As the year comes to a close, I must admit to engaging in one of the most cliched of New Year's traditions: making a list of resolutions I know I won't keep. Weight loss used to be a recurrent theme, until recently when I learned how to keep it under control. So my new resolution was to simply clean up my diet (for health reasons), and that still is the case. But just today, I've decided to add on a second resolution to the list: recognize when less is more and act accordingly.
Like most phrases rattled off with little thought to its origin, the original meaning and context of "less is more" eludes me. But due to events over the past year, it has taken on a personal meaning for me--that the best solution to a problem is often the simplest one.
In terms of slimming down, I've experienced enough frustration following conventional wisdom that encourages elaborate weight-loss regimes to appreciate simple solutions that actually work. So I no longer restrict calories (which drives me crazy with hunger); reduce fat and/or carbs and increase fiber (which drives me crazy period); exercise a minimum of 45 minutes at 60-80% of my maximum heart rate (which makes me dizzy and requires a huge time commitment); drink 8 glasses of water daily plus an extra glass for every 10 pounds of excess weight (which increases both my appetite and my trips to the ladies' room); consume 2-3 servings of dairy each day (which makes me more susceptible to colds); or eat grilled chicken, brown rice, steamed vegetables, and "dietetic" versions of my favorite foods and drinks (which simply isn't how a sane person should live).
It took me 8 months of losing weight and 8 months of keeping it off to learn that the simplest solution to weight loss--for me--was to avoid eating beyond satiety and walk 30 minutes every other day at a slightly challenging pace. All the other elaborate strategies are not only unnecessary, but unsustainable for me. It took a lot of trial and error for me to realize this, but now that I know, there's no turning back.
In my previous blog entry, I blamed some of my weight loss misadventures on a system that, I believe, is rigged to make Americans gain weight so that we'll spend loads of money trying to lose it or buying medication for weight-related ailments. While I still believe this is true, I realize my own complicity in my struggle with weight loss: I tend to solve problems through elaborate means. This applies not only to the weight loss strategies mentioned above, but to other areas of my life, including work.
I recently organized an office event that was meant to simply provide an opportunity for people to get together and chat for an hour or so. Perfectionist that I am, I had almost turned it into an event where we, the organizers, were catering lunch items for the attendees and arranging for invited speakers to address theme-related topics, when all that was needed was a designated space and a couple announcements to attract attendees to meet and shoot the breeze. One of the other organizers managed to talk me down from my "pie in the sky" ambitions. Thankfully, I listened, because not only was the more simplistic approach successful--in fact, our most highly attended event to date--it saved me a lot of unnecessary stress and strife. Similar event-planning experiences with this group have taught me to seek out and apply the most simplistic approach that I can get away with.
While the elaborate approach often means adding those little touches that elevate something from mediocrity to "fabulosity," it can also be nerve-racking and simply not worth the effort, depending on the situation. The key is to learn when more is needed and when you can hold back and get away with less.
This mindset was reinforced by a recent situation in my personal life--as recent as a week ago. I found out that a relative of mine got assaulted while walking home from a bus stop. While the attack didn't render serious injuries--not even enough to require any medical attention--it did traumatize her, and it scared the bejeezus out of me enough to offer to help her get a new car.
I have a twelve-year old car that runs perfectly fine, but lately I've been looking for an excuse to buy a new car, and I rashly decided that this would be the perfect opportunity to get one. So acting on the emotions of wanting to protect my younger relative as well as indulge myself, I decided to buy myself a new car and give her my current one. After a bit of research, I realized that buying a new car--plus paying several thousand dollars for a major tune-up and detail work on my current car--would take a sizable chunk out of my savings and would seriously undermine my efforts to buy a house. I soon decided that the simpler solution would be to purchase a used car for her and keep my own car.
I'm surprised, ashamed, and a bit concerned that I even contemplated that original more elaborate plan, but I'm relieved that I quickly came to my senses. It simply makes NO sense to spend 10's of thousands of dollars on a situation that could easily be resolved for less than 5 thousand. And coming to this realization relieved me of the mounting blood pressure and anxiety I was beginning to experience knowing that my house savings was about to be squandered on a frivolous impulse buy.
In light of my previous weight loss strategies, my approach to planning work-related events, and now this recent "mental car-buying frenzy," I know that I'll have to work hard on applying the "less is more" philosophy in terms of seeking the simplest approach to solving problems. However, the situation with my relative has led me to think of "less is more" in another equally important light.
Once I decided to buy her a used car, then the questions became "how much?" and "how old?" She's in her early twenties, living on her own, working part-time, and going to school. She explained that she wasn't able to save for a car because she wasn't getting enough hours at work and that she had rent to pay and "well, cable." While I could definitely sympathize with the first two reasons, the "cable" excuse was a little off-putting. And then I thought about the smart phone that she owns (when I don't own one), the nice clothes she always wears (which are always a cut above mine), and the recent Kindle she bought for her mother's birthday.
And then I thought about how she's living on her own while attending college, when she could have stayed at home, saved money, and delayed venturing out on her own until after graduation, when she could work full-time and afford rent without also having to pay tuition. And then I remembered her mentioning a boyfriend, her evenings spent at jazz clubs, and her overall more active--and thus more expensive--social life than mine. And as I kept having these thoughts, both the purchase price and year of the car kept decreasing to the point where I don't want to spend more than several thousand on a well-maintained car built in the 90's--a starter car, if you will. Something to get her from A to B reliably, but won't spoil her. Something that will motivate her to work towards an upgrade.
I grew up having the basic necessities with very little of the luxuries she's had. I wasn't blessed with benefactors to give me these things. What's more, my struggling single mother, who made education a priority, tightened her belt so she could afford to send me to private schools all throughout my childhood. Not only did this mean having little else in the household budget for luxuries like VCR's, microwaves, cable, or even color TV, it meant being reminded of how "underprivileged" I was, as I was surrounded by all the material trappings of my middle class schoolmates whose parents could afford those things.
This has shaped a mindset in me where I'm well aware of--and, oftentimes, in contact with--certain lifestyles in which I simply can't indulge. So now that I can afford the smart phone, the iPad, the cable subscription, and the thirty-thousand dollar car that each of my colleagues have, I refrain from indulging in these luxuries because I know that I can't pay for them AND simultaneously amass enough wealth to place a nice down payment on a house. I know I have to sacrifice and do with "less" now in order to have "more" in the future. I'm also less quick to spend on impulse purchases because I know how much time and effort it took to amass what I currently have, and I don't want to blow it all away and have to spend more time and sacrifice replenishing it.
This lesson has recently saved me from plunking down an exorbitant amount of money on something "just because I can afford it," and I'd like for my relative to learn this lesson herself. Buying her an "appropriate car at an appropriate price" would be my attempt to avoid spoiling her. I don't want to further enable a lifestyle (that I'm beginning to perceive) of misplaced priorities and excessive self-indulgence. While it may or may not work, it's a philosophy that I'd like to encourage in others--especially if my money is involved.
Sacrificing and making do with less adds more value to life in other ways, it builds character, it makes one appreciate the rare and occasional indulgence ever more, and leaves one with more to show for at the end of the day. For these reasons, restraint and self-discipline, along with simplicity and good old-fashioned common sense, are some of the personal traits that I'll be refining throughout 2012--and likely beyond. Now if only I could apply this "less is more" philosophy to these long meandering blog entries! Well, maybe that's something I can work on for 2013. In the meantime, Happy New Year to anyone reading this. And may self-reflection keep you on the path of continuous self-improvement--and sticking to all your New Year's resolutions!
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Saturday, December 24, 2011
How I Loss It Effortlessly
One only needs to look at the date of my last entry to know that it's been a while since I've been on here. Lately, I just haven't had the time or inspiration to write. But such is not the case--temporarily-speaking, at least--now that I'm (1) on vacation and that I've (2) recently weighed myself, liked what I saw, and decided to blog about the experience.
Today, the scale read 141 and I couldn't be happier. Eight months ago, I weighed myself and the scale read 141. That was eight months after I'd decided to lose weight on my terms. I'm not sure what I weighed 16 months ago, but it was probably somewhere between 175 and 180 lbs. I refused to weigh myself at that initial stage because I didn't want to fall into the same cycle of starving-and-binging that had me go from 180 lbs. down to 121 and back up towards 180 again.
Losing weight "on my terms" meant avoiding this punishing cycle and eating whatever I wanted, but doing it in accordance with my body's signals. Unfortunately, my body often signals me to eat burger combos and barbecue rib dinners. Still, I had managed to do this while still losing weight and keeping it off. So I was happy, and I decided to celebrate with, what else? A cheeseburger combo from Wendy's!
I went through the drive-thru and ordered a #1. When given the options of "small," "medium," or "large," I nervously ordered the small, hoping I wouldn't have to eat again a couple hours later to feel satiated. When I got the food, I was astonished at the sight of what was called a "small." I swear the size of my drink used to be considered a "large" 25-30 years ago. For the last couple of decades, it has been considered a "medium." Now it's a "small?" I can't fathom what would have constituted a "large soda" at Wendy's, not to mention how many people regularly convince themselves that they "need" to purchase all that extra food and beverage.
The pressure to eat more is omnipresent, especially when eating out. I recently went to a movie theater where I had to repeatedly turn down "encouragements" to enlarge my soda and popcorn. I was able to shun the larger portions, now, knowing how all those extra calories expand my waistline. But there was a time when I was less knowledgeable and would have taken the bait. Countless others still fall into this trap based on the same lack of awareness. And sometimes, they're not even given a choice of sizes and are forced to purchase larger portions. I recently had a combo at Rally's where the smallest soda was 32 ounces!
Screenshot of "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" showing America's increasing annual sugar
consumption over time as a result of the increasing portion sizes of products like Coke.
