Dear Microsoft Word,
I'm not blind. I don't need you to open at 125% zoom. Please stop. I like 100% zoom and that's it. This shouldn't be difficult to understand. Considering every time I open a document I have to change the zoom, there should either be a way for you to "figure it out" and just start at 100% or a way for me to set the default view to 100%.
With annoyance,
Katherine
Dear Lab report,
Could you just write yourself, please? I have many other things I'd like to do with my time, including working on the proposal I have to turn in on Thursday, making banana bread, unpacking from this weekend, or getting ready for my trip to Wisconsin in a couple weeks.
Sincerely,
Katherine
Monday, April 25, 2011
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
I don't care if Monday's blue, Tuesday's gray and Wednesday, too, Thursday I don't care about you...
Dear Friday,
Please get here soon! Your arrival means that my proposal defense will be over, and I'm really looking forward to having that done with. Even if I fail, at least I won't be dreading it anymore.
Also, being the day before the weekend, I will welcome you even more.
I can't wait to see you!
Love,
Katherine
Please get here soon! Your arrival means that my proposal defense will be over, and I'm really looking forward to having that done with. Even if I fail, at least I won't be dreading it anymore.
Also, being the day before the weekend, I will welcome you even more.
I can't wait to see you!
Love,
Katherine
Monday, April 4, 2011
I've been putting this off for way too long
Dear Tomomi from Japan, Tish from Canada, Michelle from San Antonio, Rebecca from Arkansas, Petra from Germany, Gina from the Netherlands, and the anonymous person from Russia,
Thank you for the postcards! I really enjoyed receiving them, and reading your advice was pretty awesome, too:
Hopefully I'll be sending out a few more cards in the near future - life has gotten a little crazy recently!
Cheers,
Katherine
*Note: Postcrossing (www.postcrossing.com) is "the postcard crossing project", in which you "send a postcard and receive a postcard back from a random person somewhere in the world!" As part of my profile, I ask people to answer this question on their cards to me: If you could offer a newborn child only one piece of advice, what would it be?*
Thank you for the postcards! I really enjoyed receiving them, and reading your advice was pretty awesome, too:
Smile always!
Always be honest, and value your friends.
Don't sweat the small stuff because at the end of the day it's not going to matter.
Look up; look closely; just look. Never feel bad for crying. be the friend you'd want to have, both to yourself and others. Learn to read, and learn to love to read. Don't put all of your eggs in one basket. Be thankful for light. Remember to BREATHE. (It's totally cool that you couldn't make up your mind, Rebecca!)
Always love yourself no matter what others say.
Grow, enjoy and laugh, let yourself go and shine with your presence.
Existence is determined by your mind. Listen to your senses and feelings and have a great will to live.Pretty profound stuff!
Hopefully I'll be sending out a few more cards in the near future - life has gotten a little crazy recently!
Cheers,
Katherine
*Note: Postcrossing (www.postcrossing.com) is "the postcard crossing project", in which you "send a postcard and receive a postcard back from a random person somewhere in the world!" As part of my profile, I ask people to answer this question on their cards to me: If you could offer a newborn child only one piece of advice, what would it be?*
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Republicans just don't make sense
Dear Republicans,
Honestly, I understand that you are pro-life. I can understand your position. I am pro-choice because I believe women should make medical decisions about their own bodies - I don't believe women run around getting abortions willy-nilly. I think in all cases, women who choose abortion do so because they are aware of their own mental/emotional, physical, and financial health and the impact that just being pregnant can have on their lives. But I do understand that you value that potential life. I just disagree that the interests of a clump of cells/fetus (that can't survive outside the womb - and even when it gets to the point where it takes dramatic, expensive medical intervention to keep it alive) automatically take precedence over the health and well-being of the mother.
