My New Office

I've been training for my new job. There is much to learn, but I'll get a handle on it eventually.

The former administrative assistant from my building, Susan, is transferring to another seminary along with the current principal, so I will be a new administrative assistant with a new principal--a man who is a newly minted principal and not just a principal transferring in from another building. I'm sure Griff, my new principal, and I will experience some hilarious situations where neither one of us knows what we're doing in the coming year, probably at the same time, and probably about really important things. It's certainly not ideal to have a brand new administrative assistant working with a brand new principal, but there is a lot of support available, so I harbor no misgivings about the coming year. If we can get through a year, we can do anything.

I was hired for a full-time job with benefits at the building where Denise works, but I'm now working part-time at the building in my town instead.

Here's what happened:

The Friday after I was hired, I got a call from the regional director, and he told me that they had a problem. The woman they hired as the part-time administrative assistant for the other building (where I now work), Jeannie, is related to the new principal. Jeannie and Griff are only cousins-in-law, and it was never a secret, as Jeannie and Griff were very up-front about it from day one; only after the hire did HR balk and say they didn't want any relatives in a boss/subordinate situation, even if they aren't really close relatives, and even if they aren't blood-related.

Regional Boss told me that both Jeannie and I were hired because we have the qualities they were looking for. Not only do they want people who can be competent at the job, they also want people who can create a positive, warm, supportive culture in the seminary buildings for students and faculty alike. In addition, administrative assistants are the glue that hold these buildings together. Teachers and principals are transferred in and out every couple years or so, so administrative assistants are the one consistent piece in an ever-changing puzzle. We act as communication hubs, knowledge centers, and cheerleaders, really, for the faculty. Our job is to consistently support faculty and students while other factors change. Jeannie and I were the two outstanding interviewees for these positions, and that's why we were hired.

Then he asked me a question: would I be willing to switch places with Jeannie? And no, full-time hours and benefits would not come with me (that status is determined solely by the number of students who are enrolled in each high school's seminary program and not by applicant qualifications).

It was an unfair question, yes. My decision to keep or not keep the job I was hired for would determine the fate of Jeannie's job, and having met Jeannie and been happily impressed by her, I felt distressed at the thought of demanding to keep my job and forcing her out of a job entirely. So I did agree to switch.

As you would expect, I got angry after I hung up the phone. This is not a church calling, it's a job. Yet what could I do? In my mind, I could only do one thing and still live with myself. Even Husband, who ranted for a while when I told him about it later, admitted he would most likely have made the same decision. Even my MIL, who called me up later in the evening and ranted for a longer time, admitted she would probably have made the same decision.

I felt the anger, I allowed myself to feel it, and I felt it was justified. That decision has cost me some real future dollars and means that I won't get to work with Denise. I expressed my thoughts on the subject to people in charge, but not in the heat of the moment. In the end, however, after having a blessing and doing a lot of praying, I feel like I'm in the right place. I no longer harbor any anger or frustration at the situation, and I am excited to be working where I am with the people I'll be working with.

Besides, my new office is bigger than my old office.

My new office, featuring Standard Bland decor. I wonder if I can decorate? I'm going to have to do something or all of these cupboard doors and drawer fronts will drive me crazy. I'm at least bringing in a few lamps so I can occasionally turn off the flourescents. (Photo taken from the doorway.)

There are lots and lots of cupboards and filing cabinets, which are mostly filled with papers that need to be shredded. Guess what I'll be doing this summer! (Photo taken from the far wall.) 

I am also now within walking distance of my new office, and that might come in handy if we have a malfunctioning car situation. Also for exercise. Ha.

Susan, the outgoing administrative assistant, has been showing me the ropes. Training hours have been spotty so far, what with the crazy quarantine situation going on and with some system software updates creating new and surprising glitches that have prevented us from getting things done. I still know just about nothing, but it'll be a fun ride.

