Thoughts of an American Gypsy

Mythology

2010-04-03T20:42:00.001-07:00

Lately I've been reading the Percy Jackson series by Rick Riordan. It's quite entertaining, and a great series for pre-teens and early teens. It has action, adventure, and a healthy dose of mythology. Enough to spark curiosity and tempt youngsters down the path of more classical reading.

I've always had a passing interest in mythology. Enough to think, "I want to learn more," but not enough to actually devote myself to learning more. I think I really want to, though. The problem is: how? Where do you start? There are so many books out there, but most of them assume that a Mythology 101 course has been completed. Mythology isn't like a television series, where you can start watching it in season four and by the end of that season, pretty much know the storyline and how everything relates. At least, not in my linear mind!

I like timelines. I like starting with the first book in the series. I like knowing the background. I like 'this leads to this, then led to that, then leads to this...' Tell me the story in order so I can follow it.

Mythology, however, doesn't really care about time. Mythology is a long, convoluted, complex story that explained the world to folks who didn't have the means of understanding it any other way. But don't you wonder, sometimes, if there's more to it than that? What if those gods did exist? Who's to say they didn't? Surely even all those thousands of years ago people needed more proof of godly existence than the fact that grapes grew and the sun rose?

And why did belief in these old gods and goddesses started to fade to nothing? No one hears of anyone worshiping Zeus or Poseidon anymore. Aphrodite has no follows; Apollo no brides. What happened to them?

Everyone knows the name of Hercules. They know he's the son of Zeus and a mortal woman. But what were his labors? What are his stories? I don't know them. I think I should.

Who is Perseus? Theseus? Jason? The Hesperides? Atlas, Kronos, Oceanus? The other Titans? Where did they come from, and where did they go?

And now I'm reminded of a song, one of my favorites, although it always makes me sad:

"Last Mourner"
written and performed by Heather Alexander

In a clearing stands the ruins and remains of a temple
That once stood as proud as the sky.
On the wind blows the bittersweet sound of lost love.
On my gown flow the tears that I cry.

Through ages you waited for your children to come home,
And frolic again, as long ago.
But with time and with distance there comes independence,
Whereas you did not conceive that we would grow.

No more will we drink the sacramental wine.
No more will we light the sacred fires.
For ye only I am the last who shall mourn you,
And the loss of the music lyre.

My spirit rode forward on the wings of love and glory,
But duty rent the passion from me.
Tis true I betrayed you, and my own heart with you.
But my kind could not bow down; we must live free.

No more will we sacrifice the land to you.
No more will we gather laurel leaves.
For ye only I am the last who shall mourn you,
And forever the one I will grieve.

In a clearing stands the ruins and remains of a temple
That once stood as proud as the sky.
On the wind blows the bittersweet sound of Mount Olympus,
And the gods who taught the human soul to fly.

Silenced Howls Singing: The Fall and Rise of the Wolf

2008-05-21T16:03:00.000-07:00

Anna Smith
Mr. Steve Estus
English 101, 4:00pm M W
5 May 2008

Silenced Howls Singing: The Fall and Rise of the Wolf

Wolves have traditionally been sources of terror and admiration. Which view one took depended upon the culture in which one was raised. Old myths and legends had wolves as servants of evil, or of good. Current popular culture generally continues this trend, just adding romance into the mix. Beneath the myths, legends and fictional fads, however, are the simple facts of the animals themselves. Wolves are not good. Wolves are not evil. Wolves are animals developed over millennia of evolution and adaptation, acting as nature and pack training has taught them. They are frequently misunderstood and anthropomorphized by the ignorant. Their role in maintaining a healthy ecological balance is undervalued, just as their threat to humans and livestock is over-emphasized. The reaction of ranchers and hunters to the re-introduction of wolves to the United States, and their recent delisting from the Endangered Species list, is worrisome. While wolf-song can be heard in the night again, one must wonder how long it will continue.

The enmity between wolves and humans is a long standing one, but not a universal one. Wolves had a bad reputation among Europeans long before Columbus ever set foot in the Americas. By the 1800s, wolves were gone from England. Colonists brought their preconceived prejudices towards wolves with them when they settled North America. Wolves were threats, slavering beasts intent on murder and mayhem, and to be killed on sight. (Jones) The fear and loathing of the Europeans conflicted strongly with the Native American respect and admiration of wolves. Like the Native Americans, wolves suffered badly from this intolerance. Colonists used the excuse of livestock predations to justify killing wolves wholesale, but the truth was that attacks were far less than reported. In the map below is the territory that wolves have historically been native to in North America. The green areas are those areas where wolves could still be found.

Prior to European settlement of North America, the indigenous people maintained a healthy balance with the wildlife around them. According to Karen Jones in her “Fighting Outlaws, Returning Wolves” article from History Today, “an older, indigenous tradition in the Yellowstone region encapsulated a more favorable perception… Casting the wolf as an influential spirit and a cherished social guide… Illustrious lupines assumed pivotal roles in the sacred stories of myriad tribes.” (38) With colonization, however, the balance was upset and the predators became prey to humans. The relationship between humans and wolves has remained one of animosity for hundreds of years, and as a result the wolf population has been dangerously decimated. Only now are their numbers once more rising.

People have a tendency to anthropomorphize wolves, as it demonstrated in the many myths, legends, and modern literature available. Assigning human characteristics to wild animals is unwise and potentially dangerous. Wolves are not human and they do not think or rationalize as humans do. They cannot be held to human standards. Wolves act according to two rules: the instincts with which they are born, and the patterns of behavior they learn as pups. They are predators and their actions are those of predators. While wolves are very intelligent animals, they are still simply animals. Yet this tendency to expect human logic out of them may be the root source of the long-standing conflict between humans and wolves. In historic times, people assigned good or evil intent to wolves and used that reasoning to justify slaughtering them.