What I don't understand is why you think it's okay to restrict abortions to the point where they are nigh impossible to get safely. Because, if you think about it, it's actually cheaper (for society as a whole!) for a woman to get an abortion than to carry a baby to term and have to pay for pre-natal care, take maternity leave, and pay for delivery and any neonatal care. Plus, if the baby isn't even wanted, it then enters the foster care system where it is supported by tax-payers (and not supported very well, at that) for up to 18 years. (Other recent anti-woman action makes me question your devotion to "small government" - so small it can not only fit inside a bedroom to prevent gay people from being with those they love, but small enough to fit inside every woman's uterus to prevent them from making their own medical decisions!)
Wanting to defund Planned Parenthood makes even less sense in light of your purported pro-life stance. Planned Parenthood provides family planning and contraception services. Which prevent unintended pregnancies. If women don't accidentally get pregnant, they don't need abortions. I'm not sure why you can't grasp this concept. Opposition to comprehensive sex education in public schools is also illogical, for a similar reason. Teaching teens how to have safe sex prevents teen pregnancy; fewer teen pregnancies lead to a decreased need for abortion. (Nothing I've ever seen has convinced me that teen pregnancy is anything but harmful to everyone involved - the girls themselves get behind in school, as well as the stigma of being a pregnant teen; their families get stuck with an additional mouth to feed that, as far as I can tell, generally falls to the new grandparents to care for; the babies, if they are given up for adoption, get put into foster care, which, as I stated above, is not an ideal place for a child of any age - everybody loses!)
Basically, your actions just scream to me that you are only pro-life until that fetus is actually born. Then you don't care about it - especially if it grows up to be a woman who finds herself pregnant and wanting an abortion.
You baffle me. (And trust me, there's much, much more I could talk about...)
Stay out of my uterus, please.
Sincerely,
Katherine
Honestly, I understand that you are pro-life. I can understand your position. I am pro-choice because I believe women should make medical decisions about their own bodies - I don't believe women run around getting abortions willy-nilly. I think in all cases, women who choose abortion do so because they are aware of their own mental/emotional, physical, and financial health and the impact that just being pregnant can have on their lives. But I do understand that you value that potential life. I just disagree that the interests of a clump of cells/fetus (that can't survive outside the womb - and even when it gets to the point where it takes dramatic, expensive medical intervention to keep it alive) automatically take precedence over the health and well-being of the mother.
What I don't understand is why you think it's okay to restrict abortions to the point where they are nigh impossible to get safely. Because, if you think about it, it's actually cheaper (for society as a whole!) for a woman to get an abortion than to carry a baby to term and have to pay for pre-natal care, take maternity leave, and pay for delivery and any neonatal care. Plus, if the baby isn't even wanted, it then enters the foster care system where it is supported by tax-payers (and not supported very well, at that) for up to 18 years. (Other recent anti-woman action makes me question your devotion to "small government" - so small it can not only fit inside a bedroom to prevent gay people from being with those they love, but small enough to fit inside every woman's uterus to prevent them from making their own medical decisions!)
Wanting to defund Planned Parenthood makes even less sense in light of your purported pro-life stance. Planned Parenthood provides family planning and contraception services. Which prevent unintended pregnancies. If women don't accidentally get pregnant, they don't need abortions. I'm not sure why you can't grasp this concept. Opposition to comprehensive sex education in public schools is also illogical, for a similar reason. Teaching teens how to have safe sex prevents teen pregnancy; fewer teen pregnancies lead to a decreased need for abortion. (Nothing I've ever seen has convinced me that teen pregnancy is anything but harmful to everyone involved - the girls themselves get behind in school, as well as the stigma of being a pregnant teen; their families get stuck with an additional mouth to feed that, as far as I can tell, generally falls to the new grandparents to care for; the babies, if they are given up for adoption, get put into foster care, which, as I stated above, is not an ideal place for a child of any age - everybody loses!)
Basically, your actions just scream to me that you are only pro-life until that fetus is actually born. Then you don't care about it - especially if it grows up to be a woman who finds herself pregnant and wanting an abortion.
You baffle me. (And trust me, there's much, much more I could talk about...)
Stay out of my uterus, please.
