Growing up I often looked forward to going to Fenway Park (Say: Paaak) for ballgames. Going to games was synonymous with taking the Green line T inbound to Kenmore (Say: Kenmwa). The "T' is short for trolley and is what the light rail system is referred to in Boston. In other parts of the world the public transportation system has different names. In Chicago they call it the "L" apparently because of the many elevated platforms, in London they call it the "Underground", in New York they call it the "Subway" (even the above ground sections), in Hong Kong it is called the "MTR". When I was in my early teens I flew to Washington DC (De Capital) for a trip with my Older Brother, J1, and my Grandfather. During this trip we stayed by my cousins in Maryland. To travel between Maryland and DC we used the local light rail system known as the "Metro". "Metro" obviously coming from the word "Metropolitan" or "Metropolis".
The word "Metro" is also used in the 21st century to describe a a young, urban, heterosexual male with liberal political views, an interest in fashion, and a refined sense of taste. I, and I assume many of my peers as well, would describe myself as metro.
My good taste and vision in regards to fashion, color schemes, design and tastefulness has led at least a few of my friends to heed my advise on these items. This included an event yesterday when I was in a mall with friends (pre-movie outing) and one of the girls said "Wow, I have never been shopping with you yet, what an experience". This was a mere 20 hours after a good friend of mine spoke about me and said something to the tune of that I am always surrounded by girls, because it is me, so that's different.
Now, I wonder - am I doing something wrong? Did I misplace my manlyness somewhere along the way? Have I enjoyed one too many chick-flicks? Do I need to start wearing yesterdays jeans and a dirty t-shirt? Is there really something wrong with wanting to be "put together"? Can I not be straight and show that I have good taste?
In my opinion the best definition of what a woman wants in a man stems from a human being's basic survival instincts and can be summed up in 3 words: love, protection and stability.
(Full Disclosure: I am known for my dislike of horror movies and my inclination for romantic comedies. Yes, I do tear up at the mushy parts.)
Lets focus for a second on protection. During yesterdays movie I jumped at least once during one of the more eerie scenes. Is it possible that with that split second reaction to what was happening on the screen I managed to cause an immediate riposte in the surrounding people's mind that "this guy is not a protector"? Should I be more careful and train myself not to react to loud noises, should I always "expect the unexpected"? I don't think so.
I will not change who I am. I like me. I will probably reserve jeans and tshirts for friday afternoons, I will probably continue shopping and offering my advise on the same. I will probably continue watching "light & stupid" movies. I will probably keep jumping at the scary scenes and tearing at the sappy scenes. I will probably find my eventual wife despite and because of all of these things. I am not worried about coming off as a failed protector. I am a metrosexual. I fit the description to the Tee. Love me for who I am.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Sunday, July 12, 2009
The Importance of Being Lucid
I strongly hold that once in a while we all need personal mental health days (MHD). I am not talking about scheduled vacation, but rather just days off from all commitments and life. There is no need to be "sick" as defined by a doctor, rather it is sufficient to be "sick of it" in order to qualify for a MHD. In the same way that we require MHD's on weekdays - to get away from our weekday schedule, we also require MHD's on weekends as a break from our routine weekend regiment.
This past weekend was designated to be a MHD weekend by planning it as a Pyjama (PJ) weekend to be spent by a friend's house with some of my nearest and dearest. A pajama weekend is defined as one where the entire 25 hour period is spent in, well, ones PJ's. All normal outdoor, public or communal activities are obliterated from the schedule. The number of attendees at this particular weekend did expand beyond the advised number of participants for such a PJed MHD but I do not believe that this adaptation changed the reasoning and/or outcome and/or success of the MHD.
The participants at dinner this weekend can not be defined as a heterogeneous group, but do qualify for an "eclectic" elucidation. This type of grouping often results in the need for and application of social lubricants; this occassion did not deviate from the standard. In Layman's terms, we drank.
Okay, so this leads me to the topic at hand - how drunk should one get at a social gathering of "eclectic" people?
The lubrication provided by alcohol is a slippery slope. It is easy to start drinking and simply have "one drink too many". This is generally caused by the time factor that people forget about. It is common practice to keep drinking until you feel about right, the problem is that alcohol is more often than not "slow release" so the level of intoxication that one feels when they are ready to stop drinking is not the maximum level of inebriation that will be attained.
