I ain't no freakin' monument to justice

 

About a year ago I got a camera and started taking pictures. If you have been following along here you have seen a few... hundred... million of these pictures. But the first pictures I took were of graffiti. They were mainly of graffiti on a train. I was very respectful. I said: look at these wonderful unheralded artists of the train tracks and underpasses! Like a devout documentarian my pictures detailed the complete works of these trainyard Kandinskys. I tried to get whole, clear, unblemished pictures of their vibrant pieces.

They were very nice and polite pictures. 

But a year of Pandemic will make a savage of a man. Or maybe it's a year of photography will make a savage of a man. Or maybe I just ain't no freakin' monument to justice!

So when after nearly a year I found myself, camera in hand, back at the tracks, with a new train but the same old bridge barricades, and new and old painting and scribbling to explore, I did not dutiful record it all like an Art Historian. 

No, I stole it all for myself, to do with as I will. 

I took it all, without regard...

And I made some pictures:

The good weather

 

 

 

 

It's been a challenging week. I've had a lot of really painful back problems all week. But because of a variety of other health issues around my house, and difficulties with the library involving the Pandemic, I had gone through too much of my sick time over the past half year to feel comfortable staying home from work.

So there I was, on a Wednesday in early March that was hinting broadly of Spring, answering the phones: 

"Good afternoon. Lilyvale Library, this is Feldenstein." I said brightly into the receiver.

"Wow, you sound like you're having a good day!" They said back.

"Oh." I replied. "That's just performative. I just play a happy, engaged, and helpful person in my role as a person working at the library."

They either didn't get it or buy it. "I'm doing pretty good today too."

"It is a fantastically beautiful day." I admitted.

Because, despite everything, it kind of is. 

The balance

 

My friend Richard asked me to read something his childhood friend wrote in the Star Tribune, our main city paper around here. Apparently this friend writes an occasional opinion piece for the paper. I was a little hard on it. Probably because I feel I should have a daily column in the newspaper to intoxicate the citizenry with, and I curse all who keep me from it. But it was a reasonably nice piece. It was about walking in the woods, paying respect, and how we who have found some dominion over the natural world, like with this vaccine for covid, should try to be worthy of it. 

Fair enough.

So I went for a walk in the snowed over swamp behind the library. And I thought: I don't believe there is a balance between good and evil. I believe that while solving the problems caused by our own malfeasance averts disaster, it does not make us special in the Universe. I believe that what makes us special in the universe is solving a problem where there is no problem, it is in the acts of committing good that is untethered to any evil.

Joe Biden undoing some of the damage of the previous president doesn't make him a good president. Fighting the battle of correcting our mistakes is a losing battle because one can only lose ground in failure, or conversely not lose ground in success, but one can never improve or advance. There is only attrition in it.

Many dots of hope have been reported from this new government like victories, but there aren't really victories there. There is no $15 minimum wage to report. There is no $2,000 stimulus. If a green new deal comes it will be 20 years late and a fraction of the size needed. We're still a country trying not to drown. Just because we're giving it a good go on trying not to drown, improved as it is, doesn't mean we're swimming.

It was a nice enough piece my friend's friend wrote. But I say that for all we have stolen from ourselves the vaccine is our right. 

If we want to be worthy of something we should aim higher. 

Readers

There is an old joke about the number of readers of this blog. It is that there is always one less reader than the last time I checked.

Ha.

There are 100 readers of this blog. Maybe even 200. But not right now.

That's my total of adding up all the dedicated readers who were ever once here as regulars and then slipped away into the other world. The other world is the vast anything that is not this blog and so definitionally beyond the purview of anything we could ever discuss.

By Internetland standards 200 is such a statistically small number as to be meaningless, like a lottery chance or the amount of an active ingredient in a homeopathic remedy, closer to zero than to something that will register or make a mark. But it's a number that nevertheless looks okay to me. It is just enough for me to remember everything here and everyone who has ever dropped by. We keep a catalog of everyone's footprint, their favorite drink, their cozy corner, their preferred subject, and when they mysteriously slip away we keep their spot, forever if need be, growing dusty and old in its undisturbed place.