Sincerely,
Katherine
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
You've got no reason to be upset with me.
Dear Right Ankle,
I really don't know what I did to you. Seriously. Except exercise, which is good for me and, therefore, you. I'm not sure why you felt the need to get all swollen and painful. And to stay that way for going on 3 1/2 weeks now. It's awful. You aren't sprained. There's no loose tendon. No joint problem. No broken bone. The left side isn't giving me these sorts of troubles. So what on Earth is wrong with you?!
You aren't even responding consistently to my activities. Some days after I exercise, you are fine and practically look like a normal ankle. Other days (like today), you decide to be extra swollen and hurting. In case you were wondering, I don't appreciate it. At all.
It is time for you to pull yourself together, shape up, and start behaving like a proper ankle again! Because I really don't want to have to get an MRI. Please start working again soon!
Love,
Katherine
I really don't know what I did to you. Seriously. Except exercise, which is good for me and, therefore, you. I'm not sure why you felt the need to get all swollen and painful. And to stay that way for going on 3 1/2 weeks now. It's awful. You aren't sprained. There's no loose tendon. No joint problem. No broken bone. The left side isn't giving me these sorts of troubles. So what on Earth is wrong with you?!
You aren't even responding consistently to my activities. Some days after I exercise, you are fine and practically look like a normal ankle. Other days (like today), you decide to be extra swollen and hurting. In case you were wondering, I don't appreciate it. At all.
It is time for you to pull yourself together, shape up, and start behaving like a proper ankle again! Because I really don't want to have to get an MRI. Please start working again soon!
Love,
Katherine
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Atheists and fundamentalists have something in common... pissing me off!
Dear people of the world,
Okay. Let's get something straight. Religion is not science. And science is not religion. They address completely different questions.
I'm tired of Christians (and other religious people) acting like science has no value. But I'm also tired of atheists who act like all religious people are idiots and deserve to be told that their beliefs have no value.
Here's the thing: religion and science are not mutually exclusive. I'll say it again. RELIGION AND SCIENCE ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
One answers questions about how the world works. And the other answers questions (or at least attempts to answer them) about what it means to be a person and, generally, how to be a good person. Hopefully you can figure out for yourself which is which.
As a scientist and a Christian, I'm sick of hearing religious fundamentalists discount science. I'm also sick of atheists discounting religious beliefs (perhaps you would be more comfortable if I just referred to them as a philosophy). For the religious fundamentalists: stop treating theological texts like they're scientific/historical texts! The Bible (or Torah or Koran) is not now and never has been a science book. Acknowledging that it is not literally true does not take away from the moral lessons that can be obtained from it. (And guess what? "Cherry picking" is what we all do, and it's not actually that bad.) Science is not out to get you and your beliefs. Science is based on real, observable facts and testable, falsifiable hypotheses. Incidentally, religious beliefs in the existence of a God are neither testable nor falsifiable, and so do not qualify as scientific (which is why Intelligent Design should never be taught in science classes). Just because I'm a scientist does not mean I don't believe in God. For the atheists: stop acting like you're so much better than believers because you choose not to believe. Just because I'm a Christian does not mean I don't accept scientific truth (or as close to truth as you can get in science). Here's the way I see it: you're like the first kid in class who finds out Santa isn't actually a real person, and then you have to tell all the other kids that what they're believing isn't true. Except, if you watch the Christmas specials, it quickly becomes apparent (at least, it does to me) that Santa doesn't have to have existence in this reality to have power. That idea of doing something for someone else, of sacrificing your own time and energy to make others happy, of helping other people have a better life and see a little magic in the world, is what Santa is about. I'm sorry that you refuse to believe in any sort of "non-real", "non-scientific" phenomenon, but I choose to see magic and beauty and meaning in life, because I'm a human and it makes me feel connected to other humans (and other life). I'll listen to your belief (or lack thereof) in a deity, if you'll listen to my (admittedly not entirely clear even to myself sometimes) beliefs. But my choosing to continue to believe in a Santa of some sort does not give you the right to treat me like I'm stupid. Yes, I have faith. And I'm happy to continue with my faith. My continued belief in God does not harm you, and as such it is none of your business. It is between myself and the God I choose to belief in. I don't need you to act like my admission of belief is an invitation for you to try and prove to me why I shouldn't believe. I don't treat your admission of non-belief as an invitation for me to try and convert you to my faith. I'm sorry if other religious believers have treated it that way, but I will not. Please return the favor.