While wolves have long been hunted in European countries, in North America they existed in relative peace with the native peoples. Native Americans admired the wolf, and perceived the animal as a kindred spirit. This attitude was unique in the world, but representative of the symbiotic relationship and religion that most of America’s indigenous people had with the natural world. Unfortunately, the numbers of European settlers quickly outstripped the native population and the persecution of the wolf that they brought with them carried over. The wolf population, widely spread through the United States, quickly diminished until they were only found in a few locations. By 1926 even remote Yellowstone had lost the last of their wolves. When the Endangered Species Act became law in 1973 there were only two areas that could still claim a wolfish presence: northern Michigan and Minnesota. (“United States: Fair Game Now; Wolves”)

Wolves have made an amazing comeback from their near-extinction in the United States. Their numbers have increased quickly since their reintroduction back into the wild in Yellowstone National Park. Unfortunately, their numbers will never be allowed to return to the level they once were. Humans have claimed too much territory and the fears of ranchers must be appeased. There is now a debate whether the currently mandated minimal numbers are even sufficient to ensure genetic stability. The graph below shows the increase in the wolf population since efforts to return them to the wild began in 1995. It’s not nearly the 350,000 that roamed North America when Lewis and Clark were taking their walkabout, nor will it ever be again, but there is once more wolf-song echoing to the rising moon. (“Cull of the Wolf”) The data for the graph below was collected from Jim Zumbo’s article “A Howling in the West: Not Everyone is Thrilled About Recovering Wolf Populations,” published by Outdoor Life in their December 2003 / January 2004 issue.

The reintroduction of wolves has been a hotly debated issue since they were first included on the Endangered Species list. Conservationists have squared off with ranchers and hunters from the beginning, and seldom do the two groups see eye to eye. Conservationists fear, with some justification, that wolves will never be safe from persecution. Ranchers and hunters hotly contest the wisdom of returning wolves to their natural habitat. More than one hunter had lain in wait of a wandering wolf, and their sole intent was to simply kill it. As the time drew near for wolves to be removed from the Endangered Species list, the federal government waited for the three states to provide plans for monitoring and controlling the wolf population. Once removed from federal protection, the state run agencies would be responsible for overseeing the protection of the wolves, and the people, within the borders. The states in question are Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. While Idaho and Wyoming have presented accepted plans for handling the return of the wolf, Montana’s plan is still undergoing review. One thing all three plans have in common: wolves will be hunted as trophy animals. Some states, such as Montana, are waiting until after the wolves a delisted as endangered species before creating the regulations for hunting them. (Zumbo.) That period of time between the delisting and the posting of the regulations will be a very dangerous window for wolves – and a free-for-all party for wolf hunters.

To fully understand the conflict between wolf and rancher, one must understand the hunting behavior of wolves. According to the study conducted by MacNulty, Mech, and Smith published in the Journal of Mammology, wolves display several stages of predatory behavior. Initially there is the search phase, during which time wolves are looking for prey. This is followed by the approach phase, in which the distance between the wolf or wolf-pack and the prey is reduced. Depending on the chosen prey, the approach phase would be followed by the watching phase. In this study, the two types of prey observed were elk and bison. Wolves tended to watch bison more than elk and the assumption is because bison are more aggressive than elk. The approach and watching phases are then followed by the pursuit and/or harassing phases, which are interchangeable. Pursuit is for when the prey makes a run for it. Harassment would replace pursuit when the prey confronts the hunting wolves. The final phase is capture, and the wolves dine well. Wolves generally try to choose isolated members of a herd as their prey as a single elk or bison is less threat than a group of elk or bison. The weaker the prey the easier the hunt will be, and the greater the likelihood that the pack will be fed.

Hunting behaviors indicate some intelligent, logical processes. The pattern of attack is modified according to the prey chosen. Elk was the preferred large-game prey, and less dangerous than bison. Wolves tended to pursue and harass elk, whereas they seldom harass bison. Wolves also spent more time watching bison prior to pursuing, and would often opt not to pursue bison. (MacNulty, Mech, and Smith) This ability to evaluate the risk potential in hunting and deciding to forego the immediately available prey indicates some level of intelligence. However, it does not indicate human intelligence, human understanding of right and wrong, or a human sense of ownership. A herd of cattle in a field is nothing more than easy prey to a wolf. They are much easier, certainly, than the aggressive bison or the wary elk.

Wolves prey on a wide range of animals. Mice fill the belly as well as elk, and a rabbit is always a potential meal. They hunt what is available, and there’s no real reason they should view a cow or ewe any differently than they do the rabbit or deer. Wolves do not hunt for sport. They hunt because they’re hungry. Whatever they happen across first that falls within their definition of prey is what they will hunt, given that the risk potential is within their capabilities. A single wolf will not hunt a bison and a pack of wolves will not hunt rabbits.

It’s true that a wolf will go after easy prey. It’s not a stupid animal, after all, and easy prey means less risk of injury and a greater likelihood of having a meal. A wolf’s hunting instincts are also roused when something runs from it. Wolves are also territorial, and encroachment on their territory sparks a fight response. So when humans came around and started settling in territories that supported packs, is it any wonder that wolves hunted the docile cattle they found? Or that domesticated animals like dogs were attacked and killed? To a wolf, a dog is a threat to be eliminated.

Perhaps the intelligence demonstrated in their hunting tactics, combined with the brutality of their kills, is the reason why so many cultures have assigned evil connotations to wolves. A wolf-kill is not a pleasant way to die. It’s bloody and vicious and without mercy. Wolves will often begin feeding on their prey before it is dead. They do not kill cleanly, as some animals do. When hunting large game, wolves will work as a team to attack their chosen prey, causing severe bodily harm. Eventually injury or sheer blood loss will cause the victim to fall. (Zumbo.) One can easily be excused for assuming evil intent when faced with these end results.

The heart of the debate regarding wolves can be found in the Midwest, where ranching is most prevalent. The livelihood of ranchers depends on the survival of their stock. However, it is not only ranchers who are against the survival of one of North America’s most effective natural predators. Hunters also protest the return of the wolf, but their reason has less logic than that of the ranchers. While the ranchers want to protect their livelihood from predation, the hunters simply want to ensure that they are allowed to bag more large game during their hunting trips than they would be allowed if wolves returned. The more elk and bison killed by wolves the fewer there are for sport hunters to kill during the hunting season.