I remember a passionate follower of the blog who once responded to some post, probably not so different than this one, many many years ago, to say he enjoyed my obscurity against all the other bloggers he followed who cashed in on their success and were ruined. 

Hey, I'm not ruined!

To that reader: your red leather chair you loved still awaits you. Have you been by? It looks covered in a deep layer of dust. Regardless, there it will sit, used or not.

Another time I wrote something that caused a reader to cry out "I am here. I read clerkmanifesto almost all the time!" And this reader enumerated the many things they liked about this blog, pointing only to the "Letters to the Publisher" posts as the ones they dreaded and did not enjoy. I thought of this reader during my very recent last two letters to publisher posts, eyeing their empty tea table in a favored spot in the sun, a cat sleeping under the chair, the tea long grown cold.

Maybe they're there, maybe they aren't. On February 6, 2015, at precisely 12:54 pm, under this post, a reader wrote: "You do have "fans". This fan chooses to remain anonymous yet loyal." I take them at their word then. There they are, right now, at their old study table deep in the great library, dark beer in hand, owl perched on the overwrought chandelier above them, reading along with us now, never forgotten. 

 

I would like to be a famous blogger!

You caught me. My defenses are down. I admit:

I would like to be a famous blogger.

One is not supposed to admit to a desire for fame. It is unseemly, a trait only for the child too young to know, or for the craven person who wants to be famous for fame's sake. 

Nearly every famous person wants to be famous, but they can't admit it, barely even to themselves. It's a terrible dance.

I asked my friend Bob Dylan "Do you want to be famous?"

"No." He replied calmly.

"Liar!" I yelled.

"Whoa. What's got into you?"

"I want to be a famous blogger!" I exclaimed.

"Like...?" He asked.

Oh shit. There aren't any.

So it's not my fault that I'm not!

"So it's not my fault that I'm not?" I asked Bob.

"I'm not sure you're taking the right message here."

"How about: The field is wide open?" I suggested.

"Keep working on it." He suggested gently.

I fell silent and thoughtful for a long time, which Bob really seemed to appreciate.

Bird identification

 

I was out for a late Winter walk and I came upon a bird standing in a stream.

"Is it a pigeon?" I wondered.

I didn't think it was a pigeon, but I did what I always do in such a situation. I took three billion pictures of the bird until it flew away. Somewhere along the way in that I identified the bird as a hawk... of...some...kind.

I'm super good at bird identification!

Here is what I have learned about bird identification for the, er, non professional birder:

There are always 10 or 15 birds around that are easy to identify, like where I live; bald eagle, robin, blue jay, turkey vulture, cardinal, turkey, etc.  Most people around here know what these birds are without needing to consult thick and detailed guides. 

For everything else you can just look your bird up anywhere, a book, the Internet, a phone app, whatever, and you quickly find:

 

A. Your bird does not exist.

or

B. Your bird can be one of two birds. 

So I don't even try to identify my birds. I take my best picture to my co-worker who is an avid birder. And I ask "What is it?".

Here is my bird:

He was super interested because he is an avid birder.

He commented on how nice a picture it is, which was very satisfying. He said incredulously "You took this picture?"

I contain multitudes.

He checked the computer.

"It could be one of two birds" he said. "Do you have any pictures of its tail feathers?

No. 

I focused on that red eye, which apparently offered us little on what sort of bird it is. 

Go figure.

The Cooper's Hawk is maybe a bit more common around here, but it was decided that mine was a Sharp-shinned Hawk. 

 

Cool. 

 

Sharp-shinned Hawk. I'd prefer the name "Red-eyed Hawk", but I guess that wouldn't always be accurate?