It's no wonder that the fast food industry is the first to be implicated in the increasing "obesity epidemic." But is the problem the food in and of itself or the portion sizes? The answer is obviously both, but I think the contribution that portion size brings to the table is overlooked. I'm thoroughly convinced that people can enjoy the foods they love--even fast food--and they can eat them on a regular basis, and not only maintain, but lose weight. I'm proof-positive of this. However, not enough people are aware of this, and they probably wouldn't believe it even if they were told because they're too brainwashed into believing otherwise.
What are they brainwashed into believing? That the only road to successful weight loss is to adopt the following lifestyle:
The last time I binged (and cried vehemently) was when I polished off an entire pint of Haagen-Dazs ice cream after failing yet again to lose that last stubborn pound that would have put my weight at the desired 120 lbs. That was the last time I swore I'd ever diet, and I haven't looked back since. I figured I'd rather be fat and happy than miserable and thin. It was only 16 months ago, that I followed the inspiration of effortlessly thin people and learned to eat and exercise reasonably in order to lose weight effortlessly.
I got my first bout of inspiration after watching a documentary called "Why Are Thin People Not Fat." Ironically, the premise involved an experiment where naturally thin people were encouraged to overeat in order to observe individual differences in weight gain. However, what struck me most in the documentary were the repeated explanations for why these people were thin. Every one of them said that they ate whatever and whenever they want, they just stopped whenever they were full. Simple logic, yet elusive up until the point of seeing this documentary and making the connection to the eating habits of some of my own family members, including my very own mother.
As long as I have known my mother, I have never known her to have a weight problem, and her dietary habits are worse than mine! I'd always figured she'd inherited her natural thinness from her father and I simply hadn't. Neither my grandfather, nor my aunts and uncles or their children have had healthy eating habits, yet they're all thin. What they all have in common with each other and with the people in the documentary is that they never overeat!
I, on the other hand, have always felt guilty at wasting food, and I feel like a failure if I don't finish what I've started. I've often unbuckled my pants in order to make room for more food. And, as embarrassing as it is to admit this, I've even, um, "relieved myself" in order to make room for more. As stupid (and gross) as this all sounds, it was a common habit of mine, and it's likely the cause of my lifelong issues with weight.
As someone who gravitates towards fast food, my "waste not want not" philosophy coupled with restaurants' astronomical portion sizes was a recipe for disaster. And as an increasingly iron-deficient person who believed that only the most exhausting exercise--that induced light-headedness and dizziness--would yield weight-loss results, I shunned exercise more and more as I could no longer sustain or even hit the 4 mph mark that I was convinced was necessary to effectively burn calories.
Not understanding the source of my weight-gain, I believed that it just wasn't in the cards for me to be thin, and that unless I fell for the hype of subjecting myself to punishing regimens, I was destined to be fat. It was only after looking at the aforementioned video and observing my relatives that I realized that punishing dietary and exercise tactics were not necessary and, in fact, were setting me up for failure.
Yet these tactics--among many other unsustainable gimmicks--are the only solutions offered through the media. People aren't aware of the interconnection between their specific body makeups and the environment in which they live. They are told that the only way to lose weight is to deprive themselves while being forced to live in a saturated environment where unhealthy foods are the cheapest, most convenient options available. What's worse (and from my experience, the most important factor) is that these unhealthy foods are being doled out in increasingly higher portions.
My conspiratorial mind inclines me to believe that it's all rigged. I honestly believe these restaurants and fast food eateries receive financial incentives (or something) to increase their portion sizes. Otherwise, why would they keep increasing them? Who's paying them to do this? Who knows! But my guess would be those who'd profit the most from this "setup": the weight loss industry, the health care industry, or some other segment of the PTB.
All I know is that none of us have to keep falling into this trap. Based on what I've learned and experienced, this is why I think some people are effortlessly thin and others are not.
We all fall somewhere between the two extremes, where effortlessly thin people possess all the factors in the left column, morbidly obese people possess all the factors in the right column, and the rest of us have some combination of both.
Here's what I've determined to be the factors that led me to become obese.
The key to getting out of the obesity range, for me, was to learn what I'm working with body-wise (items 1-3), be aware of the environment I'm living in, and adjust my lifestyle (items 4-5) so that I could succeed at being a normal size within that context. I never go hungry and I still eat fast food. Hell, Wendy's was my 3rd burger meal just this week! And by "burger meal," I mean "beef" burger (not that worthless "turkey" or "soy" crap!) with cheese and mayo, a side of fries, and a full-caloried coke! The same kind of meal my effortlessly thin relatives would normally have. I've just learned to insist on eating only the amount of food that satisfies my appetite and to be okay with 30-minute walks that barely break a sweat. Basically, I follow these four tenets:
Am I thin? No, but I'm not obese or even overweight, and I actually enjoy shopping because the clothes look good on me now. Am I healthy? Honestly, no. But when I do decide to curb my fast food habits, it will be for health reasons rather than to lose weight, and I'll probably be more likely to stick with the healthier regime. Finally, since three of my rules direct me to eat according to my appetite, I never go hungry, and I am never miserable. I eat enough to get rid of my hunger, but now I keep my pants buckled. (And, um, that other embarrassing business is always kept to a minimum!)
Today, the scale read 141 and I couldn't be happier. Eight months ago, I weighed myself and the scale read 141. That was eight months after I'd decided to lose weight on my terms. I'm not sure what I weighed 16 months ago, but it was probably somewhere between 175 and 180 lbs. I refused to weigh myself at that initial stage because I didn't want to fall into the same cycle of starving-and-binging that had me go from 180 lbs. down to 121 and back up towards 180 again.
Losing weight "on my terms" meant avoiding this punishing cycle and eating whatever I wanted, but doing it in accordance with my body's signals. Unfortunately, my body often signals me to eat burger combos and barbecue rib dinners. Still, I had managed to do this while still losing weight and keeping it off. So I was happy, and I decided to celebrate with, what else? A cheeseburger combo from Wendy's!
I went through the drive-thru and ordered a #1. When given the options of "small," "medium," or "large," I nervously ordered the small, hoping I wouldn't have to eat again a couple hours later to feel satiated. When I got the food, I was astonished at the sight of what was called a "small." I swear the size of my drink used to be considered a "large" 25-30 years ago. For the last couple of decades, it has been considered a "medium." Now it's a "small?" I can't fathom what would have constituted a "large soda" at Wendy's, not to mention how many people regularly convince themselves that they "need" to purchase all that extra food and beverage.
The pressure to eat more is omnipresent, especially when eating out. I recently went to a movie theater where I had to repeatedly turn down "encouragements" to enlarge my soda and popcorn. I was able to shun the larger portions, now, knowing how all those extra calories expand my waistline. But there was a time when I was less knowledgeable and would have taken the bait. Countless others still fall into this trap based on the same lack of awareness. And sometimes, they're not even given a choice of sizes and are forced to purchase larger portions. I recently had a combo at Rally's where the smallest soda was 32 ounces!
Screenshot of "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" showing America's increasing annual sugarconsumption over time as a result of the increasing portion sizes of products like Coke.
It's no wonder that the fast food industry is the first to be implicated in the increasing "obesity epidemic." But is the problem the food in and of itself or the portion sizes? The answer is obviously both, but I think the contribution that portion size brings to the table is overlooked. I'm thoroughly convinced that people can enjoy the foods they love--even fast food--and they can eat them on a regular basis, and not only maintain, but lose weight. I'm proof-positive of this. However, not enough people are aware of this, and they probably wouldn't believe it even if they were told because they're too brainwashed into believing otherwise.
What are they brainwashed into believing? That the only road to successful weight loss is to adopt the following lifestyle:
- Go hungry
- Have Spartan eating habits, vilifying normal foods (i.e. foods with fat, sugar, and flavor--the same foods that people in France, Italy, and everywhere else indulge in with nary a weight issue)
- Restrict calories or count Weight Watchers points
- Spend time and money meeting with others to talk/obsess about your (and sometimes their) weight loss issues
- Wile hours away at the gym
The last time I binged (and cried vehemently) was when I polished off an entire pint of Haagen-Dazs ice cream after failing yet again to lose that last stubborn pound that would have put my weight at the desired 120 lbs. That was the last time I swore I'd ever diet, and I haven't looked back since. I figured I'd rather be fat and happy than miserable and thin. It was only 16 months ago, that I followed the inspiration of effortlessly thin people and learned to eat and exercise reasonably in order to lose weight effortlessly.
I got my first bout of inspiration after watching a documentary called "Why Are Thin People Not Fat." Ironically, the premise involved an experiment where naturally thin people were encouraged to overeat in order to observe individual differences in weight gain. However, what struck me most in the documentary were the repeated explanations for why these people were thin. Every one of them said that they ate whatever and whenever they want, they just stopped whenever they were full. Simple logic, yet elusive up until the point of seeing this documentary and making the connection to the eating habits of some of my own family members, including my very own mother.
As long as I have known my mother, I have never known her to have a weight problem, and her dietary habits are worse than mine! I'd always figured she'd inherited her natural thinness from her father and I simply hadn't. Neither my grandfather, nor my aunts and uncles or their children have had healthy eating habits, yet they're all thin. What they all have in common with each other and with the people in the documentary is that they never overeat!
I, on the other hand, have always felt guilty at wasting food, and I feel like a failure if I don't finish what I've started. I've often unbuckled my pants in order to make room for more food. And, as embarrassing as it is to admit this, I've even, um, "relieved myself" in order to make room for more. As stupid (and gross) as this all sounds, it was a common habit of mine, and it's likely the cause of my lifelong issues with weight.
As someone who gravitates towards fast food, my "waste not want not" philosophy coupled with restaurants' astronomical portion sizes was a recipe for disaster. And as an increasingly iron-deficient person who believed that only the most exhausting exercise--that induced light-headedness and dizziness--would yield weight-loss results, I shunned exercise more and more as I could no longer sustain or even hit the 4 mph mark that I was convinced was necessary to effectively burn calories.
Not understanding the source of my weight-gain, I believed that it just wasn't in the cards for me to be thin, and that unless I fell for the hype of subjecting myself to punishing regimens, I was destined to be fat. It was only after looking at the aforementioned video and observing my relatives that I realized that punishing dietary and exercise tactics were not necessary and, in fact, were setting me up for failure.