Once someone goes beyond that level of "proper" intoxication it is anyone's guess as to how they will act and react to the social setting. Conversations and interactions could get louder, more honest, more physical or an individual might lose the ability to interact altogether and could fall asleep or passout.
I do know this: at a party that is intended for people getting drunk (i.e. Organization Founder Bar, Wednesdays) drunk people who take on all forms of new identities are willingly accepted as trailblazers. In more subdued social settings however, a drunk participant is shunned by genpop. One might even go as far as to say that the couch people are preferred over the drunk people.
At the end of the day, drunk people are divided into the two types of drunks that they become, loud or subdued. The subdued group simply become irrelevant and are known to pass out in horizontal positions of varying comfort. The loud group of drunks are, well, annoying. Good impressions are not going to be left by either of the two types of drunks. The loud drunks might be the more memorable drunks, but this is limited to negative connotations.
Here is my advice to awkward people that feel they require alcohol as a lubricant and do not ncessarily know how to gauge thier own alcohol consumption abilities. Make a pact with a buddy to get you out of an event unscathed if you inadvertently get too drunk.
Know your alcohol consumption abilities, know what kind of drunk you are, know how and when to make an exit, know how to leave a good impression, know how to be drunk without annoying the sober people. At the end of the day, if you drank in order to feel more comfortable in the setting you are in (with the goal of making a better impression) and failed to make a good impression, then maybe you were better off laying off the booze to begin with.
The weekend was a PJed MHD success and surpassed all expectations. The over-intoxicated attendees did not take away from the opulence of the proceedings. Thank you host, you rocked. Thank you I.E. for the amity. Always a pleasure to see you Cervidae, even in an imbroglio .
This past weekend was designated to be a MHD weekend by planning it as a Pyjama (PJ) weekend to be spent by a friend's house with some of my nearest and dearest. A pajama weekend is defined as one where the entire 25 hour period is spent in, well, ones PJ's. All normal outdoor, public or communal activities are obliterated from the schedule. The number of attendees at this particular weekend did expand beyond the advised number of participants for such a PJed MHD but I do not believe that this adaptation changed the reasoning and/or outcome and/or success of the MHD.
The participants at dinner this weekend can not be defined as a heterogeneous group, but do qualify for an "eclectic" elucidation. This type of grouping often results in the need for and application of social lubricants; this occassion did not deviate from the standard. In Layman's terms, we drank.
Okay, so this leads me to the topic at hand - how drunk should one get at a social gathering of "eclectic" people?
The lubrication provided by alcohol is a slippery slope. It is easy to start drinking and simply have "one drink too many". This is generally caused by the time factor that people forget about. It is common practice to keep drinking until you feel about right, the problem is that alcohol is more often than not "slow release" so the level of intoxication that one feels when they are ready to stop drinking is not the maximum level of inebriation that will be attained.
Once someone goes beyond that level of "proper" intoxication it is anyone's guess as to how they will act and react to the social setting. Conversations and interactions could get louder, more honest, more physical or an individual might lose the ability to interact altogether and could fall asleep or passout.
I do know this: at a party that is intended for people getting drunk (i.e. Organization Founder Bar, Wednesdays) drunk people who take on all forms of new identities are willingly accepted as trailblazers. In more subdued social settings however, a drunk participant is shunned by genpop. One might even go as far as to say that the couch people are preferred over the drunk people.
At the end of the day, drunk people are divided into the two types of drunks that they become, loud or subdued. The subdued group simply become irrelevant and are known to pass out in horizontal positions of varying comfort. The loud group of drunks are, well, annoying. Good impressions are not going to be left by either of the two types of drunks. The loud drunks might be the more memorable drunks, but this is limited to negative connotations.
Here is my advice to awkward people that feel they require alcohol as a lubricant and do not ncessarily know how to gauge thier own alcohol consumption abilities. Make a pact with a buddy to get you out of an event unscathed if you inadvertently get too drunk.
Know your alcohol consumption abilities, know what kind of drunk you are, know how and when to make an exit, know how to leave a good impression, know how to be drunk without annoying the sober people. At the end of the day, if you drank in order to feel more comfortable in the setting you are in (with the goal of making a better impression) and failed to make a good impression, then maybe you were better off laying off the booze to begin with.
The weekend was a PJed MHD success and surpassed all expectations. The over-intoxicated attendees did not take away from the opulence of the proceedings. Thank you host, you rocked. Thank you I.E. for the amity. Always a pleasure to see you Cervidae, even in an imbroglio .