Hunters are being greedy. While their kills will only result in them taking the meat home for their personal freezers, a wolf kill supports a vast ecological system. The remains left after a successful wolf hunt feed myriad carrion animals, strengthening the ecosystem. (Ewers) While a hunter’s gun does not discriminate when choosing a target, a wolf’s hunting practice manages to weed out the weakest or oldest members of a herd, allowing the remaining members to pass on their genes to the next generation, strengthening the herd’s overall health and vitality. (Ferguson).

Ranchers argue that wolves will kill livestock. Sure they will. Just like humans will go to grocery stores to buy their vegetables instead of investing a lot of time and effort in maintain their own vegetable gardens. Livestock, in general, is docile. They are accustomed to humans and to protection. They are, quite simply, easy pickings. If a wolf is faced with a choice of running down that dangerous bison or going for that fatted steer, the wolf will certainly choose the least dangerous option. However, there are protections that can be put in place. Foremost is one of the oldest professions around: herding. Stick a man or two with the herds instead of letting them wander unsupervised, add a few cattle dogs, and much of the risk is reduced. Unless a wolf is accustomed to human presence, quick response from the dogs’ alert and an aggressive response from a human or two will general be enough to deter a wolf and send him hunting other prey. Ranchers, however, seem disinclined to pursue this option.

Considering the length of time that wolves have been absent from the ranchlands of the west, the fears expressed by the ranchers have very little basis in fact. How do they know that wolves will give up moose, elk, and bison as their food supply in favor of sheep and cattle? There’s no historical data to back that up. There can’t be – wolves were hunted from the outset with the intent to eradicate them. According to Ed Bangs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “One of the first tasks given in the 1910s to my agency was to kill the last wolves in the Western United States. … The last pups were killed in 1924.” (Ewers.) This was at a time when the west was still being settled.

The risk of wolf predations on livestock is greatly exaggerated. As the information below, compiled from Todd Wilkinson’s article, “Montana’s Wolf Reality Doesn’t Bite” in the Missoula Independent, wolves are not the greatest threat to livestock kills. Coyotes are a larger danger, and yet one does not hear cries of genocide on those creatures. Even domestic dogs kill more livestock than wolves do.

Decades of argument have proven that there is no happy medium between the conservationists and the ranchers. One group has romanticized the wolf. The other group and vilified it. The wolf has done nothing but simply adhered to its nature. A wolf doesn’t recognize boundaries. A wolf doesn’t respect fences. A wolf doesn’t see a brand. Can it be blamed for wandering outside the established safe-zone boundaries established? Can it be blamed for not recognizing a fence? Can it be blamed for seeing a prey animal and feeling hunger? Wolves are intelligent animals, but animals nonetheless. Time will tell whether we have successfully saved an animal that, less than a century ago, we were intent on exterminating. In the end, wolves have as much right to life as humans do, and that right should be protected.

Works Cited

"United States: Fair Game Now; Wolves." The Economist [London, England.] 29 Mar. 2008,62
Apr. 2008,8. The Economist. ProQuest. Milo P. Johnson Library, San Jacinto, CA. 23 April
2008
"Cull of the wolf. " The Christian Science Monitor [Boston, Mass.] 2 Apr. 2008,8. Christian
Science Monitor. ProQuest. Milo P. Johnson Library, San Jacinto, CA. 7 May. 2008

Ewers, Justin. "The Remarkable, Resilient Wolf. " U.S. News & World Report 17 Mar. 2008:
19. Research Library Core. ProQuest. Milo P. Johnson Library, San Jacinto, CA. 7 May.
2008
Ferguson, Gary. "The big bad wolf; In the Rockies, man's hatred and fear of the species is on
display again. " Los Angeles Times [Los Angeles, Calif.] 30 Apr. 2008,A.19. Los Angeles
Times. ProQuest. Milo P. Johnson Library, San Jacinto, CA. 7 May. 2008

Jones, Karen. "Fighting outlaws, returning wolves. " History Today 52.3 (2002): 38-40.
Research Library Core. ProQuest. Milo P. Johnson Library, San Jacinto, CA. 7 May. 2008

MacNulty, Daniel R; Mech, L David; Smith, Douglas W. "A Proposed Ethogram of Large-
Carnivore Predatory Behavior, Exemplified by the Wolf.” Journal of Mammalogy
88.3 (2007): 595-605. Research Library Core. ProQuest. Milo P. Johnson Library,
San Jacinto, CA. 7 May. 2008
Wilkinson, Todd. "Montana's wolf reality doesn't bite. " Missoula Independent [Missoula,
Mont.] 20 Mar. 2008,17. Alt-Press Watch (APW). ProQuest. Milo P. Johnson Library, San
Jacinto, CA. 7 May. 2008
Zumbo, Jim. "A Howling In The West: Not Everyone Is Thrilled About Recovering Wolf
Populations .” Outdoor Life 1 Dec. 2003: 70-74. General Interest Module. ProQuest. Milo
P. Johnson Library, San Jacinto, CA. 7 May. 2008

Take me to Narnia....

2008-05-18T17:48:00.000-07:00

When I was fourteen, my dad retired from the Air Force. We left the place I knew as home, where I had friends and I knew the town. We left the security and safety of the military base and we moved...

...to Arkansas. A small town, and definitely not one that felt the same as a military base.

Within the first week of attending my new school, I had been asked if I were pregnant, and then if I were a teacher. These were not exactly strong indicators that I would make friends quickly, or easily, and I certainly didn't.

Life changed for all of us when we moved from Louisana to Arkansas. We each dealt with it in our own ways. I escaped into books. I was embarassed and ashamed, and I felt completely out of my element. Other students didn't make any overtures of friendship, and I was both too shy and too introverted to make the overtures myself.

