...at least not by me. I've never sent any kind of mushy mass email before, be it one that I started or one that I am forwarding on from others. We've all gotten those, "Forward this on if..." emails. Many I just don't even read...for no other reason than after a while they annoyed me. I never was the kind to just hit the forward button and click on my entire address book just because I liked the message within an email...it just didn't seem genuine to me for me to send it, nor did it seem genuine to me if I received a mass email that was forwarded. Plus...who wants to scroll down an email for 20 minutes before you reach the actual message...all the wile running across bulks of writing that you think is the message that only turned out to be a list of emails from previous forwards.
I am sure that many people that forwarded messages to me thought that I would sincerely like the message within the email, so I am sorry that I may not have taken the time to read the email.
Well...I almost broke my string today...I nearly created a mass email today. I have created them before, but only to announce my website to family and friends so that they could see pictures of my daughter. But I had never before even begun an email that was meant to be mushy or sentimental. Tonight, I started to though, but as I perused my address book, I saw many people that I didn't know or that barely knew me...let's face it, my wife has many more friends than I do, so many of them were on the address book from the website announcement emails.
So I decided that rather than send out a mass email to people that barely know me, I'd post it here instead...at least those that read this blog have a better feeling for me than many of those in my own address book. Sad, but true. So here it is, as I envisioned that I would write it in the email....
This is my first mass email like this. It doesn't require that you forward it on, and I'm not trying to send anyone any messages with this. I'm just reading more, it's shocking I know, and in this book I am reading, I came across this poem that I have shed tears over every time I have read it.
It is a poem by Russell Kelfer...I am unsure of the title, but I think it is something along the effects of "You Are Who You Are For A Reason".
You are who you are for a reason.
You are part of an intricate plan.
You're a precious and perfect unique design,
Called God's special woman or man.
You look like you look for a reason.
Our God made no mistake.
He knit you together within the womb,
You're just what he wanted to make.
The parents you had were the ones he chose,
And no matter how you may feel,
They were custom-designed with God's plan in mind,
And they bear the Master's seal.
No, that trauma you faced was not easy,
And God wept that it hurt you so;
But it was allowed to shape your heart
So that into His likeness you'd grow.
You are who you are for a reason,
You've been formed by the Master's rod.
You are who you are, beloved,
Because there is a God!
I can't really explain why I am so touched by that poem, I just am. As I researched the poem a little more to make sure it wasn't altered or changed in the book, I found another poem by Russell Kelfer that's great as well. It's called "Wait" if you care to look it up.
Thank you for letting me share this poem with you. It was a good break that I needed from Supreme Court nominees, social security issues, tort reform, species banning, and all the other things that gets my blood boiling.
Saturday, August 27, 2005
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Not Your Grandma's Post Office Anymore...
"Neither snow - nor rain - nor heat - nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds." "But cars that are parked five feet from the mail box will forge a new standard of delivery...none."
The portion Highlighted in italics have been added by The Mad Hoosier. The new quote, along with the original, shall be copyrighted by The Mad Hoosier and used for the sole purpose of ridicule of the United States Post Office, or at least the division that is represented in Indiana.
Supposedly, there is no actual, official motto of the USPS...and I can see why. It's because they no longer live up to their billing. Back in the day, there were tales of men and women that braved the elements, hauling massive bags upon their shoulders, trudging through mud or muck, unwavering in their task to deliver messages to the masses. It is told that these heros were friendly, caring, even someone that one would bake cookies for on a rigid winter day.
Today, the USPS employees jaunt around playfully in vehicles that look like piles of clowns are going to jump out of at any moment. Delusions of grandeur fill many of their minds as they hold mail hostage, deciding on whims if it shall reach it's destination or not. They pay no mind to family concerns such as paying bills on time to meet their budget, whether a friend they miss has remembered their birthday, or whether legal circumstances can be made nightmarish by missing a summons. No, today's USPS employee would just as soon drive over a cliff as they would take two steps outside of their buggie. They may very well be vampires, doomed to burn alive should their skin touch the sunlight if one step is taken outside their "precious".
