This week I will be working in the office doing a job that I've not done before. New York State requires that licensed agencies who provide home care paid for by Medicaid submit a statistical survey showing the number of hours of care provided for clients which Medicaid is billed for. This survey is necessary for license renewal, and my employers have not completed the 2005 survey yet. Turns out that the half of the bosses whose job it always has been has never done it. He palmed it off on the insurance billing clerk who decided last year to take another job. One of the reasons she quit after 20 years with the company is that she got tired of playing nursemaid to people who didn't know what to do, nor did they show any sign of wanting to learn. The job is tedious, there is the necessity to check and recheck the figures for accuracy before submitting the survey. "He" dumped the job off onto the coordinator who can't work without interruptions so she kept losing track of her work. On Friday I was asked to come in and do this survey. My whole feeling about this is that his survey was due last year, why wasn't someone asked to do it before this?

I was treated to this sob story about how they thought "He" was capable of handling it and how useless "He" is. I agree with it, "He" is useless, but so is "She". I will admit that "She" has proven herself somewhat more willing to accept responsibility than "He" has, but this could have been done on time, had "She" sat down and done it when the co-ordinator was obviously unable to attend to it. This is not a job that should have been dumped off on the co-ordinator to start out with. This is not a job that can be done between answering phones, covering cases, starting cases, doing payroll, doing scheduling. It took more than a year for "someone" to figure that out? I'm surprised that the state has allowed this to continue.

In Hubby's line of business, we don't get our state permit renewed unless I have the statistical survey in before the last years license expires. I have to submit information that includes the exact number of gallons of septage, animal wastes, and raw sewage we haul. It must be accurate to the gallon, and it must include the destination facility that we hauled this to. If I make a mistake in addition, even if it's a matter of entering a number in the wrong column, you get the whole thing back and it has to be done again. One year I got it back 2 times. Wasn't even my mistake. I finally called the DEC licensing office and asked what the problem was. The voice on the other end explains to me that the figures concerning the 2 destinations we hauled to when added together needed to match the total figure. So, I said that the total figure was 357,000 with one facility receiving 310,000 and the second facility receiving 47,000. There was a difficulty with the survey, and in their minds it was one that required my survey be kicked back for correction.

In the beginning of the survey, we are advised that all amounts must be calculated in gallons. Not pints, quarts, liters, pounds or any other measurement except gallons. The paperwork is divided into lines and columns. With headings at the top of the column and the word gallons at the extreme right of every line. First column down would be facility one, second facility two and so forth until you come to the end of the line where the total is entered next to the word gallons. When I went to school, 310,000 plus 47,000 equalled 357,000. Which was the amount entered next to the word gallons on the correct line. Which got this particular survey booted back to me 2 times with the admonition that figures must match. New York State finally decided that my math was correct, so what was the problem? I didn't circle the only word on the sheet that would indicate what measurement I was using. In other words after telling us that the only measurement we could use was gallons, I got back the survey because I hadn't circled the ONLY measurement on the page, thereby telling New York State what measurement I had actually used. This week is going to be so much fun, I can hardly wait.

The 80's being what they were, didn't give us any real breakout rock, but I like it. Truthfully, it's the best music to clean house by. It has an energy, along with all that spandex, that gets me up and keeps me moving when I need to tackle all those tedious chores like catching dust bunnies and removing cobwebs. I find that during the morning I listen to more 80's tunes than anything else. Of course for part of the 80's I was single, and having a good time. Fortunately for me, I had 2 jobs which didn't give me a lot of time to party, but when I did party, I partied.

I used to hang out in 2 or 3 different places regularly. Had a lot of running buddies and made a lot of memories. Most of them good. Times change, and now I spend time grinning at myself for some of the things we did, and some of the chances we took. Those were the days of Mudslides, Snakebites, Fireballs and Jack Daniels with coke. Oh, not the kind you snort. One of the bartenders in one of my regular hangouts made a drink that I think he called a Pink Squirrel. It looked like a strawberry milkshake and if you could drink 2 of them and still stand up, you had a capacity for booze that placed you in a category all your own. I never tried more than one. Some of the places I hung out in required that you be able to keep your wits about you. Lets just say you needed to be alert enough to know when the barstools would start flying, or when someone elses boyfriend had enough to drink that you were looking better than the girlfriend. Some of them girlfriends were rougher than the guys. I have to say that decade was a lot of fun, but from the vantage point of the 21st century, it's now a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there again.

Bookworm tagged me, I'm so lucky. Anyway, I had to disclose 5 quotes or things that have been said to me that I have never forgotten. Not too hard really, but I don't believe I've heard anything the rest of us haven't. Still in the spirit of playing along my quotes are:

 

1. I used to lack tact and diplomacy when I was younger. My Grandma used to tell me after the fur got done flying that "You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar". Never forgot it, but it took me 35 years to learn to use it.