It was at this time that I discovered Narnia. It was my introduction to fantasy, but it also taught me a lot, much of which I didn't realize until many years later. I immediately drew the parallels between Aslan and Christianity. It was fairly obvious, and this was long before I learned that CS Lewis was a well known author of religious books, and had suffered through his own crisis of faith at some point. He was, obviously, a man who'd given deep thought to religion.

At the time, all I really knew was that Narnia, for all it's problems, seemed like paradise and I would have given anything to go there. I would lay in bed at night, lonely and miserable, crying, and pray that Aslan would come and take me to Narnia. My sisters and I, you see, were long past the age of being playmates and so I didn't even have them for company. My only friends were those that I met in books.

Now with the movies coming out, I remember how important these books were to me. I remember the lessons they taught me, and how I learned to deal with life by reading those pages. I learned joy and wonder, hope and grief. I learned that everything comes to an end - but that end is in itself a new beginning. I learned that there is such a thing as unconditional love, but love doesn't mean that a blind eye is turned to faults and wrong.

The first movie was pretty close to the book. It's been too long since I've read the books to know how close this second one is...but it's probably just as close as the first. :-)

Narnia taught me hope. It taught me acceptance of those different from myself, and it taught me that a different culture has as much value and 'right' as the culture I grew up in. It taught me doing what's right, even when it hurts, and defending those who need it. It taught me that fighting wasn't the only way to defend. It taught me that appearance doesn't necessarily mean anything, and that even the smallest creature - or person - has important skills and abilities.

Narnia taught me many lessons. And today, as I contemplate life as it is, it seems to me that many of those lessons are today thought to be weaknesses. How sad is that? And does that explain why I find myself often unhappy or frustrated in life?

Nineteen years later....I still want to go to Narnia.

A Cat's Launching Pad

2008-03-10T09:40:00.000-07:00

For the past year, my bed has been an air mattress. I like it that way. I can make the bed as firm or as soft as I like. Sometimes I want the cloud-soft cozy, and sometimes I want it firm. Air mattresses as beds are ideal for suiting every sleeping mood. And it worked very, very well for me for nine months.

Then...well, one of the air chamber dividers gave out and I had a lopsided bed. But that wasn't so bad. I even sorta liked it. It was like an built in body pillow.

However, shortly afterwards, I noticed that the bed tended to get just a bit softer overnight. I started having to add air to it every other day or so. Then every day. Then every night right before I went to bed. Obviously, the thing had sprung a leak, and I just couldn't find where. It puzzled me, and it annoyed me because I knew I'd have to replace it. I didn't want to do that. I knew I wouldn't able to find one just like it that I could afford, especially if it wasn't going to last a year. But I did it. I found another air mattress, not quite as good because it didn't air up quite as tall, but otherwise just as comfy to sleep in. I've had it for about...a month.

Well, I ain't got it anymore. I have discovered the leak. Air mattresses are not to be used as cat launching or landing pads.

See, yesterday I went out to do laundry. No big deal. I do it once every two weeks. When it's only your clothes to clean, you don't have to go often, you know. I came home and started to put the clothes away, but delayed making up the bed. I'm going to try my hand at skiing next weekend, so I needed to hit the schoolbooks hard. However, I did notice the bed was a little soft, so I aired it up some. Hours later, when I was ready for bed, I went in to make it up and noticed the bed was too soft AGAIN. By now I'm a wee bit irked. I didn't want to deal with another leak. I looked around, passed my hand and arm slowly around the sides of the bed to see if I felt any air movement, and couldn't find anything. So I aired the bugger up again, made it up, and went to bed.

And heard, 'hissssssssssss.'

The puncture was at the top of the bed. By my ear. This time I found it no problem. A nice little slit and I knew exactly what had caused it: Idiot and Murmur jumping from the bed to the windowsill, or from the windowsill to the bed, had caught a claw.

Well, I'm rather the make-do sort so I figured I'd do a quick repair. Some tape over the hole should seal it, right? Right! But since the top is kinda veloury, it might not take a good hold. So I put more top over the first, crossing over the top. Then more on top of that, making an X over the + I'd already done. Good and sealed! I refreshed the air, straightened the bed, turned out the light, and went to sleep at about 11:45pm.

At 1:30 am, I woke up on the floor.

The tape wasn't a good seal, after all. But Murmur, oh, he were quite happy with the situation since HE was still sleeping on part of the mattress that still had air.

Now, mind you, my alarm is set to go off at 4am on Mondays and Wednesdays. I was tired. There was no way I could fix the bed, so I grabbed a blanket, wrapped it around me, and plopped down on the lay-out fouton in the living room. Idiot had already claimed half of it for his bed, and there was no way he was willing to give it up. Or share the cozier blanket. Apparently, when I go to bed at night, I forfeit all right to my couch or my blanket and I must make do with whatever's leftover. The damn cat just wouldn't budge!

I didn't get much sleep after that, just feel into a light doze. The bed is still flattened in my room, and Murmur was still cozily sleeping on it when I left this morning. I won't be home til late tonight since I have class, but first them I'm doing is making that fouton into a bed. A comfortable bed. It'll have to be used as one for a while because I'm not buying another air mattress for the boys to play pin cushion with.

And their punishment? No access to the windowsill in the bedroom. :-) It's too high for even THEM to jump to without their launching pad!

::yawn!::

The Economics of Weight Loss

2008-03-09T11:58:00.000-07:00

It's odd what concepts one encounters in various subjects can be seen as applicable in unrelated fields. Take economics and weight loss.

I don't know about other people, but when I go out to eat I tend to eat everything that I order. I know if I take it home, it won't taste as good, or I'll end up throwing it away. But, I've already spent the money and since I don't want to get full value for my money, I make sure I eat what I've paid for, regardless if I'm full halfway through the meal.

Economist would say that I'm ignoring sunk costs.

A sunk cost is a cost incurred in the past that cannot be changed by current decisions and therefore cannot be recovered. In this instance, the sunk cost is the price of the meal. Whether I eat the full meal or not, the cost is gone and I won't get it back. So, should I let this irrevocable action determine the decisions I make in the present?

