I used to be one of those people who, when January 1st rolled around, would think, "What things can I set out to do this year?" Then I realized that putting together a list of resolutions or goals for the year is silly, because I'm going to forget them within a week anyway. I could write them down, but then I'd have to carry around a ratty piece of paper for 365 days. How inconvenient!
I realize that 2008 is well into its second week already, but I'm wondering - does anybody out there still make New Year's resolutions? If so, what have you set as your targets for 2008?
In the interest of playing fair, here are a few items that I might put on such a list if I were inclined to do so, and if I actually thought I'd follow through on them:
- Finish school (Actually, I will be doing this one, whether I like it or not, so it doesn't necessarily fit here. But it is something I'll be spending considerable effort on for the next 4 and a half months.)
- Get a job (see comment on previous item)
- Lose weight (Yeah, I know - I could stand to lose a few pounds, but I don't really see myself putting much energy into this right now.)
- Read more (aside from what is assigned in classes)
- Write (see previous comment)
- Draw/paint (see previous comment)
- Travel
Showing posts with label employment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label employment. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Monday, January 07, 2008
Dear Jesus and the G.O.P.
Here's a little story for my Xian and Republican friends.
Once upon a time there was a couple who'd been together for many years. We'll call them B1 and B2. In every respect but the legal one, you could say they were married. B1 decided to return to school for a graduate degree, and gave up gainful employment to do so. Naturally, this sacrifice of income was accompanied by a loss of health insurance benefits as well. Fortunately, B2 had a job that offered health insurance for both of them, and so all was well. B2's employer, however, was bought out by a company less inclined to offer insurance coverage to the euphemistically-termed "domestic partners" of a particular subset of their employees, but agreed to continue the coverage for employees who had received it in the past.
This situation went on until the final year of B1's education, when B2's employer decided that they would no longer pay any portion of the insurance premium for B1. While the opportunity still existed to receive coverage through the employer, the cost for B2 would increase by almost 400%. Seeking a more acceptable alternative, B1 decided to enroll in the school's insurance plan, which was much cheaper and offered good coverage. The catch was that for 21 days at the beginning of the calendar year, before the school term began, B1 would be without insurance. B1 ordered enough of the necessary prescriptions to remain sane until the new coverage kicked in, and carefully scheduled medical appointments after the 22nd day of the new year.
But this stop-gap measure would prove inadequate. On the 7th day of the new year, B1 received a letter, dated the last day of the previous year, indicating that B1 was not eligible to use the prescription drug service at the time the order was placed, 5 days before that year ended. B1 was confused - B2 had been paying the same premium for insurance coverage throughout the year. Why would coverage be terminated in the middle of the year, and why would they not have been notified? There was obviously an error, and although B1 anticipated a fight from the insurance company, it would not be difficult to rectify - or so B1 assumed.
As it turned out, B1's coverage had been terminated, according to the insurance company, on the first day of May in the previous year. This was ridiculous - B1 told the representative that claims had been paid and prescriptions filled through November, no questions asked. After putting B1 on hold, the representative returned to state that B2's employer had been slow turning in the paperwork to update their records - instead of notifying the insurance company in May, they waited until the 4th of December to do so. As a result, the insurance company continued to cover B1 up to the point that update was made, despite the fact that the employer didn't want B1 to receive benefits after April 30th.
My question for the Jesus-fucking Republicans out there is this: do you think that couples like B1 and B2, who are currently denied the right to legal recognition of their relationship, ought to receive the same treatment that legally married couples receive, vis-a-vis said relationships?
Answer carefully, and stay tuned to find out how this situation is resolved.
Once upon a time there was a couple who'd been together for many years. We'll call them B1 and B2. In every respect but the legal one, you could say they were married. B1 decided to return to school for a graduate degree, and gave up gainful employment to do so. Naturally, this sacrifice of income was accompanied by a loss of health insurance benefits as well. Fortunately, B2 had a job that offered health insurance for both of them, and so all was well. B2's employer, however, was bought out by a company less inclined to offer insurance coverage to the euphemistically-termed "domestic partners" of a particular subset of their employees, but agreed to continue the coverage for employees who had received it in the past.