 

It turned out the pigeon thing was a the helpful clue. The Sharp-shinned Hawk is small for a hawk, thus the almost pigeon size. Not that my bird wouldn't take a stab at eating a small pigeon if he could get one, or so I learned. Also the pattern on the chest is just like the pattern of the Sharp-shinned Hawk in the Internet picture. Although, to be honest, it's a lot like the pattern of the Cooper's Hawk too.

Definitely a Sharp-shinned Hawk though. It was verified by a professional birder! And it's rather a top notch Sharp-shinned Hawk if you ask me, although what with my close personal relationship to this bird I may be a bit biased.

Filibuster

 

Unlike my idea wherein our nation (legally) kills the richest person in the country at the end of every month, today's political idea is not unique to me. This is largely due to the iconic and stirring film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. The way the filibuster worked in that movie to this day inspires a lot of what people think a filibuster should be, and it has furthermore lightly inspired people other than myself as a solution to the Democrats' current quandary of whether to break some tradition by quashing the filibuster rule, or to keep a filibuster rule that will make it impossible to do any important work for the country despite having control of both the Legislative and Executive branches of government. 

But despite there being some light dabbling in supporting this cinematic filibuster revision, I don't think it's been taken seriously, or properly understood as exactly the sort revisions that the Democratic party should make. Indeed it is precisely the kind of creative, left favoring solution the Democratic party would make if they were creative and left favoring. Which, it truly pains me to tell you, they are not.

But let's soldier on ahead because we really don't have anything else besides Democrats and don't have anywhere else to go. So let me a little more fully outline, than has been done in the common media landscape, what I am talking about with this Filibuster change, and how it would favor the left, Democrats, virtue, fairness, and hope, all while not breaking with tradition, or opening doors to future, more nefarious majorities. It is safe politically, because anyone can watch Mr. Smith and get the gist of this kind of filibuster's virtues, and also because it eliminates nothing, it only redefines the filibuster into what any common person, in a non partisan way, would think it should have been all along.

I'm going to simplify a lot, frankly too much. But the basic current idea in the Senate with the filibuster is that, in a wide range of legislation, instead of things being decided by a majority vote, any minority Senator can sort of just say "I filibuster!" and it will stop a vote in its tracks. If there aren't 60 votes to break this filibuster then the bill (or whatever is being voted on) is stuck and can't be passed. This functionally creates a situation where votes just become procedures that require a 60 to 40 majority. It is a perversion of the concept of majority rule and a perversion of what the filibuster is there for and how it should be used.

As we have seen in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, the filibuster is, and should be all about skin in the game. It should be all about throwing one's body on the line for a cause because one believes in it with everything they have. A filibuster is not about opinion, or decision, those are represented in majority voting. A filibuster is and should be about passion. Jefferson Smith in the movie drives himself to a state of physical exhaustion so extreme he finally passes out. All filibuster rules must be rewritten to this end.

What would these filibuster rules be?

I think we could work that out. I like making rules and so would be glad to try. We could start with the rule that before any vote in the Senate a single Senator can filibuster. At that point they would take the floor and address the Senate continuously on the subject without break.

From there I think modifications would be great. I propose the following, some of them a little complicated. But all of them are designed to make the filibuster never impossible, but always painfully difficult on a personal level.

1. Delays in speaking, or comments unrelated to the issue of the vote, can be issued a demerit, with a number of, for instance, three demerits breaking the filibuster and allowing the vote to go ahead.

2. While only one Senator per vote can be the "filibuster", the more Senators that sign on to this filibuster the more advantages are given to the Senator filibustering. So:

     A. No other Senator signing on gives the filibuster Senator one two-hour break per 24 hours.

     B. One Senator or more seconding the filibuster gives the  filibusterer two (non successive) two-hour breaks per 24 hours total. And each Senator signing on to the filibuster after that will add seven minutes to the second two-hour break. So if, for instance, 45 Senators signed on to the filibuster the filibusterer would get one two hour break and one seven hour and 15 minute break.