I can eat the complete meal when I'm already full and it will cost me no less. I can choose not to eat the full meal, and it will cost me no less. In monetary terms.

However, economics looks are more that just money. It factors in opportunity cost. For instance, if I don't eat the full meal, what does it cost me? Perhaps dissatisfaction that I did not get my perceived full money value for the food. Therefore, my opportunity cost of eating half the meal could be equated to, say, $5-$8.

However, if I do eat the full meal when I'm no longer hungry, what is my opportunity cost? It would be discomfort from being over-full; additional calories, fat, carbs, sugar, etc.; gained weight; guilt for eating when I know I shouldn't have; increased health risks (via a cumulative effect); and the list can go on.

Economists recommend that people ignore sunk costs. It's over, it's done, it can't be undone. Do not let it affect the decisions you make now. Seen in this light, it seems clear what your decision should be when it comes to polishing off that meal, even though you're not hungry: don't do it. The opportunity cost of cleaning your plate is too high.

So next time you go out to eat and your order is placed before you, don't say to yourself, "I have to eat everything. I paid for it. I need to get my full value." Your full value will be reached when you hit equilibrium: your hunger is gone and you've enjoyed the meal. If you keep eating past that point, you're losing value because you're no longer 'satisfied.' You're overfull, courting health problems, and feeling slightly ill.

So remember! Don't let the price of the meal determine how much of it you eat! I, at least, will try to keep that in mind.

Words and Action. Lies and Truth.

2008-03-09T08:46:00.000-07:00

I am so tired of the polite lie. The encouragement because it's what people think I want to hear, instead of the truth which may sting, but is what I need to hear. If the dress make me look fat, tell me. I'd rather I'm told than I go out and think I look nice when in fact I look like a barge and people view me with disgust.

I applied for a job transfer at McCrometer. Since I changed my degree to Marketing, I started looking around at my options. Working in Accounting, doing Accounts Receivable and Credit and Collections as I have for two and a half years isn't exactly in line with a Marketing degree. When I changed my major, I had a meeting with Human Resources to plan a career path for myself. The two paths open to me are Customer Service, and Marketing. Steve, the HR manager, assured me that he'd let me know when someone opened in either department. I depended on him, as the HR manager and someone assisting me with my career development, to stay true to his word.

For the second time in two years, he failed me.

Shortly after that meeting, a customer service position opened. I wasn't qualified because I wasn't bilingual. I could accept that.

In February, another customer service position opened. I applied for it since being bilingual wasn't required. I interviewed well. I have many skills that are necessary for customer service. Hell, customer service IS my job. I spend most of my time clearing up their errors. I have a unique perspective to bring to that department that no one else who applied for the position have: I understand the importance of ensuring orders are taken accurately while protecting the interests of the company, and the importance of ensuring that we have accurate customer information.

The customer service supervisor scheduled a second meeting with me to let me know her decision. Then she postponed it by a day. Come to find out, Human Resources had asked her to delay making her decision so she could consider further. With that additional time, they presented her with an candidate to interview from outside the company. This candidate had all the qualities that I had, and which had made me her top choice. There was only one difference: the other candidate had experience working in manufacturing. My only experience was the AR/Credit and Collections side of it. While she and I both put a positive spin on her decision - I do like Pam, I respect her, and I do understand that in her position she needed someone who could also start more quickly than I probably could have, since I'd have to train a replacement for myself first - I still felt betrayed by Human Resources. I had thought they were supposed to be helping me develop along the career path I had chosen. Why had they deliberately sabotaged me? If the only difference between me and the other candidate was manufacturing experience...please. They'd still have to go through the full product training that I'd have to do. There wouldn't have been that much difference.

Two years ago, I had applied for another position in the company - in Human Resources, as well. At the time I was turn down for that position, I was told by Steve that he would assist me in developing my skills in that area, he would involve me in planning committees for various events. It was only words, and no follow through. I've never been included in any of those committees.

Now apparently Steve's assurances that he would assist me in my career path are also proven to be words and lies, not actions and truth.

I like working at McCrometer. I've been there two and a half years, which is a record for me. It's still one of the better places I've worked. I like my manager. I never wake up dreading the thought of going to work - and usually after a year there are some mornings where I feel that way. I respect and like Kerry, the CEO. He has a management style that I think should be emulated by more people.

I don't particularly care for my VP, since his management styles seems to be completely at odds with the other VPs and he insists on maintaining a distance from the department that definitely makes me feel that I'm nothing more than a name on a spreadsheet to him. I doubt he actually knows my name on the rare occasions he sees me walking down a hall. I definitely know that he puts no store in my recommendations and suggestions when it comes to my job.

It's frustrating to want to grow, learn, do more and find that the door is being constantly closed in my face. There's no room for growth in my current position, and that means no room for significantly increased pay. The one opportunity for growth in my department was slammed resoundingly shut before I really knew it was there. The next logical step from my position was Accountant when Michelle moved to another position. They decided immediately to hire from outside the company. The woman they hired has a bachelors, yes - but not in accounting. And she annoys the hell out of me. She seems to think she's in charge of the rest of us, and that's just not the case.

As much as I like the company, between my manager and Human Resources, I've gotten the hint. There's no future for me unless I want to keep doing what I'm now doing for the rest of my life. Well, I don't want to. The pay is shit. I've done the research. It is not nearly what it should be for this area, for my experience, and with my education. Compensating for the pay is the people and company - I like them both (mostly). I consider many of my coworkers aquaintance-friends.

However, I can't live like this indefinitely. I've decided that I'm definitely NOT taking advantage of the tuition reimbursement package the company offers. If I did, I would be obligated to stay for two years after I get my degree. Personally I feel that's unreasonable since McCrometer didn't provide tuition reimbursement for the first half of my education. Regardless, as the company has made clear, there's no future for me there so I'll not obligate myself to stay beyond the point getting my degree. I have to think of myself, my needs, my wants, and my family. I came to California because it was the best choice I had that would let me stay in school. Once that goal is accomplished....::shrug:: I'll miss McCrometer, and I'm sure I'll never find a company like it again. However, it's been a year and a half since I've seen my family. My mother isn't in the best health. My neices and nephews don't remember what I look like. I miss my dad. I need to go home, or a job that lets me visit more often. California and McCrometer aren't going to give me that.

