But my least favorite moment is when our director asks “Does anyone have any important issues to bring up?”. Becaue if no one brought up any “important issues”, we could leave. But other people seem oblivious to this. There are two specific individuals that always have “important issues” to bring up. One of these issues is always the disgustingness of the microwave or the espresso machine. After years of whining about the nastiness, nothing has changed. Do they really think that “discussing” it one more time is going to make someone say “Gee, the last 17 times you mentioned it, I thought you were talking about everyone else in the office. This time I get it. You want ME to wipe the milk foamy nozzle on the espresso machine after I make my latte!”. And then the problem will be fixed. Yeah. It just isn’t going to happen. Maybe next time someone asks about “important issues”, I should bring up the wasted time discussing unimportant “important issues” in staff meetings.

I think there should be a rule about how frequently a topic can be discussed. If you bring up something that has been discussed within the last 4 weeks you should get tasered. Unfortunatly, I doubt this would stop these people from talking. They would just branch out and bring up other “important issues” – like whether the (already approved/discussed) artwork in the office is to “provocative” (it isn’t provocative it all).

Maybe instead of the taser rule, we should use coupons or tickets or something. And people should have a very limited amount of “important issues” they can bring up each year. Then the obnoxious people who bring up the same issue every week would run out of coupons. And I would only hear about the damn espresso machiene a few times a year. Of course, tasering them sounds more fun.

The heirarchy in our office goes like this: We have a director, who has two coordinators under her. Each coordinator manages a “group” (which consists of the coordinator, and one (or 1.5) other people). This means that there is a “coordinator” whose entire job is to “coordinate” me (and herself). This makes me sad. The job I was hired for was “Sr. Statistical Programmer/Statistician”. “Senior” apparently doesn’t mean what I thought it did. During my interview, everyone discussed (at great length) the need for someone who could work independently. This made me happy. I was happy because I generally don’t like other people. I don’t interact well with them. I am good at what I do. And I am good at doing it independently.

Because they have nothing to “manage” (there are only two “workers”), it seems like they have decided to fill their time with “update meetings” and reading “update memos” (written by me). Unfortunately, the more “memos” and “meetings” they ask for, the less time I have to do actual work. This means there is less programming getting done since I spend all my time writing memos and attending meetings. Soon, all my time will spent in meetings or memo-ing and I will have no time left to program. And then what will I write memos about?

I *do* realize that I have no people skills (which is why I am a programmer and spend all day in an office with a computer). And this probably means that I *do* need an interface person. At my last job, she was an administrative assistant (aka secretary?), not a PhD level researcher. She talked to clients, figured out what their question was, wrote it down and gave it to me. I looked at the data, figured out how to best answer their question, gave the answer back to her. It worked really, really well. At this job, I have someone with a PhD, and it is working less well. As I understand it, her job is mostly the same. Except she interferes with me accomplishing my job. And she wants me to write daily email updates about each project’s “status”. And I now document every query in a memo (to her, that no one else reads). This is frustrating, because the memo contains the same information as the daily “email updates” (literally, I often copy and paste them, sending her and email update with an attached memo that says the same thing). And she wants weekly “group” (just us) meetings (where we discuss the same things, again). And it isn’t like she doesn’t stop by my office daily to check in on things (where we reiterate the same points, again). So the meetings seem a little silly.

I am beginning to doubt my communication skills. I mean, if I have to say the same thing seventeen different ways, does that mean I wasn’t being clear the first time? I’ve won several awards for papers/presentations – which always led me to believe I was fairly clear. And I generally think that it is fairly easy to understand what I say (or write). I guess always knew I was a difficult person to work with, but does it really take someone with a PhD just to manage me? And shouldn’t having that person make my life easier, not more difficult?

I feel like I am stuck in a Dilbert comic. Only it isn’t funny.

But Mordecai Lipshutz retired.  Since marriage is about compromise, and I carpool to work with my husband, I often find myself listening to the obnoxious dick and fart jokes on Live 105′s “The Woody Show”.   Yesterday, the Woody Show’s discussion revolved around  a different radio show broadcast the previous evening.  Apparently, the host decided to “squeeze the cream from his flesh twinkie” while working.  This, by itself is somewhat troublesome.  But it was most disturbing because all the Live 105 shows are broadcast on the station’s live webcam (see footage)). 

Don’t get me wrong.  I have nothing against masturbation.  I’m even fairly ok with people who decide to “set sail with Captain Thumb on the USS Hand” while they’re at work.  But, when I say that, I am assuming they work in a private office with a door that locks that isn’t on 24 hour live webcam broadcast live to their office’s website.  I think even I could get fired for that one (and it is nearly impossible to fire a tenured government employee). 