Thank You and Good Night

Enough of politics. No rants today. I think what I think, and I respect that others have reasons for thinking what they think. I'm also aware that I don't know everything. I mostly write stuff to think out loud, but I'm going to shut up about it all.

The Danger of The Greater Good Crowd and How Easily We are Manipulated

Remember the Summer of the Shark?

It was July, 2001. An 8-year-old boy was attacked by a shark on a Mississippi beach, followed immediately by a shark attack in the Bahamas, and a third attack a week later back in Mississippi. There were a couple other shark attacks the media covered over the summer, as well, along with extensive coverage of the remarkable recovery of the little boy and alarming footage of swarming sharks off the coast of southwest Florida. Sharks were everywhere, all the time, on all channels.

The only reason the shark coverage stopped was when September 11, 2001 happened, which, of course, switched the narrative to a different--but equally frenetic--track, which culminated in going to war on a permanent basis in the Middle East and ushering in The Patriot Act, two heinous outcomes that still haunt us. But before that, you would have thought that sharks were making extra efforts to munch on tourists the way the media was telling it. People were spooked and afraid to swim in the ocean. Was it a sign of the times?

In actuality, the total number of shark attacks that year was less than in the year 2000, but we didn't know that because shark attacks weren't on the media radar in 2000. In 2001, people in land-locked states and/or people who didn't surf only thought about shark attacks because the mass media made such a sensational news item of it.

Remember a few years ago when it seemed like churches were burning all across the country? The news was filled with stories of churches going up in flames, with speculation on who was committing these atrocious acts. Yes, some churches were deliberately set on fire, but most fires happened because of unattended candles or faulty wiring or for some other accidental reason, not because of deliberate arson. Additionally, the total number of church fires wasn't above average. But the way the mass media covered it, it was like all churches everywhere were going up in flames, and yours was probably next.

Remember in 1968 when SARS killed thousands and thousands of people? No? Because there wasn't the mass media coverage there is now and the world didn't shut down. That's why you don't hear of the New Great Depression of 1969, which didn't happen because the economy didn't collapse after the shutdown that didn't happen.

Since the advent of cable news, which really took off in the 1990s, we've been told what to worry about on a nation-wide scale. Before that, you had local news, but I don't remember local news being all that inflammatory all the time. Sure, you'd have in-depth pieces like "Razor Blades in Halloween Candy" type of things (and that scare really did make an impact nation-wide), but, for the most part, there wasn't a platform for a constant barrage of 24-hour news cycle pandemonium.

We sure did live on the edge when we didn't know what to be scared witless about!

Good times.

I'm sure you see where I'm going with this, and perhaps you disagree with me. Perhaps you are certain that this time, this time, there is reason to panic. This time, perhaps, the mass media is not in collusion with entities who stand to profit by our unnecessary fear of the newest thing that will kill us all.

I think we both know what my thoughts are on that.

But what I'm also concerned about is the resemblance all of this has to pre-WWII Germany. It's the psychological war that is ramping up that truly worries me, this growing disdain for people who do not toe the line. How people who are not living and cowering in fear of the named Scare of the Moment are selfish, money-hungry jerks with mental issues who don't know how or deliberately choose not to contribute to the greater good.

The Greater Good crowd scares me witless. I'm far more likely to die at the hands of a fanatic Greater Gooder than I am from a coronavirus. The Greater Good crowd are so absolutely certain they are in the right that they are perfectly willing to give up their own liberties and force you to give up yours, even if they have to kill you to make you do it.

I'm probably going to sound a little like Ayn Rand here (whom I have read, yes) but what we really need to worry about is the suppression of individual rights to the service of the The Greater Good. This is what I'm terrified of. This is what turns normally good people into murderers or accomplices to murderers, willing to snitch on neighbors and family members for not saying or doing the acceptable things even when they know the outcome for that person might be imprisonment or death. They are so certain that individuals must give up their individual rights to life, liberty, and property for The Good of Society (whatever that is) that they will happily be the method by which someone loses life, liberty, or property, and they will feel completely justified--and even proud--of doing it.

