Back on station...

I went home directly after the end of "yesterday's" shift, had a little breakfast and went to sleep for a couple of hours. I began to read The Rainmaker, by John Gresham, while sipping my tea and found myself picking up the book again when I got up.

I'm a little amazed at this, actually. I've never evinced any kind of interest in Gresham's work before, and my interest in fictionalized legal wrangling evaporated about the time I stopped watching Raymond Burr play the role of Perry Mason in black-and-white reruns on TV. The story of The Rainmaker is engaging, however, and I understand it's been turned into a movie. I don't recall having seen it.

Besides the entertainment, a collateral benefit of reading the book was not having the computer on at any time while at home. I am happy to report that such a circumstance does not give me the shakes, at least not if I am otherwise suitably engaged.

The only downside to the book was finishing it at nearly 9 pm, nearly too late to try to catch a few z's before coming in for tonight's shift. As it was, it took me a little while to fall asleep. I woke up at 11:15 pm, which left me 10 minutes to get ready to leave for work. The process took a bit longer, as I needed to find some important papers, but in the end I got to JSC on time (more or less :^).

I've been told that during the week, my morning relief will appear after the completion of his/her telecon, and that I am to remain in the MSR until my relief appears. This places the end of the work "day" at anywhere between 8 am and, at the outside, around 10 am.

That's okay, though, as this is not a very demanding shift, and it's a far, far cry from driving railroad spikes or manually hauling wheelbarrows of mulch all over Creation. Maybe it's The Rainmaker talking, but I do - after all - get paid by the hour for this.

Cheers...

On acceptance...

I'm not quite sure how I arrived at this page at a site called Le Projet, I think it may have been via someone posting a comment to an entry in one of my LJ friends' journals. The author of the essay at Le Projet considers the issue of whether one can, in good conscience, keep an Eagle Scout badge if one is opposed to the BSA's practice of selective membership based upon sexual orientation.

I stopped for a while on the following:

Do I "accept" homosexuals now? No. The very term "accept" means an inherent passage of judgment, something I consider to be wrong in this case. In order to accept homosexuals, I have to believe that what they are doing is inherently wrong, so much so that I feel the need to condescend below my standards, moral or otherwise, in order to deal with them as people.

I go along with the idea that "to accept" implies an inherent judgment; it's part of the real estate that comes with the word.

That's what causes me to disagree with the author's qualification that such a judgment is wrong in this case, and further, it gets me to wondering whether the last sentence makes sense, and if so, then how much? (My gut feeling about these two issues run along the lines of "it doesn't" and "not much," respectively.)

<freewheel>
One can define one's life in terms of a stream of decisions, taken in an almost continuous manner, to accept things or not to accept them. In reading these words, you may decide to continue to read these words - thereby accepting the status quo of your surroundings and condition - or you may decide that, say, it is not acceptable to let the phone continue to ring (assuming it has been ringing while you're reading this), or you may decide that it would be more acceptable to hit PageDown, pick up the phone to call your best friend, go to the bathroom to relieve the pressure in your bladder, or whatever.

Clearly, then, acceptance by itself is not something you do because you believe that what you're accepting is wrong. However, the acceptance described in the previous paragraph is acceptance done unconsciously, without verbalization of the fact to others.

What, then, shall we make of statements - when communicated to others - along the lines of "I accept X"? Obviously, we can conclude that the speaker felt strongly enough about the issue to speak. Let's try a few substitutions for X:

I accept homosexuals.

I accept heterosexuals.

I accept blacks.

I accept vegetarians.

I accept born-again Christians.

There would appear to be at least two major ways to interpret these utterances. First, as responses to questions along the lines of "What do you think of X?" I think it's safe to say that such responses are equivalent to "I have nothing against X."

The second interpretation relies on the sentence being short for: "I have come to accept X." This is so, in my opinion, as otherwise, there would be little reason to make a public issue of one's acceptance (unless one is answering a question, as considered in the previous paragraph, or deliberately trying to mask one's hypocrisy, but that's a completely different ball of wax).

The meaning of "I have come to accept X" be restated as: "I have changed my mind about X." So I would argue that someone coming out and saying "I accept homosexuals" in this sense must have come to believe that homosexuality is not inherently wrong. Is this so bad?

At any rate, it would appear to be the exact opposite of what the author of the essay that kicked off this freewheel had to say, no?
</freewheel>

Cheers...

Coming down with something...

It is, I am surprised to see, after 2:30 pm.

A slight tickle in my throat on my way out the door last night prompted me to grab a handful of effervescent powders from Alacer that go by the name of "Emer'gen-C." I took three of them during my shift, another one upon coming home, and yet another upon waking up, which amounts to 5 g of C injested over the past 14 hours. My throat is still nicely sore, but that's the extent of the symptoms, as of now. I've been chasing the C with hot green tea for the past hour or so, and intend to continue to do so until I go back to sleep later.

* * *I'm surprised to note it, but I've not been good at following up on phone mail in recent months. The most recent self-administered slap in the face occurred last week, when I lost some work - and worse, likely some credibility as a professional - because I failed to return phone calls. The problem lies not with the phone I am using (I have two cells, one in Houston and the other in Colorado), but with the phone I am not using.

Last Friday, for example, I finally got around to checking my Colorado messages, and found one from Wednesday asking if I could do work. Although chances are high that I would have not been able to take the work, I nonetheless should have called back on Wednesday, and not Friday. Ye gods.

Upon arising at a little past one today, I had only one message waiting for me. My over-30-days client called to say that a check was in the mail, but implied that it may only be a partial payment, and to call once I got the check. I'll have to call Colorado and have them be on the lookout for it.

* * *I'll need to drop by the post office later today (and there's not much 'later' to be had, I note), and perhaps do a load of laundry and buy some stuff at the supermarket. Then I should make a point of going back to bed early and try to get more than a couple of hours of shuteye.

* * *My relief at the MSR is Eugene M., a sharp young guy with an advanced degree, if memory serves, in orbital mechanics. The last time I saw him, we were in Moscow, and he was preparing to come to the states and work here under an H1-B visa. His language skills, as you may imagine, are excellent, his people skills are superb, and he comes across as a personable fellow (and it's a shame there are so few of us around... :^).

Anyway, we spoke briefly today and he told me that he'll be interpreting at the MMT tomorrow morning, and therefore, to expect him around 9 am. No sweat. (That even works out for me, as I need to drop by the bank tomorrow morning to make a deposit, and the bank doesn't open until 9.)

* * *Daylight is burning. I've got stuff to do.

Cheers...