Yet these tactics--among many other unsustainable gimmicks--are the only solutions offered through the media. People aren't aware of the interconnection between their specific body makeups and the environment in which they live. They are told that the only way to lose weight is to deprive themselves while being forced to live in a saturated environment where unhealthy foods are the cheapest, most convenient options available. What's worse (and from my experience, the most important factor) is that these unhealthy foods are being doled out in increasingly higher portions.
My conspiratorial mind inclines me to believe that it's all rigged. I honestly believe these restaurants and fast food eateries receive financial incentives (or something) to increase their portion sizes. Otherwise, why would they keep increasing them? Who's paying them to do this? Who knows! But my guess would be those who'd profit the most from this "setup": the weight loss industry, the health care industry, or some other segment of the PTB.
All I know is that none of us have to keep falling into this trap. Based on what I've learned and experienced, this is why I think some people are effortlessly thin and others are not.
We all fall somewhere between the two extremes, where effortlessly thin people possess all the factors in the left column, morbidly obese people possess all the factors in the right column, and the rest of us have some combination of both.Here's what I've determined to be the factors that led me to become obese.
The key to getting out of the obesity range, for me, was to learn what I'm working with body-wise (items 1-3), be aware of the environment I'm living in, and adjust my lifestyle (items 4-5) so that I could succeed at being a normal size within that context. I never go hungry and I still eat fast food. Hell, Wendy's was my 3rd burger meal just this week! And by "burger meal," I mean "beef" burger (not that worthless "turkey" or "soy" crap!) with cheese and mayo, a side of fries, and a full-caloried coke! The same kind of meal my effortlessly thin relatives would normally have. I've just learned to insist on eating only the amount of food that satisfies my appetite and to be okay with 30-minute walks that barely break a sweat. Basically, I follow these four tenets:
- Eat only when you're hungry; eat only what you're hungry for.
- Eat only when you're hungry; eat only what you're hungry for.
- Eat only when you're hungry; eat only what you're hungry for.
- Exercise 30 minutes a day, 3-4 times a week as rigorously as possible without getting exhausted or dizzy.
Am I thin? No, but I'm not obese or even overweight, and I actually enjoy shopping because the clothes look good on me now. Am I healthy? Honestly, no. But when I do decide to curb my fast food habits, it will be for health reasons rather than to lose weight, and I'll probably be more likely to stick with the healthier regime. Finally, since three of my rules direct me to eat according to my appetite, I never go hungry, and I am never miserable. I eat enough to get rid of my hunger, but now I keep my pants buckled. (And, um, that other embarrassing business is always kept to a minimum!)
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Cue the En Vogue Music....
It's me again, back from a long hiatus. I could give many reasons for my extended absence, but truth be told, I just haven't felt like writing for a long time--until now.Recent events at work have compelled me to find an outlet to work out my thoughts. The events are nothing major: just the same old struggles of severing "friendship" bonds that I no longer want tying me down as well as "movin' on up" in my organization while lazy co-workers bitch, complain, accuse, make excuses, and do everything under the sun--except their work--as they watch from the sidelines, stagnating and festering in their same positions.
Why can't people just do what they're paid to do? It's so simple. They could avoid so much of the extraneous B.S. if they just focused on their jobs. Then we'd all be rewarded for the stellar work each one of us contributes, we'd all feel appreciated and validated, and there'd be no need for them to feel resentment towards me, or for me to feel guilt at receiving opportunities denied to others.
What's really tragic are those people who've managed to get ahead in the past and then muck it up with their unprofessionalism, plotting, scheming, and other craziness. These people, more than anyone else, make me firmly committed to keeping my distance from them. I don't want to be associated in any way, shape, or form with these "bad karma magnets." And I swear, those who do associate with them are going nowhere fast.
People like this have also made me realize the need to keep my sense of self-worth independent of advancement or demotion. I've seen people who've attached their egos to their positions of power, only to get humiliated and deflated when the rug is pulled out from under them. One person likes you and gives you an opportunity, then the regime changes, and if you've abused your power and pissed off too many people, there goes your prestige and honor.
At the end of the day, I'm there to do a job. If the current regime wants to promote me to a managerial position in order to carry out their goals, I hope I will always remain grounded enough to just focus on the task at hand and disavow myself from any delusions of grandeur or honor. If the next (or even current) regime feels it's time to demote me from a higher position of power, I still hope I can just focus on whatever needs to be done to contribute to the organization the best way that I can.
Based on my own experiences as well as what I've witnessed of others', I've come to realize the true meaning of "work is work." The minute you start attaching your identity to a particular "clique" or position of prestige, you're setting yourself up for a lot of unnecessary and avoidable misery in the future. When all is said and done, it's just a job. If emotions start to boil for whatever reason, give it up, turn it loose, and move on. Not an easy lesson to live by, but vital if you want to avoid going postal--and no job or social group is worth making me go out like that. Not a chance in hell would I let that happen.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Leadership Will Be the Death of Me?
I've said before how I don't like staring crazy in the eye. I explained the rationale in a previous post and I spent not one but two entries complaining about the uncanny gazes of shifty-looking Disney characters staring at me from that damn billboard across from my parking lot at work.
While I still vehemently avoid peering into the "windows to the soul" of unbalanced vagrants and other crazy people, for some reason I decided to muster up enough courage to stare into the eye of the storm of leadership and face head-on whatever craziness came my way.
Bless my heart, I can be so naive and sanguine at times. Leadership is HELL! It requires dealing with some of craziest mofo's in the world, and after only 3 months of weathering that never-ending storm of mania I'm ready to throw in the towel and quit!
I've had to deal with the gamut of ridiculous situations including: confrontation, unprovoked defensiveness, posturing to conceal ignorance, confrontation, undermining of my authority, words taken out of context and used against me, confrontation, excessive sensitivity, unrealistic demands, confrontation.... It's all I can do to keep from lashing out at the lot of them and yelling (Kurupt-style) "Why can't we just chill and get along? Motherf*cka! The views you choose to use is wrong, motherf*cka! Relax." Yes. They, I, and everyone else need to just take a deep breath and relax. Hakuna matata, que sera sera, and all that jazz.
During times like these I constantly have to remind myself that whatever doesn't kill me will only make me stronger. Unfortunately, I was having this very thought during a recent commute to work when I looked up and noticed yet another Disney billboard ad.
They're kidding, right?
Should I be worried? (No seriously. Should I?)
While I still vehemently avoid peering into the "windows to the soul" of unbalanced vagrants and other crazy people, for some reason I decided to muster up enough courage to stare into the eye of the storm of leadership and face head-on whatever craziness came my way.
Bless my heart, I can be so naive and sanguine at times. Leadership is HELL! It requires dealing with some of craziest mofo's in the world, and after only 3 months of weathering that never-ending storm of mania I'm ready to throw in the towel and quit!
I've had to deal with the gamut of ridiculous situations including: confrontation, unprovoked defensiveness, posturing to conceal ignorance, confrontation, undermining of my authority, words taken out of context and used against me, confrontation, excessive sensitivity, unrealistic demands, confrontation.... It's all I can do to keep from lashing out at the lot of them and yelling (Kurupt-style) "Why can't we just chill and get along? Motherf*cka! The views you choose to use is wrong, motherf*cka! Relax." Yes. They, I, and everyone else need to just take a deep breath and relax. Hakuna matata, que sera sera, and all that jazz.
During times like these I constantly have to remind myself that whatever doesn't kill me will only make me stronger. Unfortunately, I was having this very thought during a recent commute to work when I looked up and noticed yet another Disney billboard ad.
They're kidding, right?Should I be worried? (No seriously. Should I?)
Sunday, March 13, 2011
It goes without saying that this is both tragic and frightening at the same time. It seems that the "perfect storm" of events has created the potential for a disaster of epic proportions. An earthquake of record-breaking magnitude hit a locale that was not only prone to result in a massive tsunami but also potentially lead to nuclear meltdown. With so many coincidental elements at play, it's hard not to venture off into conspiracy land and conjure up the possibility of these people being "targeted." Whether they were or not, my heart goes out to them and their loved ones. I hope the worst is behind them and that they recover from this tragedy as quickly as possible.
Friday, March 11, 2011
The R-Evolution Will Not Be Improvised
An April 2010 Telegraph article had the headline: "India has more mobile phones than toilets: UN report." Similarly, a recent NPR news piece announced that Haitian inhabitants of "dirty slums" who are poor enough to depend on remittances are starting to use their cell phones as debit cards. Even in war-torn Afghanistan, cell phone sales were on an uptick in 2009.
No matter how impoverished an area is, its inhabitants miraculously have access to mobile technology. It seems that the same developed countries that can't (or won't) find ways to meet these people's basic living needs are going out of their way to make cell phones available to the poorest groups of people.
Perhaps the explanation can be found in a recent NPR interview in which James Lewis (director of technology and public policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies) describes social media sites like Twitter and Facebook as being "essential tools" to America's global agenda. During the interview, Lewis explains how unpopular these "tools" are with foreign regimes like China and Iran, saying "They don't like it. They think Facebook or Twitter is an American tool to destabilize their governments. Because the affect is destabilizing."
It's hard to argue against this perception when one witness the U.S. government allowing its own citizens to be cyber-tracked for profit, but eagerly spending $30 million to protect the privacy of Middle Easterners and North Africans to aid in their "revolutions." So while Lewis correctly asserts that the State Department views social media as "a way to amplify any opposition [and] a way to reinforce it," he's disingenuous when he says "it doesn't create opposition and it's not something that we can use to go in and interfere with politics."
A 2007 Guardian article cited a Ministry of Defence report, which predicted growing "resentment among young people in the face of unrepresentative regimes," the effects of which "will be expressed through the migration of youth populations and global communications, encouraging contacts between diaspora communities and their countries of origin."
