This evening, after work, I came home to spouseinbox working on the yard.  The pile of rock I had been working on earlier in the week was a bit smaller,  but the yard was not covered yet.  Spouseinbox decided to move some rock.  I joined the process after supper and now have only a small pile remaining to be used on thin spots when the sun shines to show us where they are.  Yes, we were shoveling rock at 2100.  I’m sure the neighbors had mixed feelings – noise that late, but the yard is transforming from eyesore to pleasant.  Spouseinbox took a picture before the completion and I noted that part of the shed was showing in the picture as well, so here it is:

side yardThe black in the lower right of the picture is now covered with the rock pile on the driveway.

We’re tired, but happy.

oopsI bet the pick up job will be impressive.

This week at work has been atrocious.  It wasn’t actually the work itself, or the immediate coworkers.  I was called into the office, provided a song and dance how my opinion was desired on moving to a new shift and when I reported negatively the next day was informed that I was going to the shift anyways.   Talk about kick in the gut.  (understand that there is more, but I am not going to provide any detail)  I have been livid most of the week and working on the yard like mad.  There is nothing like physical labor when one is out of sorts.  After all, it’s much better to take it out with a shovel on some rock than throwing a computer as in one suggestion I received.  One other activity that I utilized was typing all of the incidents and properly labeling the actions.  I showed this to spouseinbox as well as our financial adviser.  Spouseinbox said simply, “wow.”  The financial adviser discussed the incident for a bit, asked what was to be accomplished with the letter, and I had to admit trying to place all of the emotions and thoughts in a cohesive manner.  The adviser stated that nothing good could come of giving my boss the letter.  I had to agree, but there is still that desire to let them know what I really think.  Siblinginbox provided a practical piece of advise, “don’t burn bridges unless you plan to move to a distant part of the country.  The incident will follow you.”  I had to agree.  After all, who will get called for a reference when I interview for a new job?  So for now I am just trying to stay out of the office as much as possible to keep contact at an absolute minimum until I can get something else in the hopper. On the plus side, I do like working with patients again. 

I remember the Flintstones cartoon and their theme song which got ruined in the early ’80′s…

(from the comments)

“Gay used to mean happy, then it meant homosexual, now it means hate.”

If those espousing this don’t like the term – don’t behave in that manner.  That makes sense to me.  Note that the reason to rewrite their proper descriptive term to “gay” was to get away from the stigma that the proper term “homosexual” maintains.  If those on that side of the aisle don’t like the association that a term brings, they simply change the name, and supposedly the stigma averts.  Wrong.  The new term is shortly recognized and the final result is a group trying to present a lie.  To harken back to my college psychology days, homosexuals have an incidence of depression 40% higher than the population.  One of my class chimed in and noted that with the stigma associated it was reasonable to expect such a result.  The professor corrected the instruction with the addition that cultural animus was statistically accounted and with that done there was still an incidence of 40% higher than the population.  That doesn’t really engender the term “gay”, does it?

From here

I found the following at the end of the comments:

 

I have practiced law in the private sector and worked in the legal departments of different levels of government. The primary difference is that my private sector clients on the whole were more concerned about obeying the law.

It’s past time that the government workers have more job security than the private sector.  As liberalism can only exist in a state of plenty (because otherwise, one would have to account for errors in judgement) those with no concern for the security of their positions will behave according to their lack of morals.  I think it was “The Kindergarten of Eden” that made the point of liberalism existing in a state of plenty.  Those dealing with limited means have to maintain a more accurate level of decision making.  As an example, consider the federal government – which spends without reserve or concern.  How are the spending decisions they make?  Compare that to the private company which regulates even the type of toilet paper as it is an expense to the company and all items need to be accounted.  Where there is no restraint, lawlessness abounds.

I was on the roof of the shed working a bit back and got to thinking of the adjective – just.  It seemed like a useful word and full of meaning when applied to one’s job:

I am “just” a nurse.

That has the connotation that there is something else or better than the noun stated.  I played with a couple other names and decided it had the same effect – that of lessening the stature of the job to which the word was related.  While on this mindset,and considering banning its usage, I found a usefulness for the term.

The patient asks, “do you think I have rhabdomyolysis?”

My reply: “I’m sorry, I’m just a nurse.  You need to ask your doctor that one.”

I guess I’ll keep the term.

I hear Dave for a few minutes in the morning on my way to the office.  The show is played on tape, so is a former day’s reference.  I don’t actually know what time he is on the air.  Anyways, he was commenting on a newspaper article that was describing how the rich were getting richer and the poor – poorer, in the article on how there were more millionaires now than at some previous time period.  Dave spent his time illustrating the folly of the article as having more millionaires meant that there were fewer poorer people.  He took a moment to re-instruct on the meaning of millionaire – how it was not an income of a million per year, but actually the net worth of a million.  Then the instruction about the formation of millionaires continued for a bit more.  Missing was the philosophy driving this entire scenario.  Facts have no relevance to those espousing the philosophy of a divided pie.  For those, the fact of more millionaires necessarily means poorer others, because if there is a static amount of money, one cannot have without another doing without.  Personally, I think the formation of this article was in that philosophy.  Factual illustrations have no bearing on those with this mindset.  I also note that those of this mindset occupy government which operates by taking from people.  They get to practice removing people’s income for their usage and have therefore a sort of experience to back up their philosophy.  “We remove money from those who have it and give to those who don’t.  That is a virtue.” What’s missing from this mindset is the acknowledgement that the ones from whom they remove the money, have spent their time and efforts to make that same money.  What they are removing is that which is made, not that which is divided.  This is the distinct difference in mindsets.  The middle class is hurting, not because there are more millionaires, but because the government is removing the results of their labors.  The government is creating more poorer people by their policies, and the fact that there are more millionaires who have managed to pass by the bureaucracies and taxes is nothing short of amazing.  Kudos to those energetic individuals.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 87 other followers