The Greater Good itself is an exceedingly nebulous concept. You can never really define it because it's such a subjective term. Generally, it means that you, the individual, must stop doing or saying something--or start doing and saying something--so that you are aligned with the prevailing needs of society as a whole. Whatever that "something" is is determined by whatever experts are in charge, enforced by government. If you refuse, you are selfish at best, and mentally ill and a danger to yourself and others at worst.

Case in point: masks. This might seem like a small thing, but it is not. This is a very visible symptom of the road we are traveling into The Greater Good House of Horrors.

When the mass media finally told us to start panicking in March (where, before, they told us there was nothing to worry about), they also told us masks were a) useless, b) dangerous, and c) to be saved for medical personnel. Then, weeks later, we were told that we had to wear masks, though plenty of medical personnel have cautioned and continue to caution against the physical dangers of long-term mask wearing as well as the inefficacy of homemade masks or masks that are not N95-rated with the correct filter and the correct fitting. And yet you can't get into Costco without wearing a mask. If you choose not to wear a mask outside or to another store, you get dirty looks; in some states, you get arrested.

But here's where the danger comes in: friends I have on social media, who are normally anti-government oppression, are virtue signaling by saying they wear masks not for themselves but for the good of others, just in case.

This is what I'm talking about. Right now, The Greater Good crowd are virtuous people who tell everyone how they wear masks even if masks are completely ineffective for prevention or against spread. They do it not for themselves but for the good of others. Anyone who does not do this, therefore, is selfish and probably puts money over peoples' lives.

I'm not saying people who wear masks are bad people. I'm not saying people who don't wear masks are good people. What I'm saying is that there is a growing sentiment that even if you know a mask is ineffective, you should still wear one for The Greater Good. Some people feel the need to shame those who choose not to wear a mask. Since the prevailing attitude is that we must all sacrifice a little comfort for The Greater Good, then wearing a mask shows that you are compliant and selfless. To not do so signals that you are a selfish rebel.

It's a small thing right now, but it's a symptom. At some point, you won't just be selfish for not doing the socially prescribed action for the greater good, you'll be labeled something far harsher: denier, dangerous, mentally ill. And someday, those who refuse to succumb to the Greater Good propaganda will be snitched on and rounded up. Just like what happened in Germany before WWII.

Yes, we are traveling that path. Just because people are turning a blind eye to it doesn't mean we aren't. Just because good people are denying that we could ever go down that path again doesn't mean it isn't human nature.

When individuals are strong and empowered, society is strong. When individuals are weak and oppressed, society will be miserable. Individuals are not perfect, and strong societies are not perfect, but with freedom and liberty comes beauty as well as risk. We cannot allow ourselves to be so scared into compliance because of saaaafety that we forget that beautiful liberty always comes with risk.

I'm not expressing myself well, and that frustrates me. I'm working through a mental fog. But I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. These smaller symptoms are indicative of a much greater disease brewing in the body of the world unless we treat the root cause: the evil agenda meant to convince us willingly and voluntarily make ourselves weak and compliant in servitude of some fictional Greater Good. Whether it's willingly done by a propagandized populace in the name of selflessness or forced upon us by a tyrannical government, it is still evil.

My Experts Can Beat Up Your Experts

This really ticked me off today:

Please stop saying you "researched it."
You didn't research anything, and it's highly probable that you don't even know how to do so.
Did you compile a literature review and write abstracts on each article? Or better yet, did you collect a random sample of sources and perform independent probability statistics on the reported results? No?
Did you at least take each article, one by one and look into the source (that would be the author, publisher and funder), then critique the writing for logical fallacies, cognitive distortions and plain inaccuracies.
Did you ask yourself why this source might publish these particular results? Did you follow the trail of references and apply the same source of scrutiny to them?
No? Then you didn't [expletive] research anything. You read or watched a video, most likely with little to no objectivity. You came across something in your algorithm manipulated feed, something that jived with your implicit biases, and subconsciously applied your emotional filters and called it proof.
Scary.
~Linda Gamble Spadaro

I shouldn't go on Facebook. My bad. But I did, and this just chapped my hide so much. I saw this quote posted by my former 5th grade best friend as an attack on people who don't think the "correct" things, who question the official narrative.