NPR's Marcelo Gleiser would argue that this is being played out in the Middle East and North Africa, where the "mythic force" of social media is helping to spark "a worldwide phenomenon where the young in particular — hopeless, unemployed, without future prospects — take on autocratic regimes and redefine their futures," with the aid of digital technology.
At the end of Gleiser's post, he offers this final thought: "May the hopes of these millions of people fighting for change be fulfilled in the not too distant future and without senseless killings. They too want to contribute to the creation of the new world order. And they should."
Well, they won't--not if the ominous double-speak of Ari Shapiro (who spoke with James Lewis in the aforementioned NPR interview) rings true: "You know, this feels like a very new world that we're talking about, but on the other hand I think of something like the East India Company and I wonder whether this is not a tale as old as time, that an organization that is not a country has tremendous influence on the global stage."
In two recent radio broadcasts (here and here), alternative thinker, Alan Watt, all but spells out who the "organization that is not a country" is, how they're contriving these strategically synchronized "revolutions," and why Gleiser's hopes that the "people fighting for change" will never get to "contribute to the creation of the new world order." Apparently, the elites have employed this geopolitical strategy for generations as a way to move the profane into the next stage of "societal evolution," where we unwittingly contribute to advancing their ever-unfolding agenda.
In a popular song lyric, "revolution" is equated with "evolution" and I would agree with this simile. Revolutions often engender massive waves of evolution in society--that's what they're designed to do. But what kind of "revolutions" are we speaking of: the kind that involves revolt or the kind that involves one entity revolving around another? 30 Seconds to Mars aptly captures this ambiguity in their song "R-Evolve," where all three ideas--revolt, revolve, and evolve--are interconnected throughout the progression of the song's lyrics.
If Alan Watt's aforementioned assertions are true, this interconnection is taking place in real life, "where an organization that is not a country" is wielding their "tremendous influence on the global stage" by contriving worldwide revolts--and amplifying them by facilitating and funding telecommunications via cheap mobile devices--so that society will evolve according to their agenda. When the next stage of evolution is needed, they'll contrive another wave of revolts using the next phase of technology to move us along further. (The blueprint for this process couldn't be clearer than in this recent Time article.) And with each stage of evolution, we perpetually revolve around this secret globalist cabal who keeps us within their tight reins.
Again, if Alan Watt's assertions are true--and I believe they are--then all of this is quite simply sad. These people are being fed the belief that their revolutions will bring about much needed evolution in their society. They're right to believe that evolution will come, but unfortunately this evolution may only serve to benefit the hidden few who orchestrate the whole ordeal in the first place.
In the words of alternative editorialist, Tony Cartalucci, "Real revolution will take place when people realize what indeed is really happening, who is behind it, and then no longer [pay] into their corrupt system." My hope is that the idealistic revolutionaries realize the need to look beyond the musical chairs of puppet regimes and target their efforts at the true source of the problem. Because when the globalists strategically plan, fund, and lay down the technological infrastructure that creates and aids the spread of social upheavals, the targeted participants will only play into their hands if they simply react to injustice and improvise their methods of eradicating it.
The "(r)evolutions" that the elites plan for us are never improvised. Neither should our approaches to countering them be.
No matter how impoverished an area is, its inhabitants miraculously have access to mobile technology. It seems that the same developed countries that can't (or won't) find ways to meet these people's basic living needs are going out of their way to make cell phones available to the poorest groups of people.
Perhaps the explanation can be found in a recent NPR interview in which James Lewis (director of technology and public policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies) describes social media sites like Twitter and Facebook as being "essential tools" to America's global agenda. During the interview, Lewis explains how unpopular these "tools" are with foreign regimes like China and Iran, saying "They don't like it. They think Facebook or Twitter is an American tool to destabilize their governments. Because the affect is destabilizing."
It's hard to argue against this perception when one witness the U.S. government allowing its own citizens to be cyber-tracked for profit, but eagerly spending $30 million to protect the privacy of Middle Easterners and North Africans to aid in their "revolutions." So while Lewis correctly asserts that the State Department views social media as "a way to amplify any opposition [and] a way to reinforce it," he's disingenuous when he says "it doesn't create opposition and it's not something that we can use to go in and interfere with politics."
A 2007 Guardian article cited a Ministry of Defence report, which predicted growing "resentment among young people in the face of unrepresentative regimes," the effects of which "will be expressed through the migration of youth populations and global communications, encouraging contacts between diaspora communities and their countries of origin."
NPR's Marcelo Gleiser would argue that this is being played out in the Middle East and North Africa, where the "mythic force" of social media is helping to spark "a worldwide phenomenon where the young in particular — hopeless, unemployed, without future prospects — take on autocratic regimes and redefine their futures," with the aid of digital technology.
At the end of Gleiser's post, he offers this final thought: "May the hopes of these millions of people fighting for change be fulfilled in the not too distant future and without senseless killings. They too want to contribute to the creation of the new world order. And they should."
Well, they won't--not if the ominous double-speak of Ari Shapiro (who spoke with James Lewis in the aforementioned NPR interview) rings true: "You know, this feels like a very new world that we're talking about, but on the other hand I think of something like the East India Company and I wonder whether this is not a tale as old as time, that an organization that is not a country has tremendous influence on the global stage."
In two recent radio broadcasts (here and here), alternative thinker, Alan Watt, all but spells out who the "organization that is not a country" is, how they're contriving these strategically synchronized "revolutions," and why Gleiser's hopes that the "people fighting for change" will never get to "contribute to the creation of the new world order." Apparently, the elites have employed this geopolitical strategy for generations as a way to move the profane into the next stage of "societal evolution," where we unwittingly contribute to advancing their ever-unfolding agenda.
In a popular song lyric, "revolution" is equated with "evolution" and I would agree with this simile. Revolutions often engender massive waves of evolution in society--that's what they're designed to do. But what kind of "revolutions" are we speaking of: the kind that involves revolt or the kind that involves one entity revolving around another? 30 Seconds to Mars aptly captures this ambiguity in their song "R-Evolve," where all three ideas--revolt, revolve, and evolve--are interconnected throughout the progression of the song's lyrics.
If Alan Watt's aforementioned assertions are true, this interconnection is taking place in real life, "where an organization that is not a country" is wielding their "tremendous influence on the global stage" by contriving worldwide revolts--and amplifying them by facilitating and funding telecommunications via cheap mobile devices--so that society will evolve according to their agenda. When the next stage of evolution is needed, they'll contrive another wave of revolts using the next phase of technology to move us along further. (The blueprint for this process couldn't be clearer than in this recent Time article.) And with each stage of evolution, we perpetually revolve around this secret globalist cabal who keeps us within their tight reins.
Again, if Alan Watt's assertions are true--and I believe they are--then all of this is quite simply sad. These people are being fed the belief that their revolutions will bring about much needed evolution in their society. They're right to believe that evolution will come, but unfortunately this evolution may only serve to benefit the hidden few who orchestrate the whole ordeal in the first place.
In the words of alternative editorialist, Tony Cartalucci, "Real revolution will take place when people realize what indeed is really happening, who is behind it, and then no longer [pay] into their corrupt system." My hope is that the idealistic revolutionaries realize the need to look beyond the musical chairs of puppet regimes and target their efforts at the true source of the problem. Because when the globalists strategically plan, fund, and lay down the technological infrastructure that creates and aids the spread of social upheavals, the targeted participants will only play into their hands if they simply react to injustice and improvise their methods of eradicating it.
The "(r)evolutions" that the elites plan for us are never improvised. Neither should our approaches to countering them be.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Happy (Re)Birthday
I'm at the dawn of a new cycle and the destruction is in full effect. Over the past couple of years, I've deliberately exposed myself to new experiences that have revealed new truths and understandings about myself and the world I inhabit. As I embark on the second half of this current decade in life, I'm taking stock of some of the lessons I've learned. Some have been covered in previous blog entries, but I've decided to bring them all together in this one post for future reference and guidance. Feel free to read some of the truths I've come across and share some of your own.
Continue exposing yourself to new experiences and expand your knowledge and understanding of yourself and the world you inhabit.
Take calculated risks and reap the ensuing bounty.
Dare to make power moves in your career. Ambition and integrity need not be mutually exclusive as long as the altruistic pursuit of elevating your profession is your guiding principle.
Embrace leadership in all that it entails. Build upon successful strategies and learn from failures.
Stay positive at all costs, distance yourself from negative people, and maintain equanimity irrespective of your surroundings.
Express your opinions, assert your needs, and never go out of your way to reinforce tenuous relationships with fair-weather companions. True friends will remain in your corner unconditionally and will be more easy to detect once all the "pollution" is purged from your inner circle.
While separating the wheat from the chaff in your relationships, adopt the same ethos in your quest for truth. Be less reactionary to sensationalistic "illumination," while still remaining alert to conspicuous patterns and uncanny "coinkydinks."
Creativity is not limited to artistic endeavors. Take a fresh approach to tackling problems if the traditional way is ineffective. Embrace challenges where the solutions aren't readily apparent at the outset.
Rebirth is an eternal process where faltering may be commonplace. Don't beat yourself up for falling short of perfection. Make light of the situation, don't take yourself so seriously, and always be prepared to laugh at your inevitable "senior moments."
To maintain a positive outlook in spite of the setbacks and frustrations, enrich your life with enjoyment wherever you can find it. Because at the end of the day, you're only given one life--so celebrate it! Indulge in a favorite treat, spend quality time with your true friends, and every once in a while, give yourself permission to be corny and "lose control when the rubber band starts to jam."
Care to celebrate with me?
Lessons to Guide Continual Rebirth
Continue exposing yourself to new experiences and expand your knowledge and understanding of yourself and the world you inhabit.
Take calculated risks and reap the ensuing bounty.
Dare to make power moves in your career. Ambition and integrity need not be mutually exclusive as long as the altruistic pursuit of elevating your profession is your guiding principle.
Embrace leadership in all that it entails. Build upon successful strategies and learn from failures.
Stay positive at all costs, distance yourself from negative people, and maintain equanimity irrespective of your surroundings.