3. However, here are some very important costs for Senators seconding the filibuster. 

     A. The first person signed onto the filibuster must fill in speaking during all break time.

     B. For up to three supporters of the filibuster the Senators must be in attentive attendance to the filibuster for the first 18 hours of the filibuster, and thereafter must be in attendance 75% of the time.

     C. For four or more supporters of the filibuster 75% of the supporting Senators must be in attentive attendance to the filibuster at all times.

4. The main Senator doing the filibuster may refuse any supporting Senators.

5. Any violations in these rules will end the filibuster and allow the vote to go forward uninterrupted.

I can see other rules being required, for instance ones defining how the main filibuster person is chosen if two or more Senators want to do it. It also might be advisable to limit Senators involved in too many short nuisance filibusters. This all is just a kind of starting guideline.

I think this filibuster system favors people fighting the good fight, as I believe people are more ready to suffer for the right thing than they are to suffer for donors, but even if this sadly turns out to be untrue, my filibuster system still allows majority vote to go forward at a time we so badly need it, but it does so with cover on the issue of breaking Senatorial tradition. 

It's the best of both worlds.

Dear Publisher: volume four

Dear Publisher;

You will be excited to know that I have finally collected enough material for my next volume of my collected letters to Publishers. This will be my fourth volume of my prestigious "Letters to Publishers" series, and I feel your magnificently large and bloated multi-national publishing house would be the perfect home for this next volume. While my writing skills are slowly deteriorating as I enter into my late 50's, there are nevertheless contained in this collection some of my finest letter to editor moments. I think both you and your readers will particularly delight in "Dear Editor: Seeking Wisdom" which I wrote just 15 minutes ago, and you will keenly enjoy the classic "Dear Editor" from the end of last year. "Dear Publisher: Let Me Explain" is also pretty good, and even much of the filler material in this fourth volume is capable of making your readers chuckle quietly to themselves as long as they're in a super good mood and don't have any other book nearby to switch to.

I know that you will be eager to get going on publishing this book, but there is one small problem, really barely a problem at all, that we must discuss first:

It may be confusing for your readers to encounter this as the fourth volume of "Letters to the Publisher" when none of the other volumes have yet been published. Yes, believe it or not, "Letters to the Publisher, a Book of Letters to the Publisher: Volume One", "Letters to the Publisher, Letters to the Publisher: A Book of Letters to the Publisher About Letters to the Publisher: Volume Two", and "Letters to the Publisher, Letters to the Publisher, Letters to the Publisher: A Book of Letters to the Publisher About Letters to the Publisher About Letters to the Publisher: Volume Three" have yet to be seen by the public, and no book as yet exists of them.

The simple solution is of course to publish these first three volumes as soon as possible. We don't have to make a big fuss about them. Then we can go big on the marketing with this new book "Letters to the Publisher, Another Book of Letters to the Publisher: Volume Four" in which people will find an enthusiastic return to the high form of the first volume, even, unfortunately, if it's not quite as good as that breakout first book they remember so vividly, probably because it will have come out just a couple of months earlier.

If you have any more complex solution to this issue I am eager to hear it! Either way I look forward to getting to work with you on this exciting project as soon as possible. Neither of us is getting any younger.

Almost like I'm your friend already,

Feldenstein Calypso

Dear editor, seeking wisdom

 

Dear Editor:

I have an exciting new manuscript for you to consider for publication. This text represents a unique opportunity for your esteemed publishing house and breaks new ground on hitherto unexplored dimensions of the literary experience.

Naturally you are probably wondering:

"But is it any good?"

We both know that that's not what the most important thing is. We both know that the most important thing is...

Well, as we both know, I'll let you say first.

I look forward to hearing from you soon!

Feldenstein Calypso

Tips for thirsty people

 

Hey guys! Today we're going to be talking about a cool tip I have for what to do when you get thirsty. I think you'll find this super helpful!

But first I want to thank all the new subscribers here, and I wanted also to say that all your support on my Patreon page makes it possible for me to provide all kinds of great content for you and lets me really devote time to making this kind of high quality content. So thanks guys. Also shoutout to new supporter @lonelyboy, my first 500 dollar supporter! Thanks @lonelyboy!