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Feeling Safe is Just Good Business
I spent the past weekend with some of my siblings, two of which are currently serving in the ZOF (more commonly referred to by its PC name, the IDF). The weekend was chock full of old school sibling time that even included an afternoon game of RISK. The game was concluded without a single altercation or disagreement between us. This, in my opinion, demonstrates just how much we have all matured. As a gesture alluding to just how much I have matured, I will point out that, while not relevant to todays ramble per se, the two soldier boys, J4 & J5, were the final remaining players in the game and J4 won - thier strategies apparently both superior to that of J1 & J2.
J5, isn't always the most articulate of individuals and tends to voice his opinion sporadically. Over dinner I commented to J5 that his "movie line quoting skills" have been extremely veracious of recent. J5 confirmed my statement and said that he has had too much free time during the weeks in the army as his unit has not done any form of operation lately, hence has had much time to watch a profusion of movies. J5 then stated very matter of factly that "it has not been this quiet in 10 years since Operation Cast Lead". After much badgering by J4 and myself we transliterated his statement into an english sentence that would better represent what he meant and ended up with "Since Operation Cast Lead, it has been quieter than it had been in 10 years".
So - with that introduction, let me get into the substance of today's blabber.
Since probably 1996 or so, a plethora of security companies came into being due to an over increasingly standardized standard of having a security guard at the entrance to all public places (thank you terrorism). I have a lot of random knowledge stored in my head, and somewhere in that mess, I know that in public places of over 5000 FT2 (500 M2) the law states that these establishments must have some form of security guard at the entrance to the building or event (To ensure that events similar to that of last weekend in Ashkelon, do not happen.) This law covers malls, supermarkets, sporting events, hotels, bus stations, movie theaters etc. The law however does not apply to smaller public places such as restaurants, bars, stores etc.
So, why do restaurants and bars put a security guard outside their front door? This law clearly does not apply to them, so no one can say that they are "obligated" to have one. That is not to say that the police don't advise putting a security guard, in fact - they do advise it. Most self respecting restaurants and bars today have some form of security outside their door, but this is of their own resolve and not obligated by law. The raison principale then for said security is a positive CBA (Cost-Benefit Analysis) for the restaurant/bar, and it is no different than adding any other service individual to the staff of the restaurant or bar. They believe that by adding security, they will increase profits.
If a restaurant or bar decides to add another chef, waitress, bartender, security guard, hostess, sommelier, busboy or other service individual in the hope that it will improve the service offered by the restaurant and in turn increase the sales and profits - in the words of an ex-girlfriend of mine - that is their own $#!t. I am all for added service offered by any establishment. I can't remember the last time I complained about a bar or restaurant having "too much service". With that said, if a restaurant decides to add more staff, I just want to experience better food, better service and a better experience. In fact, I am even okay with a raise in prices caused by these additional investments in the business.
I think it was said best in the movie "Tommy Boy" when, despite a myriad of variations throughout the film, Big Tom Callahan said "Of course, I can get a hell of a good look at a T-Bone steak by sticking my head up a bull's ass, but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it." To apply that same quote liberally to this case - I don't want a breakdown of exactly what I am paying for at a restaurant or bar. I just want you to tell me that my total cost is X amount of money for the service and products provided. I do not want to be told that the cost of my meal is calculated as follows:
Vegetables and meat costs are X
+ Labor fees are Y
+ Service fees are Z
+ rent and city taxes are W
+ 20% profit
= and all that together equals the total cost of my meal (Calculated as [X+Y+Z+W]*120% = Total Cost)
Just give me the total price you want me to pay for all of the services rendered and I will make my own decision as to whether or not your total service package is worth the price.
Restaurants and Bars have brought with the offered security another accepted practice of separating the cost for the security offered from the rest of the bill and charging me for it separately. This "accepted" practice is not acceptable at all in my eyes. I truly believe that this service of security, if offered, should be included in the total cost and not left to my knowledge of the direct cost or discretion as to whether I want to pay for it. I made a decision to go to an establishment that offers this specific service and so I will pay for the services offered. Do I have the option of saying "Please deduct the cost of serving and washing my glass from the total bill, as I will drink straight from the bottle"? No. So don't give me an option here either. I am more than willing to pay for the service, I just don't want the breakdown - let me enjoy my T-Bone, without the gory details.