Express your opinions, assert your needs, and never go out of your way to reinforce tenuous relationships with fair-weather companions. True friends will remain in your corner unconditionally and will be more easy to detect once all the "pollution" is purged from your inner circle.
While separating the wheat from the chaff in your relationships, adopt the same ethos in your quest for truth. Be less reactionary to sensationalistic "illumination," while still remaining alert to conspicuous patterns and uncanny "coinkydinks."
Creativity is not limited to artistic endeavors. Take a fresh approach to tackling problems if the traditional way is ineffective. Embrace challenges where the solutions aren't readily apparent at the outset.
Rebirth is an eternal process where faltering may be commonplace. Don't beat yourself up for falling short of perfection. Make light of the situation, don't take yourself so seriously, and always be prepared to laugh at your inevitable "senior moments."
To maintain a positive outlook in spite of the setbacks and frustrations, enrich your life with enjoyment wherever you can find it. Because at the end of the day, you're only given one life--so celebrate it! Indulge in a favorite treat, spend quality time with your true friends, and every once in a while, give yourself permission to be corny and "lose control when the rubber band starts to jam."
Care to celebrate with me?
Friday, February 18, 2011
Smile
Through all the rain and the pain,
You gotta keep your sense of humor.
You gotta be able to smile through all this bull****.
...So keep ya head up.
I know when I'm being watched. I don't have to witness it with my eyes. All I need to do is to feel the onlooker's energy directed at me.
Today was a good day. It was a day of transcendence. One in which I conquered what I thought was an insurmountable shortcoming: I didn't let someone else's negativity get the better of me. I didn't know I had it in me to rise above the small-mindedness and pettiness, but there I was smiling effortlessly. In fact, I had to fight hard to keep myself from bursting into full-blown elation.
I mentioned before how much office chatter irritates me. Well unfortunately, I let the wrong person know this because she decided to use it against me today as a means of taking revenge out on me. Apparently, she cooked up a ploy to invite the office chatterbox over for a deliberately loud 45-minute discussion about work, followed by a completely unnecessary 30-minute conversation about non-work issues--all at her prompting and encouragement.
Apparently, the revenge was for my decision to give her her space after detecting a perpetually foul mood coming from her lately. What this has led to is a significant decrease in the cheerful greetings I offer her every single time one of us enters or exits our cubicles. I've basically decided to just focus on my work while seated at my desk and not greet every person that passes me by, and I'm extending this courtesy to others as I pass them by. It's not that I don't smile at people in the halls or in any other context. I still keep smiling regardless of their treatment towards me (for the most part). I just don't approach people for idle chit chat like I used to. Okay that, and maybe I don't answer social emails like I used to. If an email sent to a group of "friends" is work-related, I'll answer the sender back privately. But otherwise, I don't respond to the social stuff. I've been doing this for about six months now, but I guess it still comes off as rude (I guess?), and this has likely added fuel to the fire of her ire.
I'm just trying to keep it professional, and I wish I'd done this from the outset because now I feel like I'm expected to be some sort of jolly tap-dancing negress, always projecting a sunny disposition regardless of how others treat me. For many reasons, I've decided it's better to just keep things professional with these people. It could be interpreted as a change in my behavior. But to borrow an Isley Brothers lyric, when I don't have the strength, I'm just a mirror of what I see. Believe me, the change always comes from the other people first. They're just too wrapped up in their own supposed infallibility and victimhood to notice their complicity in the problem. Don't get me wrong; I know I have flaws. But other people do too. They're just not as interested in admitting to theirs as much as they're quick to point out mine. Go figure.
It's likely that the chatterbox came to her desk of his own volition, but I seriously doubt it. Maybe if her voice wasn't so deliberately loud as if she were putting on a show or maybe if she didn't follow up with questions about his personal life with a barely detectable (but I noticed it!) air of phoniness, I'd believe this conversation was initiated by him. No. This thinly veiled charade was just too obvious for me to believe that. But I guess the scheme wasn't so obvious to the chatterbox because the gullible pawn returned an hour later (after she'd already left for the day) looking for a follow-up conversation, which he never does. I guess he misinterpreted her uncharacteristic invitation to shoot the breeze as actual interest in him rather than as a ploy to distract and irritate me. Pobrecito.
I know this may all seem a bit paranoid, but trust me, if anyone is capable of being this petty and conniving, she is. I've seen the tit-for-tat between her and our own department manager. He denied her her preferred job position in favor of someone else and later denied her the pay increase she'd requested. She responded by colluding with other disgruntled employees in a plot to convince his boss to diminish his power by upending our department's organizational structure and shifting our work towards other units. Never mind how much chaos, frustration, and loss of productivity this unnecessary transformation will cause for everyone involved. Someone didn't get the pay raise and position she wanted so we all have to suffer. Trust me, a little ploy to invite unnecessary conversation that disrupts 75 minutes of my time, her time, the chatterbox's time, and everyone else's time is child's play to someone like her.
I know when I'm being tested and it's usually a trap. Someone I'm obviously upset with and wish not to talk to creates an outlandish scenario that forces me to engage in conversation with them. The trap comes in where I have to decide to either to play along and be cordial (which I don't want to do) or admit my anger and risk appearing immature (which I don't want to do). Either way, they win at my expense. Today's test was equally difficult. I usually have an impossibly hard time concentrating on work when there's background chatter. I always end up putting on my headphones and listening to music in order to block out the noise, but that only helps so much since the music is also distracting.
But today I was determined to win this test. I did everything in my power to concentrate and keep a smiling face. I was so determined to prevail that I even took off the headphones that I'd already worn prior to their conversation, just to show that the noise didn't bother me. And I don't know how I did it, but I managed to concentrate through it all. And since I know when I'm being watched, I know that she saw me. I could feel it. I was beating her at her own game and she knew it. And after a while, I just felt an energy that I never felt before.
Somehow the concentration that never before would've been possible was effortless. As the fat kept getting chewed in the neighboring cubicle, I received an email about a possible collaboration. This made me squirm (noticeably) because it meant someone had discovered my role in leading on something that was formerly her responsibility before she left our unit. How would she react to the news? Would she be receptive to the idea of collaborating with me? "Yes!" her enthusiastic reply affirmed. We soon engaged in a lively email exchange where we arranged a meeting to discuss our future plans, which genuinely lifted my spirits.
I live for conversations like this. I love my job and it's so difficult to find like-minded people in my department with the same enthusiasm for what they do. Almost everyone around me is either apathetic or negative. My apparent nemesis falls into the latter category. Because of her experiences, she hates her job and has finagled her way out of carrying out even the most basic responsibilities. She's even tried to discourage me from being productive--and thus outshining her--by feigning concern in my taking it easy and not working too hard. A lot of her failures, in my humble opinion, are a result of her negative actions along with my boss' attempt to neutralize the toxicity she and her partners-in-crime bring to our department. This leads me to another reason why I feel the need to distance myself from her. At the end of the day, I just want to do a good job, add value to the organization, and avoid the bad karma that negative people like her bring upon themselves. It's refreshing whenever I come across someone with the same work ethic as mine, so that email exchange with my future collaborator was right on time.
So I ended up having an engaging time with my work in spite of someone else's attempt to distract me. I had to smile at that. I also had to smile at the fact that my simple choice to not socialize and to focus on my work had unwittingly drove her to show her true colors and "tell on herself." I didn't play into her trap, but I did get a glimpse of how truly petty and unprofessional she can be. And I've now learned that I'm not exempt from being a potential target of hers should I ever decide to "get out of line" and "behave incorrectly" in her eyes. This confirmed my previous belief that I absolutely must distance myself from her at all costs.
So really, her negative behavior was more of a blessing in disguise. And by doing that unintentional act of kindness, she helped me smile. I also smiled at having noticed the volume of the conversation suddenly settle back down to an appropriate level, likely as a result of her realizing how ineffective her charade had been. Most of all, I smiled simply because I was able to smile so effortlessly, in spite of being so clearly targeted. For the first time ever, I had faith in my ability to rise above others' negativity, smile through all the bull****, and keep my head up.
All of these reasons just snowballed into a forward-feed mechanism that led to an eruption of elation that I had a hard time suppressing. And it only got better when I heard her rise from her desk (after the gabfest finally ended) and leave her cubicle. I know when I'm being watched, so I knew she saw the smile already beaming brightly on my face, confirming her failure to bring me down. And we know what expression that brings to my face, even hours later as I type this.
:)
You gotta keep your sense of humor.
You gotta be able to smile through all this bull****.
...So keep ya head up.
--Tupac Shakur
I know when I'm being watched. I don't have to witness it with my eyes. All I need to do is to feel the onlooker's energy directed at me.
Today was a good day. It was a day of transcendence. One in which I conquered what I thought was an insurmountable shortcoming: I didn't let someone else's negativity get the better of me. I didn't know I had it in me to rise above the small-mindedness and pettiness, but there I was smiling effortlessly. In fact, I had to fight hard to keep myself from bursting into full-blown elation.
I mentioned before how much office chatter irritates me. Well unfortunately, I let the wrong person know this because she decided to use it against me today as a means of taking revenge out on me. Apparently, she cooked up a ploy to invite the office chatterbox over for a deliberately loud 45-minute discussion about work, followed by a completely unnecessary 30-minute conversation about non-work issues--all at her prompting and encouragement.
Apparently, the revenge was for my decision to give her her space after detecting a perpetually foul mood coming from her lately. What this has led to is a significant decrease in the cheerful greetings I offer her every single time one of us enters or exits our cubicles. I've basically decided to just focus on my work while seated at my desk and not greet every person that passes me by, and I'm extending this courtesy to others as I pass them by. It's not that I don't smile at people in the halls or in any other context. I still keep smiling regardless of their treatment towards me (for the most part). I just don't approach people for idle chit chat like I used to. Okay that, and maybe I don't answer social emails like I used to. If an email sent to a group of "friends" is work-related, I'll answer the sender back privately. But otherwise, I don't respond to the social stuff. I've been doing this for about six months now, but I guess it still comes off as rude (I guess?), and this has likely added fuel to the fire of her ire.