So sometimes I get super thirsty, like parched. My lips get all dry and cracked and sometimes I can even get a headache it's so bad! But I figured out this great trick that isn't too hard to follow, and I guarantee if you try it it can really help you out too when you're thirsty!

When you get super thirsty look for a kitchen. Most houses have these. And in the center of the counter area of the kitchen you'll find a sink. In a pinch you can also head to a bathroom, which pretty much any building will have. These places also have sinks. Either way, these sinks are like basins with a faucet. You might be familiar with them from washing your hands under the water there. But the great thing is that you can also drink the water from these faucets! Some of these faucets have a handle for turning on hot water and a handle for turning on cold water. I always use the cold one for drinking, and I have to say this trick seems to work better when you use the cold one, but if you prefer the hot water go for it. It will probably still help you get less thirsty, but I can't guarantee it.

Sometimes it can be hard to get the water from the faucet to your mouth because it's kind of going straight down. I use a glass if I can. You can usually find these glasses in kitchens, but not so often in bathrooms. You can put the water in the glass and it's super easy to drink the water that way. If you don't have a glass or anything you can lean over and slurp the running water. It's awkward, but it can be better than nothing. But no matter how I do it, I find this method super helps when I'm thirsty! It can even make a headache go away, lol!

When you're done drinking turn off the faucet because it turns out people really like turning on faucets for themselves and it's not cool to just leave them on. Also, even though this method is super helpful for when you're thirsty, it does sometimes make you have to pee more. But trust me, that's totally worth it, even if you're not that into peeing!

Anyway guys, hope this helped you for when you're thirsty. It helps me a lot and I stand behind it 100 percent. 

Let me know what you like to do when you're thirsty below! Also hit the subscribe button, the like button, and especially the bell so I know what kind of content you like.

See you soon with more great tips!

Our two kinds of library patrons

 

As I replaced her at the front desk, one of my colleagues at the library was running down the list of sins a regular patron had committed that evening. She had come in without a mask. She butted in line for something "quick". She didn't want the surgical masks we provide, she wanted cloth. She didn't want the first cloth one offered because it "touched the desk". She yelled at a teen for not standing far enough back in line behind her. She wanted a service the library doesn't offer in the pandemic because our story is inconsistent about whether we do offer it or we don't. She left and came back, just for a quick question, without the mask she was just given.

I have dealt with this patron for many years. I even sort of like her in the way I have always felt an affection for some of the deeply troubled people of our constituency. But even for her this above litany of monstrous acts was a pretty rich one. And it caused me to reflect upon a library truism:

Only two things ever happen with problematic library patrons; they disappear, or they get worse.

That's pretty sad, so you might like to know then what happens to non problematic library patrons:

Nothing. They're already perfect.

Minimalist internet content

Hey guys!

I've got a great tip for you today about what to do when you're hungry. 

I personally use this trick all the time when I get hungry. It doesn't always solve everything, but it always helps!

When you get hungry go to a grocery store. I found out these places are everywhere, but if you look up "grocery store near me" on the Internet you can usually find a pretty good one. Go to the produce aisle in the grocery store. These aisles are usually more open and have less food in boxes and cans. Instead there are a lot of vegetables and fruits in this aisle in open bins, just kind of lying around or heaped up here. This aisle is usually pretty easy to find because it's on one far end of the store or on the other.

Once there in the produce aisle grab an orange. These things are round usually, like a ball, and they're orange, just like their name! There are different kinds and sizes of these oranges, all with their own names even though they're all oranges (confusing!), but don't worry too much about that. Just grab one, any one that's round and orange. I like an orange that is called a "mandarin", so if you see that name, go for it.

Take the orange to the place where you buy stuff and then pay for it. They'll tell you how much it costs, but it shouldn't be too much. You can even use a credit card to pay!

Take the orange home.