I have recently incorporated an accountant into my gaggle of friends - this friend may or may not be a lazy man, and he may or may not be unemployed, but that is irrelevant, The point is - he does not like working when he is off the clock. So, if a restaurant or bar is too lazy to calculate the total cost of all services offered, then let them tell me that and I will deduct the cost of keeping my accountant on retainer into the amount I pay the restaurant or bar for the services provided to me.
I did a little research and discovered that it is legal for Restaurants and Bars to charge for any service they offer (security included), but the legal way to do it is not to separate the cost of the services they offer at the end of the bill (I.E. "Security Surcharge") but rather to incorporate it into the total bill.
To come full circle from my opening paragraphs (J5's statement) - if the security situation has improved so much of recent, and people are beginning to feel safe from terror once again, perhaps it is time to reduce the amount of money spent on security for small establishments by removing the security. If the restaurants and bars decide to keep the security on staff, as they have been doing for nearly 12 years, I think their internal accountants can figure out how to incorporate the cost into the overhead and add it into the sale price. If they can't figure it out - I know of at least one accountant who can calculate it and will be happy to take the job.
J5, isn't always the most articulate of individuals and tends to voice his opinion sporadically. Over dinner I commented to J5 that his "movie line quoting skills" have been extremely veracious of recent. J5 confirmed my statement and said that he has had too much free time during the weeks in the army as his unit has not done any form of operation lately, hence has had much time to watch a profusion of movies. J5 then stated very matter of factly that "it has not been this quiet in 10 years since Operation Cast Lead". After much badgering by J4 and myself we transliterated his statement into an english sentence that would better represent what he meant and ended up with "Since Operation Cast Lead, it has been quieter than it had been in 10 years".
So - with that introduction, let me get into the substance of today's blabber.
Since probably 1996 or so, a plethora of security companies came into being due to an over increasingly standardized standard of having a security guard at the entrance to all public places (thank you terrorism). I have a lot of random knowledge stored in my head, and somewhere in that mess, I know that in public places of over 5000 FT2 (500 M2) the law states that these establishments must have some form of security guard at the entrance to the building or event (To ensure that events similar to that of last weekend in Ashkelon, do not happen.) This law covers malls, supermarkets, sporting events, hotels, bus stations, movie theaters etc. The law however does not apply to smaller public places such as restaurants, bars, stores etc.
So, why do restaurants and bars put a security guard outside their front door? This law clearly does not apply to them, so no one can say that they are "obligated" to have one. That is not to say that the police don't advise putting a security guard, in fact - they do advise it. Most self respecting restaurants and bars today have some form of security outside their door, but this is of their own resolve and not obligated by law. The raison principale then for said security is a positive CBA (Cost-Benefit Analysis) for the restaurant/bar, and it is no different than adding any other service individual to the staff of the restaurant or bar. They believe that by adding security, they will increase profits.
If a restaurant or bar decides to add another chef, waitress, bartender, security guard, hostess, sommelier, busboy or other service individual in the hope that it will improve the service offered by the restaurant and in turn increase the sales and profits - in the words of an ex-girlfriend of mine - that is their own $#!t. I am all for added service offered by any establishment. I can't remember the last time I complained about a bar or restaurant having "too much service". With that said, if a restaurant decides to add more staff, I just want to experience better food, better service and a better experience. In fact, I am even okay with a raise in prices caused by these additional investments in the business.
I think it was said best in the movie "Tommy Boy" when, despite a myriad of variations throughout the film, Big Tom Callahan said "Of course, I can get a hell of a good look at a T-Bone steak by sticking my head up a bull's ass, but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it." To apply that same quote liberally to this case - I don't want a breakdown of exactly what I am paying for at a restaurant or bar. I just want you to tell me that my total cost is X amount of money for the service and products provided. I do not want to be told that the cost of my meal is calculated as follows:
Vegetables and meat costs are X
+ Labor fees are Y
+ Service fees are Z
+ rent and city taxes are W
+ 20% profit
= and all that together equals the total cost of my meal (Calculated as [X+Y+Z+W]*120% = Total Cost)
Just give me the total price you want me to pay for all of the services rendered and I will make my own decision as to whether or not your total service package is worth the price.
