Ergonomics

I realize that sometimes, especially as a girl, and especially as me, talking about my thoughts, feelings, and experiences can probably sound like complaining. However, something has been on my mind for a while now, and that is ergonomics.

I am short. Anyone who knows me knows that is probably an understatement. My own personal observation tells me that there are lots of girls my height in the world - but we don't get much shorter than this!

Anyway, I have recently become aware of a problem with my height functioning in the world at large. The problem has been there all my life, but only recently have I been able to diagnose the problem.

The problem is that my legs do not reach the floor. In almost any given standard chair, my legs kind of dangle a few inches above the floor. In high school, I would swing my legs gaily. In college I was able to hook my feet onto the bars beneath the chairs. But in the real world, these options are noticeably missing.

For all you tall people out there, let me just say that having feet that won't reach the floor is quite uncomfortable. It completely destroys posture, for one. During the work day I tend to resort to sitting in odd, and most likely unprofessional, positions. My favorite is to sit cross-legged at my desk.

Sometimes I end up finding an adjustable chair. This can be almost worse. Once the chair is adjusted so that my feet fit flat on the floor, my head reaches barely three feet above the ground. The desk, which is not adjustable, reaches to my sternum.

Now, in the spirit of not complaining, I admit that ergonomics is a tough field. Otherwise there wouldn't be an entire field of science devoted to studying how we work. On the other hand, if they have been able to create adjustable chairs, why can't they go the extra mile and create adjustable desks?

To that point, I would like to propose an alternative to all this adjusting. That is - standing. I am actually working at a client now that has a few high cubicles with barstool sized chairs. I don't know the purpose of these special cubicles, but I would like to see more options like them in the workplace. When I worked in a pharmacy, I rarely felt uncomfortable although I stood all day. Here are some advatages to standing:

• You burn more calories
• Your circulation is better, and so you are generally warmer (for all us ladies who freeze in the office)
• You are more likely to "go" do something - when I am sitting and comfortable and bundled up, I rarely want to get up and go do, well, my job. But if I were standing, coming and going could be a normal business. Indeed, when standing, walking helps to take some of the pressure off the knees
• To the point - in my experience at least, standing desks offer a much more universal view of the world. Taller people have longer arms to reach down, and shorter people are closer to the desk to begin with. This results in practically everyone achieving the right angle to the keyboard (elbows a few inches above), and posture is better. Sure, feet and knees will have to get used to the situation, but in a few weeks, you will probably experience a healthier, happier, you!

I would like to see some willing company take up my proposal. I suggest they allow workers to choose between tall, standing desks and the traditional cube. They should run the trial for a few months and see which group of employees has a higher job satisfaction, is healthier, and is most productive. I would truly be interested in the results of the experiment.

Until then, I suppose I'll just continue to practice my chair calisthenics.

Revolutionary Thoughts

I have been thinking revolting thoughts. Well, revolutionary thoughts actually. I’ve been thinking about countries that have been trying their hand at democracy, but it’s just not catching on. Ever since the French and American revolutions, there have been a string of revolutions across the globe. Some of these have been peaceful. More often than not, they have not. How is it that some revolutions have successfully instituted democracy in their nations, while other countries still struggle with the concept of a free and peaceful election? And when democracy fails, when is it appropriate to pursue democratic goals through violent means?

As for the first question, I believe the answer is difficult. Let’s look first at America. Although those against instituting a national language are quick to point out that only about 1/3 of the citizens of the original 13 colonies spoke English, the colonies did belong to the English, the founding fathers were wealthy English citizens. And despite their opposition to King George, they set up a government that reeked of Englishness. Why?

Because they knew what worked and what didn’t. The English monarchy had been losing its real power for 500 years, since the Magna Carta was signed. The Englishmen who established America had, for their example a government setup that had been working for centuries. All they had to do was tweak it to fit their own American style.