So condescending. So smarmy. Such a good example of the need for Oxford commas.

So what Ms. Spadaro is saying (if this is actually something she wrote, because I didn't exhaustively do more research than look her up online to make sure she was a real person, and there is someone with that name who is a therapist, but I don't know if she wrote the above) is that you are not allowed to question the "experts" unless you are a trained researcher and are willing to put hours and hours into exhaustive searching, reading, and tracing of each and every aspect of each and every source for each and every article. The way she calls it, if you have the gall to question "settled science," you must be an ignorant, slack-jawed yokel hanging onto your guns and beer and Bible, because you couldn't possibly posses the brain power to challenge The Experts, who are all vastly smarter than you and are never wrong, you monstrous anti-vaxxer.

Do you remember those guys who did the experiment to see how many fake articles they could get published in some top social sciences journals? They got all but one of their papers accepted into a number of journals, and the only reason they got caught was because a newspaper journalist finally got suspicious and exposed the hoax. But many of those articles were, by then, published in supposedly rigorously peer-reviewed journals. The articles got published because they fit the narrative of the editors, not because they were vigorously source-checked and researched--or even logical! They fit the narrative each of the journals was intent to propagandize, and that was all the research the editors needed.



What makes medical journals all that different?

Why do so many people now mistrust the MSM as biased? Answer: because when you follow the money, you realize that enough money can buy all the experts and studies and policies you need to support your agenda. And if that agenda is about money, power, and control, people who question the "experts" with any degree of credibility find themselves with no platform to speak and possibly with ruined reputations; some are even surprised to find that they have committed suicide, sometimes very inventively, like with two gunshots to the back of the head.

Nope. No reason to look behind the curtain.

I'm not saying a lack of vigorous research is acceptable. Researching sources is always a must. You need to know who is making definitive statements or funding research and what the biases may be. But that is also very difficult because sometimes the funding comes through front corporations or foundations, which obscures the ultimate source of funding, and thus, the true motives behind the results of the studies. Sad but true. There is still real science being investigated out there, but so much of it is Scientism, which requires just as much faith as any other religion. Believers in Scientism will crucify you for questioning their prophets, their Neil DeGrasse Tysons and Bill Nyes. Their Anthony Faucis and Deborah Birxes.

It's difficult not to have implicit biases. As humans, we are very biased based on our experiences, education, and perceptions, and it's a lie to say we're not. As a true scientist, you might be able to set aside your biases by stating a hypothesis and then truly following the facts to either prove or disprove that hypothesis, and I admire people who are able to not become personally invested in a specific outcome; but I don't know how often the scientific method is strictly followed on the most hot-button topics, the most politically charged areas of science. How many times have we been told Drug X or Product Y has been rigorously tested by a company and passed by the FDA only to find that it's actually really bad and is killing people and must be pulled from the market--but only after the company has made a profit? So let us not be throwing around accusations of "implicit biases" with quite so much high-handedness, Ms. Spadaro.

Also, how often have we been told that the "science is settled" only to have contradicting evidence brought forth that puts into question our most cherished theories? Answer: always. Tesla thought Einstein was an idiot and that the theory of relativity is complete and utter bunk. He also thought that all the theoretical mathematicians were following mathematical fantasies that had no bearing on reality. Tesla was a genius, and we hail Einstein as a genius. Which one was right?

Currently, doctors disagree on the severity and fatality of covid 19. When faced with opposing teams of equally credible medical doctors, which side do you listen to? In 99% of cases, people will listen to the side that supports their opinion, whether or not that opinion is backed by a personal dive into the rigorously satisfactory research Ms. Spadaro demands.