 

 2. "If life is just a bowl of cherries, why do I always get the pits? Used to be a standard complaint when things went wrong. Also was a book title written by Erma Bombeck.

 

 3. "Everything I like is either illegal, immoral, or fattening." My Grannie had this sign on her kitchen wall. I don't think this needs any explanation.

 

4. Agreeing with your boss even when you don't agree with your boss, is knowing "Which side of your bread to find the butter on."

 

5. Last there's always "If ants had machine guns, picnics would be hell" That one was a friends response to all those "If only" statements we make from time to time.

 

Now I'm supposed to tag 4 people. Decisions, decisions. I tag John the Squabbler, Scratch, Dragonflower, and Whit. Now I have to go and tell them.

One of my choices has responded by putting her quotes up on her blog  Click to go see.

 

 

Dragonflower

 

 

I was watching the History Channel yesterday afternoon. They had a program on about the Dark Ages and all the events worthy of historical significance that occured during that time. My mind, being what it is, didn't register the historical facts as much as it did certain observations about life at that time. This was the early days of the church, and certain doctrines had not been established yet, so much of what we would today find morally reprehensible was quite common and accepted at the time. Romantic imagination being what it is, there have been certain times in my life when I would think to myself that I wouldn't have minded living then. This is not one of them.

The church was extremely political, rather than religious with very few exceptions. St. Benedict was one of the exceptions yet he too was quite brutal in his enforcement of his beliefs. His monks tried twice to poison him because he was so harsh. It is said that the draught of poison they offered him was contained in a cup which shattered before he could drink from it. Glass had been invented by then, but was not in wide use except among the very rich. Strange that monasteries devoted to silence and poverty would have glass. The second attempt was more creative. The monks baked poison into his bread. He didn't get to eat from that either, a raven flew into the dining room grabbed the bread and flew out the window. Apparently the monastery wasn't rich enough to have glass in it's windows. St Benedict apparently didn't wish to stick around that particular monastery after that, he left and formed his own group of monks. The Benedictines of today are noted for their adherence to the vows of silence, humility and poverty.

There was no court system as we know it. Laws of the kingdom were enforced by it's soldiers and once accused you were dragged to the dungeon until such a time as your "trial" could take place. There were two methods of trial by water. In one a pot of boiling water was used. Something metallic was dropped into a pot of boiling water. You were forced to put your hand in and grope around until you found it and brought it out. Your seriously burned hand and arm would be bandaged and left for three days. In the meantime you sat chained to a wall in a filthy, rat infested dungeon. Once the three days had passed, the arm would be unwrapped. If it was healing, you were innocent, if not you were guilty. If you were guilty of a serious crime, you would be put to death. The seriousness of your crime would of course be determined by your King. He would be taking into consideration things like, how closely you were related to him and whether or not he felt you would try to claim his throne. Whether or not you had wealth in gold or land he might need. Then of course there was always how atractive your wife was to him. All things considered, your crime was usually severe enough to warrant the death penalty. Of course, if you were a mere peasant, they would simply cut off your hand. Usually the one that was not burned.

The other method of trial by water was to throw you into the pond, or whatever body of water that would be handy. Now, of course you would be fully clothed with whatever chain mail you were wearing at the time of capture. If you were guilty, it was believed you would float. Which of course would get you hauled out of the water and summarily executed. If you were innocent, you would sink. I must say I don't truly understand the reasoning behind this. It would seem to me that if you floated the divine hand would be considered to have been holding you up. Not so, it appeared to your accusers that if you floated, God was rejecting you. If you sunk, you were being accepted by God, therefore you were innocent of any wrongdoing. However, men of the time didn't see fit to interfere with the decisions of the Almighty so they pretty much left you to drown. In this case justice was not only blind, but deaf and mute as well.

There was no birth control at the time, so families were quite large. There was also a high infant mortality rate and assorted and sundry childhood diseases that would leave a family in mourning. Should you be lucky enough to have children that lived long enough, you could enhance your holdings through alliances with other families. Children of the age of 5 or 6 could be plighted to future spouses that might all ready be in their late 20's. The children were usually sent to the family of the engaged to be brought up in a manner fitting the station of the childs "new" family. Marriage and consummation of the marriage would wait until the child was 12 or so. Of course these engagements were binding, and if a more suitable spouse was found in the meantime, the child could not be sent back without serious penalties being paid. Usually death by "childhood disease" or some other ailment would occur.

Fortunately for many families, the richest family was the Church. So, one could send ones child to the church to be made into Monks or Nuns. Most were young enough when they went that the life of a monastic was all they knew so they accepted it. In the case of older children it was a bit more difficult. Some of them would try to escape by climbing over the walls of the monastery or nunnery as the case may be. These folks would of course be considered to be possessed by the devil and suitable steps would be taken to "cure" them. Depending on how deeply rooted the demon was judged to be, the person could be subjected to starvation, flagellation, and there was also burning at the stake for those more stubborn cases. Apparently there was no religious rite of exorcism during the Dark Ages.