One final time: RELIGION. IS. NOT. SCIENCE. AND. SCIENCE. IS. NOT. RELIGION. They are not mutually exclusive.
Sincerely,
Katherine
PS - I think that Santa analogy kind of got away from me there... It did come off rather "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus". Granted, I obviously support that idea, so...
Okay. Let's get something straight. Religion is not science. And science is not religion. They address completely different questions.
I'm tired of Christians (and other religious people) acting like science has no value. But I'm also tired of atheists who act like all religious people are idiots and deserve to be told that their beliefs have no value.
Here's the thing: religion and science are not mutually exclusive. I'll say it again. RELIGION AND SCIENCE ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
One answers questions about how the world works. And the other answers questions (or at least attempts to answer them) about what it means to be a person and, generally, how to be a good person. Hopefully you can figure out for yourself which is which.
As a scientist and a Christian, I'm sick of hearing religious fundamentalists discount science. I'm also sick of atheists discounting religious beliefs (perhaps you would be more comfortable if I just referred to them as a philosophy). For the religious fundamentalists: stop treating theological texts like they're scientific/historical texts! The Bible (or Torah or Koran) is not now and never has been a science book. Acknowledging that it is not literally true does not take away from the moral lessons that can be obtained from it. (And guess what? "Cherry picking" is what we all do, and it's not actually that bad.) Science is not out to get you and your beliefs. Science is based on real, observable facts and testable, falsifiable hypotheses. Incidentally, religious beliefs in the existence of a God are neither testable nor falsifiable, and so do not qualify as scientific (which is why Intelligent Design should never be taught in science classes). Just because I'm a scientist does not mean I don't believe in God. For the atheists: stop acting like you're so much better than believers because you choose not to believe. Just because I'm a Christian does not mean I don't accept scientific truth (or as close to truth as you can get in science). Here's the way I see it: you're like the first kid in class who finds out Santa isn't actually a real person, and then you have to tell all the other kids that what they're believing isn't true. Except, if you watch the Christmas specials, it quickly becomes apparent (at least, it does to me) that Santa doesn't have to have existence in this reality to have power. That idea of doing something for someone else, of sacrificing your own time and energy to make others happy, of helping other people have a better life and see a little magic in the world, is what Santa is about. I'm sorry that you refuse to believe in any sort of "non-real", "non-scientific" phenomenon, but I choose to see magic and beauty and meaning in life, because I'm a human and it makes me feel connected to other humans (and other life). I'll listen to your belief (or lack thereof) in a deity, if you'll listen to my (admittedly not entirely clear even to myself sometimes) beliefs. But my choosing to continue to believe in a Santa of some sort does not give you the right to treat me like I'm stupid. Yes, I have faith. And I'm happy to continue with my faith. My continued belief in God does not harm you, and as such it is none of your business. It is between myself and the God I choose to belief in. I don't need you to act like my admission of belief is an invitation for you to try and prove to me why I shouldn't believe. I don't treat your admission of non-belief as an invitation for me to try and convert you to my faith. I'm sorry if other religious believers have treated it that way, but I will not. Please return the favor.
One final time: RELIGION. IS. NOT. SCIENCE. AND. SCIENCE. IS. NOT. RELIGION. They are not mutually exclusive.
Sincerely,
Katherine
PS - I think that Santa analogy kind of got away from me there... It did come off rather "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus". Granted, I obviously support that idea, so...