Heck with 'em, I say. I am almost certain that the post master, at least in my town, has attended the John Gotti School of Business. But that's ok...withhold my mail...see how much support you get from me in the future. From now on, all payments shall be made online or via the telephone. UPS or FedEx will get my business should birthday cards of packages need to be mailed. I don't need the rest of your junk mail anyway. Good Luck USPS...you can rot for all I care.
To explain what has my dander up against the blue bandits, I received a post card in our mail a while back expaining that too many cars on our street are blocking the mail boxes, and soon postal employees shall refrain from delivering to homes that would cause them to leave their vehicle to deliver mail. It wasn't addressed to me specifically, and I am sure that everyone on our street got the same post card. As I looked up and down the street, I saw many examples of cars parked directly in front of mail boxes. Our second car was parked at least several feet away from the mail box, so I thought we were ok.
I should explain that our street is filled with duplexes, scrunched together. Being duplexes, the mail boxes are side by side for any given two-unit building. The length of space from the edge of my driveway to the end of our property is 25 feet. Our cars are about 15 feet long, and we try to prevent kissing the neighbor's bumper with our car. The neighbor is typically on the edge of their property, so that typically leaves a good 8 feet of space for a mail truck to deliver mail.
Recently, there have been several incidents where we have been parked at least five feet from our set of mail boxes, and mail has been withheld. This is flat out unacceptable to me. Nevermind the days when their predecessors didn't have the luxury of sitting on their ass while working, how ridiculous is it to not be able to pull up to mailbox, and if there isn't enough room to pull directly out, to slip the transmission into Reverse, and then go about your way?
Some may argue, why are you parking one of your cars on the street anyway? That's a good point, but when there is only a one car driveway, and you have opposite schedules as your spouse, it is a great convienence to have one of us park out front rather than have to move each other's car every time we need to leave. I'm not asking them to hop out of their truck, hike three miles, dodge numerous obstacles to deliver the mail. I'm simply asking them to try the reverse in their car every now and again.
So that's my delimma today. If you are a USPS employee and any of this rings true for you, for shame. If you work for the post office and still hike your route, my hat's off to you! And if you are a post master, I'm sure you know where I think you can put my mail.
The portion Highlighted in italics have been added by The Mad Hoosier. The new quote, along with the original, shall be copyrighted by The Mad Hoosier and used for the sole purpose of ridicule of the United States Post Office, or at least the division that is represented in Indiana.
Supposedly, there is no actual, official motto of the USPS...and I can see why. It's because they no longer live up to their billing. Back in the day, there were tales of men and women that braved the elements, hauling massive bags upon their shoulders, trudging through mud or muck, unwavering in their task to deliver messages to the masses. It is told that these heros were friendly, caring, even someone that one would bake cookies for on a rigid winter day.
Today, the USPS employees jaunt around playfully in vehicles that look like piles of clowns are going to jump out of at any moment. Delusions of grandeur fill many of their minds as they hold mail hostage, deciding on whims if it shall reach it's destination or not. They pay no mind to family concerns such as paying bills on time to meet their budget, whether a friend they miss has remembered their birthday, or whether legal circumstances can be made nightmarish by missing a summons. No, today's USPS employee would just as soon drive over a cliff as they would take two steps outside of their buggie. They may very well be vampires, doomed to burn alive should their skin touch the sunlight if one step is taken outside their "precious".
Heck with 'em, I say. I am almost certain that the post master, at least in my town, has attended the John Gotti School of Business. But that's ok...withhold my mail...see how much support you get from me in the future. From now on, all payments shall be made online or via the telephone. UPS or FedEx will get my business should birthday cards of packages need to be mailed. I don't need the rest of your junk mail anyway. Good Luck USPS...you can rot for all I care.
To explain what has my dander up against the blue bandits, I received a post card in our mail a while back expaining that too many cars on our street are blocking the mail boxes, and soon postal employees shall refrain from delivering to homes that would cause them to leave their vehicle to deliver mail. It wasn't addressed to me specifically, and I am sure that everyone on our street got the same post card. As I looked up and down the street, I saw many examples of cars parked directly in front of mail boxes. Our second car was parked at least several feet away from the mail box, so I thought we were ok.