For the last 300 years the Western world has been touting Democracy to the rest of the world much in the same way that the missionaries pushed Christianity. One has come to be known as unacceptable, while the other is still acceptable and continues to be pushed. However, much as changing the religion of a different culture has implications, changing the political structure of an established country has implications that could potentially be destructive.

While I personally believe that democracy is the form of government that gives people the greatest freedoms and honors the rights of individuals, the transition may be long and hard. Consider that our present form of democracy in America was slowly developed for 500 years before placed in action by citizens who were already used a similar political setup.

Other cultures transition to democracy from different political systems. If a country was recently in a monarchy setup, then suspicion and violence would be the norm. Kings solidify their claim to rule by exterminating anyone who threatens their supremacy. If a country recently was ruled in this way, then whoever they elect, even in a democracy, may be prone to similar means to guarantee that they will be “elected” continually in the future.

In a monarchy, when the people get fed-up with the regime, they revolt and set in place a new regime. Certainly, if an election doesn’t go the way half the nation wants, then violence is anticipated. Our frustration with a world that is not at peace may be the result of trying to institute political systems that really should evolve at the natural pace of the culture.

This brings me to a second question – when is it appropriate to use violence to further political means?

When a regime is tyrannical and fails to recognize basic rights entitled to all people, and there is no other way to change the regime, then violence may be acceptable for the greater good. As an American, who gained my freedom due to those who came before me who were able to defend it, I cannot think otherwise.

However, where democracy is working smoothly, then social change can be brought about through non-violent means – writing our legislators, voting, and the courts. My favorite example of how to bring about change in a democracy is the civil rights movements – specifically Rosa Parks. We celebrate today how this amazing woman changed history by breaking a law that was unethical to begin with.

Another example – when cities outlaw Christmas caroling because it is potentially offensive, citizens may protect their right to freedom of speech by simply caroling.

However, other laws cannot be changed by breaking them. For instance, taxes. Although it was common in the early days of the income tax, we cannot just not pay taxes these days. They are already taken out of our paychecks. However, we can change the tax code by voting for our leaders, by sending letters to those already in power, and perhaps by using the courts to protest tax laws.

Sometimes I get frustrated that these methods move too slowly. However, that’s the beauty of our system. As long as regular elections are held, the power remains with the people. Violence is not necessary. As much as I dislike certain laws, I must accept the fact that the laws were put in place by people that my fellow countrymen elected. Therefore, any issues I have with the government must be settled within the means the government put in place so that we the people can govern ourselves.

Duck Soup

I can no longer keep my silence about what I have been up to these last few months. Comedy. It is comedy. There are two new forms of comedy in my life that I have been taking part in these last few weeks.

The first is the TV show, "The Big Bang Theory." I could go on more about that, but let's just put it this way - I was, and always shall be, a nerd. This show throws me back to my high school days. I get jokes I never should get. And it makes me think, "Why does the world have a certain standard about how we should behave and what should interest us?" I wish there were more nerds in my life.

But the other comedy I have been viewing is the Marx Brothers. I will not lie, I had never had any interest in the Marx brothers for my first 24 years. First of all, I got Groucho Marx confused with Karl Marx, and I'm no communist. But also, like many things, nothing had ever caused me to question a world without Marx brothers.

In late April I worked a 32-hour day. I kid you not - I went to work at 11:00 am on Sunday and didn't go home until 8:00 PM the next day (with the exception of a two-hour nap). That Thursday mornign I flew home and, as I was getting ready for a good, long needed, nap, I opened up "Duck Soup" on Netflix.

I guess I also opened up a can of worms. The comedy of the Marx brothers was something that I was not prepared for. I suppose I compare it to a 1930's Monty Python...a movie where little comedy skits were loosely strung together with a "plot." It was adorable. I became an instant fan!

After my first Marx movie, I had decided that my all time favorite brother was Chico. From later research, I learned that Chico was the oldest of the performing brothers (there were six, but really only the three became famous). He also had a gambling problem in real life. For our younger generation fans, his character was that of an Italian immigrant who struggled with words. His plays on words were quaint and yet still amusing in the movie setting. As the Brothers started as a vaudeville act, Chico would perform on the piano in many movies. As a pianist myself, I wish I could play a few of his songs!