This situation went on until the final year of B1's education, when B2's employer decided that they would no longer pay any portion of the insurance premium for B1. While the opportunity still existed to receive coverage through the employer, the cost for B2 would increase by almost 400%. Seeking a more acceptable alternative, B1 decided to enroll in the school's insurance plan, which was much cheaper and offered good coverage. The catch was that for 21 days at the beginning of the calendar year, before the school term began, B1 would be without insurance. B1 ordered enough of the necessary prescriptions to remain sane until the new coverage kicked in, and carefully scheduled medical appointments after the 22nd day of the new year.
But this stop-gap measure would prove inadequate. On the 7th day of the new year, B1 received a letter, dated the last day of the previous year, indicating that B1 was not eligible to use the prescription drug service at the time the order was placed, 5 days before that year ended. B1 was confused - B2 had been paying the same premium for insurance coverage throughout the year. Why would coverage be terminated in the middle of the year, and why would they not have been notified? There was obviously an error, and although B1 anticipated a fight from the insurance company, it would not be difficult to rectify - or so B1 assumed.
As it turned out, B1's coverage had been terminated, according to the insurance company, on the first day of May in the previous year. This was ridiculous - B1 told the representative that claims had been paid and prescriptions filled through November, no questions asked. After putting B1 on hold, the representative returned to state that B2's employer had been slow turning in the paperwork to update their records - instead of notifying the insurance company in May, they waited until the 4th of December to do so. As a result, the insurance company continued to cover B1 up to the point that update was made, despite the fact that the employer didn't want B1 to receive benefits after April 30th.
My question for the Jesus-fucking Republicans out there is this: do you think that couples like B1 and B2, who are currently denied the right to legal recognition of their relationship, ought to receive the same treatment that legally married couples receive, vis-a-vis said relationships?
Answer carefully, and stay tuned to find out how this situation is resolved.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Long time no post (again)
Anyone who would like to offer congrats on me ending this 11-day gap in posts, here's a suggested method. It's been a while (school does that to ya). What's new with me, then? Mostly school - hell, what am I saying? I've done nothing but school. Spent a weekend in Seattle recently, which was fun. Got some photos, saw some stuff. I found that it's a really easy city to navigate, and has a radically different feel from New York. In many ways I like NYC better, but Seattle is a much younger city, more open, more "hip." I could live in either one, but I don't know that I'd make it in NYC longer than 3 or 4 years. I could see myself in the Seattle area for the long term. Ben has applied for a job in Kent, which is a bit south of the SeaTac airport. Fortunately, I already know which bus route runs between Kent and downtown Seattle.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Bureaucratic asshattery, part XIV
So peeved right now, just HAVE to post or brain will a splode.
I came in this a.m. to work in the computer lab, cuz I have a review this afternoon and need to get stuff finished. Lab should open at 8. Not for the first time, it didn't. I waited. About 8:05, I asked the other kid standing around if he was waiting for the lab too, & he said yes, so I went to the office of our Director of Technology to tell him.
His reaction: "Jenny must be running late." (I almost thought he was going to tell me to just go wait for her, but then he got out of his chair.)
Me: "This has happened before..."
Him: "Yes, but the lab has also opened early before. People have lives." (I don't remember his exact phrasing, but his overall tone was pretty dismissive.
Me: "Well, I have a life too, and work that needs to get done."
What annoyed me so much about this was his dismissive tone, and the apparent attitude that when they say the lab opens at 8 am, what they really mean is an average of 8 am. They need to clarify that, I think. Also, I'm pretty sure that if you worked in a real job, Jenny, "having a life" wouldn't cut it as a reason for repeated tardiness.
I came in this a.m. to work in the computer lab, cuz I have a review this afternoon and need to get stuff finished. Lab should open at 8. Not for the first time, it didn't. I waited. About 8:05, I asked the other kid standing around if he was waiting for the lab too, & he said yes, so I went to the office of our Director of Technology to tell him.