I should explain that our street is filled with duplexes, scrunched together. Being duplexes, the mail boxes are side by side for any given two-unit building. The length of space from the edge of my driveway to the end of our property is 25 feet. Our cars are about 15 feet long, and we try to prevent kissing the neighbor's bumper with our car. The neighbor is typically on the edge of their property, so that typically leaves a good 8 feet of space for a mail truck to deliver mail.
Recently, there have been several incidents where we have been parked at least five feet from our set of mail boxes, and mail has been withheld. This is flat out unacceptable to me. Nevermind the days when their predecessors didn't have the luxury of sitting on their ass while working, how ridiculous is it to not be able to pull up to mailbox, and if there isn't enough room to pull directly out, to slip the transmission into Reverse, and then go about your way?
Some may argue, why are you parking one of your cars on the street anyway? That's a good point, but when there is only a one car driveway, and you have opposite schedules as your spouse, it is a great convienence to have one of us park out front rather than have to move each other's car every time we need to leave. I'm not asking them to hop out of their truck, hike three miles, dodge numerous obstacles to deliver the mail. I'm simply asking them to try the reverse in their car every now and again.
So that's my delimma today. If you are a USPS employee and any of this rings true for you, for shame. If you work for the post office and still hike your route, my hat's off to you! And if you are a post master, I'm sure you know where I think you can put my mail.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Getting A Little Worried...
I'll admit, I'm a staunch supporter of President Bush. Sure, the War in Iraq is unsettling to say the least, and I certainly don't fully support every single thing that President Bush does, but by large, I believe that he is the right man for the job...if by nothing else in comparison to his counterparts.
I also believe that Bush has the potential to do many necessary things to help make the United States stronger in the future. Social Security and tort reform are just a couple of things that come to mind that I will undoubtedly discuss in the future.
But the thing that has me worried is the action taken while Congress was on recess. President Bush pushed his nomination for U.N. Ambassador, John Bolton, through while congress was in recess, thus side-stepping their comfirmation of the U.N. Ambassador nominee. The Senate voted twice on John Bolton's nomination, and both times there were not enough votes to have him confirmed as U.N. Ambassador. To be clear, this was not due solely because of party politics, though no Democrats approved of Bolton's nomination. A few Republicans were against Bolton's confirmation as well.
If you are not familiar with John Bolton, it has been noted that he is a "serial abuser" of subordinates and has been quoted in the past as saying, "There's no such thing as the United Nations. If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." It is also said that John Bolton tried to fire two intelligence agents simply because they had a different opinion than he did.
I don't know about you, but none of that stuff sounds great to me. The Senate wasn't too fond of it either. They failed confirmating votes twice, and called for some documents to be disclosed because they felt it would be relavent to the nomination. Those documents were never produced, and despite all the hesitation, Bush forced the nomination while Congress was out on recess.
To me, doing what's right is more important that sticking by your friend...especially when the stakes are high. There was clear evidence that John Bolton's nomination needed further investigation, but that was ignored, and Bolton was hurried into the position anyway.
What's worse, is Indiana's very own Senator, Rich Lugar, said he would have preferred a final confirmation vote for Bolton, but called the recess appointment "necessary to ensure our representation at the United Nations."
My first instinct was to call this party politics and say that Senator Lugar was kowtowing to President Bush. But rather than that, I decided to do a little research to see what Senator Lugar was thinking. I found his website and a copy of his speech just before the last senate vote. He stated in part, "The President has stated repeatedly that this is not a casual appointment. He and Secretary Rice want a specific person to do a specific job. They have said that they want John Bolton, an avowed and knowledgeable reformer, to carry out their reform agenda at the United Nations. "
Senator Lugar went on to voice his opinion on how the documents that were requested by the senate should not be given. Ultimately I am still left with the feeling that Senator Lugar is aligning himself within party politics rather than voting with an open mind.
Senators talked about needing intelligence information surrounding September 11th and demanded further intelligence information surrounding reasons for invading Iraq...so why shouldn't they demand information when they are voting for someone that will need to foster relations with the rest of the world leaders?
I also believe that Bush has the potential to do many necessary things to help make the United States stronger in the future. Social Security and tort reform are just a couple of things that come to mind that I will undoubtedly discuss in the future.
