No, I'm Not a Recluse, a Snob, or an Alcoholic; I'm an Introvert. Niceto Meet You!
Last week, one of my across-the-street neighbors ("C") came by to let us know that her husband and two other guys on our street had decided to have a crawfish boil on Saturday. She wanted to invite us and also make sure we had moved any cars away for the bouncy house [I assumed the visit was more for the latter than the former]. The day of the block party, Pop Culture Dad was going to be gone for a few hours, which meant I would likely have to go with the girls to the party on my own. {gulp, panic}
Though the party was going on directly in the front of my house and the Pop Culture Girls had been on "bouncy house watch" since noon, I kept delaying going outside. Eventually, they stopped accepting my lame excuses, and we walked out the front door and into the lion's den. My kids playing in the bouncy house made a good excuse for me to avoid talking to people for a good hour. Of course, I made polite (I think) conversation with the other parents near the bouncy house, and I talked to C and her husband. But other than that, I focused my attention on my children, probably appearing way more Helicopter Parent than I actually am [for the record, I'm not… at all].
After noticing that many of the other adult partygoers were on their second (or more) beer or glass of wine, I decided it was socially acceptable for me to go into my house and retrieve a Cherry Limeade. For those of you who don't know, the "grownup" version of a Cherry Limemade involves cherry-flavored vodka. Half a red Solo cup later, I was feeling a little less freaked out by the whole idea of being at a party with no one I (really) knew.
Eventually I got comfortable enough to allow myself to get some crawfish and attempt to find a place to sit. And that's when I was all of the sudden transported to middle or high school all over again. "Um... Excuse me.... {squeak} Is anyone sitting here?" I found myself at a table with C and my next-door neighbor ("V"), in a seat in between a neighbor I've seen many times but to whom I've never spoken a word and V's Zumba buddy. The ladies all chatted for a bit, while I was totally silent, smiling, nodding, and laughing, until someone asked me about the Pop Culture Girls. Now there's a subject on which I can speak without feeling like an idiot or that I was butting in on someone else's private conversation. That opened the door for me to chat freely with the ladies about many topics, as though I hadn't been sitting there nearly paralyzed for the past 15 minutes. At some point, C said she was ready for another drink, but wasn't sure what she wanted. I mentioned I was thinking about making a refresher of my own and asked if anyone else wanted a drink. Once they all found out what I was drinking, I ended up taking four drink orders.
I bounded back into my house and came out less than five minutes later with a fresh, cold pitcher of Cherry Limeade and a stack of cups. After one sip, V turned to me and said, "Now I know why you never come out of your house! If I made drinks like this, I would never go outside either. I'd just be sitting on my couch all day having a private party!"
OMG... How embarrassing!!
(Not my typical Friday night, I swear)
There was no malice to the statement at all. It was a lighthearted, good-natured joke. But it was also a very real, kind of ugly truth that I live in a community of very social people, all approximately the same age as me, with kids very close in age to mine, and minus the five-minute conversation here and there, I talk to no one. I'm not new to the neighborhood; I've lived here almost 11 years. Heck, my house was the first one built in our cul-de-sac, and I was the first neighbor here. The neighbors all know Pop Culture Dad's name (though he has only lived here 7 years), but I would be surprised if anyone other than C, her husband, and their next-door neighbors (who weren't at the block party) knew mine, and not just because my name is hard to pronounce (for some people).
It isn't that my neighbors are awful or boring people or that I wouldn't have any common threads on which to have conversations. The few conversations I've had with them all have been really enjoyable. After the "no wonder you never leave the house" joke, we all continued to chat for a long time. And when Pop Culture Dad arrived, he couldn't even tell from my demeanor and the fun we were all having by that point that I had had, just hours before, extreme discomfort at the idea of being in a social situation with strangers and near-strangers. And it's not that I sit in my house drinking all day—no matter how good those Cherry Limemades are.
I'm an introvert—an extreme introvert. I can stand on a stage and sing, dance, or act to a crowd or stand in a courtroom and present my case to the judge or a jury; but go to a business function where there is networking involved or have to go to a party without my close friends or family? Oh gawd no!
People who've seen me in the former situations but don't know me well often have no idea I'm in introvert. That's because in those situations, I'm well-prepared and damn-near on fire [seriously, when I was a volunteer prosecutor in the municipal courts, one of the defense attorneys told me the reason my courtroom always had extra people is because word had gotten out about how good my voir dire and opening statements were, and the defense attorneys enjoyed watching me interact with the jury]. People who know me well would probably use "talkative" as one the first words to describe me. Once you have breached my protective layer, you are in my chatty circle forever. (Sorry)
But I would rather have a barium enema [for the record, worse than unmediated childbirth] than have to make small talk in a room of strangers for an hour.
Where can you find me at a party where I know zero people? Hanging out by the food table, stuffing my face and clutching my wine glass so tightly that it could shatter at any minute. My standard M.O. is to find another introvert (often easy to find, because s/he will be at the other end of the food table or standing near the bar or pretending to closely examine the artwork), come up with some dumb opener, and then cling to that person for dear life until s/he finds someone s/he actually knows and abandons me. At that point, I either scope out another introvert or, if I feel like I've "done my time" grab my purse and go (swiftly).
There are plenty of "how to regard an introvert" articles out there, but one thing I've never seen is how to explain to someone that you're an introvert without looking even odder than you have already. I wish when V made her joke about sitting around the house drinking all day, I would've felt comfortable enough to explain, "No. I'm not a recluse… or a snob… or an alcoholic. I'm just a gal who is very withdrawn around people I don't know, who has no idea how to start a conversation, and who is always terrified of sounding like an idiot and a complete weirdo when talking to people I don't know very well." But having the gumption to explain all that really wouldn't have been in my introverted nature, would it?
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
The Great Binkie Fake-out of 2013
What happens when you try to take away your 22-month old's Wubanub to take a picture, and it turns out she was prepared for you? Something like this:
I'm pretty sure that's the toddler version of gangsta.
Well, I Guess Sleepovers Are Out Now...
As you may have heard by now, on Monday, two boys, ages 4 and 6, died at a sleepover when they were crushed by a 14-foot, 100-pound python. When the story first began hitting the news, my friends and I immediately got suspicious of what really happened. None of the earlier reported details made any sense. The man whose house the boys had been visiting claimed that the python had escaped from its cage in the exotic pet store (which he owned) underneath the apartment, that the python crawled into the ventilation system, punched a hole in the apartment wall, strangled the children, and then disappeared again without a sound. The owner allegedly found the snake in a corner after he discovered the boys had died. Something is just wrong there.
Somehow we're supposed to believe that this snake broke off two locks [as were reportedly on all of the snake cages in the pet shop]... slithered into the HVAC system... made its way--all 100 pounds of it--through the HVAC system... punched a hole in the wall with its head somehow... made its way down to the boys... wrapped itself around both boys... strangled them... and then moved on? And no one woke up? Pop Culture Dad thought everything was believable except the alleged wall punching (particularly without disturbing anyone). My pals and I weren't so convinced. Even if you can believe all of the details surrounding the escape and reemergence in the apartment above, there's the problem of why would the python attack sleeping children simply to strangle them, but not do anything else? Pythons apparently attack in two circumstances: (1) when they feel provoked and (2) when they need to eat. It's unlikely that sleeping children would have made a snake feel threatened [though Pop Culture Dad did point out that if the wall punching did occur, the snake could have landed and freaked out. That I can believe]; and if the python moved on after strangling the children, it certainly wasn't trying to eat. Things that make you go hmmmm.
