There’s a part of me that wishes I was a teenager now, in the age of Facebook. And there’s a part of me that’s glad I’m not.
When I was a young lad, I used to fall in love at the drop of a hat, and be utterly and totally besotted with various young ladies (usually more than one at once). There was one particular girl who I was obsessed with for about 5 years (but never actually had the courage to do anything about, beyond name a MUD character after her). I met her at a New Year’s Eve party at about 15, and the first time I saw her I was smitten. I still would maintain that she is one of the most beautiful girls I have ever seen. Probably now one of the most beautiful ladies, but I haven’t actually seen her for about 15 years now!
I digress.
Anyway – luckily (for me) at said party, I had my handy camera with me, so I discretely (or so I thought) snapped some shots of her, so I wouldn’t have to survive without being able to gaze upon her image adoringly.
When the pictures came back – every single one of them was her, and she was slap bang right in the middle of the frame. I must have taken about 3 rolls, of her, with no possible doubt at all. Of course, I then had to show said photos to friends.. “Um, this is Heather*. So is this. Ah – this is back of Heather’s head. This is her face again. Here she is in profile. Oo – that might be Jonny just in the back of that shot, behind Heather. This is me and Heather.”
Absolutely mortifying, as then the whole world knew the extent of the crush I had on her.
Fast forward 15 years, and here’s Facebook. I do a bit of youth work, so I’m friends with various teenagers on said social networking site – and it would have been a dream. I could have gazed adoringly at photos of my beloved until the cows came home. Here’s some examples:
Young lady – 272 photos
Another young lady – 180 photos
young lady – 336 photos
our ex-babysitter – 592 photos (!)
Girls don’t miss out either, although I’ve no evidence that they are as sad as boys in that regard:
Young man – 206 photos
Young man – 256 photos
Young man – 257 photos
These haven’t been specially chosen either – just random clicks on the list of 16-19 year old guys and girls from the youth group list.
So why am I glad I’m not a teenager now. Well, actually because of the number of photos!! Already unhealthy obsessions would have turned terminal: Cyberstalkers-r-us. You can have too much of a good thing, especially when it wasn’t that good to start with.
From the other end, the pressure of knowing every time you went to a party (or even just to school), your every move, bad hair/skin day, or wardrobe misfunction would soon be posted for the world to see.
My current crush isn’t on Facebook, and I don’t have very many pictures of her either. On the other hand, I’ve been married to her for the last ten years, and see her pretty much every day, so I don’t mind so much. 🙂
*Those who already know this will know her real name. Those who don’t don’t need to. 🙂
Had out first visit of the Tooth Fairy on Monday night. The boy’s first tooth came out, and that most magical of creatures visited and placed a coin under his pillow while he slept.
It got me thinking about pocket money. I remember one talk I heard by John Wimber when he was talking about pocket money – and he said that he always gave his children pocket money in small denominations. So (to translate to Stirling), if they were getting 1 pound of pocket money, it would arrive as ten 10p’s.
The reason for this is so the kids could easily give away some, save some, and have the rest to spend. I don’t think he enforced this, but he encouraged them to give away 10%, save 10%, and have the remaining 80% to spend straight away. I guess if there was a particular thing to save for, more would go in the pot…
I’m in two minds about this. On the one hand it smacks to me a little of indoctrination. On the other hand, I firmly believe that both charity and saving for the future are very important. Both these things are key antidotes to the credit culture, and who else will help the boy learn about money management?
Incidentally, the tooth fairy delivered a single coin, so I guess she doesn’t share this view!!
I’ve been chatting with friends recently about job satisfaction, and it’s actually quite hard to put my finger on what it is. Several people love their jobs, others are sick to the back teeth. It’s easy enough to identify highs and lows of any given job (and every job has both). It’s also easy enough to identify frustrations and sources of stress, as well as the ‘buzz’ points.
Obviously there is a corpus of research on job satisfaction, none of which I have read particularly, so these are just my own thoughts and conclusions.