I'm just trying to keep it professional, and I wish I'd done this from the outset because now I feel like I'm expected to be some sort of jolly tap-dancing negress, always projecting a sunny disposition regardless of how others treat me. For many reasons, I've decided it's better to just keep things professional with these people. It could be interpreted as a change in my behavior. But to borrow an Isley Brothers lyric, when I don't have the strength, I'm just a mirror of what I see. Believe me, the change always comes from the other people first. They're just too wrapped up in their own supposed infallibility and victimhood to notice their complicity in the problem. Don't get me wrong; I know I have flaws. But other people do too. They're just not as interested in admitting to theirs as much as they're quick to point out mine. Go figure.
It's likely that the chatterbox came to her desk of his own volition, but I seriously doubt it. Maybe if her voice wasn't so deliberately loud as if she were putting on a show or maybe if she didn't follow up with questions about his personal life with a barely detectable (but I noticed it!) air of phoniness, I'd believe this conversation was initiated by him. No. This thinly veiled charade was just too obvious for me to believe that. But I guess the scheme wasn't so obvious to the chatterbox because the gullible pawn returned an hour later (after she'd already left for the day) looking for a follow-up conversation, which he never does. I guess he misinterpreted her uncharacteristic invitation to shoot the breeze as actual interest in him rather than as a ploy to distract and irritate me. Pobrecito.
I know this may all seem a bit paranoid, but trust me, if anyone is capable of being this petty and conniving, she is. I've seen the tit-for-tat between her and our own department manager. He denied her her preferred job position in favor of someone else and later denied her the pay increase she'd requested. She responded by colluding with other disgruntled employees in a plot to convince his boss to diminish his power by upending our department's organizational structure and shifting our work towards other units. Never mind how much chaos, frustration, and loss of productivity this unnecessary transformation will cause for everyone involved. Someone didn't get the pay raise and position she wanted so we all have to suffer. Trust me, a little ploy to invite unnecessary conversation that disrupts 75 minutes of my time, her time, the chatterbox's time, and everyone else's time is child's play to someone like her.
I know when I'm being tested and it's usually a trap. Someone I'm obviously upset with and wish not to talk to creates an outlandish scenario that forces me to engage in conversation with them. The trap comes in where I have to decide to either to play along and be cordial (which I don't want to do) or admit my anger and risk appearing immature (which I don't want to do). Either way, they win at my expense. Today's test was equally difficult. I usually have an impossibly hard time concentrating on work when there's background chatter. I always end up putting on my headphones and listening to music in order to block out the noise, but that only helps so much since the music is also distracting.
But today I was determined to win this test. I did everything in my power to concentrate and keep a smiling face. I was so determined to prevail that I even took off the headphones that I'd already worn prior to their conversation, just to show that the noise didn't bother me. And I don't know how I did it, but I managed to concentrate through it all. And since I know when I'm being watched, I know that she saw me. I could feel it. I was beating her at her own game and she knew it. And after a while, I just felt an energy that I never felt before.
Somehow the concentration that never before would've been possible was effortless. As the fat kept getting chewed in the neighboring cubicle, I received an email about a possible collaboration. This made me squirm (noticeably) because it meant someone had discovered my role in leading on something that was formerly her responsibility before she left our unit. How would she react to the news? Would she be receptive to the idea of collaborating with me? "Yes!" her enthusiastic reply affirmed. We soon engaged in a lively email exchange where we arranged a meeting to discuss our future plans, which genuinely lifted my spirits.
I live for conversations like this. I love my job and it's so difficult to find like-minded people in my department with the same enthusiasm for what they do. Almost everyone around me is either apathetic or negative. My apparent nemesis falls into the latter category. Because of her experiences, she hates her job and has finagled her way out of carrying out even the most basic responsibilities. She's even tried to discourage me from being productive--and thus outshining her--by feigning concern in my taking it easy and not working too hard. A lot of her failures, in my humble opinion, are a result of her negative actions along with my boss' attempt to neutralize the toxicity she and her partners-in-crime bring to our department. This leads me to another reason why I feel the need to distance myself from her. At the end of the day, I just want to do a good job, add value to the organization, and avoid the bad karma that negative people like her bring upon themselves. It's refreshing whenever I come across someone with the same work ethic as mine, so that email exchange with my future collaborator was right on time.
So I ended up having an engaging time with my work in spite of someone else's attempt to distract me. I had to smile at that. I also had to smile at the fact that my simple choice to not socialize and to focus on my work had unwittingly drove her to show her true colors and "tell on herself." I didn't play into her trap, but I did get a glimpse of how truly petty and unprofessional she can be. And I've now learned that I'm not exempt from being a potential target of hers should I ever decide to "get out of line" and "behave incorrectly" in her eyes. This confirmed my previous belief that I absolutely must distance myself from her at all costs.
So really, her negative behavior was more of a blessing in disguise. And by doing that unintentional act of kindness, she helped me smile. I also smiled at having noticed the volume of the conversation suddenly settle back down to an appropriate level, likely as a result of her realizing how ineffective her charade had been. Most of all, I smiled simply because I was able to smile so effortlessly, in spite of being so clearly targeted. For the first time ever, I had faith in my ability to rise above others' negativity, smile through all the bull****, and keep my head up.
All of these reasons just snowballed into a forward-feed mechanism that led to an eruption of elation that I had a hard time suppressing. And it only got better when I heard her rise from her desk (after the gabfest finally ended) and leave her cubicle. I know when I'm being watched, so I knew she saw the smile already beaming brightly on my face, confirming her failure to bring me down. And we know what expression that brings to my face, even hours later as I type this.
:)
| 2Pac .mp3 | ||
 | ||
 | Found at bee mp3 search engine |  |
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Truly It's Amazing, Amazing
I've been listening to a lot of Luther Vandross lately and I must say, I've become a veritable fan. It wasn't until very recently that I understood the "hype" of his music, which I'm not proud to admit, but I'll chalk it up to once being young, dumb, and incapable of recognizing amazing music when I heard it.
The phrase "grown folks' music" couldn't be more apropos than in reference to Vandross's repertoire. As a youngster, I could easily take to his uptempo cuts like "Never Too Much," "Stop to Love," "It's Over Now," "Power of Love," and my all-time favorite "Give Me the Reason." However, it took me much longer to finally get the "hype" of many of his other songs.
Songs like "The Night I Fell in Love," "For You to Love," and "Treat You Right." Brimming with layers of melodious instruments and intricate rhythms, these songs offer a mature sound that only now as an adult could I fully appreciate. Though unabashedly synthesized, the instrumentation in these songs exhibit the creativity and artistry that music producers of the 80's and 90's placed into music. Sadly, that level of thought and skill just doesn't go into music these days.
If a less synthesized sound is desired, Vandross had plenty of songs to satisfy that palate. Soulful renditions like "Wait for Love" and "I Can Make It Better" along with mellow grooves like "Any Love" and "Your Secret Love" all offer an equal complexity of musicianship with less of the "artificial" sound.
Vandross's mid- and uptempo songs convey an energy that can't help but imbue itself into the soul of the listener--even a hard-headed one like me some 20 years later. But, it's the magic of his ballads--which often ventured into the territory of being outright symphonies--that truly have me realizing the brilliance of this man's music. And "If Only for One Night" is the song from this subset that finally made me take notice.
Whether the composition swells to a wrenching crescendo or retracts to a delicate repose, Vandross's velvety vocals in "If Only for One Night" prance along with the orchestration in effortless euphony. Similarly, "Love Won't Let Me Wait," "A House Is not a Home," and the masterful "Superstar" all showcase fully orchestrated scores that skillfully complement the purity of his voice.
With the dreck that passes for music these days, it's hard to believe that premium music like this once permeated the urban airwaves regularly. I remember hearing most of these songs on the radio when I was younger, but I'd always change the station before giving them a chance to nurture my budding musical aesthetic. Lord knows how misguided I was. I mean if songs like "Don't You Know That" and "The Glow of Love" were good enough for Heavy D and Janet Jackson to sample, why weren't they good enough for me?
It's a shame I didn't appreciate the true greatness of Luther Vandross's music until recently. But now that I'm less young and (hopefully) less dumb, I'm a true believer. Here and now I have nothing but the utmost veneration for his supreme body of work. Truly amazing indeed.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Chevron Freddy Tried to Make It Hot 2Nite
Well, it doesn't happen that often, but somehow I managed to win the affection of a complete stranger in one of the most idyllic locales a sentimental gal like me could ever dream of--the gas station. Yes, plain ole unassuming me--glasses and ponytail in tow--stumbled upon being the apple of someone's eye while innocently pumping gas at the Chevron earlier this evening. Never mind he seemed borderline homeless and one or two 40-ounces shy of devolving into Fast Freddy. I managed to snag the heart of my purported Prince Charming, and for that I'm--well, disturbed.
It's a rare and peculiar occasion whenever I turn a head or two because I don't exactly go out of my way to draw attention to myself. If Drake's definition of fancy is getting your "nails done, hair done, everything did," then I guess I ain't fancy. I refuse to spend my money or time on that high-maintenance type of lifestyle, and my attire at the Chevron station couldn't have reflected this more plainly. I was as homely as it gets--complete with my "grandma sweater" and sneakers--going about my business in my usual meek-mannered way, getting my hands smelly and dirty from pumping gas into my eleven-year-old Civic. In short, the catch of all catches. (*?!?!?!*) I can't fathom what aspect of my dowdy appearance inspired him to try to hook up with me. But inspired he was, and try he did.
First he offered to pump my gas for me. When I politely declined, he then asked, "well can I have your number then?" How in God's name he made that leap in logic, I'll never know. But once he got onto that "7-digits" track, he just wouldn't let up. First he wanted my phone number. Then he wondered why I wouldn't give him my number and asked if it was because I had a boyfriend or husband. Then he said he'd give me his number. Then he said he'd give me the number of all his family members. Then he recited his number out loud for me and promised to answer his phone if I called. I swear with all this talk of phone numbers, I thought I'd temporarily wandered onto a New Edition video where this Chevron dude was singing all of Ricky Bell's lines.
