Pooping at work (a delicate subject)

So. We have come to this in our blogging relationship.

I don't like talking about poop. I really don't. But I have had this private conversation with a few friends and they think it should be out in the public so here we go.

The way the bathrooms are set up at my work is like this:

There are four bathrooms, two on either side of the office. Two face a wall and two face offices. One of those offices is mine.

There are two people at my work who come in every morning and poop. One is a guy, one is a girl. (This doesn't really matter except for story differentiation later.) Normally they do this in the bathrooms that face the wall so it's a nice, private affair.

Well, two days ago the guy clogged the toilet. But apparently he clogged it so badly it wrecked BOTH toilets on that side.

I couldn't understand how that could happen. Well, we haven't had a toilet on that side for two days so now I understand because they all come to my side.

This morning the girl uses the restroom She flushed FOUR times. FOUR.

Then, a few minutes later, the guy comes and flushes FIVE.

Okay people. Come on. If you have to flush that many times you shouldn't be pooping in a public place.

My friend, Evelyn, says (as I was texting her to complain about it, and I quote), "Um. LOL. What are they supposed to do??"

I see her point. If you gotta go, well, you gotta go.

But here's the thing - they both do this EVERY morning, mere minutes after they get to work. And they both live close. So, they KNOW this is going to happen. Why don't they just go at home?

Do they ENJOY pooping at work? Are they AFRAID to poop at home?

And really, who feels so comfortable pooping at work that they can flush NINE times total? It's crazy.

And, to make matters worse, the clogged bathrooms are emitting a putrid stench that has been enjoyed by the people on the other side of the office for two days now. (I am so glad it's not my side. I wouldn't come to work.)

So here's the deal - poop at home if you can. It's just respectful.

Nine Ways Paper Books Are Better Than E-Books

So, my dear friend, The Cheeky Ginger, has been all over town posting this:

9 Ways Ebooks Are Better Than Paper Books

Here's the link if you'd care to read her thoughts on the matter:

http://cheekyginger.com/9-ways-ebooks-are-better-than-paper-books/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheCheekyGinger+%28The+Cheeky+Ginger%29

I'm not sure why you'd want to, though, because, well....she's just wrong, even though she does state very quietly at the end that paper books do have advantages.

Well, folks, here they are.

Nine Ways Paper Books Are Better Than E-Books

1. You don't have to wait to turn them on. Sometimes you are just waiting around. For a phone call, a commercial to be over, the doctor to call you into his office. These are the perfect times to open a book. If you have a paper book you can quickly get to your spot and read a bit. If you have an e-book you have to wait until it turns on, cutting down on valuable reading time.

2. You don't have to turn your paper book off on a plane. Planes are a fantastic time for reading. Especially for that horrible amount of time you have to wait to take off and land. What's better to fill that time than reading. But you CAN'T if you have an e-book.

3. You don't have to charge a paper book. I often walk around with books. How can I do that while it's charging? Charging takes valuable time. And it keeps you stuck in one place. What if you're in the middle of something really good and you have to charge? No thanks. On another note (which really should have it's own category but I have so many reasons I have to condense to make nine), when traveling to foreign countries you may not be able to charge your e-book. You have to get an adapter and hope it works. I took my Kindle to London thinking it would be so great to travel. I purchased a very expensive adapter. I plugged in my $300 flat iron. It exploded. So I didn't dare plug in my Kindle. So the first thing I had to do in London was find a book. Annoying.

4. Book covers. Book covers can be gorgeous works of art. You can use them to decorate. How can you decorate with a bunch of files?

5. Book stores. Book stores are amazing places. You can judge books by their cover, pick them up and do a quick perusal of the contents, and potentially find the book of your dreams. Also, please see reason number 6 below. The smell is amazing. You can encounter books, magazines, even toys. You can often get coffee. It's a reason to get out of the house. It's social. You talk to people.

6. Variety. I am keeping this separate from number 5 because I think it's very important. Browsing virtual book stores is very overwhelming. And often they will give you suggestions based on past purchases. But if you do that you may not find something special, something different, something that caught your attention at a book store. And that special thing may be your new favorite book.