My friends and I [ever the doubting lawyers] suspected some sort of foul play afoot. More importantly, though, it raised the issue for us: under what circumstances would you allow your child to sleepover at another child's house? Twin Mom (who was part of this Great Sleepover Debate) found this really interesting articles detailing "7 Reasons to Say No to Sleepovers." Many of the reasons revolved around lack of sleep and the effects of that. Those reasons I (along with the rest of my friends) found pretty weak. Who are these parents having and allowing school-day slumber parties?? There was also a reason related to "Awkward Social Situations," which is apparently what happens when you're okay with one kid sleeping over or your kid going to someone's house, but other kids or other houses are banned, and you don't want to explain to the parents why. See... I don't have that issue. If my kid isn't allowed to go to your house alone, she's not. And if you expect me to step out of my comfort zone to avoid offending you, then that type of parenting actually just justifies my not sending my kid to your house. My children and their safety are the most important things to me--damn your comfort level. I really don't care. Nope, not socially awkward for me at all. There were some valid points, too, which generally boil down to "things that you don't let happen in your own house will happen somewhere else." Those to me are the most valid reasons. In fact, the only valid ones. And that is perhaps why, when my kids get old enough that we're both comfortable with the idea of them having sleepovers, the list of families in that "approved sleepover" rotation is going to be very narrow and tight--like the VIP room at a very exclusive club.
I had plenty of sleepovers as a child and teen. I recall going to my first sleepover party in fourth grade. We saw [I'm dating myself here] Breakin' 2: Electric Bugaloo at the theater and then had an all-girl sleepover where my friend's (we thought at the time) super cool sister who was in (gasp!) high school made us all pancakes the next morning. My cousin (who was my best friend) and I slept over at each other's houses all the time from elementary school through high school. I even had one co-ed sleepover [which I recall both my mom and I finding very odd] in middle school. Twin Mom and I had tons of sleepovers in high school--as she said, we would usually go to her house to eat, because there was actually food, but then my house to hang out, because we could pretty much do whatever we want [which, really, for us geeky girls was just staying up all night talking, singing, and playing on the computer].
The landscape has changed since the 1980s and 1990s, though. I cannot imagine letting my girls sleepover at anyone's house unless I knew the parents really well and knew all of the kids who would be present. I would also have to lack the gut feeling that someone in that house is creepy [always trust your gut, even when it makes you feel guilty]. I used to think that the only pets I would wonder about are dogs and cats, because of how highly allergic Little Diva is to pretty much anything with fur... but now... Well... I think I'm going to need an inventory of every animal in the house or with reasonable (or unreasonable) access to the house; because a few hives and couple of swollen eyelids from exposure to a Cocker Spaniel seems pretty mild in comparison to Death-by-Python.
And what about guns?? I live in Texas, the Concealed Handgun Capital of the World. Even though I grew up around guns, I hate them, they terrify me, and I'm smart enough to know that statistically, we are more likely to be killed by our own gun than we would gain protection from it. So we don't allow guns in my house. Period. Even my parents know that if they are in my home, the gun stays in the car. And Nonna has always been expressly instructed that the Pop Culture Girls are not allowed to be in her car if the gun is there [we don't have that issue with my dad, who drives a two-seater convertible the girls would not be even able to legally ride in for another nine years]. Considering the types of precautions I take with my own parents, why in the world would I just let my children go to a house with some random gun owner, particularly when I don't know what kind of precautions the parents take with securing their guns and, quite frankly, I don't trust most gun owners to actually be as responsible with their guns.
So, yeah... I think I'm going to need a questionnaire before my kids can go to a slumber party. Or, ya know, just have a blanket rule that their social calendar is based on my intimate knowledge and understanding of the household, and anything that doesn't pass mom's smell test and thirty-point inspection is not getting approved.
As for those poor little boys in Canada... the Lawyer Guts were totally right. Reports came out today that this python had not escaped from the pet store in the amazing (and completely full of crap) story that the pet store owner expected everyone to buy. Nope. This snake was already in the apartment... in a glass cage... without a proper lock... and it wasn't the first time it had gotten out. Others who had seen the snake before described it as aggressive and unused to people. The boys had played with a variety of animals that day, meaning they likely had the smell of snake-food on them. The pet store owner was known for his very lax approach to safety with these dangerous creatures. This was a very tragic and 100% avoidable event. It's notentirely the mom's fault for allowing her boys to stay at her friend's house, seeing as it was her friend who acted (and omitted) with the gross negligence and pure stupidity that eventually led to the boys' death. But perhaps mom should have [and I know she's beating herself up enough, so it's not like I have to do it for her] had a talk with her (dumb) friend about putting his pets away safely before she turned over her most precious belongings to him? Maybe she did? And maybe he lied to her like he (apparently) did to the police and the media. I honestly don't know what happened there.
But I do know that my kids will not be sleeping at any house over an exotic pet store or with any exotic/killer animals lurking around. I don't care who the parents are.
How Much Can You Get Done in a Day (Alone)?
In April, I left my former life as a Big Law (firm) lawyer for the wonderful life of an in-house (governmental) counsel. In addition to the usual perk of schedule stability that comes with in-house counsel life, my new gig also comes with a perk often unheard of for attorneys, in-house or otherwise—every other Friday off. This magnificent perk is part of an Employee Travel Reduction ("ETR") work plan. The General Counsel of my company did warn me before I started that there's a remote possibility that I would have to work on an ETR day or two a couple of times a year [in his position, he has to work quite a few; but that's rare for the other attorneys], but at least when that rare occurrence happens, I would have the luxury of being able to work from home, in my pajamas, rather than trekking out to the office. In the four months I've been here, I've only had to work one ETR day. Ironically, it was my second week of work (my first ETR day). The Monday after, it was clear how rare working on one's ETR day must be, as I had several visits from internal higher-ups (including our Executive Director—the equivalent of a CEO in the private sector) thanking me, commending me, and apologizing to me for working on my day off... even though it was only a few hours out of my day.
Every ETR day, I have huge plans for my day off. The Pop Culture Girls are still at school on those days, and Pop Culture Dad is at work, so it seems like with nearly 10 hours to myself, I should get a ton of things done, right? Wrong.
I understand that part of my problem is my ADD. I have a number of home projects in the works, and there's no possible way I could finish them all with one day to myself—or even 10 days! Somehow, though, every other Friday, I assume that all of these time-consuming tasks can be completed in a couple of hours. To give you an idea of how far my delusion goes, here's a list of the projects I've been working on over various ETR days:
finish bricking, painting, and organizing the playroom [complete]
finish painting and redecorating the ocean-themed bathroom and install new double towel bar in the Pop Culture Girls' bathroom [approximately half complete; it would help if Pop Culture Dad could remember where he hid the battery to the drills]
garden [was complete, then it was a bust, and now I just don't even want to think about it. This "gardening" task, however, took three full ETR days of its own]
fully organize the shelves in my newly expanded pantry (twice its original size) [50% completion; and I've given up]
various sewing projects that have rotated throughout the weeks: Dora PJs for the girls [complete; but it took so long that by the time I completed the tops, we can't find the pants]; convert the sucky Gerber training pants into thick and waterproof training pants for Super Girl [20 trainers COMPLETE]; a purple top for myself for going out [complete]; a fully lined dress for work [25% completion]; a puffy skirt Little Diva requested [10% complete, if cutting a two-piece pattern and buying material constitutes any level of competition]; a full suit out of the lovely material my BFF bought me for my birthday [the pattern isn't even cut]; a pencil bag Little Diva requested to match the purse I made in sewing class [80% complete... before my cleaning company threw away the last pattern piece and attached fabric. Abandon project?]; make additional pajama tops for Super Girl and her ever-expanding torso [I got as far as buying fabric... which I then used for the trainers, since I didn't even know where I was going to go with these pajama tops].