He then moved on to a series of pick-up lines. In one, he asked for a quarter then yammered on about a song lyric or some "adage" his uncle used to say about what to do with a quarter when you saw the girl you love. (I know. I didn't get it either.) When he saw how unimpressed I was, he then upped the ante with the following: "If I could rearrange the alphabet, I'd put 'u' and 'i' ('you and I') together." Amusing (somewhat), but I couldn't help but notice the grammatical incorrectness of that quote/unquote joke.
Hm. I wonder if that marmish-type of response is the reason I don't attract very many men. Oh well. Since the "Chevron Freddies" of the world are the only men I seem capable of attracting, I'll keep "clapping my hands" with Cameo and "putting my hands up" with Beyonce. I'll be ah-ight.
It's a rare and peculiar occasion whenever I turn a head or two because I don't exactly go out of my way to draw attention to myself. If Drake's definition of fancy is getting your "nails done, hair done, everything did," then I guess I ain't fancy. I refuse to spend my money or time on that high-maintenance type of lifestyle, and my attire at the Chevron station couldn't have reflected this more plainly. I was as homely as it gets--complete with my "grandma sweater" and sneakers--going about my business in my usual meek-mannered way, getting my hands smelly and dirty from pumping gas into my eleven-year-old Civic. In short, the catch of all catches. (*?!?!?!*) I can't fathom what aspect of my dowdy appearance inspired him to try to hook up with me. But inspired he was, and try he did.
First he offered to pump my gas for me. When I politely declined, he then asked, "well can I have your number then?" How in God's name he made that leap in logic, I'll never know. But once he got onto that "7-digits" track, he just wouldn't let up. First he wanted my phone number. Then he wondered why I wouldn't give him my number and asked if it was because I had a boyfriend or husband. Then he said he'd give me his number. Then he said he'd give me the number of all his family members. Then he recited his number out loud for me and promised to answer his phone if I called. I swear with all this talk of phone numbers, I thought I'd temporarily wandered onto a New Edition video where this Chevron dude was singing all of Ricky Bell's lines.
He then moved on to a series of pick-up lines. In one, he asked for a quarter then yammered on about a song lyric or some "adage" his uncle used to say about what to do with a quarter when you saw the girl you love. (I know. I didn't get it either.) When he saw how unimpressed I was, he then upped the ante with the following: "If I could rearrange the alphabet, I'd put 'u' and 'i' ('you and I') together." Amusing (somewhat), but I couldn't help but notice the grammatical incorrectness of that quote/unquote joke.
Hm. I wonder if that marmish-type of response is the reason I don't attract very many men. Oh well. Since the "Chevron Freddies" of the world are the only men I seem capable of attracting, I'll keep "clapping my hands" with Cameo and "putting my hands up" with Beyonce. I'll be ah-ight.
Friday, January 28, 2011
That'll Do, Shills. That'll Do.
So education has really been making the headlines over the last six months, eh?
Last fall we were introduced to the "Waiting for Superman" documentary where charter school reformers were essentially lionized while teachers and their unions were demonized. In the midst of it all, we learned about Michelle Rhee, a Korean-American educator who was and still is championed as a savior of sorts, spreading the gospel of school and teacher reform from sea to shining sea. Heightening the fears of a failing public education system (as well as the belief in Asians' ability to get desired academic results), we were made aware of China's dominance on the PISA test scores, which only added fuel to the fire.
But then...
Soon afterwards, we started hearing lamentations in the media about how students are too stressed out and how we need to rise against the cultural tide of high-stakes competition and anxiety-riddled students as we witnessed the release of a documentary called "Race to Nowhere." And this "race to nowhere" zeitgeist wasn't a monopoly of American sensibilities. Apparently, even the over-achieving Chinese were expressing doubts about the limits of standardized testing (further evidenced by their glowing reception of the Indian version of "Race to Nowhere.")
But then...
Just when Americans seemed galvanized in a collective campaign to reduce stress and rally against high-stakes testing and competition in secondary education by participating in nationwide screenings of "Race to Nowhere" (even at Harvard), out of nowhere prowls this self-proclaimed "Tiger Mom," stirring up more confusion as she gloated about the superiority of Chinese parenting methods--methods that are completely antithetical to the ethos of the "Race to Nowhere" phenomenon yet seemingly justified by the Chinese students' PISA scores.
And now after several spins around the revolving door of public sentiment, I'm getting quite bored with the transparency and predictability of the PTB's formula. The elites must be having a field day, paying their media shills to unleash their strategically-timed, contradictory, and sensationalized news stories whose only purpose is to direct us (the profane) into adopting the herd behavior they've programmed for us. They command their "reporter collies" to steer us in one direction, nip at our heels to make us change course, then drive us into other uncharted territories, over again and over again, until we're finally fenced in right where they want us: dazed, confused, and hopeless.
The question is, where exactly do they want us? Do they want us to remain in this growing state of frenzy where we react to their strategic synchronizing of Asian faces with worrisome statistics so that we'll embrace charter schools, teaching-to-the-test, and slave-driving disguised as "tiger parenting?" Are we supposed to be herded into blaming teachers and parents for our students' mediocre academic performance, while ratcheting up the rote memorization practices that will produce androids and followers rather than the creative thinkers and leaders that will challenge the PTB and foil their plans for world domination? Or do the elites want the other extreme where we give up on pushing our students to excel and instead coddle to them, implementing ridiculous policies that obviate their need to think (critically and be leaders so that they can challenge the PTB, etc., etc.? Either way, the elites win and we drone.)
Which side of the pendulum swing are we supposed to be on? Or is the goal to not have us settle on any one solution, but to have those who've already taken sides dig their heels deeper into their polarized stances, while the rest of us undulate wildly back and forth, never finding a solution and never getting a clue? Yeah, I know. All of the above. Well, none for me thanks. I know the real answer lies somewhere in the middle and not at the extremes that they constantly herd us into choosing. I refuse to play the part of "unwitting pawn" in their game of Hegelian dialectic as they instruct their media "heelers" to "cast" and "come-bye" to the rest of our detriment.
Now if only enough of us would invoke our inner Farmer Hoggetts and tell these reporters to "stop working and return to handler," we might have a fighting chance at fixing this mess of a world we live in. Some may call me a dreamer but hey, it's apparently my nature to dream in my "imaginary world of happy people and happy endings." So I'll just keep following N'Dea's and Steve's advice and make it do what it do. Smoochez!
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Musings of a Hungry, but Patient Luddite
If patience is a virtue, then virtue overflows in the interim of replacing an out-of-order microwave with a newer one. During this interval, the 15-20 minute anticipation of retrieving heated food from the oven can seem agonizing, yet edifying.
Patience builds character. So does hunger. It heightens the level of appreciation when the desired outcome is finally experienced. The subdued flavors and inferior textures of food heated at rapid-fire speed in the microwave become more vibrant and have a superior consistency when heated more slowly in the oven. The loquacious sizzle of the savory steak, the subtle crispness of the macaroni's surface, the broccoli's "al dente" that necessitates thorough mastication yet easily gives way to the fork's tines. All of this makes for a livelier experience with food. And because the food is more "alive," so is the person consuming it.
Patience builds character. So does hunger. It heightens the level of appreciation when the desired outcome is finally experienced. The subdued flavors and inferior textures of food heated at rapid-fire speed in the microwave become more vibrant and have a superior consistency when heated more slowly in the oven. The loquacious sizzle of the savory steak, the subtle crispness of the macaroni's surface, the broccoli's "al dente" that necessitates thorough mastication yet easily gives way to the fork's tines. All of this makes for a livelier experience with food. And because the food is more "alive," so is the person consuming it.
These thoughts traverse my mind as I witness yet another worrisome news story about smart devices. As the latest announcement cheerfully informs smart phone owners about Starbucks' and other businesses' new pay-by-phone option, I'm befuddled at how willing people are to trust strangers to scan the contents of their phones. It astounds me how little privacy is valued in this society; for these same smart devices can reveal the geographic location of a person taking pictures. I worry and wonder why we make it easy for Big Brother to track our behavior, no matter what the circumstance may be. But I guess all of this worry over privacy is moot when the single-minded pursuit of everyone seems to be convenience at all costs.
Not that I'm above the desire for convenience. Many times I've narrowly escaped the captivity of temptation set out by the corporatocracy as it launches its envoys of gleaming technological trinkets boasting all the latest bells and whistles. It's no small feat avoiding the peer pressure as I witness everyone and their mom surf the Web at any given time or place. The allure is strongest during conferences--which, for me, amounts to 3-4 times a year--where navigating unknown neighborhoods and meeting up with colleagues is increasingly encumbered by my "less-than-smart" phone.
Not that I'm above the desire for convenience. Many times I've narrowly escaped the captivity of temptation set out by the corporatocracy as it launches its envoys of gleaming technological trinkets boasting all the latest bells and whistles. It's no small feat avoiding the peer pressure as I witness everyone and their mom surf the Web at any given time or place. The allure is strongest during conferences--which, for me, amounts to 3-4 times a year--where navigating unknown neighborhoods and meeting up with colleagues is increasingly encumbered by my "less-than-smart" phone.
But speed and convenience have a price. In the case of the microwave, the price is missing out on food's fullest gustatory potential. With technology the price, I fear, is far greater. And as the platoon of smart phones forges on, I grow alarmed at the bombardment of problems that seem to surface with these devices. Yet, I feel alone in my worry as I witness everyone else clamor for the latest features, upgrades, and applications. It's doubtful that any warnings about the permanent loss of privacy being an irreversible consequence of this smart technology--or any technology for that matter--will be heeded.