The average man of the time could not read. Some of the Aristocracy could, but reading was not important in a world where few books existed. Those that could not read could also not write. In order for the merchant at the time to keep track of his profits it was necessary to turn to the Church in order to find a clerk. Which of course gave the church knowledge of exactly how much you were worth so that you could be taxed accordingly. The King who's responsibility it was to raise armies to defend the church was seldom informed of how much his subjects were being taxed on behalf of the church. Most of the time he had to sack the monasteries and nunneries in order to finance his latest war. Then if that proved insufficient he would claim all that his loyal subjects owned was his and he would put to trial anyone that disagreed with him. We all ready know where that led.

As you can see much has changed. We no longer live in the Dark Ages. The lessons of history have no bearing on todays life, so why would we pay attention? I'll tell you why. Go back to the beginning of my essay here and substitute George W. Bush for the word King. The Church can be replaced in this essay by Government, or the Pentagon whichever you prefer. Justice is still blind, and families are still sending their young off to die. After doing that, just how far have we really come?

I have heard it said that women can have closets full of clothes and shoes, yet we have nothing to wear. People who say that obviously aren't women, and definitely do not understand. It's not that we don't have something to cover our bodies with, it's just that different occasions require the right look, which may not be present in our closets. In the spring and summer, I attend more weddings than I do funerals so my wardrobe contains clothing suitable for weddings, birthday parties, christenings, or anniversary parties. Ettiquette was a subject that my parents generation required their children to be fairly well versed in. Acceptable behavior had rules. How one dressed was considered a component of acceptable behavior. The rule of the day, which I know has changed, was that one did not wear black to weddings, nor did one wear white after Labor Day. So, my generation is likely to have a fall/winter wardrobe consisting of dark colors which would include black, and a spring/summer wardrobe consisting of light colors which include white.

Black was then considered to be the color of mourning, while white the color of purity. Therefore, one did not wear white or black to a wedding. The wearing of white was considered to be an act designed to upstage the bride. One of competitive behavior unwelcomed on her special day. The wearing of black, since it was the color of mourning, would indicate that one was mourning the loss of the groom, perhaps? Always present were those free spirits that defied convention and were looked upon with many a raised eyebrow, upturned nose, and saddled with a derogatory nickname. Brazen hussy comes to mind here. Since we were slaves to convention, I never saw black being worn to a wedding until the nuptials of Oldest Stepson. The brides cousin wore a rather sexy little number in black. Tongues wagged, my eyebrow lifted, but I resisted the urge to turn up my nose. I did hear a lot of "Well, I never..." but not knowing her circumstances, I didn't chime in.

Since I am not one that really loves to shop, I try to keep suitable clothing for all occasions in my wardrobe. There are the times when I'm gaining weight, or losing weight, that what I need no longer fits for one reason or the other. Then, of course, I need to make a purchase, but I tend to visit the clearance racks when I do shop. So I usually have an assortment of clothing in suitable colors that can be worn once an invitation has arrived. If no invitation arrives it just hangs there taking up space, and collecting dust. I have my well worn favorites, and some things I wear periodically, but I have clothing buried in my closet that I've owned for awhile, washed a few times to remove the dust, but have never worn. I've always considered that to be the only area in which I truly qualify as pack rat, but since I've been blogging I have found another.

I collect graphics to use in my posts. Too many graphics that don't get used because they just aren't right for the occasion, yet I don't delete them. This means my photobucket account has upwards of 500 graphics in it, plus my Blogstream gallery is housing over 100 graphics in that. Google Images is my on-line clearance rack high. I google silly phrases or keywords and find the neatest things. Of course, I just have to have them for my very own, or that would make an excellent graphic for a post I just might do sometime in the future.

On Monday, I did a "shopping" expedition for graphics and I wound up somehow with a page that was entirely blogstream graphics. Specifically they were from the gallery and pages of Rita B, of Momma Never Told Me. They were her graphics, our comment graphics, and even a page of icons from those of us who comment on her page. The keyword I used was Momma. The flying hummingbird with mouse that I used in yesterdays post was one I used in a post about the Canadian Airline pilot who was locked out of the planes cockpit during flight that I did sometime last fall I believe. I remember that particular post. The cat with flowers in this post was one I used in another post from last year. There were numerous graphics belonging to all of us that I was able to access simply by clicking onto the graphic. In one case doing that took me into someones Blogstream history page. I didn't stay there, that comment history is none of my business.

I am reusing only those graphics that were mine to start out with except for one notable exception. When I told Rita B about my experience she gave me permission to use any of her graphics I chose. The one I chose is one that she herself painted, and as I wasn't sure her permission extended to those graphics as well, I asked her permission to use this specific piece. She has graciously given me permission to use the following painting of hers. I'm pleased with that because I so enjoyed it, she's quite the artist, don't you think?



Double Daylillies by Rita B. used with permission.