Are we naive enough to think we haven't evolved beyond the playground fights of "My dad can beat up your dad!" when it comes to vaunting the experts that agree with our biases?

We, as a species, are intelligent, but we're not as intelligent as we think we are. Questioning the narrative is good, even if it ends up justifying the narrative. My logic says something like this: if a group of people who don't know that there are two biological sexes tells me that I must believe everything they say about X, Y, or Z, then you better believe I am going to question their conclusions, especially if what I can see with my eyes is different than what they are telling me. If they are quoting studies as their facts, then yes, I'm going to look at sources and funding. And I also want to know if the studies actually say what is being reported, because it very often happens that a sensational headline is picked out of a study, but the information within the study doesn't actually support the headline at all. Sometimes, the study actually says the opposite of what the headline is claiming.

We should question the experts if only as a thought exercise alone. We might end up coming to the same conclusion as the experts in the end, but to force yourself to question everything you've ever been taught is the only way to prevent a descent into mindless complacency.

I'm so sick and tired of the smugly self-righteous, who bask in the knowledge that all their thinking is being done for them by their approved experts, and that all who disagree with them are stupid conspiracy theorists who don't have the brains to shut up and toe the line.

Of course vaccines are perfectly safe for everyone--despite the fact that no vaccines have never been rigorously tested against a placebo in a long-term, double-blind study. Not even once, and certainly not for pregnant women or infants. Sure, check out the ingredients listed on a vaccine insert, and then read the part that says it has not been tested and found safe for pregnant women and children, even though medical experts will get on television and sigh with parental exasperation, "Everyone needs the vaccine, especially the most vulnerable among us: pregnant women and children." And pharmaceutical companies are legally immune from prosecution for vaccine damage or death because why?

Of course Covid 19 is a serious, highly fatal illness--despite the obvious inflation of numbers of deaths attributed to the virus of people who have not been tested or have tested negative, and when doctors and coroners are being instructed to list covid as the cause of death on all death certificates, regardless of actual cause of death. And despite the fact that we have gone through numerous global outbreaks of far more deadly diseases without ever shutting down the world. And let's not forget the perverse financial incentive for hospitals for every covid patient they can list, with even more money coming in every time you put someone on a ventilator. Also, the death rate for this year is still not above average, although covid does seem to be a miraculous cure for fatal flu and pneumonia, since no one is dying of those illnesses these days!

Of course the various versions of covid tests are reliable and necessary, even when they've been shown to exhibit up to 80% false positives, and even when the inventor of the test has stated unequivocally that his test was never intended to and should never be used to determine the presence of an infectious disease. Even when a paw-paw fruit and a goat in Tanzania have tested positive for covid, how dare you question the efficacy of the test?

Of course Bill Gates is the savior of the world, even if he doesn't have a medical degree, and despite the fact that his generous philanthropic donations to vaccination programs have been more than doubly returned to him in vaccine revenue, raking in more money than Microsoft ever did for him. Or that thousands of children in India and Africa have been killed or permanently damaged by those vaccines. Or that thousands of women in Africa found themselves sterilized after having his vaccines. Of course he only has the health and well-being of the people of the world at heart when his new covid vaccination will be mandatory and his coffers will happen to swell some more. Or that he funds directly or indirectly just about every single foundation, NGO, and governmental body involved in vaccine research and that are pushing for more and more vaccines. Of course his interests are purely altruistic, even though his father was an outspoken eugenicist who worked with Margaret Sanger to establish Planned Parenthood, and who, himself, has let slip more than once (I have seen the unredacted videos) that vaccinations can be used as a way to reduce population and thus reduce carbon emissions and save the world.

Of course Bill Gates' patents are entirely above suspicion.

Of course Building 7 fell down because of a couple fires and not because it was an obvious free fall suspiciously similar to a controlled demolition.