I assume very few people were watching the Live 105 webcam at 11:30 at night (of course I assumed there were very few people who liked granny porn, but apparently I am wrong about that too).  Radio hosts aren’t known for being photogenic people.  If they were, they would be on TV.   And they’re not on TV.  So, who want to see tv-rejects sitting around  eating twinkies?   And in this case, I *actually* mean sitting around “eating twinkies” in the literal sense; no euphemism.  I’m sure many more people would watch if the hosts were actually “sitting around eating each others twinkies”.   So, I have to assume that he either forgot about the webcam or he assumed  no one was watching at 11:30 that night.  Its possible he found the idea that someone was watching arousing, but that just seems so stupid.   I mean, in this economy (or any economy) it seems like a quite a risk for a few minutes of joy.   Its fairly certain that you’ll get fired if your caught.  And then, what do you say in job interviews when they ask why you left your last job, “Well, I was having a really horny night, and it had been a long time since I’d gotten any play….”

I’m not really complaining about the success of my friends, although Money magazine did say the key to happiness was to surround yourself with people who have less that you do.  And I have failed at that – which might explain my misery.   According to Money, “Happiness scholars have found that how you stand relative to others makes a much bigger difference to your sense of well-being than how much you make in an absolute sense.”  So maybe I am complaining.  Maybe I should find poorer friends – and that would make me happier.  Anyways, my personal misery isn’t the point of this rant.  The point is that the success of my “golden” friends has created a problem for me:  I don’t know what to say when they get dumped. 

Two of my “golden” friends have relationships that seem to be falling apart.  And normally, when I have a friends who are getting dumped, I can comfort them.  I can use the classic, “Its n0t you, It’s them” line.  I can call the stupid ass who is dumping them a shallow b!tch.  And I can tell them that if s/he can’t see past (insert shallow reason here), s/he doesn’t deserve them.  But what do I say when the person getting dumped has everything.  There is no “shallow” reason to dislike them.  They aren’t getting dumped because they don’t drive a shiny car (they do).  They aren’t getting dumped because they are fugly (they could afford braces so their teeth are shiny and straight, and they can afford a gym membership so their tummy is nice and toned).  They aren’t getting dumped because their girlfriend is an education-snob who scoffs at their public university education (they went to Stanford on scholarship – which they didn’t need because they have that much money).  They aren’t even getting dumped because they don’t have cool life experiences.  They could afford to take two years off and go exploring the South American jungles.  In fact, they are perfect on paper.  The only remaining reason to explain why they are getting dumped is their personality.  In fact, they are getting dumped because someone didn’t like them for who they really are.  And they are smart enough to know this. 

In real life, these “golden” friends are a little bit annoying (aren’t we all?) and you could probably call them douches.  But I can’t comfort them by saying, “I’m sorry s/he couldn’t appreciate you for your money.  Someday you will find someone shallow enough to see beyond the fact that you’re really annoying and just a little bit of a douche.”  So what do I say when someone is getting dumped, and its  because of their doucheyness?

Don’t get me wrong.  I’m not saying that these ”golden” friends are MORE douchey than the rest of us (although some of them might be).  I think MOST of us get dumped because we are annoying and a little bit douchey.  I fully admit that  I regularly got dumped because I am a little bit douchey.  But I didn’t have to face that, because I have so many other failings.  And (because I never had to face that I was a douche) it didn’t wear down my self esteem.  I still think I am a lovely individual.   It must suck to get dumped when you are attractive, rich, healthy, educated and you have cool life experiences.   It must suck quite a lot to have to face that people just don’t like you and you are a douche.

Dave Morgan provided me with some insight:

Ninety-nine percent of Web users do not click on ads on a monthly basis. Of the 1% that do, most only click once a month. Less than two tenths of one percent click more often. That tiny percentage makes up the vast majority of banner ad clicks.Who are these “heavy clickers”? They are predominantly female, indexing at a rate almost double the male population. They are older. They are predominantly Midwesterners, with some concentrations in Mid-Atlantic States and in New England. What kinds of content do they like to view when they are on the Web? Not surprisingly, they look at sweepstakes far more than any other kind of content. Yes, these are the same people that tend to open direct mail and love to talk to telemarketers.

But are these the people that advertisers want to have clicking their banner ads? A friend of mine who works at GreenDimes (a very cool company) was recently expressing excitement about an advertising campaign on one of the social networking sites. But I don’t think the lonely midwestern housewives who won’t let the telemarketers off the phone are the demographic that GreenDimes is seeking. In fact, it seems like the people who click on banner ads are the people who like junk mail. And they would be unlikely to pay $15 to GreenDimes in an effort to stop it.

So why do so many companies (especially ones that make intelligent products) use banner ads? Is Dave Morgan right? Are the people who click on banner ads the same crazy people who fill out the Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes every time it arrives in the mail in some desperate hope that Ed McMahon will show up on their doorstep in the “Prize Patrol” van? Are they the crazy cat ladies who won’t let the telemarkers off the phone? And if they are, can banner ads really be an effective form of advertising (especially for companies that wouldn’t appeal to crazy midwestern housewives)? I mean, I could understand it if the ads were for Veggie Tales (Eek!) or the Creation Museum, then the creepy midwestern ad-clickers would be the perfect demographic.

Or is Dave wrong? Do normal people secretly click on the ads? Are all of my friends lying when they proudly announce that they are ad-averse and reject consumer culture? Do they secretly have Internet Explorer installed on their computer so that late at night they can browse the web without running Mozilla scripts to eliminate the creepy dancing alien ads?