7. There's a lot of self-published crap in e-books. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for self-publishing if you want. But the fact that it's SO much easier to self-publish due to e-books means that there's a whole lot more crap to wade through. I don't want to wade through that much crap.

8. You can pass on books to others. If there's a book you treasure you can pass it on. It's like giving someone a gift. And they can wade through the pages like you did, getting immersed in it. It's a physical connection.

9. Paper books create jobs and are better for the economy. It takes a lot to make a books. Just in the manufacturing alone you have people who have to do the layout, make the paper, create the cover, print the book, bind the book, set up the machines to do all of the above, pack the books, ship the books. Then you have all of the book store jobs, all of the publishing jobs. That's a lot of jobs. Books are good for the economy.

So there you have it. Books will always, always be better than e-books. (And if you don't buy them you are destroying the economy and you hate America. So there.)

The Refrigerator Fiasco

So, I have a very reluctant landlord. He bought the apartment building during the housing boom in the hopes to turn it around and sell it. Months later, the market crashed.

This makes my life very inconvenient.

Well, the refrigerator the apartment came with must be from the 1980's. There was a huge gash down the side. And the most charming part? Every few months the smell of death would emanate from it.

The smell was so bad the last time that I wanted to get a hotel room.



We have complained about this multiple times.

FINALLY, a handyman and employee of said landlord happened to be there during a big stink and quickly recommended that he get us a new one. While he was trying not to gag.

So, of course (three months later) we get a new (well, used) refrigerator.

I am told four hours before the fridge is coming. I have to rush home and remove all of my food and my wonderful magnet collection from the refrigerator. I do so.

The new refrigerator comes. 45 minutes late while my food is melting in the sink.

My super wise, thorough landlord doesn't think to measure to make sure the old one can come out. It can't without some serious movement of the stove.

Oh, did I mention that he's not there for this? He comes in, meets the guy for about 18 seconds, then takes off and tells me to call if I need anything.

So, the guy has to move the stove. Which means he has to move everything in the dining room. While I sit there, trying not to stare.

Old fridge out, new (well used) fridge in. Guy gets it all placed. I look up.....

And immediately notice a big problem.

Super smart landlord didn't think to check the door placement. So now I have 50 pounds of melting food, a stove in my dining room, and a fridge that doesn't open. I also realize it's the loudest refrigerator in the world.

Rad.

My dear friend Evelyn thinks this is hilarious.

My quote to her? "I'm having a beer. Might as well. It can't go back in the fridge."

Gotta love my landlord.

The gay marriage debate

So, the Supreme Court is looking into the issue on gay marriage. While it's looking like they aren't going to do a single thing either way, I am following this topic very closely and here are some of my thoughts.

Gay Americans and African Americans

The gay community is comparing their rights to that of the fight African Americans did for their rights. This morning on NPR I heard a gentleman make a speech about how he was in the same place 50 years ago fighting for his rights, but the fight of the gay American is not the same at all.

Well, sir, how is it not? First, African Americans were treated as second class.

So were gay Americans.

Then African Americans were told they were separate but equal.

Gay Americans aren't even getting that. They are getting separate, and a consolation prize, which to me does not say equal. It says, "There's something about you that makes you different from me so you get something different than I do."

I'm sorry, but we live in American where everyone should be entitled to the same rights and privileges.

Marriage is a protection of the family

I hear this one a lot. The anti-marriage side says that marriage is a protection for children and that children have a right to a mother and father.

Well, I grew up with just a dad, as my parents divorced when I was very young. Should divorce be illegal now? Should I have been taken away the second they got divorced?

When my husband and I got married we had no plans to have children. We didn't even want children. Should it have been illegal for us to get married? Should we have had a "civil union?"

What about widows and widowers with kids? Once their spouse dies should their children get taken away? Or do they get a pass because they tried?

What about single parents who chose to be single parents? Is that going to be illegal next? If someone gets knocked up accidentally do their kids get taken away?

Frankly it just doesn't make much sense. It's like saying, well, kids have a right to mother and a father, but if there is just one parent, as long as that parent is straight, it's okay. There we go with that unequal thing.

I think that a kid has a right to a parent or parents of any sex, gender, or race who will love and take care of that kid.