But the thing that has me worried is the action taken while Congress was on recess. President Bush pushed his nomination for U.N. Ambassador, John Bolton, through while congress was in recess, thus side-stepping their comfirmation of the U.N. Ambassador nominee. The Senate voted twice on John Bolton's nomination, and both times there were not enough votes to have him confirmed as U.N. Ambassador. To be clear, this was not due solely because of party politics, though no Democrats approved of Bolton's nomination. A few Republicans were against Bolton's confirmation as well.
If you are not familiar with John Bolton, it has been noted that he is a "serial abuser" of subordinates and has been quoted in the past as saying, "There's no such thing as the United Nations. If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." It is also said that John Bolton tried to fire two intelligence agents simply because they had a different opinion than he did.
I don't know about you, but none of that stuff sounds great to me. The Senate wasn't too fond of it either. They failed confirmating votes twice, and called for some documents to be disclosed because they felt it would be relavent to the nomination. Those documents were never produced, and despite all the hesitation, Bush forced the nomination while Congress was out on recess.
To me, doing what's right is more important that sticking by your friend...especially when the stakes are high. There was clear evidence that John Bolton's nomination needed further investigation, but that was ignored, and Bolton was hurried into the position anyway.
What's worse, is Indiana's very own Senator, Rich Lugar, said he would have preferred a final confirmation vote for Bolton, but called the recess appointment "necessary to ensure our representation at the United Nations."
My first instinct was to call this party politics and say that Senator Lugar was kowtowing to President Bush. But rather than that, I decided to do a little research to see what Senator Lugar was thinking. I found his website and a copy of his speech just before the last senate vote. He stated in part, "The President has stated repeatedly that this is not a casual appointment. He and Secretary Rice want a specific person to do a specific job. They have said that they want John Bolton, an avowed and knowledgeable reformer, to carry out their reform agenda at the United Nations. "
Senator Lugar went on to voice his opinion on how the documents that were requested by the senate should not be given. Ultimately I am still left with the feeling that Senator Lugar is aligning himself within party politics rather than voting with an open mind.
Senators talked about needing intelligence information surrounding September 11th and demanded further intelligence information surrounding reasons for invading Iraq...so why shouldn't they demand information when they are voting for someone that will need to foster relations with the rest of the world leaders?
Time Honored Tradition?
I was milling around on blogs today, since I've not been on in a few days, and came across one that was talking about getting married. More specifically, the topic discussed the author's feelings toward the sister's fiancée and his lack of speaking to the father before proposing to the sister. The topic hit close to home for me, and I felt compelled to comment.
Well, my comment turned into a dissertation, so I decided create my own post on it. Like the post about banning pit bull's, I wanted to keep the author's identity a secret. I respect other blogger's posts and understand a desire not to have their feelings critiqued on their own blog. This post may come off a little harsher than some of my previous posts, but my perspective is looking at the feelings of the most important people surrounding the topic of engagement...namely the groom-to-be and the wife-to-be.
At it's core, this moment is their moment, and my belief is that EVERYONE should respect that in the immediate moment...comments of concern should have either been aired out prior to this moment, or should absolutely wait until an appropriate amount of time has passed after the announcement of engagement.
Anyway, the sister called and told the author her news of being engaged. The author was not pleased and took the opportunity to voice their opinions to their sister during that very phone call. Among the concerns was that the engagement has caused angst among the family, and that love should cause heartache for the family...or something to that effect. To be honest, I began to tune out that part of the post the moment it became more about the family than the sister.
But I digress...another concern was that the lucky fellow didn't go to the sister's father and ask for permission before asking the sister. The author did say that after the feelings were made known, congratulations were given so that the sister didn't feel so alienated. Now I'm sure that it can't be easy to be in a close knit family and have your sister get married if you aren't a fan of the fiancée, but you'd think that someone would put the sister's feelings first and merely congratulate her first and then put the fiancée down in a subsequent phone call.
Now, if you can't tell, I've walked in the boyfriend, now fiancée’s, shoes. I come from a divorced family that wasn't very close and married into a very close knit family. So let me speak on behalf of the sister's fiancée for a moment, since I can feel his pain.
There were a few replies to the author, supporting their feelings, berating the fiancée who didn't ask the father's permission in advance. All I can say is that it's quite easy to play arm-chair quarterback and say that he should have done this or he should have done that.