reorganize the house and wash, fold, hang, and put away 100% of the laundry, including properly separating those items that need to go to Goodwill from those that need to go to consignment (separated by season for the consignment items) from those that need repair [ha! ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Do I even need to tell you the status of this one?]
a whole host of other things that escape my memory now, but which occur to me every Thursday and make my "Mommy-Do List" for the next day
As you can tell, "overly ambitious" is probably an understatement for what I have going on here—especially since every week I seem to be under the impression that more than one of these things needs to be on my list to complete in the 10 hours I get to myself that day. Also, with this day off (and me not having yet accrued any vacation time—not that I'll really have any extra time once my vacation accrues), I have to throw in doctors' and dentist appointments for the kids [I have yet to take myself to the doctor, even though I'm probably in desperate need for a visit to the chiropractor if nothing else], hair appointments, and the occasional extremely long lunch with my mother. I also generally don't take my ADD medication on my day off [why "waste" it on chores??], so you can imagine how many times I find my motivation waning the second I sit down for a breather.
I know "day to myself" is a fantasy for most moms, whether they work outside the home, work at home, or stay at home with kids. The frustration of getting things done with little people [or big significant others] underfoot is a common problem of all women. I wonder, though, how realistic our fantasy of "All The Things I Could Get Done Alone" is in 10 hours. I mean, 10 hours certainly sounds like a lot. At work in 10 hours, I could have (and have had) three meetings and drafted a contract. However, with 10 hours at home, I'm lucky if I've gotten through three baskets of laundry. Is my ADD truly compounding my problem [not the project-starting issue; that, I clearly know is a problem], or is it that moms are so used to having to be able to do anything and everything to keep the family running that we don't even realize how few hours there practically are in the day?
How about the rest of you: What is your fantasy of what would want to do with the day to yourself, and what do you think you think you would actually do?
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Every ETR day, I have huge plans for my day off. The Pop Culture Girls are still at school on those days, and Pop Culture Dad is at work, so it seems like with nearly 10 hours to myself, I should get a ton of things done, right? Wrong.
I understand that part of my problem is my ADD. I have a number of home projects in the works, and there's no possible way I could finish them all with one day to myself—or even 10 days! Somehow, though, every other Friday, I assume that all of these time-consuming tasks can be completed in a couple of hours. To give you an idea of how far my delusion goes, here's a list of the projects I've been working on over various ETR days:
Sorry, dear Nemo, someday your friends (and dad) will come...
Has anyone seen these pants?
As you can tell, "overly ambitious" is probably an understatement for what I have going on here—especially since every week I seem to be under the impression that more than one of these things needs to be on my list to complete in the 10 hours I get to myself that day. Also, with this day off (and me not having yet accrued any vacation time—not that I'll really have any extra time once my vacation accrues), I have to throw in doctors' and dentist appointments for the kids [I have yet to take myself to the doctor, even though I'm probably in desperate need for a visit to the chiropractor if nothing else], hair appointments, and the occasional extremely long lunch with my mother. I also generally don't take my ADD medication on my day off [why "waste" it on chores??], so you can imagine how many times I find my motivation waning the second I sit down for a breather.
I know "day to myself" is a fantasy for most moms, whether they work outside the home, work at home, or stay at home with kids. The frustration of getting things done with little people [or big significant others] underfoot is a common problem of all women. I wonder, though, how realistic our fantasy of "All The Things I Could Get Done Alone" is in 10 hours. I mean, 10 hours certainly sounds like a lot. At work in 10 hours, I could have (and have had) three meetings and drafted a contract. However, with 10 hours at home, I'm lucky if I've gotten through three baskets of laundry. Is my ADD truly compounding my problem [not the project-starting issue; that, I clearly know is a problem], or is it that moms are so used to having to be able to do anything and everything to keep the family running that we don't even realize how few hours there practically are in the day?
How about the rest of you: What is your fantasy of what would want to do with the day to yourself, and what do you think you think you would actually do?
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Abigail Fisher and Their Ilk Need a Lesson in Humility
I have made no secret over the years how I feel about entitled, self-important teens and "adults." The Supreme Court's decision in Fisher v. University of Texas has just brought all those old feelings to the surface.
What I think about affirmative action is irrelevant to my feelings about Fisher. The bottom line is that the SCOTUS never should have taken this case in the first place. In fact, no appellate court should have taken this case. Why? Because, quite simply, Abigail Fisher had no injury.
What I think about affirmative action is irrelevant to my feelings about Fisher. The bottom line is that the SCOTUS never should have taken this case in the first place. In fact, no appellate court should have taken this case. Why? Because, quite simply, Abigail Fisher had no injury.
One of the first things we learn about standing in law school is that there must have been some sort of injury. Abigail Fisher could only prove injury if she could have proved that but for the policies she claimed prevented her admission into UT, she would have been admitted into the school. Here's the problem, though: she wouldn't have been.
In 2008, the year Abigail Fisher applied to UT, 81% of the school's enrollment came from the State of Texas program where students in the top 10% of their classes are automatically admitted to the Texas university of their choices. Abigail Fisher was not in the top 10% of her class. Her GPA and SAT scores were on the low end of UT's acceptance pool that year (including those of the vast majority of the enrollees, who were automatically accepted). That left Abigail Fisher to rest on her personal statement and "extras."
Most of the students admitted to UT that year had better numbers than Abigail Fisher. Among those with lower numbers, many of them were white. Basically, this girl did not have a dog in the hunt. But she was pissy about not getting into her first-choice school, and she literally made a federal case about it. Literally.
Why did Abigail Fisher think one of those 19% spots belonged to her? Why, because her parents (like 20% of Texan parents, it seems) went to UT. Basically, her argument seems to be that legacy affirmative action should outweigh minority and class affirmative action. This girl is the very definition of "entitled."
Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg were smart enough to raise the issue that the controversy was moot—homegirl had already graduated college, and, ya know, UT, had made it clear that she wasn't getting accepted. Period. [Kagan recused herself].
I can't help but think that if someone had told her a long time ago, "Sorry, sweetie, but the rest of the world just doesn't find you all that special," all this shit could have been avoided.
Making Others' Bad Grammar Work for You
I am one of those people who is a freak (and probably a pain) about good grammar. Sure, I make allowances for auto-correct or (in a casual or personal setting) mindless errors made by quick action and/or lack of proofreading. Heck, I'm not perfect; I realize (sometimes too late) that I make grammatical mistakes that I shouldn't have because I know better. Heck, in some situations, I even use bad grammar on purpose. Those are not the things that bother me. What bothers me are the mistakes that people make because they just don't know any better—and worse, sometimes because they just don't care. That's unforgivable. It makes me fearful of the educational system (both public and private), and it makes me weep for future generations, who are certainly on the road to proving that Mike Judge's Idiocracy may be less fiction and more of a prediction (a sad, sad prediction).
using an apostrophe to make a word plural. "Hey mom's! I need some help!" is not correct. With some exceptions, "'s" is used to denote possession, not number. Stop using it. Seriously. I got an e-mail yesterday that said "Get Dad's What They Really Want." I will never purchase from that company again.
not knowing the difference between "there," "their," and "they're"; "it's" and "its"; "here" and "hear"; "your" and "you're"; "four," "for," and "fore"; "specifically" and "pacifically"; "ask" and "axe".... Well, you get the picture.