His reaction: "Jenny must be running late." (I almost thought he was going to tell me to just go wait for her, but then he got out of his chair.)
Me: "This has happened before..."
Him: "Yes, but the lab has also opened early before. People have lives." (I don't remember his exact phrasing, but his overall tone was pretty dismissive.
Me: "Well, I have a life too, and work that needs to get done."
What annoyed me so much about this was his dismissive tone, and the apparent attitude that when they say the lab opens at 8 am, what they really mean is an average of 8 am. They need to clarify that, I think. Also, I'm pretty sure that if you worked in a real job, Jenny, "having a life" wouldn't cut it as a reason for repeated tardiness.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Irrelevant and obfuscatory
If I ever write a text book, I'm going to try really hard to make it actually useful. And provide relevant content. And make sure it's clear - or at least reasonably so.
Within the first 3 days of classes, I've been frustrated by both of my textbooks.
In one of them, the author(s) is/are discussing the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning, we're told, is informally called "top-down" - it starts at the higher level of theory and works down to details and observations. Induction, in contrast, works from specific observations up to general theories. For this reason, it is sometimes called a "bottom-up" approach to research. Then we get this little gem, inserted parenthetically:
Yes, they include an exclamation point, presumably to emphasize the importance of this clarification between the two phrases. And thank goodness for that, because if I'm in a discussion with someone and they mention inductive reasoning, I don't want to embarrass myself by looking around for a glass or bottle to drain before grabbing my coat, slapping a fiver on the counter, and dashing out the door! Not only was the information irrelevant, but it completely derailed my train of thought. Now every time I see an opening parenthesis, I don't know if I should be paying attention or not.
In my GIS textbook, the first sentence of the first chapter is:
I had to read it four times to figure out what they hell they were telling me. I wrote technical documentation for 5 years, and I'm pretty sure that sentence would never have made it past my reviewers (and they weren't writers).
Obviously, expertise in a field of study does not translate into an ability to communicate one's expertise. Sadly, it seems that most textbooks are chosen by others who, while experts in that field, frequently share that lack of understanding good communication. I guess it's the college textbook version of the circle of life.
Within the first 3 days of classes, I've been frustrated by both of my textbooks.
In one of them, the author(s) is/are discussing the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning, we're told, is informally called "top-down" - it starts at the higher level of theory and works down to details and observations. Induction, in contrast, works from specific observations up to general theories. For this reason, it is sometimes called a "bottom-up" approach to research. Then we get this little gem, inserted parenthetically:
(Please note that it's bottom up and not bottoms up, which is the kind of thing the bartender says to customers when he's trying to close for the night!)
Yes, they include an exclamation point, presumably to emphasize the importance of this clarification between the two phrases. And thank goodness for that, because if I'm in a discussion with someone and they mention inductive reasoning, I don't want to embarrass myself by looking around for a glass or bottle to drain before grabbing my coat, slapping a fiver on the counter, and dashing out the door! Not only was the information irrelevant, but it completely derailed my train of thought. Now every time I see an opening parenthesis, I don't know if I should be paying attention or not.
In my GIS textbook, the first sentence of the first chapter is:
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are also commonly known as Geographical Information Systems outside North America.
I had to read it four times to figure out what they hell they were telling me. I wrote technical documentation for 5 years, and I'm pretty sure that sentence would never have made it past my reviewers (and they weren't writers).
Obviously, expertise in a field of study does not translate into an ability to communicate one's expertise. Sadly, it seems that most textbooks are chosen by others who, while experts in that field, frequently share that lack of understanding good communication. I guess it's the college textbook version of the circle of life.
Friday, August 17, 2007
I'm in love
Okay, I know I need to get this coursework finished for the summer, but I have to tell both of my readers about this: I'm in love with Linden Hills. Really. This place has everything. If I could afford it, I would pay $1200 a month to live in a 600 sq ft studio apartment in this neighborhood (and I'd probably have to - the one downside is that this is an affluent, mostly white neighborhood; efforts to revive poor neighborhoods often result in gentrification, which looks similar).