But I'm just a slack-jawed yokel who shouldn't have the right to say anything or ask any questions. I also don't use Google as my browser, preferring something a little less censored for my algorithmic recommendations. Pardon my overreach, Ms. Spadaro. I don't believe the right things. I don't have the correct implicit biases. Scary indeed!

Tyler Yells the Alphabet

This is my first foray into iMovie. Please pardon the weird green bits. They didn't show up in the original video, and I'm not sure what I'm doing. Hopefully, I'll get better at this.

I just wanted to share this clip of Tyler from a longer video his mama sent to me. Apparently, he'd been yelling the alphabet all morning, so she documented it. I know he's not your grandson, and you might not feel quite as warm and fuzzy as I do when you watch it, but my heart melts every time I see this little guy. 

He says, "Bup bup" for "w." That kills me every time.

Announcement!

Guess what!

I got the job!

I got a call yesterday morning from the head honcho (days sooner than I expected), and he told me that I was their first pick of all sixteen applicants; that they loved my interview and thought I was very qualified, articulate, and personable; and they were really excited to extend to me the position of administrative assistant at the larger of the two seminaries.

Well, if I was inclined to get a big head, that would do it. Fortunately for all around me, I'm too frequently filled with self-doubt to become insufferable, but, yesterday, I allowed myself to feel very pleased with myself and bask in a little glow of gratitude and excitement.

I haven't announced my new job publicly, except here. Only my family and a couple close friends know. It's not a big secret or anything, but I was politely asked to not announce it for a day or so so that other applicants wouldn't find out they didn't get the job via social media before they were able to read the email telling them the position had been filled. But you know me and social media announcements: not likely to happen. For now, dear reader, you are one of the very few privileged with this information (read my gently self-deprecating sarcasm).

In other news, I attended a mission reunion this morning via Zoom. It was a lot of fun to see old friends from all over the country and the world, including the Swedish mission companion I mentioned a few posts back. The mission president and his wife were eventually able to figure out the technology and get onto the meeting, and they stayed online for a good forty minutes before their internet abruptly cut out. By that time, the reunion had already lasted a couple hours, so we just said good-bye to each other and scheduled another reunion in three weeks. Isn't technology wonderful? Visiting with people from all over the world whom you haven't seen in nearly thirty years can eventually become boring and passé!

We take so much for granted.

Okay, gotta go. I'm making Swedish meatballs and roasted lemon-parmesan cauliflower for dinner (Elannah's request), and I still have to plant the rose bush Husband and I bought yesterday. I'll take pics and post them soon.

Where Have the Seagulls Gone?

The seagulls are gone.

I feel like I'm going a little crazy because no one I've talked to about this seems to have noticed.

Over ten years ago, when we first moved here, seagulls were one of the main birds I saw in the area. They were all over. Every parking lot had a small flock of seagulls hanging out, waiting for something tasty to fall on the ground. When we had picnics at parks, seagulls magically multiplied to land nearby and screech at us or wheel around above us in the sky. They were everywhere, their loud, raucous cries reminding me of my childhood in Northern Minnesota on the shores of Lake Superior, where herring gulls are ubiquitous.

The fact that I grew up around herring gulls might be why I noticed the seagulls here, like a comforting connection to where I came from. I couldn't quite make myself believe that the train horns were actually boat horns signaling the arrival of the massive freighters as they chugged into the harbor; but having seagulls around made me happy.

Seagulls and herring gulls are pretty much the same except that herring gulls live around fresh water and seagulls live around salt water. This was a fact drummed into me from early childhood. It seemed important to the adults that we knew we were surrounded by herring gulls, not seagulls. They certainly both sound and act the same.

But now there are no seagulls here--or, at least, very, very few. I see a single gull once in a while, but not nearly in the numbers that I used to. Instead, I see huge black crows, though they don't flock like gulls. I also see plenty of tiny starlings, which seem to have taken over parking lot duty. Did the crows and starlings chase out the seagulls? I've seen groups of starlings harass much larger birds, like the crows. Did they gang up on the gulls, too? Or did the gulls leave for some other reason?