What's better?
- Two gay men who adopt a child who needs a home. These two men are loving, committed, and great parents. They treat each other and their child with respect and provide that kid with a great home and a great education.
- Two drug addicts who are married but abuse their kid and neglect it. They spend all of their money on drugs and alcohol and forget to feed the child. The child lives in filth and squalor and never goes to school.

Well, I think we all know which life the child should have a "right" to.

What's so magical about a mother and a father? What if the mother is a horrible person? What if the father is? What if one of them beats the kid? Wouldn't two solid, good people in the home that are the same sex be better than two of different sexes with one who is cruel?

And civil unions don't stop gay couples from having kids so the point is pretty much moot anyway. It's so illogical, such a fallacy. They say, we can't call it marriage because marriage protects families - so we'll call them civil unions and they can still have kids but those kids won't be protected federally. WHAT? Come on now, people. How do you not see that this makes no sense?

There's not enough evidence

This is another fun one. There's not enough evidence that gay marriage isn't harmful to children. But there's PLENTY of evidence that straight parents screw up their kids and have since the dawn of time, so let's just move on, shall we? I'm sure all parents are going to screw up their kids. It doesn't really matter what sex they are.

Gay marriage will lead to polygamy

I hear this less often than the others but I do hear it. And my thought is, who cares? Make polygamy okay too. Who are you to say who another person can love?

If a woman wants 67 husbands and they all agree, or a man wants four wives and they all agree, who cares?

Granted, it's not for me. I wouldn't share my husband, children, cats, house (anything really) with another woman but that's my choice. And I'm happy I have that choice. Shouldn't other people have the choice to do what makes them happy?

Frankly, I think eight moms might be better than a latch-key kid, but, hey, there's probably not enough evidence.

Conclusion

The people who are the side of anti-marriage are on the wrong side of history. Their arguments are illogical and inane and I truly don't get it. They need to stop bringing "children" and "family" into it. These ideas are just used to block their bigotry and fear.

And, I'm very frustrated that the Supreme Court seems to think that they don't have a place in this yet. The Court stayed far away from the Civil Rights issue until finally they stood up and did something. Did they learn nothing from that? Did they learn nothing from history?

I'm embarrassed that it's 2013 and we are still having this discussion.

The-Mountain-Three-Short-Sleeve

I'm going to keep this short because you have a lot of reading ahead of you.

This shirt has over 2,000 reviews on Amazon:


Read them. Some of them are very funny.

You're welcome.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Mountain-Three-Short-Sleeve/dp/B000NZW3JS/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&qid=1363901157&sr=8-16&keywords=the+mountain+wolf+shirt

50 Shades of....Funny

So, again my favorite blogger, the Cheeky Ginger, has posted an incredibly amusing (and well thought out) blog.

This one is about how disgraceful it is that 50 Shades of Grey author, E.L. James, is coming out with a book on writing.

I, too, agree that this is disgraceful and she explains why so much better than I do.....

http://cheekyginger.com/fifty-shades-of-grey-diy/

With subtitles like "Yay, abuse!" how could you not read it?!?

But the one thing she neglects to discuss is even more disgraceful:

The confusion between James' 50 Shades of Grey and the magnificent Shades of Grey by Jasper Fforde.

I propose that if you still haven't read 50 Shades and are thinking about doing so, just get Shades of Grey instead. Tell people you read the horrible 50 Shades, if you simply must be in the cool crowd. Believe me, you'll be much cooler for reading Fforde in lieu of James anyway.

The twisted media

So we all know that the media is twisted and is only interested in one thing - ratings. They'd rather have more readers than they would have news reported correctly.

Here is a perfect, if simple, example:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/woman-gets-ticket-driving-2-miles-per-hour-211957738.html

The title of this article is:

Woman gets ticket for driving 2 mph under speed limit

But that's very misleading. The woman was ticketed for not getting out of the fast lane. The fast lane is for passing slower traffic. But when you are driving under the speed limit in the fast lane you are causing a traffic hazard.

While the video talks about her failure to move right, the article does not. It repeatedly talks about how she was ticketed for going too slowly, not for actually breaking the law. It even goes on to discuss how AAA is on her side because they are rewarding bad behavior this way.

Come on, news. This isn't a story. The story is that the cop got tired of people not following the rules and did something about it. Bravo, cop!