"irregardless" used in a non-ironic way. It's not a word. Stop trying to make it happen. It doesn't make you sound smarter.
overuse of the phrase "such as" or any other term the writer/speaker thinks makes whatever mundane thing they're saying sound more important
"alot" and "allot" — They are not the same as "a lot." Really, they aren't. One of them isn't even a real word.
"ya'll" — Okay, I know I shouldn't be peeved about the misspelling of a slang word, but it bugs me. Why? Because it shows a lack of understanding of either the purpose of the word or how contractions work. "Y'all" is short for "you all"; thus, the apostrophe goes after the "y" as a replacement for the "ou" that is gone.
TXT-speak on anything other than text messages, twitter, or some other extremely informal and character-limited form of communication. If you send me an e-mail or letter that includes such gems as "Wat r u going 2 do 2day?" don't get mad if I don't respond. My lack of response is probably a lot more polite than the answer you would get back.
using "literally" in a non-ironic way to describe things that literally could not have happened
Sigh... I could go on for days. But I'll stop here, because the whole point of this post was to talk about making (note, not "makeing") bad grammar and spelling mistakes work for you, right? So here goes...
I recently started a job where I'm doing much more (almost exclusively) transactional type legal work than litigation. Switching practices like this has brought our my inner grammar geek in full force. You would think that my former practice (a litigation hybrid), involving a lot of memos and court pleadings, would have given me more encounters with bad grammar than my current gig (transactional work, for those of you that didn't click the link, consists of non-litigation things like drafting contracts); but it didn't. Don't get me wrong, there was plenty of bad writing to be seen in my days as a litigator. However, most attorneys who are drawn toward litigation tend to be good writers [I'm not talking about those general practice lawyers who do anything and everything; I'm talking about people who are strictly in litigation or litigation-hybrid practices of law]. Also, those who aren't good writers usually (but not always) tend to acknowledge their weaknesses in that area and leave the heavy drafting to the good writers. I suspect that I'm seeing so much bad writing in a transactional setting [not, mind you, coming from any of the lawyers at my current job, who are all as grammar geeky as I am], because when people start drafting things from a form, they get really lazy. And if they're already inclined to be lazy or just don't know any better, they don't know when the things they are copying are wrong, and they also don't know how to make their new additions to those forms look right.
Today, I received a draft [not from anyone at my company!!] that had the word (rather, "word") "interfear." Seriously. If you don't know what's wrong with that word, we're already starting at a deficit here. Honestly, I don't even know how someone could have given me a draft with the word "interfear," because the red swiggly line was clearly under that puppy. I mean, the only thing I could imagine other than pure laziness causing the person not to notice, is that s/he [not saying which] has written that word so many times, that s/he finally added it to his/her custom Word dictionary. If that's the case, that's just sad. Because if that happened to me, I would be inclined to do some Google research to see why Word hated my word so much.
Seeing this patently wrong "word," however, reminded me of an e-mail forward I got a long time ago about The Washington Post's Style Invitational. In one of the contests, they asked readers to take any word from the dictionary; alter it by adding, subtracting, or changing one letter; and supply a new definition. The contest generated such awesome words and definitions as (my personal favorite) "sarchasm" (n.): The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
Taking a cue from the witty readers who contributed to the Style Invitational, I decided to make lemonade out of lemons and come up with my own definition for "interfear":
I shared my made-up definitions with the co-workers who had commiserated with me this morning over the awful grammar in the document I was reviewing. We all decided to make this a "thing." The next time we get some godawful, "they really should have known better" spelling mistake, we're just going to make a new word out of it. Of course, this doesn't help at ALL with the everyday grammar mistakes that don't involve gross misspellings, but at least it's a start. And if you have any idea how to put a silver lining on those monstrosities, please let me know.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
What are some of the things that really grind my gears?
Sigh... I could go on for days. But I'll stop here, because the whole point of this post was to talk about making (note, not "makeing") bad grammar and spelling mistakes work for you, right? So here goes...
I recently started a job where I'm doing much more (almost exclusively) transactional type legal work than litigation. Switching practices like this has brought our my inner grammar geek in full force. You would think that my former practice (a litigation hybrid), involving a lot of memos and court pleadings, would have given me more encounters with bad grammar than my current gig (transactional work, for those of you that didn't click the link, consists of non-litigation things like drafting contracts); but it didn't. Don't get me wrong, there was plenty of bad writing to be seen in my days as a litigator. However, most attorneys who are drawn toward litigation tend to be good writers [I'm not talking about those general practice lawyers who do anything and everything; I'm talking about people who are strictly in litigation or litigation-hybrid practices of law]. Also, those who aren't good writers usually (but not always) tend to acknowledge their weaknesses in that area and leave the heavy drafting to the good writers. I suspect that I'm seeing so much bad writing in a transactional setting [not, mind you, coming from any of the lawyers at my current job, who are all as grammar geeky as I am], because when people start drafting things from a form, they get really lazy. And if they're already inclined to be lazy or just don't know any better, they don't know when the things they are copying are wrong, and they also don't know how to make their new additions to those forms look right.
Today, I received a draft [not from anyone at my company!!] that had the word (rather, "word") "interfear." Seriously. If you don't know what's wrong with that word, we're already starting at a deficit here. Honestly, I don't even know how someone could have given me a draft with the word "interfear," because the red swiggly line was clearly under that puppy. I mean, the only thing I could imagine other than pure laziness causing the person not to notice, is that s/he [not saying which] has written that word so many times, that s/he finally added it to his/her custom Word dictionary. If that's the case, that's just sad. Because if that happened to me, I would be inclined to do some Google research to see why Word hated my word so much.
Seeing this patently wrong "word," however, reminded me of an e-mail forward I got a long time ago about The Washington Post's Style Invitational. In one of the contests, they asked readers to take any word from the dictionary; alter it by adding, subtracting, or changing one letter; and supply a new definition. The contest generated such awesome words and definitions as (my personal favorite) "sarchasm" (n.): The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
Taking a cue from the witty readers who contributed to the Style Invitational, I decided to make lemonade out of lemons and come up with my own definition for "interfear":
interfear (n) the terror one experiences when burying a corpse (i.e. fear of interring. e.g., "I was supposed to be a pallbearer at my grandmother's funeral, but my interfear got in the way."); (v) to be afraid of placing a corpse in a grave or tomb (e.g., "My grandmother's funeral is Sunday, and I've been interfearing the funeral rites.")
I shared my made-up definitions with the co-workers who had commiserated with me this morning over the awful grammar in the document I was reviewing. We all decided to make this a "thing." The next time we get some godawful, "they really should have known better" spelling mistake, we're just going to make a new word out of it. Of course, this doesn't help at ALL with the everyday grammar mistakes that don't involve gross misspellings, but at least it's a start. And if you have any idea how to put a silver lining on those monstrosities, please let me know.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
What is a "Real Woman", Really?
This afternoon, The Huffington Post angered a number of fans on its Facebook page when it posted the following:
The commentary contained a link to this article, which showcased a slideshow of real Huffington Post readers in bikinis. The angry commenters' problem was that they believed HuffPost's characterization of the women in the slideshow as "real women" was a statement that the only real women are women with curves and bigger bodies and that "thin, healthy women" are not in fact "real." However, this wasn't the commenters' real problem. Their actual problem is two-fold: (1) a lack of reading comprehension [actually, a lack of reading, PERIOD, as they clearly did not read the article], and (2) a failed logic whereby they think thin automatically means healthy and thick automatically means unhealthy.