So at this point, I don't anticipate many people protesting when being watched by one's aps becomes a common occurrence. Not even if it evolves to the level of Kinect's face- and voice-recognition capabilities or if it feeds into the federally-mandated monitoring of private citizens--if it hasn't already. Nor do I expect an uproar from the citizenry when technology perfects the weaving of espionage capabilities with medicine. And sadly, I feel that people's laziness will not only preempt them from shunning mind-reading computers, it will drive them to pay top-dollar for pre-orders of these "technological advances" before they even hit the market.
My growing concern about privacy is compounded by a mounting awareness of the geopolitical consequences of our plowing through a never-ending succession of smart phone upgrades, including its contribution to the widening U.S. trade imbalance with China, its role in an increasing number of conflicts within the developing world, and the dirty reality of how smart devices are recycled.
My growing concern about privacy is compounded by a mounting awareness of the geopolitical consequences of our plowing through a never-ending succession of smart phone upgrades, including its contribution to the widening U.S. trade imbalance with China, its role in an increasing number of conflicts within the developing world, and the dirty reality of how smart devices are recycled.
I've always found the sound of sizzling grease to be appealing. Yet as I retrieve the crackling steak from the oven, I handle it with caution lest the overly-excited meat sends projectiles of oil onto my vulnerable, barenaked hands. Likewise, as others charge toward the crossfire of technology with its onslaught of consequences and marvel at the latest milestone in Apple aps, I'll take a cue from Thoreau and retreat to the enclave of more simplified living. Because when all is said and done, patience may be our only redemption from the blitzkrieg emanating from smart technology. And simplicity may the key to that deliverance.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Eye Contact with Crazy
I was waiting for the bus on the way home from school one day, and a woman--obviously off her rocker--walked in my general direction. I knew I shouldn't have looked her in the eye, but I went against my better judgment and did it anyway. I don't remember what my facial expression was exactly, but it must have worried her because the next thing I knew, her palms were on my forehead as she feverishly prayed to God to rebuke the Devil from me.
I was only a teenager at the time and was quite passive, so I kind of just stood there and took it, hoping the bus would hurry up and whisk me away from the line of sight of anyone who'd witnessed the incident. From then on, I made a vow never again to make eye contact with crazy because you just never know what kind of predicament you might land in as a result.
I've since extended this philosophy to other areas in my life, particularly when it comes to my professional development, and leadership has always topped that list of activities to avoid. Leadership is its own brand of crazy, placing the brave and willing in contact with some of the most extreme personalities known to man. A team leader trying to bring their project to fruition has to grapple with their team members' laziness, insecurities, testiness, and other B.S. In short, taking on leadership is a messy proposition. But so is dealing with the aftermath of someone else's slipshod leadership. Unfortunately, I've developed an interest in getting in on the decision-making process to right the many, many wrongs I've witnessed from other people's lapses in leadership.
In spite of my misgivings about leadership, I've somehow managed to stumble across a few leadership opportunities--which basically means I reluctantly agreed to take them on after lots of arm-twisting. To my surprise, those opportunities have largely been rewarding. There's no feeling like knowing of an unmet need and realizing you're in the position to meet it. I've felt so frustrated at not having the power to change things for the better and I know the only way to do anything about it is to lead in the effort.
Part of what has held me back from actively taking on leadership roles was that aforementioned passive disposition that let a complete stranger exorcize alleged demons from my forehead uninterrupted. I've since grown out of that passivity and have become quite vocal about my convictions. (Ahem. Hence the blog.) :)
Another thing that has held me back was self-doubt, believing I was too inadequate or incompetent to lead. But I've come to realize that a lot of leaders have MANY moments of inadequacy and incompetence. While not necessarily a detriment, it can be problematic if leaders don't realize or acknowledge their shortcomings or have any inclination to improve themselves. I know enough to know that a good leader should be aware not only of her strengths, but her weaknesses. I'm VERY aware of my weaknesses, so I just need some additional leadership experiences to turn those weaknesses into strengths.
A third reason for my hesitance to lead was my self-consciousness and my proclivity to feeling guilt at any perceived special treatment on my behalf. I've already had to prove (repeatedly) that I'm more than an affirmative action quota or a mere benefactor of someone else's favoritism. Yet the perception of my under-qualification still persists--at least, that's has been my hunch of late. I've let this self-consciousness get the better of me so much so that I passed up the opportunity to serve in a supervisory capacity. While I don't regret forfeiting the specific set of responsibilities of that position, I do regret letting the mere potential of someone's negative reaction prevent me from spreading my wings.
Well not anymore. I've already experienced the fulfillment of making positive changes and I can no longer let my insecurities and those of others hold me back. I'm even finding inspiration in some of the least likely places---whipping my hair while singing, "Don't let haters keep off my grind. Keep my head up I know I'll be fine. Keep fighting until I get there. When I'm down and I feel like giving up, I'll think again." Out of the mouth of babes and undeniably trite, yet truer words have never resonated so strongly with me. So, like Fantasia and I'm gonna start doin' me and letting people think what they want to think. (Love that song BTW.)
Not that the road ahead will be a cakewalk. There's a lot of work to do with little reward and few people willing to pitch in on the nitty gritty stuff. But if I'm to gain future opportunities to effect even greater change, I have to be willing to put in the elbow grease right now. Sure there will be moments when my inner E-40 compels me to snap at them, growling "money costs too much and I ain't got a dime; you need to pay me, or pay me no never mind. Trick!" But I'm sure my altruistic nature will overpower and suppress such undesirable outbursts. It will all work out fine (I hope).
So as I sit at the start of a new year and ponder the responsibilities I'll soon be taking on--roles like "Training Coordinator" and "Mentoring Committee Chair"--I look forward to the challenges that lie ahead and the opportunities to make a lasting change that will hopefully take my organization to the next level. And with this newfound willingness to look crazy in the eye--in the figurative sense at least--perhaps my inner demons of self-consciousness and self-doubt will eventually be exorcized once and for all.
Happy New Year and best wishes to anyone aiming to make their own "eye contact with crazy" in their neck of the woods!
I was only a teenager at the time and was quite passive, so I kind of just stood there and took it, hoping the bus would hurry up and whisk me away from the line of sight of anyone who'd witnessed the incident. From then on, I made a vow never again to make eye contact with crazy because you just never know what kind of predicament you might land in as a result.
I've since extended this philosophy to other areas in my life, particularly when it comes to my professional development, and leadership has always topped that list of activities to avoid. Leadership is its own brand of crazy, placing the brave and willing in contact with some of the most extreme personalities known to man. A team leader trying to bring their project to fruition has to grapple with their team members' laziness, insecurities, testiness, and other B.S. In short, taking on leadership is a messy proposition. But so is dealing with the aftermath of someone else's slipshod leadership. Unfortunately, I've developed an interest in getting in on the decision-making process to right the many, many wrongs I've witnessed from other people's lapses in leadership.
In spite of my misgivings about leadership, I've somehow managed to stumble across a few leadership opportunities--which basically means I reluctantly agreed to take them on after lots of arm-twisting. To my surprise, those opportunities have largely been rewarding. There's no feeling like knowing of an unmet need and realizing you're in the position to meet it. I've felt so frustrated at not having the power to change things for the better and I know the only way to do anything about it is to lead in the effort.
Part of what has held me back from actively taking on leadership roles was that aforementioned passive disposition that let a complete stranger exorcize alleged demons from my forehead uninterrupted. I've since grown out of that passivity and have become quite vocal about my convictions. (Ahem. Hence the blog.) :)
Another thing that has held me back was self-doubt, believing I was too inadequate or incompetent to lead. But I've come to realize that a lot of leaders have MANY moments of inadequacy and incompetence. While not necessarily a detriment, it can be problematic if leaders don't realize or acknowledge their shortcomings or have any inclination to improve themselves. I know enough to know that a good leader should be aware not only of her strengths, but her weaknesses. I'm VERY aware of my weaknesses, so I just need some additional leadership experiences to turn those weaknesses into strengths.
A third reason for my hesitance to lead was my self-consciousness and my proclivity to feeling guilt at any perceived special treatment on my behalf. I've already had to prove (repeatedly) that I'm more than an affirmative action quota or a mere benefactor of someone else's favoritism. Yet the perception of my under-qualification still persists--at least, that's has been my hunch of late. I've let this self-consciousness get the better of me so much so that I passed up the opportunity to serve in a supervisory capacity. While I don't regret forfeiting the specific set of responsibilities of that position, I do regret letting the mere potential of someone's negative reaction prevent me from spreading my wings.
Well not anymore. I've already experienced the fulfillment of making positive changes and I can no longer let my insecurities and those of others hold me back. I'm even finding inspiration in some of the least likely places---whipping my hair while singing, "Don't let haters keep off my grind. Keep my head up I know I'll be fine. Keep fighting until I get there. When I'm down and I feel like giving up, I'll think again." Out of the mouth of babes and undeniably trite, yet truer words have never resonated so strongly with me. So, like Fantasia and I'm gonna start doin' me and letting people think what they want to think. (Love that song BTW.)
Not that the road ahead will be a cakewalk. There's a lot of work to do with little reward and few people willing to pitch in on the nitty gritty stuff. But if I'm to gain future opportunities to effect even greater change, I have to be willing to put in the elbow grease right now. Sure there will be moments when my inner E-40 compels me to snap at them, growling "money costs too much and I ain't got a dime; you need to pay me, or pay me no never mind. Trick!" But I'm sure my altruistic nature will overpower and suppress such undesirable outbursts. It will all work out fine (I hope).
So as I sit at the start of a new year and ponder the responsibilities I'll soon be taking on--roles like "Training Coordinator" and "Mentoring Committee Chair"--I look forward to the challenges that lie ahead and the opportunities to make a lasting change that will hopefully take my organization to the next level. And with this newfound willingness to look crazy in the eye--in the figurative sense at least--perhaps my inner demons of self-consciousness and self-doubt will eventually be exorcized once and for all.
Happy New Year and best wishes to anyone aiming to make their own "eye contact with crazy" in their neck of the woods!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)