They have everything. Employment, shopping, housing, green space, historic buildings, multimodal transit....
They're right on Lake Harriet (on the left side of this pic, taken from linden-hills.com).
It's what New Urbanists wish they could achieve, but it's been there for over 60 years. (And time is a crucial element here, so maybe some NU neighborhoods will eventually be like it.)
The commercial hub at 43rd St W and Upton Ave S makes the 50th and France retail node in Edina look like a turd wrapped in burnt hair. (And don't even get me started on those suburban shitholes like Arbor Fakes.)
They have everything. Employment, shopping, housing, green space, historic buildings, multimodal transit....
They're right on Lake Harriet (on the left side of this pic, taken from linden-hills.com).
It's what New Urbanists wish they could achieve, but it's been there for over 60 years. (And time is a crucial element here, so maybe some NU neighborhoods will eventually be like it.)
The commercial hub at 43rd St W and Upton Ave S makes the 50th and France retail node in Edina look like a turd wrapped in burnt hair. (And don't even get me started on those suburban shitholes like Arbor Fakes.)
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Binge blogging
I went for a few days there early this month with no entries. I was feeling like crap and avoiding the world, spending as much time as possible unconscious. Now in the past 3 days I've made 9 posts (out of the 13 for this month). Granted, a couple of them are of the Tourette's variety, but still. I'm wondering if friends will be staging an intervention and sending me into a 12-step program. I'm concerned about my ability to control my blogging. I keep telling myself, "I can tell when I've had enough. I can quit when I want to. I'm in control, really." But I'm not sure if I believe it.
Will ours be one of the thousands of homes torn apart by blogging? If I over-blog, will I become abusive and mean? Is this going to affect my ability to hold a job? Can those people over there smell the blog on my breath? Is that an alien-Elvis hybrid watching me from that unmarked government surveillance vehicle!?
AAAAAGGGGHHHH!
Will ours be one of the thousands of homes torn apart by blogging? If I over-blog, will I become abusive and mean? Is this going to affect my ability to hold a job? Can those people over there smell the blog on my breath? Is that an alien-Elvis hybrid watching me from that unmarked government surveillance vehicle!?
AAAAAGGGGHHHH!
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Friday, June 22, 2007
Friday, June 08, 2007
Summer Vacation, Part 2
It's been a cool and wet summer so far. I've done some yard work, been sick a couple of times, visited my family back in NoDak, and gotten a haircut. Next Monday (the 11th) is officially the beginning of my summer class - I need to get ready for that, I guess.
Hmm....
Wow, I'm boring.
Hmm....
Wow, I'm boring.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Sorting socks
I'm sitting here folding laundry, sorting socks, and looking at this email I got about a summer internship (which, while in MS Word format, I can't open with MS Word - and yes, I know that reads as if I am in MS Word format ... maybe I am).
Here's what they're looking for....
Considering that right now, I'm feeling overwhelmed at the prospect of sorting socks, I'm really not feeling confident enough to even send my resume. And considering that the note arrived late last week, maybe they've already filled the position? I guess I need to pay closer attention to all those emails I get from "Graduate Landscape."
Here's what they're looking for....
Seeking a Landscape Design student who:
would be interested in an internship for the Summer of
2007 for compensation
can work approximately 40 hours per week
can give office design/drafting support
occasionally could fill in on a construction crew
would be able to reside Minneapolis area
has their own reliable transportation
is able to communicate effectively
whose design visions compliment our company’s
objective
whose instructor could recommend this student and
can attest to his/her abilities and design style
who has knowledge in the following fields:
o AutoCAD
o SketchUp
o Excel and Word
o Strong construction knowledge
o Plant knowledge
Considering that right now, I'm feeling overwhelmed at the prospect of sorting socks, I'm really not feeling confident enough to even send my resume. And considering that the note arrived late last week, maybe they've already filled the position? I guess I need to pay closer attention to all those emails I get from "Graduate Landscape."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