Not reading the article is really a sad problem, considering it is only two paragraphs long. The article makes it very clear that HuffPost sought after photographs of real women in order to combat the extremely airbrushed images that assault us from magazine aisles, along with the notion that the only way a woman should ever don a bikini is after she's lost 40 pounds. The article plainly says, "We happen to believe that if you're physically able to put on a bathing suit, you're bikini-ready." It also plainly states that it wanted the pictures it received to be "unstarved and unairbrushed." "Unstarved" doesn't mean, "zaftig only." Plenty of women are unstarved and thin, just as there are many women who are starved and thick [more on that point later]. The key here, though, is unairbrushed.
Anyone who clicked through the ten-picture slideshow would easily see that the women included in the slideshow came in all sizes. There are plump women and thin women. There are tall women and short women. You know what kind of women you won't find in those ten pictures, though? Airbrushed and Photoshopped women. Not one of those women has had dimples, cellulite, moles, birthmarks, or discolorations removed. Not one has had her lines smoothed and/or her body liquified [the Photoshop editing job of making someone skinny] to three times smaller than her actual size. These women, thin and thick alike, are "real" because they look the way any woman would look on the street. And if you think Kate Beckinsale or Snooki looks anything in person like what you see on the cover of a magazine teaching you how to look just like her [but ignoring the main tip of, "and then Photoshop yourself"], then you are exactly the type of gullible person to which these articles are marketed.
Now let's get to the second problem, the idea that thin means healthy and thick means unhealthy. BEEEEEEEEEEEP!!!!! WRONG!
Look, I don't dispute that someone who is morbidly obese is probably unhealthy. When Ruby Gettinger weighed more than 400 pounds, she was undoubtedly, not healthy. But where people often go wrong is when they make the automatic assumption that someone who is thin, whether naturally thin or not, is healthy and that someone who is overweight (not obese, but just outside the realm of their ideal weight) is unhealthy. There have been several studies that disprove this theory. What you see on the outside doesn't necessarily indicate a person's eating habits or exercise levels. Yes, people who eat right and exercise and stay or maintain a thin weight as a result of their healthy habits should be applauded for their discipline. Where we get off the rails, however, is when we assume that because someone looks "good" on the outside, this matches what is happening on the inside.
This is what is so wrong with a thin-obsessed culture. The emphasis should never be on "thin," it should always be on "healthy." If "thin" is a level you achieve when you become "healthy," then great. But there are far too many people, women especially, who develop very unhealthy habits (anorexia and bulimia being only two of these) in pursuit of "thin." However, society is much better off when people are eating well and exercising--regardless of what size or forms their bodies take as a result of this healthy living.
Here's my "real" time....
I have been my current height (5'7") since I was 13 or 14 years old. Including pregnancy, at this height, I have been every weight from 80 pounds to 200 pounds. I was not starving when I was 80 pounds; it was the result of my natural metabolism, inherited from both parents. My parents should have been my cautionary tale. I should have known that my metabolism wouldn't last forever. But because of partly acting out because of all the hurt I experienced when I was younger, when my peers had no problem making fun of my weight ["toothpick," "anorexic," "Olive Oyl" -- I've heard it all] and largely having formed awful habits as the result of having no visual consequences to my lifestyle, I formed awful habits. By high school, I had actually started lifting weights, because I had read in magazines that doing so would help me gain weight. I was also eating ten times a day in an effort to gain weight--mostly junk food, fast food, and anything I could get out of a vending machine. I never did any real cardio until law school, because I found it "boring" and "I didn't need it." In fact, the only time I did cardio even in law school was during dance practice or when I decided to walk 20 blocks to go shopping (or, more likely, to a bar) because I couldn't afford a cab and didn't want to take the subway. Despite eating Taco Bell and other awful takeout nearly every day for lunch and dinner, my weight never went over 120 pounds until long after graduation, when I went on a medication that had the side effect of making me gain a ton of weight quickly. I didn't just gain weight, I got "puffy." To combat that weight gain, I basically tried to starve myself back into my size 0 clothes. I rarely ate breakfast and lunch. For dinner, whether or not I ate something healthy depended on my mood. But, hey, whatever worked to keep me within or under my "ideal weight" and BMI, right?
Wrong. Everything about my old lifestyle was wrong. And it wasn't until a few months before Pop Culture Dad and I got engaged--when I got a personal trainer who knocked some sense into me--that I realized how wrong my previous lifestyle was, regardless of how good I looked on the outside.
Am I a picture of perfect health today? No. But, sadly, I am much healthier now, in my greater attempts to eat home-cooked meals more often, to buy organic fruits and vegetables (and even starting to grow my own), and in trying to incorporate more physical activity (even if it isn't always "exercise") than I was when I was back in my "hot" days in my early and mid-20s. Am I as healthy as I could be? Absolutely not. But I'm working on it. Although I would ultimately like to lose some weight and trim down from the healthy changes I continue to make to my lifestyle, in the end all that will really matter is that I have improved my quality (and length) of life by making these healthy changes. I will also have given my daughters the benefit of hopefully long and healthy lives by not teaching them--as I sadly had learned--that it doesn't matter what they eat right now, because they have the metabolism that I used to have, and they can basically gorge themselves on anything and everything without consequence until they turn 25. That was a bad lesson to learn, and it has been a hard habit to break.
In any event, I will continue to be a "real" woman. I'm not going to Photoshop my imperfections before posting pictures to Facebook out of fear that people will judge me if I don't look "perfect" and skinny. If I ever again achieve what I believe to be my ideal body [not weight; weight tells you nothing] again, I will still be a "real" woman, because I will remain unairbrushed and true to myself.
(L) High school and (R) law school. "Real" and unairbrushed, but an unhealthy version of skinny.
Pop Culture Dad and I at our healthiest--on our honeymoon in 2008, eating well and being active (although 50 pounds heavier than I was in high school/college and 20-30 pounds heavier than my heaviest law school weight -- both times living off fast food). Unstarved and unairbrushed.
Me today. I'm still "real" and unairbrushed. Still not as healthy as I could be and have been, but 100x healthier than my college and law school skinny days (and noneyabiz how much heavier).
So... Tell Me About Yourself
"Tell me about yourself..."--four little words that seem so simple. But are they?
We've all heard it before. Dates, job interviews, small talk at a party or professional event. But how do we answer it? And what does our answer say about us?
Obviously the answer to "tell me about yourself" is going to depend in part on the setting and the audience. You're not going to answer that question on a job interview or at a professional networking event with "On the weekends, I'm really into being tied up and beaten with small, light whips," even jokingly [unless, of course, your business industry happens to be related to S&M]. Just like I'm sure your attachment parenting support group doesn't really want to hear you laundry-list your resumé and all of your professional accomplishments. But even within a tailored setting, the way you answer that question can be tricky. Not to mention, there are those times when you are asked the question in one setting, when the intention is another altogether.
I was recently asked this question in a professional context. As I usually do in a professional setting, I started answering it from a professional standpoint--what my practice area is, where I work, how long I've been doing it, etc. I was cut off. "Nah... I don't want to know about your legal career. I want to know what you like when you're not being a lawyer. What do you like to do? Do you have any hobbies?". Instantly, I relaxed. Suddenly, I no longer had that feeling of being "on." But then where to go? Do I mention that I have an unhealthy obsession (as many other lawyers do, I've found) to trash reality TV? Do I talk about my children? Shrug. So I began where I usually do, "I really like to write...".