First, it's not easy to ask someone you love to marry you. Any guy worth having goes through a variety of emotions when deciding to propose anyway...he will likely be excited, scared, hopeful, reserved, just to name a few...even if he's certain of a positive reply.
Secondly, to take it to the next level and ask for permission from the father is intimidating at best and down-right mortifying if the father already doesn't like you.
Thirdly, multiply that by ten fold if it's a woman that's very close to her family...especially if said man does not come from a close family.
It's scary as hell, and brave if you ask me, to dive head-first into a tightly knit family. Particularly if you feel that some of the rest of the family doesn't like you. I've been there too.
So let's discuss the antiquated notion of getting a father's permission before asking the daughter to marry him. The reasons for this custom range anywhere from Roman custom of a symbolic purchase of the daughter to the notion of women being recognized as property, first of the father, then of the husband. Most of these customs are ancient and borderline offensive to modern day women in their first origins. But many people these days, who have not considered the custom's origins, would call it a sign of respect.
I'll certainly fess up right here and admit that I did not ask my wife's father for his permission until after I asked my wife. Call it what you want, but I knew his feelings on the topic already, being six years my wife's senior, and whether he gave permission or not, I was going to ask my wife anyway. She thought it would be important to him, so I did it for her, but as to the notion of it being a sign of respect...bah. If he didn't respect me before then, then one gesture won't change that feeling....and if he did respect me, then his mind should not be changed with the absence of one gesture.
If respect was earned with one gesture...then why not a gesture such as...the fiancée is working three jobs so that his bride-to-be doesn't have to work and can finish school? Or how about inspiring a daughter to "clean up her act" and begin living a healthy life rather than with reckless abandon. Or if respect was lost with one gesture...certainly a gesture such as physical abuse or criminal activity is much more dire than merely asking for permission to marry his daughter! Ah what a world we would live in if respect was won with one gesture.
Would I have liked to be traditional and ask him first? Sure...I'm basically a traditional guy...heck I even refused to buy my wife an engagement ring that was anything other than the traditional round-cut diamond. Would she have liked me to ask her father before I asked her? Probably, for tradition's sake. But by not asking him first, she didn't respect me less or love me less...so I know I found the right woman.
Let's move on to the topic of professing one's feelings about the other's fiancée immediately upon hearing the news of the engagement. As I've stated earlier, I think that the moment of announcing an engagement is meant to be a special moment between the two fiancées. Any qualms, issues, or feelings from others should be kept to themselves until the two fiancées have had their moment. Besides, if the family has raised the daughter or son the way they should have raised them, then this moment will only happen once in their lifetime...and anyone "raining on the parade" is just being selfish.
Of course everyone has a right, to look out for their family. One person even stated that the author has the responsibility to let the sister know how they feel. I don't argue that everyone should look out for their family and that family members should know how their loved ones feel about the person they are dating/marrying. However, even family concern has its time and its place. And unless they are calling from a chapel in Vegas to announce their engagement and wedding, then there is plenty of time to voice concern. Show some respect, get over yourself, and let them relish their special moment.
And finally, the author understandably didn't explain all the feelings that the family had about the sister’s fiancée, but I can only assume from the picture that was painted that, this guy is good to the sister, he has no intentions of pulling her away from her family, and he loves her.
Short of being a Kennedy, I am not sure what else someone would want from a brother-in-law.
Well, my comment turned into a dissertation, so I decided create my own post on it. Like the post about banning pit bull's, I wanted to keep the author's identity a secret. I respect other blogger's posts and understand a desire not to have their feelings critiqued on their own blog. This post may come off a little harsher than some of my previous posts, but my perspective is looking at the feelings of the most important people surrounding the topic of engagement...namely the groom-to-be and the wife-to-be.
At it's core, this moment is their moment, and my belief is that EVERYONE should respect that in the immediate moment...comments of concern should have either been aired out prior to this moment, or should absolutely wait until an appropriate amount of time has passed after the announcement of engagement.
Anyway, the sister called and told the author her news of being engaged. The author was not pleased and took the opportunity to voice their opinions to their sister during that very phone call. Among the concerns was that the engagement has caused angst among the family, and that love should cause heartache for the family...or something to that effect. To be honest, I began to tune out that part of the post the moment it became more about the family than the sister.
