Clarification

I’ve been brought to my attention that I may have misrepresented myself in yesterday’s post. If you haven’t read it, please go ahead and do that now. That’s okay, I’ll wait…

…

…

 

Evidently, there is some evidence to suggest, that in spite of my own perceptions of my personality, I might actually be, in fact, a prude. I suppose it all depends on how one defines the term. As stated in my blog yesterday, I’m not offended by much (racial slurs …misogyny …Philip Seymour Hoffman), nor do I hold people to high standards of propriety. I’m non-judgmental as a rule. That’s not to say that I’m not occasionally taken by surprise by acts of audacity, but surprise is fundementally different than indignation. I compared myself to a definition of prudishness which would require self-righteous affrontedness of other people’s behavior and I found myself innocent of the charge.

 

But there is another definition to consider. Actions speak louder than words, and my actions are all too puritanical. For example, though I’m happy to drink when occasion arises, I can count the number of times I’ve ever been truly drunk on a single finger. Coincidentally, “one” is also the number of cigarettes I’ve ever puffed, and it was being shared by four of us, so actually it was ¼ of a cigarette, which technically rounds to the nearest integer as “zero”.

 

I’ve never so much as held a bong or joint to my lips, much less inhaled. I do admit to some second-hand-smoke contact on that front, but the sheer repulsiveness of the odor of marijuana will keep me from ever taking a puff. It must be my own perception of the odor, else I can’t comprehend as to how popular this plant has become smelling so terribly. I imagine a wine-aficionado taking a long thoughtful hit… “A very full flavored herb, rich with an aroma of dirty gym socks, and a hint of sweaty butt crack.” Nevertheless, I suppose people do more wretched things to get high… Any other narcotic, for example. …and I’ve even heard tell of teenagers smoking cow poop for a methane high.

 

To continue the investigation into my priggishness, one would have to examine my love life (which we won’t do here… at least not in detail). My romantic life (back when I had one), is all very classic. Undeniably similar to the the local conservative anti-gay-marriage bumper-stickers that still don the backsides of yellow-ribboned vehicles in our state: “One Man + One Woman”. (I met a man during this campaign who was thinking of having a rebuttal bumper sticker made that read “One Man + Two Billy Goats”) It’s not a matter of principal for me, I’m perfectly fine with gay marriage, and homosexuality in general is not offensive to me. However, I neither have attraction to men nor livestock, and no need for more than one woman, so my equation and the bumper-sticker’s remain the same. …though mine is a personal preference and the bumper-sticker is a rudely suggested mandate for everyone.

 

Put this all together, and I fear that it does indeed indicate that I am prude. Damn! I have no strong desire to be a moralist, yet I’m not really interested in changing the elements of my life that categorize me here. You’d think that it’s not a big deal, that this is the “norm.” But when I think people in my social circle, I realize that I’m the stuffiest of the lot. I can think of two dozen libertines with no effort at all, but I’m hard pressed to find half as many on the other side of the coin, even after rifling through my address book (though the church directory was invaluable!).

 

It feels so unusual to be so “majority”.

Purgatory in Conference Room H

It’s agonizing enough just sitting through a 2 hour telephone conference pertaining to the interfacing of 4 databases in order to marry together criminal justice data with accounting processes; but then to throw in an insufferable know-it-all with horrible visual-aides… There’s no doubt in my mind, if I go to hell when I die, that meeting is where I’ll be sent until my purgatory is complete.

For some unknown reason, the vocations of accountants and IT professionals attract some of the strangest people in our society. I say this having tried my hat in both professions.

Accountants tend towards anti-social and obsessive-compulsive types. I’ll never forget sharing an office for a full year with Keith and Margaret (names have been changed to protect the innocent… and the guilty). Keith was a strange little man in his 30’s with bushy brown hair and bright blue eyes that made him look like a 5 year old. He was amiable enough until you tried changing the radio station from the oldies or borrowing something from his desk. He once chased a bic pen of his through the entire building, questioning everyone who had been in our office that day and threatening to transfer the funds from our budget account to theirs if they didn’t return the pen. Margaret, on the other hand, was a fearsome middle-aged woman who dressed like Bea Arthur and ruled her cost sheets with an iron fist. Everyone hid from her, she was not to be trifled with.

IT professionals on the other hand attract all manner of interesting personalities. My prime examples include Seth and Barbara. Seth, a not-unsympathetic character with earrings and a stutter, once emailed a group of us when his web-interface finally passed inspection, exclaiming that he was so excited that he nearly “creamed his shorts!”

Now, contrary to how I might come across at times, I’m not a prude. I tend to interact with others in a sense of propriety, simply because I’m not very confident in social situations, and it’s a comfort to have structure with which to guide myself. But I certainly don’t expect it of others, and I would be quite bored if everyone behaved this way. In actuality, almost nothing offends me, I both laugh at and make inappropriate jokes like everyone else. Nevertheless, I was shocked at Seth’s cluelessness of what might be offensive to some… particularly in a professional setting.

But while Seth might be ignorant of what is appropriate at work, I much prefer his company to that of Barbara. Barbara is the aforementioned “know-it-all”, who truly seems to believe that she is the sharpest tool in the shed, and attempts to take the lead in every project in which she is involved. She delights in making declarations and setting goals which really aren’t her decisions to make. She’s very frustrating for me.

As a general rule, it’s best to avoid being in the same room both with IT personnel and accountants. But it’s not always feasible to do so (actually, I AM an IT person, so it’s near impossible to get around this). And here I was in this meeting, surrounded by both.

I knew things were headed downhill when, an hour before our meeting, Barbara emailed the group of us a flow chart she had written.

(I’m not sure how well this will display on the blog, and to top it off, I blurred out most of the verbiage, but hopefully it will show well enough that you can see how amazingly BAD it is!)

The chart was a nightmare! There is no starting point… how can you do a “Flow Chart” without a starting point? Arrows going back and forth among objects… utter chaos. Nevertheless, Barbara was certain that this would set focus for the meeting. She kept referring to it during the meeting. “You see where the red arrow does the loop-de-loop to the blue circle? THAT’S what I’m talking about!”

I sat through the meeting staring at this chart, mystified by the sheer failure in which Barbara was so confident. She really had no clue! It was like watching the “American Idol” tryouts, with those leagues of toneless kids who really think they have talent. I imagined Barbara trying out for “American Graphics”…

Paula: You’re not ready yet, but keep at it! Don’t give up, someday you’ll get a sense of perspective!

Simon (rolling his eyes at Paula): Who are you kidding?!? This is totally useless! This chart needs to be taken out and shot! Don’t ever, EVER, try graphing again! Not so much as a pie chart!

I’m ashamed to say, that I spent a good deal of the meeting trying to decide which witty insult I could interject the next time Barbara referred to her chart. You can really only do one, more than that is just bullying. I was trying to decide between “Isn’t this JFK’s “Magic Bullet” theory?” and “Hey! If you blur your eyes just right, you can see a hidden picture!” But in the end, I said nothing, I’m just not that eager to publicly embarrass someone.

And then, as I was staring down at it, I began to see it as more than just a clumsy accumulation of random arrows and nonsensical objects. Out of the chaos arose a work of art. Not a lack of perspective, but a challenge to our general perceptions. And it occurred to me that I’ve seen it’s like before…