I hate it, too. I really do like working for this company, but I no longer have any faith that I've found the place where I can work and stay. For all the claims that the company cares about associates and prefers to promote from within, I've found the truth in the actions. The actions clearly state that they'd prefer to hire from without rather than give their associates the opportunities to grow. And hell - if they can hire an accountant for $50-$70K a year, why the hell can't they pay me a wage that's fair? Yeah, I'm sure about that pay rate, too. If the company didn't want us to know, they shouldn't have advertised the job outside the company. We found it when we started wondering why there wasn't an internal posting.

It's been a week or two since I was turned down for the customer service position. It's been festering. I needed to vent. Maybe it'll stop festering now, though I doubt it. It still feels too much like a betrayal. It definitely confirms that I can't trust Steve.

Miss Independent

2007-12-07T00:25:00.001-08:00

Independence is overrated.

It's past midnight, my alarm is going to go off in four and a half hours, and I can't sleep. Tomorrow morning is going to be just wonderful.

I'm depressed tonight, God alone knows why.

So many times, I've listened to people say, "You're so independent, Anna. I think that's great." I don't laugh at them. And I don't cry. I deserve major brownie points for each. Independence, you see, isn't always a choice. Sometimes it's just the hand you're dealt, a consequence of a basic personality aspect that you're either born with or learn to develope. In my case, I think it's both.

My mom tells me that even as a baby I was independent. I didn't want to be held except when I wanted to be held. I was walking at nine months and out of the crib at a year or so because I had started putting myself to bed and falling on my head when I decided I wanted to get up. It was just safer all around to not have me climbing out of the crib. My mom says that she'd get up to take me to bed to find that I was already there and asleep. So even as a toddler, I had that streak. How much of it, though, was nature and how much of it was self-defense? Katie has never been the sharing type, and I can't imagine that at two years old she was happy to have someone else around needing Mom's attention. With Beth soon following... Yeah, I can see how a natural determination to do it myself quickly became a necessary independence.

There's a flip side to independence. There's a price. When you think of an independent woman, you think of someone single, making it on her own, doing what she wants without having to answer to anyone. You think of someone who can move on a moment's notice, wherever she wants to go.

You don't think of the fact that independence is also very, very lonely. In all the world, the independent woman has no one that thinks of her first. Or second, third, or fourth. And independent woman can take care of herself, after all. She doesn't need anyone - and no one needs her.

When there's a death in the family, everyone has someone to comfort them. The daughter of the deceased has her husband. The son has his wife. The spouse has his/her children, siblings, parents. The grandchildren have their spouses. As I learned when my grandfather, and then my uncle, died the independent woman has no one. She's one of the mass and no one gives her a thought, so she turns her attention to taking care of others and saves her tears for later. Those who might comfort her are too caught in their own pain, and are being comforted themselves.

When there's joy in her life, there's no one to share it with. During the holidays, there's no one to make plans with, to share traditions with. Major milestones, proud accomplishments, aren't celebrated because there's no one to celebrate them with. There's no one to think that maybe it would be nice if someone else made an effort to mark the occasion with a celebration of some kind.

Everyone has their family, and their families should come first. That's the way it needs to be. Don't envy the independent woman. You have what she probably wants most.

Independence isn't always a choice. Sometimes it just is. It's hard to be anything but independent when you've never had the opportunity to be anything else. When the sum total of dating opportunities by the time you hit your 30's is just two. The guy who asked you to your senior prom the day before - and who you never knew, during four years of school together, had the slightest interest in you. The guy that worked for your dad and you thought was more interested on getting on his good side than in you. Didn't go to prom for several reasons - most of which I regret now - and wasn't interested in being used.

I'm 32 years old, and I would gladly sacrifice some of this precious independence to know that somewhere in there world there is someone who puts me first. That when I'm grieving, they'll want to comfort me before anyone else. That when I'm happy, they'll want to be there to share it. That when I've accomplished something, they'll want to plan a celebration to show how proud they are of me.

But I want this with someone who loves me for being me. I don't want to revamp my personality just to attract someone. It wouldn't be me then - it would be an artificial personality. How could I be happy with that?

If the future holds what the past has held, then I can look forward to a lifetime of independence. It's a depressing thought. It's a sobering one. It's one that I've come to accept as all but inevitable. I don't want to change myself into something I'm not just to ward off loneliness. If I can't be accepted and loved for who I really am, then so be it. I'll live with being far down on the list of anyone's concerns. I'll take care of myself, prepare to face the difficulties of old age alone, and find some happiness in that. There are, after all, far worse things in life.

I usually like being alone. I'm content with my own company. But sometimes, I wonder... would I have liked being a wife and mother more?

And now it's 3 hours, 45 minutes before the alarm so I'll try to sleep again. Maybe this venting will have purged my mind enough that I can.

You Gotta Stand For Something, Or You'll Fall For Anything...

2007-12-06T20:01:00.000-08:00

Aaron Tippin says it all. :-)

Some people say that I'm bullheaded. Stubborn. Too confrontational. I admit the first and second. I AM bullheaded and stubborn. Fortunately, I'm also impatient which kinda offsets the bullheaded and stubborn. :-)

But the too-confrontational bit...that almost makes me laugh. I hate confrontations. The thought of a confrontation twists up my guts and makes me want to throw up. I avoid them as much as possible. I've always been that way, and I probably always will. And yet, I guess I must participate in more than my share of confrontation for folks to say that I'm too confrontational. So how does it happen?

Have you ever been involved in a situation where you didn't agree with what was happening? That you thought it was wrong - but not serious enough for you to do anything about it? Or you didn't want to get involved, or the stress just 'wasn't worth it' to confront? So you didn't. You smiled and kept your mouth shut. Or you went somewhere else. You stopped talking, or you just took whatever was being dished out. Yeah, you avoided the confrontation, probably saved yourself some stress, and went on you way. You maybe let it go and it never bothered you again. Or maybe it stewed in you, cropping up at odd moments to bite at you, generating resentment and unhappiness.