But I digress...another concern was that the lucky fellow didn't go to the sister's father and ask for permission before asking the sister. The author did say that after the feelings were made known, congratulations were given so that the sister didn't feel so alienated. Now I'm sure that it can't be easy to be in a close knit family and have your sister get married if you aren't a fan of the fiancée, but you'd think that someone would put the sister's feelings first and merely congratulate her first and then put the fiancée down in a subsequent phone call.
Now, if you can't tell, I've walked in the boyfriend, now fiancée’s, shoes. I come from a divorced family that wasn't very close and married into a very close knit family. So let me speak on behalf of the sister's fiancée for a moment, since I can feel his pain.
There were a few replies to the author, supporting their feelings, berating the fiancée who didn't ask the father's permission in advance. All I can say is that it's quite easy to play arm-chair quarterback and say that he should have done this or he should have done that.
First, it's not easy to ask someone you love to marry you. Any guy worth having goes through a variety of emotions when deciding to propose anyway...he will likely be excited, scared, hopeful, reserved, just to name a few...even if he's certain of a positive reply.
Secondly, to take it to the next level and ask for permission from the father is intimidating at best and down-right mortifying if the father already doesn't like you.
Thirdly, multiply that by ten fold if it's a woman that's very close to her family...especially if said man does not come from a close family.
It's scary as hell, and brave if you ask me, to dive head-first into a tightly knit family. Particularly if you feel that some of the rest of the family doesn't like you. I've been there too.
So let's discuss the antiquated notion of getting a father's permission before asking the daughter to marry him. The reasons for this custom range anywhere from Roman custom of a symbolic purchase of the daughter to the notion of women being recognized as property, first of the father, then of the husband. Most of these customs are ancient and borderline offensive to modern day women in their first origins. But many people these days, who have not considered the custom's origins, would call it a sign of respect.
I'll certainly fess up right here and admit that I did not ask my wife's father for his permission until after I asked my wife. Call it what you want, but I knew his feelings on the topic already, being six years my wife's senior, and whether he gave permission or not, I was going to ask my wife anyway. She thought it would be important to him, so I did it for her, but as to the notion of it being a sign of respect...bah. If he didn't respect me before then, then one gesture won't change that feeling....and if he did respect me, then his mind should not be changed with the absence of one gesture.
If respect was earned with one gesture...then why not a gesture such as...the fiancée is working three jobs so that his bride-to-be doesn't have to work and can finish school? Or how about inspiring a daughter to "clean up her act" and begin living a healthy life rather than with reckless abandon. Or if respect was lost with one gesture...certainly a gesture such as physical abuse or criminal activity is much more dire than merely asking for permission to marry his daughter! Ah what a world we would live in if respect was won with one gesture.
Would I have liked to be traditional and ask him first? Sure...I'm basically a traditional guy...heck I even refused to buy my wife an engagement ring that was anything other than the traditional round-cut diamond. Would she have liked me to ask her father before I asked her? Probably, for tradition's sake. But by not asking him first, she didn't respect me less or love me less...so I know I found the right woman.
Let's move on to the topic of professing one's feelings about the other's fiancée immediately upon hearing the news of the engagement. As I've stated earlier, I think that the moment of announcing an engagement is meant to be a special moment between the two fiancées. Any qualms, issues, or feelings from others should be kept to themselves until the two fiancées have had their moment. Besides, if the family has raised the daughter or son the way they should have raised them, then this moment will only happen once in their lifetime...and anyone "raining on the parade" is just being selfish.
Of course everyone has a right, to look out for their family. One person even stated that the author has the responsibility to let the sister know how they feel. I don't argue that everyone should look out for their family and that family members should know how their loved ones feel about the person they are dating/marrying. However, even family concern has its time and its place. And unless they are calling from a chapel in Vegas to announce their engagement and wedding, then there is plenty of time to voice concern. Show some respect, get over yourself, and let them relish their special moment.
And finally, the author understandably didn't explain all the feelings that the family had about the sister’s fiancée, but I can only assume from the picture that was painted that, this guy is good to the sister, he has no intentions of pulling her away from her family, and he loves her.
Short of being a Kennedy, I am not sure what else someone would want from a brother-in-law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