For most of us, who we are is multi-layered. You can talk about your children or your hobbies. You could talk about your background from birth to present day. Or you could just talk about the week you've been having. But where do you begin? "Well, I was born in a small town near Timbuktu to John Doe and Jane Smith-Doe. There, I attended Almost-Timbuktu Elementary, where my first grade teacher was Miss Know-It-All...".
This is why "tell me about yourself" with nothing more bothers me. I don't know what information, if any, the asker is actually seeking. Not to mention, sometimes it feels like a trick: what do you prioritize about yourself? On a theoretical basis, the first thing that pops into your head should be the most important thing about you, right? But I suspect most people are like me, and within a millisecond, you've filtered your personality down to one innocuous thing about You© that you can share until you gauge who this stranger is and what his or her end game is. For any stranger who has used this question as some sort of personality or litmus test on me, sorry to burst your bubble, but you likely did not receive an answer that told you the things I feel are most important about me. We don't know each other well enough for that kind of disclosure. For anyone who used it because they really didn't know how to ask the right direct question to find out what it is about me they really want to know [which, I suppose in most cases is, "Do we have some common traits that can take this conversation from awkward introduction to a meaningful exchange?"], then I apologize if my answer did nothing but drag out the uncomfortable first-meeting scenario. But you've gotta work with me here!
For the personality test, I feel like there are so many other indirect ways you can find out what values a person holds dear. For someone like me (the "semi-open book" type), maybe your best bet is to skip the beating around the bush and just ask me direct questions. If you want to know if I'm a religious person in the same way you are, asking me "tell me about yourself" and hoping that somewhere in my rambling answer some church activities come up is really not a productive way to go [particularly if this is in a professional setting, since, ya know, it's usually best to avoid topics of religion and politics unless you have a reason to believe the other person is on the same page as you]. Why not just ask me outright, "So where do you go to church?" or "Do you go to church?". Yes, it might be momentarily awkward when I answer that no I do not go to church, nor am I Christian; but at least then we can quickly move on instead of you asking me over and over to "tell me something else about yourself." Because we will never get to anything close to that topic. We just won't. If there's something you want to know about a person, why not guide them in the right direction?
If "tell me about yourself" is your way of making small talk and getting past an awkward introduction, you have actually failed in that regard, because you have now made me more uncomfortable by forcing me into a situation where I am taking a 30-second personal inventory, where I have no idea what bits and pieces of information would be remotely relevant or interesting. How about asking more detailed questions, such as the person who stopped me mid-rehashing-my-resumé-track: "What are things you like to do outside of work? Do you have any hobbies?". In this particular instance, the pointed question led to skipping over my stock answer about writing [an area in which the asker had no interest], and into a nice back-and-forth about crafting, a rug I randomly decided to make, and an excellent kids' craft idea she made up for one of her children's birthday parties years ago. By focusing her general question on one particular aspect about me [hobbies], we were able to find some common ground which led to a pretty lengthy and mutually interesting discussion.
"Tell me about yourself" is such a horrible stock question. Whether you're interviewing someone, courting someone, trying to make a new friend, or just trying to fill some time while the person you really want to talk to is otherwise occupied, why not instead try something a little more direct or specific? You'll be glad you did.
Tell me: How do you all generally answer the magic "tell me about yourself" question?
We've all heard it before. Dates, job interviews, small talk at a party or professional event. But how do we answer it? And what does our answer say about us?
Obviously the answer to "tell me about yourself" is going to depend in part on the setting and the audience. You're not going to answer that question on a job interview or at a professional networking event with "On the weekends, I'm really into being tied up and beaten with small, light whips," even jokingly [unless, of course, your business industry happens to be related to S&M]. Just like I'm sure your attachment parenting support group doesn't really want to hear you laundry-list your resumé and all of your professional accomplishments. But even within a tailored setting, the way you answer that question can be tricky. Not to mention, there are those times when you are asked the question in one setting, when the intention is another altogether.
I was recently asked this question in a professional context. As I usually do in a professional setting, I started answering it from a professional standpoint--what my practice area is, where I work, how long I've been doing it, etc. I was cut off. "Nah... I don't want to know about your legal career. I want to know what you like when you're not being a lawyer. What do you like to do? Do you have any hobbies?". Instantly, I relaxed. Suddenly, I no longer had that feeling of being "on." But then where to go? Do I mention that I have an unhealthy obsession (as many other lawyers do, I've found) to trash reality TV? Do I talk about my children? Shrug. So I began where I usually do, "I really like to write...".
For most of us, who we are is multi-layered. You can talk about your children or your hobbies. You could talk about your background from birth to present day. Or you could just talk about the week you've been having. But where do you begin? "Well, I was born in a small town near Timbuktu to John Doe and Jane Smith-Doe. There, I attended Almost-Timbuktu Elementary, where my first grade teacher was Miss Know-It-All...".
This is why "tell me about yourself" with nothing more bothers me. I don't know what information, if any, the asker is actually seeking. Not to mention, sometimes it feels like a trick: what do you prioritize about yourself? On a theoretical basis, the first thing that pops into your head should be the most important thing about you, right? But I suspect most people are like me, and within a millisecond, you've filtered your personality down to one innocuous thing about You© that you can share until you gauge who this stranger is and what his or her end game is. For any stranger who has used this question as some sort of personality or litmus test on me, sorry to burst your bubble, but you likely did not receive an answer that told you the things I feel are most important about me. We don't know each other well enough for that kind of disclosure. For anyone who used it because they really didn't know how to ask the right direct question to find out what it is about me they really want to know [which, I suppose in most cases is, "Do we have some common traits that can take this conversation from awkward introduction to a meaningful exchange?"], then I apologize if my answer did nothing but drag out the uncomfortable first-meeting scenario. But you've gotta work with me here!
For the personality test, I feel like there are so many other indirect ways you can find out what values a person holds dear. For someone like me (the "semi-open book" type), maybe your best bet is to skip the beating around the bush and just ask me direct questions. If you want to know if I'm a religious person in the same way you are, asking me "tell me about yourself" and hoping that somewhere in my rambling answer some church activities come up is really not a productive way to go [particularly if this is in a professional setting, since, ya know, it's usually best to avoid topics of religion and politics unless you have a reason to believe the other person is on the same page as you]. Why not just ask me outright, "So where do you go to church?" or "Do you go to church?". Yes, it might be momentarily awkward when I answer that no I do not go to church, nor am I Christian; but at least then we can quickly move on instead of you asking me over and over to "tell me something else about yourself." Because we will never get to anything close to that topic. We just won't. If there's something you want to know about a person, why not guide them in the right direction?
If "tell me about yourself" is your way of making small talk and getting past an awkward introduction, you have actually failed in that regard, because you have now made me more uncomfortable by forcing me into a situation where I am taking a 30-second personal inventory, where I have no idea what bits and pieces of information would be remotely relevant or interesting. How about asking more detailed questions, such as the person who stopped me mid-rehashing-my-resumé-track: "What are things you like to do outside of work? Do you have any hobbies?". In this particular instance, the pointed question led to skipping over my stock answer about writing [an area in which the asker had no interest], and into a nice back-and-forth about crafting, a rug I randomly decided to make, and an excellent kids' craft idea she made up for one of her children's birthday parties years ago. By focusing her general question on one particular aspect about me [hobbies], we were able to find some common ground which led to a pretty lengthy and mutually interesting discussion.