Restaurants and Bars have brought with the offered security another accepted practice of separating the cost for the security offered from the rest of the bill and charging me for it separately. This "accepted" practice is not acceptable at all in my eyes. I truly believe that this service of security, if offered, should be included in the total cost and not left to my knowledge of the direct cost or discretion as to whether I want to pay for it. I made a decision to go to an establishment that offers this specific service and so I will pay for the services offered. Do I have the option of saying "Please deduct the cost of serving and washing my glass from the total bill, as I will drink straight from the bottle"? No. So don't give me an option here either. I am more than willing to pay for the service, I just don't want the breakdown - let me enjoy my T-Bone, without the gory details.
I have recently incorporated an accountant into my gaggle of friends - this friend may or may not be a lazy man, and he may or may not be unemployed, but that is irrelevant, The point is - he does not like working when he is off the clock. So, if a restaurant or bar is too lazy to calculate the total cost of all services offered, then let them tell me that and I will deduct the cost of keeping my accountant on retainer into the amount I pay the restaurant or bar for the services provided to me.
I did a little research and discovered that it is legal for Restaurants and Bars to charge for any service they offer (security included), but the legal way to do it is not to separate the cost of the services they offer at the end of the bill (I.E. "Security Surcharge") but rather to incorporate it into the total bill.
To come full circle from my opening paragraphs (J5's statement) - if the security situation has improved so much of recent, and people are beginning to feel safe from terror once again, perhaps it is time to reduce the amount of money spent on security for small establishments by removing the security. If the restaurants and bars decide to keep the security on staff, as they have been doing for nearly 12 years, I think their internal accountants can figure out how to incorporate the cost into the overhead and add it into the sale price. If they can't figure it out - I know of at least one accountant who can calculate it and will be happy to take the job.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
My dive into bloghood - Thank you downtime.
Okay, So at some point yesterday while at work, I came to the realization that there is an aspect of working in an office that up until a few months ago, I was unfamiliar with. "Downtime" is an interesting concept. "Downtime" in manufacturing terms relates to the period of time when a factory or production line is not working, usually caused by some malfunction or poor planning. I have a cousin who works at a production facility where he spends much of his day figuring out how to minimize downtime.
In the business world downtime is all that time when you are at work, but not working. You know, the first half hour of your day when you come into the office, put your things down, get your cup of coffee, say good morning to the other employees, read the paper (Digital or printed), get your second cup of coffee and mentally prepare to start working. This half hour is often stretched to an hour or so. So, now you have already been paid for one hour of work and you haven't even done anything yet. Lunch breaks are stretched into luuuuuuunch breaks (first hand example to come, be patient) and the "almost" end of the day is spent packing up and getting ready for the end of the day. Nine to Five is not what it used to be. Where are the days when a work whistle signified the start and end of the actual work day? Oy, to work in a quarry. (Flintstones reference)
I know that most employees would feel unfulfilled if they only had 6 hours of work to fill an 8 hour day. This is a rather simplistic summary of chapter 7 in Roger Fishers book "Beyond Reason" in which he speaks about peoples need to feel like they matter. Now obviously once in a while a lack of work is a refreshing break, kind of a countermand to Arbeit Macht Frei. However to not have enough work to fill your day on a regular basis is frustrating and can lead to the inability to do work when it does come along.
In a recent visit with a good friend of mine,who is just finishing up his internship in a law firm, I observed the true meaning of downtime. I am self employed, so when I have downtime I either decide that my day is over and go home or find a different project to work on. In a law firm, or almost any corporate job, the importance of "clocking hours" can not be overated. The amount of work done in a day is not nearly as important as the number of hours spent doing that same amount of work in that same day. I learnt something very important about working in an office, not being in your office for a long stretch of time is very different from going home for the day. As long as your things are still out on your desk and you haven't officially finished for the day, you are still working. Thus, a two hour lunch break is perfectly acceptable, but leaving a half hour early is not.