A close second was Harpo. I had long known Harpo from an "I Love Lucy" episode. The episode I had always found funny, however I had never really fallen in love with the Harpo character. However, after three Marx movies, I now see why he seems to be one of the favorites among those who know the brothers.

Bulging eyes, a curly wig, and an outfit that looks like a hobo. Harpo Marx never spoke in film. Early in his career he learned to pantomime his lines because he had difficulty delivering them. Harpo also chases women around and plays, you guessed it, the harp. In his personal life, he married late and adopted four children. He was always very happy.

Groucho Marx is perhaps the postor boy for the brothers. He is the youngest of the famous three and also the first to get started in show business. In my first encounter with Groucho, I wasn't impressed. To be honest, his oversized grease-pencil mustache almost made me sick. He appeared in the movie delivering lines that made no sense - it was a strange mix of jokes that came one after another, too fast to really understand.

However, since then Groucho has become a favorite for me. His sense of humor is much like my own. I find that is why I have trouble getting people to laugh at my jokes - my style is from the 1930's. Groucho is the voice and character of the team. He was the one who carried on in show business long after the brothers stopped performing together in public. I have come to love his fiendish eyebrow wiggles and 1930's style innuendo, his way of being insulting and loveable at the same time.

Apparently Groucho was also loveable off the screen. He was a simple man who wanted to be a good father to his children and stay at home. However, he had a tendency to marry alchoholics, and spent three marriages in this way. This inevitably led to a more depressing home life than perhaps he deserved.

However, I think one of the greatest appeals of the Marx brothers is the very fact that they are brothers. (There were six in all - one died, two others left show business as Groucho, Harpo, and Chico developed stronger characters). I imagine growing up for them was a fun experience - even if they were poor. They learned to entertain - to play instruments.

In their movies I see four (or three) brothers who have fun together. They work, they enjoy each other's company, and they goof off...how much better can life get? I can tell this is a comedy team that thrives on improv. Although I've never had a brother, I cannot imagine a more fulfilling day than going to work and giving your brother a hard time all day. Every scene I watch screams "brothers!" to me. And this makes the movies all the more enjoyable.

Economy Got You Down?

This recession is depressing. I’m not talking about the daily news – it’s good, it’s bad, it’s not so bad, it’ worse, it’s great – that has us constantly wondering when it will be over (2010?). And I’m not talking about how we can’t spend anything because we’re worried about losing a job and not being able to pay necessary expenses (because I always try to be a light spender, recession or no).

The trouble is work. I actually first noticed this problem in a friend of mine. She is looking for a new job (and it’s a long process go figure). One day I was talking to her after she had just had an interview, and she was telling me that every time she had an interview, she had a good day at the job she was currently at, and that she wasn’t sure if she really wanted to leave. See, people at her job were making it difficult, but when it was busy and she didn’t have to think about the office politics, she loved her job.

When it was busy.

That is why the recession is depressing. Let’s face it, we are people who like to work! And if you have a job, it should not be about the money, it should be because you like it! I cannot imagine working in any sort of retail or customer service function where business was slow. Even if I had my job, I’d go crazy!

And that leads me to the other depressing part of the recession – fear of layoff. I said earlier that saving for a layoff didn’t make the recession bad. But fear of layoff is different. For months on end we would go into work saying, “What’s going to happen? Are we having layoffs? How many? Are there going to be salary cuts? Raises at all this year? If I’m not staffed all summer, is that a sign of impending doom?”

This kind of talk makes work depressing. You work as hard as you can because you don’t want to be the one laid off. And then, right when the pink slips are coming out, you are burnt out, and your performance sinks. Then you wonder if all the hard work you do will even be rewarded with a raise this year…even a small one.

