done). But I have not missed the work.
I know some people feel lost without the identity of what they do for employment. Regardless of whether or not some corporate entity is sending me a paycheck every two weeks I know I am a writer. That continues and is not subject to change. Presumably I will find future employment, at some time, somewhere again as a writer. I suppose I should be open to changing my career path, but I am a bit of an old fogey in that way and set in my ways. And after 19 years of education, I feel I have reserved the right to say enough.
I ended my previous post with a quote from Anna Quindlen so it seems fitting that I should do it again, although the essay I am quoting from brings me much sadness. Gentle readers, if you have not gathered, Broad minded is not fond of change and the May 11/18 issue of Newsweek not only marks the publication's last issue before a significant redesign, it is notable for being the last time Quindlen will contribute to The Last Word. She writes:
Because all the submissions for the Livingston Awards have to come from reporters under the age of 35, looking at the dates of birth on the entry forms for the finalists was like a stroll through my own past . . . They [the stories] were so thoroughly reported, so well written. The next time anyone insists the business won't survive I may bash him with one of these binders, which are heavy with hope for the future . . . Flipping through their pages . . . I felt certain of the future of the news business in some form or another. But between the lines I read another message, delivered without rancor or contempt, the same one I once heard from my own son: It's our turn. Step aside. And now I will.
I will miss Quindlen's thoughtfulness and insight every other week. It has been a joy to read her for the last nine years. I appreciate that she thinks media will continue. I agree. And I applaud her lack of vanity that allows her to see that after almost 40 years as a working writer, it is time for her to give someone else the opportunity she has had to speak to Newsweek's readers.
However, it is still my turn and while I am slightly older than the new generation Quindlen speaks of, I hope that someone like her, somewhere out there, some day soon, will look at me and see the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