I took a long lunch break with this friend of mine the other day. We had a great time. Eventually we finished our lunch, went back to his office, packed up his stuff and went home. It would have been preposterous to just go home instead of going to lunch, but somehow this way was considered perfectly normal, acceptable and legit. I am pretty sure this act is defined as "lawyering" the system. During our lunch break he mentioned to me that Google allotts 20 percent of all of thier employees time to work on their own ideas. Basically Google has defined downtime as work time. The engineers are encouraged to present thier ideas to the company who then has a special task force for implementing the ideas. Google clearly has the right idea, convince employees that working on thier own ideas is actually "good use" of thier break time from doing real work. I remember speaking to a friend of mine about the amazing gym and pool that was offered by his company to the employees. He then proceeded to tell me that in all of the time he has been working for the company, he has gone once and has never seen anyone else use it. Apparently the way it works is, if you have time to go to the gym, you are not putting in enough hours. I am pretty sure that this same idea was offered by Malcolm Gladwell in his book "Outliers" (I might be wrong on this one) when he spoke about a major downtown New York law firm that didn't want thier employees to bother going to a gym when those hours could be better spent working. Who needs to live past 50 anyway? I get the idea of "sleep when you're dead", but seriously?! Relax a bit.
So here is my point. Downtime is part and parcel of working in a company. I am now a full fledged employee of a company. Thus, by definition I will have unsatisfying, uneventful, monotonous, boring, dull, tedious, routine downtime. This blog is and hopefully will be the culminating indulgence of my downtime. I was asked if by having a blog I will reduce my blabbering in my non-digital interactions, after much thought my answer is au contraire mon fraire.
In the business world downtime is all that time when you are at work, but not working. You know, the first half hour of your day when you come into the office, put your things down, get your cup of coffee, say good morning to the other employees, read the paper (Digital or printed), get your second cup of coffee and mentally prepare to start working. This half hour is often stretched to an hour or so. So, now you have already been paid for one hour of work and you haven't even done anything yet. Lunch breaks are stretched into luuuuuuunch breaks (first hand example to come, be patient) and the "almost" end of the day is spent packing up and getting ready for the end of the day. Nine to Five is not what it used to be. Where are the days when a work whistle signified the start and end of the actual work day? Oy, to work in a quarry. (Flintstones reference)
I know that most employees would feel unfulfilled if they only had 6 hours of work to fill an 8 hour day. This is a rather simplistic summary of chapter 7 in Roger Fishers book "Beyond Reason" in which he speaks about peoples need to feel like they matter. Now obviously once in a while a lack of work is a refreshing break, kind of a countermand to Arbeit Macht Frei. However to not have enough work to fill your day on a regular basis is frustrating and can lead to the inability to do work when it does come along.
In a recent visit with a good friend of mine,who is just finishing up his internship in a law firm, I observed the true meaning of downtime. I am self employed, so when I have downtime I either decide that my day is over and go home or find a different project to work on. In a law firm, or almost any corporate job, the importance of "clocking hours" can not be overated. The amount of work done in a day is not nearly as important as the number of hours spent doing that same amount of work in that same day. I learnt something very important about working in an office, not being in your office for a long stretch of time is very different from going home for the day. As long as your things are still out on your desk and you haven't officially finished for the day, you are still working. Thus, a two hour lunch break is perfectly acceptable, but leaving a half hour early is not.
I took a long lunch break with this friend of mine the other day. We had a great time. Eventually we finished our lunch, went back to his office, packed up his stuff and went home. It would have been preposterous to just go home instead of going to lunch, but somehow this way was considered perfectly normal, acceptable and legit. I am pretty sure this act is defined as "lawyering" the system. During our lunch break he mentioned to me that Google allotts 20 percent of all of thier employees time to work on their own ideas. Basically Google has defined downtime as work time. The engineers are encouraged to present thier ideas to the company who then has a special task force for implementing the ideas. Google clearly has the right idea, convince employees that working on thier own ideas is actually "good use" of thier break time from doing real work. I remember speaking to a friend of mine about the amazing gym and pool that was offered by his company to the employees. He then proceeded to tell me that in all of the time he has been working for the company, he has gone once and has never seen anyone else use it. Apparently the way it works is, if you have time to go to the gym, you are not putting in enough hours. I am pretty sure that this same idea was offered by Malcolm Gladwell in his book "Outliers" (I might be wrong on this one) when he spoke about a major downtown New York law firm that didn't want thier employees to bother going to a gym when those hours could be better spent working. Who needs to live past 50 anyway? I get the idea of "sleep when you're dead", but seriously?! Relax a bit.
So here is my point. Downtime is part and parcel of working in a company. I am now a full fledged employee of a company. Thus, by definition I will have unsatisfying, uneventful, monotonous, boring, dull, tedious, routine downtime. This blog is and hopefully will be the culminating indulgence of my downtime. I was asked if by having a blog I will reduce my blabbering in my non-digital interactions, after much thought my answer is au contraire mon fraire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)