Peel off the tough orange outer part (it's usually not too hard to get off) and then eat the sweet and juicy, also orange, inner part. 

You should be less hungry! I always am!

Supposedly this orange dude is also kind of good for you! Which is weird because it's a little like candy, so I don't know if that's true or not about being healthy.

Anyway, that's all for today. Hope this helps!

Subscribe for more cool tips!

Lottery

 

I am going to solve the problem of Oligarchy in America.

Before I solve the problem of Oligarchy in America I would like to make an important disclaimer. Though my solution involves killing people, it should be stressed that this killing would be done legally, that is it would happen entirely within the frame of the law, as it is in criminal executions in certain states and as it is in war. So then, I am advocating legal changes, possibly constitutional ones, and I am not advocating crimes in any way. And, let's face it, my proposal herein about killing an American citizen every month is in some respects tongue in cheek, and possibly insanely nightmarish,  so a minimum security imprisonment (but strict and with no frills) with no possibility of parole is probably the more appropriate solution in my paradigm. We are very comfortable about imprisoning people in America, and get a little squeamish on the executions. 

But we'll continue with the execution solution for the high drama and French Revolution fun of it.

Also before I solve the problem of Oligarchy in America, I would like to point out a couple of things:

1. This would work well internationally as well, and could be administered by the U.N.

2. The fact that this will be the first time you have seen this idea floated and also the last time you see it mentioned, even though it is the best political idea you will encounter all year, and would work magnificently, should cast serious shade on all that media you encounter that argues for the open discussion of ideas. Which ideas exactly?

Okay. Enough. Let's solve Oligarchy.

A new law will be written.

At the end of every month it will be determined who the richest person in America is. They will be arrested, all their worldly possessions confiscated, and they will be swiftly executed. 

Questions?

Seriously, can't they just be imprisoned for life?

Okay, fine!

Who decides who the richest person is?

Four isolated secret small teams of financial investigators who don't know anything about the identity of the other teams.

Why not just tax all income above a certain amount?

It doesn't seem sporting. Also, so unrealistic! (laughs maniacally).

Won't this cause problems as people start to shed wealth massively to the point where people with a few million dollars are suddenly getting executed?

I'm not blind to your pleas. We could set some kind of wealth limit under which one would be safe. So if no one, for instance, in all of America, has more than 25 million dollars in total assets then there would be no execution for the month. Sorry, I meant imprisonment, no life imprisonment for the month.

How would this solve Oligarchy?

If there is a deadly disincentive to accumulating wealth beyond a modest point, the surviving oligarchs will be forced to find new hobbies, like knitting, or cheesemaking.

You're an optimist, aren't you?

I know. It's like a curse. But a curse that comes up roses.

Gluten free pretzels, the "homage"

 

 

 

Yesterday in this space I teased that I was going to talk about "Scones". 

No, not Scones, "Scones".

Once, long ago here at clerkmanifesto, I kept a running tab of what food was available on the free food table in our library break room. That was a lot of work. So I switched to writing a blog post concerning the free food table every year or two. I remember one about pretzels once. Does that ring a bell? Let me see if I can find it.

Ah, here it is:

http://www.clerkmanifesto.com/2016/01/gluten-free-pretzels.html

Good, huh?

You read it, right?

 

You kind of have to read it for us to continue with this post. Thanks. We'll wait here.

Anyway, my point is that every year or so now I like to check in idiosyncratically with a snapshot of what's happening on the free food table in the break room of the library I work at.

Today is that sort of day.

Inspired by "Gluten Free Pretzels" we will now proceed in this discussion with a call and response format:

Why are you using a call and response format?

Did you read "Gluten Free Pretzels"? It's an homage.

So, what's all this about scones vs. "scones"?

Here's the deal: Someone brought in a Tupperware of what looked like scones. They put it on the free food table. On the cover of the Tupperware they placed a label that read:

Pumpkin Spice "Scones"

I immediately knew eight things.

Is there now going to be an eight item list that's also an homage to "Gluten Free Pretzels"?