Which is the last thing that makes the recession depressing. For professionals and salary folks, the recession means more work. Companies layoff key salaried employees to cut costs and then expect the rest to make up the work. As accountants, we work long hours during busy season, and this year we are experiencing a longer busy season (if you’re not charging 50 hours a week, it’s not worth it to the company to employ you). But I have found that people in other professions who are salaried are experiencing the same problem.

More and more I hear the term, "At least I have a job!" Now, while this sounds like a way to say positive, it it is really a negative remark. It essentially means, "I am miserable at my job. I used to like it, but I don't anymore. All I do is work all the time, but I can't get a new job because there are no jobs to be had." And what's worse is that corporations take advantage of this feeling. We are supposed to love our jobs! Not just work to bring in a paycheck! If we are going to spend 1/4 - 1/3 of our lives working, then we need to love what we do, not feel like trapped slaves.

There is good news, though! The recession is over! My friend Kristen officially ended it in January. She wrote me an email about how depressed it was making her and decided that it was over. She ended it – because literally the day after she wrote the email, the stock market went up for three months in a row. Housing prices leveled out, and people started buying homes again.

I guess the point is, this recession is what you make of it. It’s a good time for learning and growth, for those of us who are bad with money. For those of us who are always prepared, it’s a time to discover what’s really important in life. It’s a time to learn just what it is about your job that’s got you down before hopping over to a new one. But most of all, it’s a time when it is very important to keep a positive attitude and not let the recession turn into a depression!

An Undefiled Legacy

I feel a sensation somewhat like relief as George W. Bush slowly fades out of the public limelight and into whatever history will make of him. It’s not because I feel that the country is “on the right track” now, or that our future is somehow better or safer without our former president. It’s the opposite.

I feel relief because the poor guy needs a break. For the last eight years, he has had to deal with the kind of media attention that drives celebrities crazy on a good day, increasingly negative remarks about him, and all this while running a country that was first under attack, then in a war, and finally in a recession.

It’s no wonder Mr. Bush has retreated back Texas, not speaking out about the current administration. Not making waves. Even now there are still those in politics or the media who want to put a final death blow in his legacy – for political gain, perhaps. And yet, George W. Bush doesn’t strike me as someone who cares about what his legacy is. But I do! Because the man does not deserve to be vilified in this way.

I admit, I was a Bush supporter from Day 1 – sort of. Right after his acceptance speech for the Republican nomination in 2000, I signed on to his general philosophy. He hit the ground running in 2001, and in his first 100 days accomplished leaps and bounds, ending up with the same approval rating our current president had in his first 100 days.
I remember Bush dealing with the American airplane that crashed in China. He managed to get our people and our plane back without causing a war. I was only 16, but I was impressed.

Then, in September, disaster hit. We all remember. And once again the president leaped into action. For comparison purposes, I wonder, if a similar disaster occurred today, how safe we’d feel with the current president. Bush’s ratings soared, and the whole country got behind him to make sure we felt safe.

Slowly those actions spiraled downhill…as time distanced us from the disaster of September 11th, we began to question, “Did we overreact?” And yet, whether the answer is yes or no, the question is still much like Monday morning quarterbacking. Or perhaps we should say, “If we had not taken those measures, where would we be today?” I think that question is a lot more revealing. I don’t think there would be the same level of security, or materialistic questions about the economy. We’d still be afraid to fly.

And there was the inevitable Iraq war – no weapons of mass destruction. At the time, Bush did the best he could with the information he had. Remember (how soon we forget), Sadaam was not behaving like an innocent man. To this day, I would say he either was hiding something, or that he just knew that the war would eventually tear our country apart. Either way – an enemy was eradicated.

We knew it would be a long road going in. The famous, “Mission Accomplished” speech – well, it really was all about how we were only halfway there…perhaps less than halfway. But that’s not what gets remembered.