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
I don't even know how I hurt myself
Dear ankle/foot,
I'm really not sure what I did to you to deserve this. In fact, I'm pretty sure I didn't do anything. Except exercise, which is good for me, and therefore you. But it's been almost two weeks and you're still swollen, and kind of painful on occasion when I move the wrong way. I really don't appreciate it. Please get your act together and start functioning again soon. And please, please, please don't be broken! I really would like to stay friends.
Love,
Katherine
I'm really not sure what I did to you to deserve this. In fact, I'm pretty sure I didn't do anything. Except exercise, which is good for me, and therefore you. But it's been almost two weeks and you're still swollen, and kind of painful on occasion when I move the wrong way. I really don't appreciate it. Please get your act together and start functioning again soon. And please, please, please don't be broken! I really would like to stay friends.
Love,
Katherine
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
How you can edit Billy Joel like that I don't know
Dear Magic 98.9,
I'm not sure who told you it was okay to cut an entire verse out of "Piano Man," but it's definitely not okay. That song is amazing and should always be played fully. I'm just not sure I can listen to your radio station if you're going to do things like that!
With indignation,
Katherine
I'm not sure who told you it was okay to cut an entire verse out of "Piano Man," but it's definitely not okay. That song is amazing and should always be played fully. I'm just not sure I can listen to your radio station if you're going to do things like that!
With indignation,
Katherine
Monday, January 31, 2011
My musical tastes haven't really changed that much in a year
To whomever created these prompts:
I maintain that "Drops of Jupiter" was my favorite song last year. However, in the spirit of sharing more (and not repeating songs), if it was something different, it would have been something off Save Me, San Francisco. Something like "If It's Love", which makes me smile every time I hear it. Granted, I like basically every song on that album. But "If It's Love" is definitely amazing.
And now I've finished! I feel pretty accomplished, and, I think, a little more comfortable with this blog, which means I achieved my goal as far as doing this challenge. So thank you for creating it; it was a fun, sometimes thought-provoking experience. And I liked sharing my music.
Sincerely,
Katherine
*This post is part of the "30 Day Song Challenge". Day 30 is "Your favorite song at this time last year". I am using the prompts listed here.*
I maintain that "Drops of Jupiter" was my favorite song last year. However, in the spirit of sharing more (and not repeating songs), if it was something different, it would have been something off Save Me, San Francisco. Something like "If It's Love", which makes me smile every time I hear it. Granted, I like basically every song on that album. But "If It's Love" is definitely amazing.
And now I've finished! I feel pretty accomplished, and, I think, a little more comfortable with this blog, which means I achieved my goal as far as doing this challenge. So thank you for creating it; it was a fun, sometimes thought-provoking experience. And I liked sharing my music.
Sincerely,
Katherine
*This post is part of the "30 Day Song Challenge". Day 30 is "Your favorite song at this time last year". I am using the prompts listed here.*
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Ah, memories...
Dear Hanson,
I was actually excited to hear about your new song this past summer. Partly because (like every other pre-teen at the time) I also loved "MmmBop". (Also? We at least had decent taste in music, because y'all, unlike the Jonas brothers, can actually sing. Talent is a pretty big plus.) At any rate, hearing "MmmBop" always takes me back to the '90s, when I didn't have any worries and life was pretty amazing.
I hope you keep making music - don't waste that talent! Good luck in the future!
Katherine
*This post is part of the "30 Day Song Challenge". Day 29 is "A song from your childhood". I am using the prompts listed here.*
I was actually excited to hear about your new song this past summer. Partly because (like every other pre-teen at the time) I also loved "MmmBop". (Also? We at least had decent taste in music, because y'all, unlike the Jonas brothers, can actually sing. Talent is a pretty big plus.) At any rate, hearing "MmmBop" always takes me back to the '90s, when I didn't have any worries and life was pretty amazing.
I hope you keep making music - don't waste that talent! Good luck in the future!
Katherine
*This post is part of the "30 Day Song Challenge". Day 29 is "A song from your childhood". I am using the prompts listed here.*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)