Yes. I am increasingly thinking of "Gluten Free Pretzels" as one of my all time great blog posts, at least among those that involve both pretzels and tigers.

Okay, I can take it.

Thanks. Here is my list of eight things I knew instantly about the pumpkin spice "scones":

1. It's hilarious that the scones are in quotes. Are they scones or aren't they?

2. I would like to write a blog post about how the scones are in quotes.

 

3. There is not nearly enough material there for me to write a blog post about pumpkin spice "scones" just because the scones are in quotes, which really isn't all that funny.

4. Not having enough material to work with has never stopped me before. In fact I have lately been noticing that the more material I have the shorter my posts are, and the less material I have, the longer my posts are.

 

5. As confusing as naming these baked goods as "scones" is, suggesting, as it does, that they are not real scones, it is maybe even more subtly confusing that they are pumpkin spice, which strongly suggests that they are some kind of pumpkin scone even though pumpkin spice has no pumpkin in it. Are they pumpkin scones, non pumpkin but pumpkin spice scones, or not a real scone, but sort of in homage to one, and maybe or maybe not pumpkin?

6. I won't be eating a food that doesn't know what it is.

 

7. I'll figure it all out in a blog post.

 

8. I am making far too much of what is fundamentally a grammatical error. 

Was that eight already?

Yes.

Do you have a valuable, informative conclusion?

No.

Linking yesterday and tomorrow

 

 

 

Yesterday I promised you a long rumination on the foibles of the common wisdom "You make your own luck." I started with the thesis: If you're making your own luck it's not luck.

Then I realized I'd said everything that needed to be said, and in record time. 

But then today I remembered I write a blog and now have composed extremely close to 3,000 blog posts. If any fact could be said to demonstrate a belief in me that there is no such thing as saying everything that needed to be said, that is it. 

I just occasionally pretend that I have said everything that needed to be said so that I can

A. Finish up my blog post for the day.

B. Start my next blog post for the next day.

C. Desperately try and stop your attention from wandering away.

D. All of the above.

No. It's not a quiz. It's a lack of commitment to an answer.

 

Yes, you're right. "D" is the correct answer. Wow, you're good.

So then, would you like me to ruminate further on how you can't make your own luck?

 

Oh.

 

I thought you were going to say yes.

Although on the bright side that means we're all finished up here for the day! I'll get started on tomorrow's blog post right away! You'll love it. It's about "scones".

No, not scones, "scones".

 

You'll see.

 

 

 

 

You make your own luck

 

Having what I thought of as a short, unlucky run of fortune on the library's automated check in machine, the phrase popped into my head:

You make your own luck.

So let's start our 500,000 word essay right here:

If you're making your own luck it's not luck!

Well, maybe we'll just leave it at 66 words. Sometimes you get lucky.

Upside down

 

Once, many years ago at my library, I was tasked with constructing some letter markers for our requested items shelving. It was more complicated than it sounds. I had to use my library's official font, color scheme, and minimalism. I wanted it to be immediately clear, especially to people using our system for the first time, where their last name would be. I used thick plastic inserts that stuck out from the front edge of the shelving and were very stable at the back. Looking down a row of books one could immediately see where each new letter started. I was pleased with it and it has worked well for years.

Then the pandemic came.

We expanded our request shelving so that it could be more spread out for social distancing. I was not involved in this project. It is pretty haphazard, with different ways of marking where things are and a motley assortment of different shelving and carts. My carefully made letter tags were cannibalized and used where they could be, abandoned when they couldn't.

I accepted all this. One does not survive more than 25 years working in an institution by getting riled be every little thing. One survives working in an institution by only getting riled by 70% of the little things. 

It's called pacing oneself.

Today I was shelving some requested items, and I was in the "M's". But I noticed whoever had constructed the temporary system had taken my "W" sign and stuck it in there upside down. I don't know what happened to my original "M" sign.

I shrugged. Then I shelved all my books there, upside down.