I remember how we were all so supportive of our soldiers and would do anything for them. There are still fundraisers, drives for supplies, and thank-yous sent out. But the vivacity has toned down almost to the Clinton-era levels. Soldiers will always be honored wherever they go. But was it our guilt that caused us to turn on Bush and the war? As Americans, we felt guilty for going on with our lives, for feeling about other things? And so, in order to make those guilty feelings disappear, those of us who were not hot or cold became lukewarm. And the lukewarm people became anti-war, until slowly the concept of a longer project to bring about a free Iraq disappeared.

I was always a fan of President Bush’s social agenda, and I will be frank. He never accomplished the one thing I wanted him to do – social security reform. So if anyone should be complaining about his legacy, it should be me. But I know the truth. The war and our security bought Bush a second term in office (in a near-landslide election). But by the time he was able to turn back to the domestic agenda, congress had filled up with partisan Democrats. For months, dragging into years, they prevented real, meaningful legislation from being passed. And what did pass was always watered down from its original intent. Both sides piled bills high with pork.

If the public became upset that President Bush was “lame duck” or that the Republican congress wasn’t doing anything valuable, it was only because the “Republican congress” was nothing of the sort. Having two parties and branches to the government has been one of our strengths in America – checks and balances. But if things are too balanced well…have you ever seen a balanced scale? It doesn’t move. Nothing happens!

And finally, in salvaging Bush’s legacy, let’s think about the barrage of negative media he had to deal with. I remember how he handled difficult press conferences (Donald Rumsfeld even more so) – catching reporter spin to answer the “real” question, and telling things like they were. Even so, when the press hates you, when congress hates you, when the world hates you, and when even your own countrymen start to hate you, there is a little bit of psychological warfare going on.

I think that if President Bush’s approval rating had been 3% for his entire time in office, he still would have behaved the same way. He was not the type to really care what people thought about him, or let that get in the way of getting things done.

So what will history make of Bush? Well, it depends on who writes it, really.

But then, what will history make of Obama, or Clinton, or George H.W. Bush? None of these men will ever be a George Washington or an Abe Lincoln. Time will tell if Obama will become a Truman, Roosevelt , or Reagan. The events of September 11th ensured that George W. Bush’s presidency will be mentioned, and how he responded to it. And we will see if the Iraq war is still in full swing in 400 years.

Ultimately, I think any of these recent president will go the way of so many presidents. The events of their presidency that are important to the nation will be remembered. But their day to day lives, their smaller initiatives (No Child Left Behind) will be left for trivia buffs and special research projects. My comparison would be President Taft. When I went to his museum in Ohio this fall, I was amazed by the man! He was smart, he was accomplished (lawyer, teacher, president, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), and he built up the Philippines! But he will always be remembered as the president who couldn’t fit in the White House bathtub.

So will it be with George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.
But in the near history? Looking back at all eight years, at everything that happened and at everything he did…I say, “Well done George Bush! You did the best that you could with what you had. You always did what you thought was the right thing. And you put this country ahead of yourself for eight long years!”

He deserves a break.

But more than that, he deserves a round of applause.

Mornings...bleh

So I have decided to start waking up earlier to blog. I never cease to be amazed that I can sleep in until 7:30 on a weekday and still get to work by 8:30. In fact, I can sleep in until 7:45 if I wanted to…and that includes eating breakfast. I suppose it helps that my commute does not have a lot of traffic to contend with, and that my client isn’t very far away. It definitely helps that we don’t work until 1:00 AM; otherwise I would need every second of sleep.

On the other hand, morning blogging doesn’t suit me. Sure, I can check my favorite websites for inspiration. I may have even had dreams. But my mind hasn’t reached the point yet where it is racing – thinking of all sorts of random thoughts that I just need to get out.

And topics I have been wanting to talk about, just seem to disappear. Do I blog about the swine flu? About the priest who wants to get married? About finances? Or about my job? All of these have affected me, and more, and yet, at 7:50 AM, I feel a little exhausted just thinking about “getting into” any of these topics.