"Tell me about yourself" is such a horrible stock question. Whether you're interviewing someone, courting someone, trying to make a new friend, or just trying to fill some time while the person you really want to talk to is otherwise occupied, why not instead try something a little more direct or specific? You'll be glad you did.
Tell me: How do you all generally answer the magic "tell me about yourself" question?
See? This Is Exactly What I Was Talking About
Some lawmakers in Texas and the lieutenant governor are now working on legislation to allow teachers to bring guns to school and allow for gun training for those teachers. Even ignoring how absolutely awful that idea is, this is exactly what I meant yesterday when I talked about fucked up priorities.
In 2011, Gov.Goodhair Rick Perry cut $4 billion from the Texas education budget, resulting in the layoff of thousands of teachers, larger class sizes, and, as a natural result, a worse education for many public school students in Texas.
So we can't provide the funding to keep all our teachers and reduce class sizes, but we can provide the funding to arm and weapons-train teachers (many of whom don't even want the training)??? Are you fucking kidding me?!?!?!?!
I need out of this state. Fast.
Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
In 2011, Gov.
So we can't provide the funding to keep all our teachers and reduce class sizes, but we can provide the funding to arm and weapons-train teachers (many of whom don't even want the training)??? Are you fucking kidding me?!?!?!?!
I need out of this state. Fast.
Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Nine Quick Thoughts (9 mms?) About Guns
Some of the utterly stupid comments I have heard lately have led me to post my thoughts on the on-going national debate about guns and gun violence. Instead of continuing to yell at my radio, television and computer screen, I'm putting some of my thoughts here. I have many more than these, but this is a good start:
1. If you don't understand the difference between gun control and/or restrictions and an all around ban on gun ownership, you don't need to be part of this national discussion. Clearly you are prone to hyperbole and lack comprehension. There is no reasoning with someone like you. This, like many discussions, is not something that should be decided by the lowest common denominator of folks. Let the adults talk while you sit in a corner threatening to take your ball and go home.
2. That being said, if you are passionately fighting for the right for people to buy assault rifles, something is wrong with you. Really. The only thing you hunt with that effectively is humans.
3. On a related note, if you think you need an assault rifle to protect yourself for when/if the government comes after you, you are not just paranoid, you are stupid. Your assault rifle will do nothing against the federal government. It has an entire military at its disposal. Do you think you have a right to missiles and drones, too? I mean... C'mon!
4. If you are arguing to arm teachers in public schools but are not arguing to pay teachers more, reduce class sizes, and make sure that every student has updated and accurate books, your priorities are fundamentally fucked up.
5. On that note, my kids aren't going to any school where anyone other than a police officer is armed. If the principal or any teacher is armed, we are staying far away. There are many reasons why the idea of arming school personnel is beyond stupid (so far beyond), and maybe I'll get into them all later. But, seriously, if you don't see the absolute fallacies in the arguments for that, you're probably beyond hope anyway.
6. The answer is never more guns. No, patrons with guns would not have saved more people in the dark, crowded movie theater in Aurora. It would have led to more casualties. Stop playing this dream scenario in which every person who has ever gone to a gun range can all of the sudden turn into Dirty Harry or a trained sniper in an unexpected, panic, emergency situation while surrounded by innocent people who you should avoid accidentally shooting. I mean, really. I have friends who are trained military and police personnel—people who gun train on a normal and often basis as a necessary part of their jobs—and they would not act perfectly (and in some cases even well) in that situation. But now you think any Joe Blow off the street could? Get real. Oh, good for you! You always get the center of the target at the gun range... the non-moving target with nothing surrounding it, in a controlled scenario where you can take your time and relax. I'm sure that circumstance mirrors what would happen if you had to take out a crazed gunman. /s
7. As noted in point 1, I don't want to take your guns away. If you're a hunter or antique gun collector, by all means, have guns for that purpose. Hand gun(s) at home for personal protection? That's fine too, if that's your thing. But certain kinds of guns, no one needs to own. And in certain quantities, you aren't collecting, you're stockpiling. I don't care if you think you're getting ready for a race war or government invasion. My safety should not be threatened to coddle your paranoia.
8. Read the Second Amendment. Then when you're done, read some Supreme Court case law interpreting the Second Amendment. Then, when you're done with that, read the First Amendment and case law on that. One thing you should notice right away? Even the most conservative justice (Scalia) says both rights are subject to reasonable regulation.
9. I bought the "wrong" kind of Elmer's glue (cement glue) at Target last week and had to have my ID scanned and background checked to verify that I was (1) old enough, and (2) hadn't bought too much of it in a recent period. Same happens to Pop Culture Dad every time he buys his Allegra-D. Think about that.
A PSA to Those Non-New Yorkers Who Had Intended to Run the NY Marathon This Weekend
As you have probably heard by now, Mayor Bloomberg decided today to cancel the New York Marathon because of the post-Sandy controversy surrounding the idea of holding a marathon when so many New Yorkers are without power, and the City is very much still in the middle of relief efforts.
I was only a temporary New Yorker for three years, and that was more than a decade ago; but I still have many friends (and one family member) there and other areas affected by Sandy.
Imagine my surprise to turn in to a NYC-based, national radio show this afternoon and hearing a few marathon runners bitching and moaning about the cancelation, including one lady from Houston, who should certainly know better, since we get our own fair share of destructive weather. Many of those people got schooled on the air.
Consider this my Public Service Announcement to any disappointed runners who have not yet been so schooled:
If you flew into NYC this weekend to run the marathon and are now raving mad because you now have "nothing to do," how about you donate your downtime to the Red Cross or other hurricane recovery efforts?? If you didn't make it into the city before the marathon was canceled, then how about you feel happy about the fact that your hotel room can go to a displaced NY resident, many of whom were told they had to evacuate the rooms before Saturday? In any event, show some damn gratitude for your luxuries and some sympathy for people who suffered devastation this week. One day, it could be you or someone you love. Wouldn't you like some kindness, understanding, and sympathy? You've already done the training. You can run a later marathon. But NYC and its residents need some TLC right now—not 50,000 people running through the streets and redirecting medical personnel.
Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
I was only a temporary New Yorker for three years, and that was more than a decade ago; but I still have many friends (and one family member) there and other areas affected by Sandy.
Imagine my surprise to turn in to a NYC-based, national radio show this afternoon and hearing a few marathon runners bitching and moaning about the cancelation, including one lady from Houston, who should certainly know better, since we get our own fair share of destructive weather. Many of those people got schooled on the air.
Consider this my Public Service Announcement to any disappointed runners who have not yet been so schooled:
If you flew into NYC this weekend to run the marathon and are now raving mad because you now have "nothing to do," how about you donate your downtime to the Red Cross or other hurricane recovery efforts?? If you didn't make it into the city before the marathon was canceled, then how about you feel happy about the fact that your hotel room can go to a displaced NY resident, many of whom were told they had to evacuate the rooms before Saturday? In any event, show some damn gratitude for your luxuries and some sympathy for people who suffered devastation this week. One day, it could be you or someone you love. Wouldn't you like some kindness, understanding, and sympathy? You've already done the training. You can run a later marathon. But NYC and its residents need some TLC right now—not 50,000 people running through the streets and redirecting medical personnel.
Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
If I Can Pin It, I CAN Do It: Pop Culture Toddler 2's First Birthday Party
 |
I started party planning mode months in advance. At first, I was set on doing a Lil' Angels theme after finding some of the decorations on clearance at Party City. I polled my gal pals about it. Most thought it was cute, but one thought skulls were a little morbid for a baby's birthday party. Although I disagree, I could see how some of my family members would have also had that viewpoint. Besides, after looking at and Pinning some of the Lil' Angel decorations to my Pinterest board for kids' birthday ideas, another idea was forming in my head.
PCT2 is such a little rock star. Early on, my friends gave her the nickname Super Baby. She was so ahead of everything, and so happy while doing it. She is honestly as close to perfect as a kid can come (minus her lack of sense of self-preservation). A rock star birthday seemed just too perfect for her. And, well, since we are practically the house that Sanrio built, a Hello Kitty rock star theme seemed perfect. I got to websurfing and Pinning.
I found a lot of great ideas online, but wasn't sure how I was going to pull them off. That led me to starting the decorations two months before PCT2's birthday, so I would have ample time to start over if I messed up.
The first thing I did were the invitations. I found some pink and black argyle images/digital scrapbook paper on Etsy. As I blogged about previously, I designed the invitations with an app on my iPad. I bought some 5x7 invitation paper to print them out (with gorgeous hot pink envelopes to match). When I had trouble getting the print settings perfect (going from iPad to PC), I got some help from one of my mommy board pals, Sweets4ever at Craftster.
The invitations were my starting point for the rest of the decorations. I found some a Hello Kitty buttons on Etsy also. While they never printed properly as 1" buttons, they did provide me with great backdrops for my other decorations. One of my favorite Hello Kitty rock star designs (the same one on the invite) served as the base for the lollipop decorations, some of the hanging decorations, the wall posters and the favor boxes.
 |
| Photo by M Photography |
Hanging and Wall Decorations
The second long-term design project were the aforementioned hanging decorations. Initially I thought about buying those Lil' Angel hangers in the clearance bin and pasting Hello Kitty over the skulls. I figured out, however, I could do it on my own. I got circular and scalloped punches in varying sizes. At night when everyone was asleep (I work, after all), I would sit up in bed punching out the Hello Kitty's and various plain black circles with either PCT2's name or a "1" on them and plain circles or scallops on either the argyle pattern, black, or silver sparkles. Once a had a quart-size Ziplock bag completely full of punched-out paper, I started matching various shapes, sizes and designs until I was happy. I then bough decorating ribbon in black, pink and silver, and spent my nights gluing and taping my designs. The result were hanging ribbon decorations with three circles on each. I saved the remaining paper cut outs for other decorations.I also bought several balloons to hang. We are in the process of selling our house, so the last thing I wanted to do is have tape and push puns everywhere. However, thanks to the helium shortage, my vision of floating balloon everywhere had to be curtailed. I did manage to procure two tanks, one of which was used almost exclusively on three gigantic mylar balloons shaped like the number one.
 |
| Photo by M Photography |
 |
| Photo by M Photography |
Candy Bar
I was desperate to do a candy bar. I always love seeing them at parties, and there were some very cool-looking ideas on Pinterest. However, I didn't want to spend three-figures making one. I bought some satin pink polka dot fabric on eBay to use as a table cloth and jars from the dollar store. I found pink and black candies on Amazon.com and from various candy wholesalers online. I also found some raspberry M&Ms in varying shades of dark pink and licorice bites from my local Super Target. I decorated the glass jars with ribbons I bought from Michael's and the punched-out designs I had made previously. For the lollipops, I got some flower decorating foam boards and wrapped them in black tissue paper, putting ribbons around one layer and pink and black argyle duct tape around the other. The personalized stickers on the lollipops were created on Microsoft Word with Avery 1" round labels. I took my favorite Hello Kitty button design and used Word to personalize the circle around her.
We will reuse the jars and the fabric. I can't sew to save my life, but my mother is very good at it and plans to make the girls dresses with the fabric.
 |
| Photo by M Photography |
 |
| Photo by M Photography |
 | |
| Photo by M Photography |
 |
| Photo by M Photography |
Favor Boxes
I found cheap hot pink and black boxes on Amazon and used the same Hello Kitty design, but on the 2" Avery stickers to decorate the favor boxes. The favor boxes were all empty for the kids to fill up with cookies (see below) and candy from the candy bar.
Cookies
I bought some Hello Kitty cookie cutters from Sanrio.com and a guitar cookie cutter from Amazon. I already had the star [honestly, I can't believe we didn't have a Hello Kitty cookie cutter before now!]. I baked several dozen cookies and frosted them all. 
For the packaging, I got Avery Printable Bag Toppers, which also came with the plastic bags. They perfectly fit all of my oversized cookies, except for a couple of the guitars, which had spread when baked. Most of those broke in half as I was trying to get them into the bags, anyway, so it all worked out. I also had some trouble with the black cookie frosting refusing to harden, but over all, the cookies weren't bad. My mom assumed I had bought them somewhere, so I take that as a compliment. |
Water Bottles
Thank you, Pinterest! I made the water bottles by removing the existing labels from water bottles and putting pink and black argyle duct tape where the labels used to be. They matched the party beautifully, and unlike paper labels you make yourself, these could go in a cooler without being destroyed.
 |
| Photo by M Photography |
Cake and Smash Cake
I take no credit for the actual birthday cake. After getting custom cake quotes that were way out of budget for a one-year old birthday party, I contacted a coworker of mine, who was the person who made Pop Culture Preschooler's first birthday cake [a cute princess castle; after the first birthday, we stick to sheet cakes from the grocery store]. I sent her the invitation design and asked what she thought she could do with it. She told me she would try a few things, but had never used fondant before. I set my expectations low. When she arrived with the cake on PCT2's birthday, I nearly fell over. The cake arrived in four beautiful parts, ready to be assembled. The last two parts of the cake were the Hello Kitty (head and body)—the part of the cake we were both worried wouldn't work. I had already bought s plush Hello Kitty to use as a cake topper just in case. No need. This Kitty was (is) FABULOUS. She's also edible (made of Rice Krispie treats on the inside). However, we won't touch her. She is too beautiful to eat. [okay, okay... We did crack open her body at work. Delish!]
 |
| Photo by M Photography |
 |
| All photos by M Photography |
My smash cake did not go as well, though. No matter. Its purpose was to be demolished! I am proud of myself for figuring out how to (kind of) use fondant, though. And PCT2 sure didn't seem to mind!
 |
| Photo by M Photography |
 |
| Photo by M Photography |
 |
| Photo by M Photography |
Birthday Board
This is one of my proudest Pinterest-inspired creations. I spent weeks playing around with fonts on my computer and drawing things out on my iPad and by hand until I was satisfied with how the board would look. Initially I wanted to do a chalkboard with chalk markers, but I couldn't find a board with a frame I liked. So I settled instead on a black canvas with paint markers.
Some of my numbers proved wrong at the well-baby checkup the next day (she's actually 30.25" long and 19 lbs 12 oz), but it still looks good.
 |
| Photo by M Photography |
 |
| Photo by M Photography |
Pictures
Special thanks to my friend Mirna at M Photography for taking pictures. Mirna does all of our family pictures, and she totally rocks! If anyone is in the Houston area, I highly recommend you give her a call!
 |
| Pop Culture Preschooler ready to rock out. Photo by M Photography |
Note: any picture that doesn't say "Photo by M Photography" under it was taken with my iPad (that's why the quality isn't as good).
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Posts