Either way, you've chosen how you're dealing with the situation. But what about the next person who has to deal the person you've avoided that confrontation with? Will they be subjected to the same pattern of behavior that you were? If you had stood up to the other person, could you have spared anyone else from the actions and attitudes that you had experienced? And if you could have - wouldn't that have been reason enough to do it?

Oh, sure - most of the time a confrontation, minor or major, doesn't really change anyone's pattern of behavior. People just get mad and nothing changes. But sometimes, sometimes....something does change. Something you say may get through. It may make the other person think and realize that maybe they were wrong, or there may have been a better way to approach a situation.

Don't scoff. It happens. It's happened to me. People have said things to me during a confrontation that initially pissed me off - but which stayed on my mind longer that the temper, which led me to evaluate the actions I'd taken, the things I'd done, from a different perspective and realize that yes - I could have handled things differently. And in the future, I found I did handle it differently. If I'd never had the confrontation, though, I may never have become aware of the behavior that was problematic, and never have changed it. I would have continued to repeat it.

There's also the fact that I firmly believe in standing up for your own opinions and your right to voice them. Silence is often perceived as agreement. But if you think something is wrong, then you have the responsibility to say so. If you don't, who will? Who will protect the people to come after you? Or the people around you now? Oh, and don't give me that 'it's not my responsibility' or 'they can look after themselves.' That's just selfish. People should look after each other - friends and strangers alike.

Some people do the diplomacy thing. In some comfrontations, that's appropriate. But in some - it's just a copout. It's a refusal to acknowledge that a wrong has been done and needs to be recognized. When the diplomacy is the type that assumes all blame, it is doubly wrong because the refusal is compounded with a lie. If you believe you are not wrong, then why the hell say or do anything that suggests that you might be?

In most confrontations, diplomacy allows both parties to work out the differences, and allows both parties to recognize mistakes they made without getting more angry with each other. In most confrontations, diplomacy and it's pal compromise are the best way to go. In most cases.

But sometimes - sometimes you need to take a stand. You need to be blunt, and stubborn, and you need to insist on the right. You might be wrong. But what matters is that you believe you're right. And it doesn't mean you have to argue. You speak your piece, you voice your opinion, you stand up for what you believe - and don't follow anyone into the gutter.

A confrontation isn't a fight or an argument. It's a difference of opinions and/or perceptions. Mature people can have confrontations without causing offense. Confrontations are not always a bad thing. They can be very constructive and beneficial. They clear the air, open the way for new perceptions and viewpoints, offer a chance to blend perspectives and attitudes.

And they still twist my guts into knots, which could be the reason why I'm 'too confrontational.' I want to get the misery over with so I bring the issue to a head and force it into the open. And I feel better about myself for taking my stand. The times in the past when I didn't - I felt worse. My guts weren't twisted, but I felt ashamed. I let myself down, and I let down people who may have needed me to take that stand.

I have friends. I have family. But I am alone. I learned a long time ago not to depend on others to defend me, no matter how much I wish they would. I learned not to expect people to stand beside me in a fight. They won't. I learned that for every one person willing to speak up there are at least 50 people who feel the same way but choose to remain silent.

So let me be 'too confrontational.' Let my voice speak up for those who, for their own reasons, choose to remain silent. Let my guts twist in a knot so someone else can feel that someone cares enough to try to protect them, look out for them.

Let me be me - let me choose what I stand for without making me defend it or feel guilty for having the courage and strength to make a stand. You can handle confrontations the way that best works for you - but please don't criticize or judge or tell me I'm wrong in how I choose to handle them. We all have different priorities and values, and how we handle confrontations is a reflection of that.

A Permanent Mark

2007-11-24T10:21:00.000-08:00

Have you ever felt like you were just...marking time? That you should be doing something else, something more? That you should be contributing more to the greater good? That's there's more to life that your own little pocket? That you need to leave a permanent mark?

By permanent mark, I mean do something that outlives you, and has a lasting effect. You improve the world, little or large, by being who you are, or sharing your talent, or doing something that impacts and improves lives in some way. Some splash their mark for all the world to see. Some prefer to remain anonymous.

I feel like that a lot. It's that wish to contribute to the future and to leave the world a little better than it was which has always made teaching kind of a wishful thought of mine. It seems the ideal way to help the most people in a basic, fundamental way that will continue helping them throughout their lives.

So why haven't I actually become a teacher? Altruism is great, but the sad fact is that everyone has to make a living. Teacher's are poorly paid, they're handicapped by politics, and schools are becoming a dangerous place for everyone.

But, also - the doubts, scorn, and disbelief expressed by various people when I've mentioned teaching pretty much convinced me I couldn't do it. Even the encouragement and belief by others couldn't get the doubt out of me. Over the years that's happened a lot with various career choices I've considered. It happens even today.

There is one thing, though, that I've never heard "you can't do that" on. I've always had support and encouragement with my writing. I've spent 16 years first developing it, then allowing it atrophy, while I was Pern fandom. But writing is one thing I can do.

I've been to see several movies over the past couple of weeks, and St. Jude has been playing a new donations request. I don't earn enough money to make a real donation, but a thought occurred to me. There's a way to combine something I can do and with leaving a permanent mark. Why couldn't a write a book and donate a significant portion of the royalties to St. Jude?

There are a couple of hurdles, of course. Getting published, for one. I admit that I haven't seriously tried and the reason is because I'm afraid. I'm used to failing more often that succeeding, so I'm used to that disappoint. But I've never really tried something that was so important to me. Getting published has always been a dream, and dreams as safe things. They're the wishful one-day that, if you never actually try to reach for it, then you never really fail to attain it. You can keep believing that if you had really wanted to, you would have done it. But if you reach for the dream, and you fail...then there's no more lying or hiding. And with writing, and publishing - there's a lot of failing before you succeed.