I miss the seagulls. Apparently, no one else does, because no one else I've asked has noticed. Was I just noticing the seagulls because I have a connection with them, though they weren't actually as numerous as my perception led me to believe? The other explanation is that I'm just a little off my rocker. Could be both.

My Head Is Full of Ideas

The tree in our front yard was flowering, but the flowers are fading fast. I grabbed a pic of it while it was still loaded with these sweet smelling pink blossoms. Tomorrow, I will snip off some blooms from the lilac bush and bring them inside. I love lilacs. They may be my favorite flower scent--well, until I breathe in the perfume of heritage roses or gardenias or lavender. I have a lot of favorite flower scents.

I had an interview yesterday morning for an administrative assistant position for one of two openings in the area's high school LDS seminaries. My choir director, Denise, just got hired as a new seminary teacher, and she immediately texted me and told me to apply for this job, which was her previous position. I know they really liked her as an admin. assist., so I channeled my inner Denise as much as possible during the interview with the principles of both the seminaries and the regional director of seminaries. I think it went very well. I was articulate and relaxed, and they even laughed at my jokes. We'll see. They said they would let me know either way by the middle of next week, so I'll say more about it if I get the job. I really hope I do. If not, I will continue to be a bus driver.

In other news, my brother, Aaron, just signed the papers and is the new owner of my parents' house, where he has been living with my parents, my grandma, and my youngest brother, Thomas.

Aaron could have left at any time in the last few years--and, in fact, he very much wanted to--but the Spirit kept telling him to stay, so he put up with the constant teasing from ward members about being an adult male in his 30s still living at home. He didn't like it, and he often got really frustrated, but he listened to the Spirit and stayed. He has also been able to be a great helper to my parents, both physically and financially at times. The process of him buying the home is a story of some major and minor miracles, and I think this was one of the reasons he needed to stick around. I won't get into details of his personal life, but I will say that he would love to be married and be a husband and father, but that hasn't happened yet. I hope he is rewarded with all of his righteous desires, because he is an excellent man.

Aaron is now responsible for a mortgage payment that is less than half what my parents were paying, which relieves my parents of a massive financial burden that hasn't been getting any easier as they get older. Because Aaron has a good position at a good company and has been financially responsible, this means he will have some cash to update the place and get it into shape. To that end, he has commissioned me to come up with a plan. He knows I love this sort of thing, and he feels absolutely overwhelmed. I haven't been able to think about anything else since we talked about it (except for the interview, of course). My head is delightfully full of ideas, and I've been writing it all out in order to create a sensible timeline of needed renovations (updating the roof and plumbing first) as well as creating a coherent and unifying redecorating scheme that can be implemented in stages, as Aaron's finances allow.

The home was built in the late 1960s, and it has a mid-century modern vibe. I'm thankful we never had the cash to ruin some of the original details of the house by ripping them out back when we lived there, because now the massive rocks in the fireplace wall, stone flooring in the entry, unbroken expanse of glass in the living room windows, and brown and white kitchen tiles are considered retro and desirable rather than dated and ugly. I plan on incorporating all of those details into the updated decor, when the spaces will all be given a fresh face that winks flirtatiously at its mid-century modern origin without wanting to marry it, if I might stretch a metaphor a little too far. Honestly, it's a tract house, and all the neighbors have the same floor plan--and none of the houses were built all that well in the first place--so this house isn't some marvel of mid-century craftsmanship that should be regarded as a national treasure. I won't be trying to mimic a Frank Lloyd Wright building. Everything I do will be aimed at creating functionality, comfort, and beauty for my brother and my parents while still bending an eye toward the resale value.

I could go on. And on. But I will cease and desist to preserve your sanity, if you've even made it this far, dear reader. I can be so long-winded. But, oh, I'm so full of ideas!