Another problem is research. So far, my blog has just been my thoughts. I have not used fact or figures to back up any of my opinions, because they are just that – opinions. On the one hand, you can make a fact or statistic say anything you want. On the other hand, can I really stand up and state my belief in something unless I have some evidence for it? All in all, I like to write like C.S. Lewis. He seemed to use man’s internal logic for his writing – rarely if ever have I ever come across him say something like, “According to a recent survey…”

My final obstacle? J My new computer. I cannot explain it, but ever since I got this new computer, typing has become a chore. This is sad, because I thoroughly enjoy typing! I could sit and type all day and have nothing to actually type! But either the keyboard or the programming does something weird. If I start to typing too fast (and I type fast), then suddenly I’m accessing menu options left and right! And it’s not good…sometimes my entire document is erased…I zoom in and out uncontrollably….I had to start composing my blogs in Word because a) there’s an undo button for when I erase everything and b) I can save it. Has anyone else had this problem? Is it Vista?

So there you have it – you can expect more from me in the future. Now that all my excuses are on the table, if you don’t hear from me, you’ll know why. (And just so you know – I really was going to blog about the priest who wanted to marry this morning, but the fog over my brain prevented me from getting a good start at it).

Supersize Yourself

For 12 of the last 24 months I have been on the road. I eat two of my meals a day from restaurants and company cafeterias. I usually skip breakfast. I work about 10-14 hours a day, so I don’t have much time for hitting the treadmill at the hotel after work, but I do what I can. Believe it or not, this is not necessarily the healthiest lifestyle.

I generally get sick of eating out so much after a few weeks. However, when I come back, within a few weeks (maybe even before) I am craving greasy, fatty, fast food! (I strike a balance by eating lunch out with my team at work and then having a home cooked dinner).

I watched Supersize Me today. I had seen a portion of it before, but I decided to watch the entire thing. Unlike the documentary on the Salem witch trials I also watched, nothing in this program surprised me. McDonald’s makes you fat. But this is a really famous documentary!

Although I think the method used was unscientific and the results obtained common sense, the movie was entertaining. However, instead of focusing on the “big bad fast food restaurants”, it should have focused on something it only hinted at: personal responsibility.

If Americans are overweight, it is not because there is some disease going around. Not anything we can catch, anyway. It’s called eating too much and not being active enough.

And, as I mentioned before, I’m an expert at this. Since I started my new job, I have put on weight (won’t tell you how much). However, I have also been monitoring my weight and trying to make choices that will help me to keep from gaining, as my lifestyle continues to be non-accepting of personal health.
1. Portion size – I order kid sized portions or save half of the meal for later. Both are cost effective as well as healthier.
2. Fish – I usually order fish if we are ordering dinner from a fancy restaurant. In addition to being a healthier option, it’s also brain food!
3. Calorie Monitoring – Although I cannot cook a full meal when I am on the road, I try to monitor my calories. I try to eat only one full meal out (which is usually enough to bust any diet anyway) and have healthy low-calorie snacks between meals. A second meal will be a low calorie, easy to prepare meal such as a peanut butter sandwich or a Cup-o-Soup.

I’m not an expert or dietician. These are just tricks I use. And I could probably follow more rules – I’m sure my dietician sister would prefer I track all calories consumed in a day, maybe even just shut off when I hit my limit. Or perhaps I should cut out the pop. Never!

The simple point is – fast food is not the enemy. We are our greatest enemy! By making poor food choices and poor exercise choices (which I think are probably worse) we get ourselves into a big fat mess.

The fast food restaurants responded to the attack of Supersize Me by adding healthy menu options. But I don’t go to McDonald’s for salad. I go for fries! If I want a salad I will go to Panera. Simple as that. And if I develop diabetes when I am older, or if I gain 100 pounds and have a heart problem and low self esteem, I will know it is because of my sugar and fat addiction that I have. On the other hand, if I can work out of town for a year and not have a triple-bypass at the end of it, it is also because I made good decisions.