So, I guess it really comes down to a question: Is the urge to leave a permanent mark greater than the fear of failure?

Holidays

2007-11-18T14:59:00.000-08:00

In 32 short years, I've tried to approach the holidays several different ways. Spend them with friends. Spend them with strangers. Spend them alone. Ignore them altogether. Go home and spend the with family. When you're single and you live someplace where you don't have family, the holidays are difficult and depressing and it takes conscious, constant effort to not be depressed.

The ideal way to spend the holidays, I think most people would agree, is with family. Unfortunately it's not always possible. For me, this year, it's not possible. They're half a continent away and I just can't afford to go and they can't afford to bring me. So it'll be another holiday season alone - but this year, I'm going to honestly try to enjoy it and celebrate it in the spirit intended.

In the past, when I've spent the holiday alone and didn't ignore it, I was pretty depressed. I kept thinking of where I'd rather be and that put a damper on everything. The holidays should not be a depressing time!

The years that I ignored the holidays, at the time, was all right. It was still depressing because you can only ignore it so much. But - the year just didn't seem complete, or right. I didn't feel right. I have a friend who doesn't celebrate Thanksgiving in a traditional way, and pretty much ignores Christmas. I can understand why she does, and the logic behind her reasoning is sound. It works for her. But it's not right for me. I want my holidays.

Thanksgiving is a family tradition. There are certain recipes prepared for that meal that aren't made at any other time. It's a family event, a day that in my memories was always a guaranteed time that everyone would be together, and happy, and there would be good food and good times. For me, this year, I'm going to celebrate Thanksgiving, alone, but in my family tradition. I'm going to bake a turkey, and sweet potato casserole with marshmallows, green bean casserole, dressing and rolls. I'm going to have pecan pie. And while it may feed me for a week, that's okay. :-) Leftovers are a Thanksgiving tradition. I'll skip the ham, though - there's no way I can manage to fit it in, so I'll save a little of the tradition for the together-with-family times.

Christmas will be more difficult to enjoy alone, but I'm going to try. I've bought presents this year. I know my family won't mind that I couldn't spend much money on them, and I started early. Each gift, however, was acquired with a lot of thought regarding the recipient and what would most suit them, what would make them smile, and what they would appreciate most. Well, except for Brookelyn. She's still too young to really care. :-) One Christmas tradition that I remember from my childhood are the Christmas lights. We wouldn't decorate ourselves, but when I was a kid my parents would pack us up in the car one night during the season and we'd drive around, looking at the Christmas lights others would put up. I always loved looking at them, so this year I'll do the Christmas lights tour myself. Maybe I'll ask a friend if she and her kids want to come with me.

I'll even wait until Christmas evening to open my gifts. Traditionally they'd be opened first thing in the morning, but I was rereading The Dark Is Rising last week and noticed that other than opening one gift in the morning, they waited until the evening to open the presents - kinda extending the anticipation and enjoyment of the day. So I'll try that this year, and have my family on the phone while I do it so I can share it with them.

Not celebrating Christmas has always bothered my mom. It made her sad, because Christmas is a very important holiday for her and it hurts her to know that I'm missing it. She's sending me a little tree this year and I've promised to put it up. She's also sending me a nativity. Maybe I'll do midnight mass this year. I haven't been to church in a while, but I know where a Catholic church is here, and I've always loved midnight mass. Maybe I'll make her really happy and try going to church on a regular basis, too. :-)

I love Christmas music. I love the decorated trees, the ornaments, and the very feel of the season. Not that it feels the same in California, what with the 'season' being t-shirt weather warm, but hey - nothing is perfect. :-)

One thing I don't love about Christmas: the stores are selling it before Halloween is over. That's just wrong. Each holiday has it's time and place and by shoving Christmas at us for a quarter of the year it cheapens and lessens the holiday. Other than buying gifts, I refuse to do anything at all Christmasy until after Thanksgiving. I refuse to think about Thanksgiving until after Halloween.

So here's to celebrating the holidays in a happy, cheerful, and positive mood!

Anna

Why Blog Now?

2007-11-18T14:30:00.000-08:00

I have long held a dislike of blogs. I have good reason for that, too. Too often it's a used as a substitution for actually communicating with your friends in the give-and-take of a conversation. There's nothing private, or personal, or special about a blog. It's just a newsletter and it says, to me, that I am not a close enough or important enough or unique enough friend to someone to warrant speaking directly to.

I know this isn't how most people who use their blogs to share the current events in their life feel, and I don't hold it against them. But it's how I feel, and yes - I am insecure enough to feel that this is a tactful, discreet hint that I need to back off. So I back off, and when my friend(s) don't seem to notice, that tells me that my assumption was correct. I don't care any less for them, but at least I have the comfort of knowing I'm not pestering them and that when/if I do need them they won't be so irritated and tired of me that my phone call or email is unwelcome.

There's also the fact that a lot of the time I just don't have the time to read a dozen or so blogs and respond to them. In IM I can talk to my friends and do other things - like write, or work on homework, or IM with other people, or update lists, or whatever else I need to do. Hey, I'm a multi-tasker. It's what I do. :-)

So, with that said, why have I now decided to become a blogger?

Because blogging is excellent for one thing: sharing thoughts and ideas that you can't expound on in a conversation, but you just need to write down and share. You don't need a give and take in ideas or thoughts you have, and they seldom have reason to come up in conversation. But these beliefs are an integral part of a person and they deserve to be shared among friends and, yes, relatives. It's easy to know the surface of someone, but it's harder to really know the deeper part of a person. The opportunities to do that don't arise often.

So, now I hope to be a consistent blogger with ideas, thoughts, frustrations, rants, happiness, and a whole gamut of other things that I feel a need to write and share - but don't necessary need to have a whole, devoted conversation about - and which I won't know or be hurt when my friends don't read it, don't care to read it, or zone out before I've finished speaking. Yeah, folks, you can tell when someone you're speaking to stops listening. :-) When you stop talking in the middle of the sentence and they never notice it's pretty obvious. :-)

And that's why I choose to blog now. :-)