My definition of job satisfaction would be along the lines of the je ne sais quoi which makes one say I wouldn’t do any other job. I guess I take quite a ‘vocation’al perspective, in as much I firmly believe we are made a certain way, and have a certain calling in life. I further believe that if we hook into that calling, suddenly it’s all about being a round peg in a round hole. It may not be easy, but it will just Feel Right. I’m not overspiritualising here – I believe as much in a calling to be a binman, or banker, or software developer as one to be a vicar, or teacher, or doctor. Well, ok, maybe not the banker… <g>
Theologically speaking, work is ‘meant’ to be hard, as a result of the fall: Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life (Gen 3:17b, NIV). On the other hand, we know that Jesus’ death reverses the fall (e.g. in Romans 6:17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundent provision of grace and the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ). Jesus himself promised I came so that everyone would have life, and have it in its fullest. (John 10:10 CEV) – or as I once heard a preacher say I have come so that you can have life – and have it to the Max.
The not being easy point can’t be overstated either. The New Testament and history is littered with people having a rough old time of it while following their vocation. In fact Rick Warren would say that having a rough old time is evidence of following one’s vocation. Not conclusive evidence, but evidence none-the-less.
The whole topic of identifying calling is a massive one, and one I’m intimely engaging with at present as I prepare to lead a Growing Leaders course (questionable name, fantastic course). One definition I have found particularly helpful is the combination of gift/ability, and passion. Gift/ability tells you what you should be doing, passion tells you where/how you should do it.
Growing Leaders touches on Rick Warren’s 5-fold discernement method, forming the acrostic S.H.A.P.E. – Spiritual Gifts, Heart (or passion), Ability, Personality, and Experience. I think this is helpful too, as it presents a structured approach to work to. My gut instinct is that you can apply this sort of discernment to your day job just as much as to ‘spiritual’ activity. Whether this instinct is correct is another matter.
Perhaps a good example here is Formula 1. Take Michael Schumacher – he never needs to work again, financially. Yet he continues on as an advisor to Ferrari, and leapt at the chance to get back behind the wheel. Even our own Jenson I’m sure is set for life – but he loves driving, and will do it for as long as someone will give him a drive; even if that’s in a dog awful car at the back of the grid. David Coulthard has hung up his gloves, but can’t stay away from the paddock. Nelson Piquet Jr. is, of course, a salutary example of taking things too far, at persuing things at any cost…
John Barrowman is another example who springs to mind. He is like a kid in a sweetie shop when he’s on stage, and several times said thank you for us for letting him do what he loves doing.
I am currently undecided on whether it’s possible for everyone to have job satisfaction. The research I have glanced at suggests up to 50% of workers are dissatisfied in their jobs. We all have bills to pay, and need to put food on the table, and sometimes it’s simply a case of needs must. In my experience jobs can be very rewarding (financially and emotionally) and enjoyable, but still lack the je ne sais quoi that goes I’m going to do this job as long as they’ll let me.
Parenthood is a slightly flakier example of a similar principle. I absolute adore my son, and would not have him any other way. I would be absolutely devastated if anything happened to him, and want to be as big a part of his life as he’ll let me be for as long as possible. But he also drives me absolutely mad sometimes, and makes me have to send him to his room so we can both cool off!! He can be the most awkward, frustrating, hair-tearing piggle – but I wouldn’t change a thing. (Incidentally I’m fully aware that I have lovely child by any objective standard, and have a far easier ride than some people).
Helpful questions one can ask oneself are along the lines of:
Would I continue coming in to work after I retire (assuming no financial imperative)?
Would I choose to spend my own time in my workplace?
If I won the lottery, would I stay in my job?
If I knew I couldn’t fail what would I do?
On my deathbed, when I look back on my working life, would I wish I’d done things differently?
Would I be proud of my obituary if I continued in this vein for the rest of my life?
That list is actually hugely ambitious, I reckon. It kinda makes you stop and think though, too! It comes down whether or not we’re going our jobs because we love them, or (just) because we have to. Or as someone at my work once said “doing what you were born to do.”
So if feel that you’re not satisfied in your current situation, I can see there are four basic options:
Put up with it,
Try and change something about you or it to make it satisfying,
Seek satisfaction from another quarter – a sport or hobby,
if all else fails, change job
I don’t think the first one should be overlooked. Our working life is not the full story, and sometimes one just has to get on with it. Similarly, our attitude and approach can have a substantial impact in this area, I believe.
Even if you put aside my firm believe that only God can truly itch where we’re scratching in our souls, I reckon that it’s an unrealisitic expectation to think that any job is going to be satify every need. If you are in a job that truly satisifies you, then I guess you’re a ski instructor or a professional surfer? Seriously though, there isn’t a job in the world that isn’t going to make you come home in the very depths of the dumps and go That’s it – I’ve had all I can take. I give up. (it is at this point – or rather at somepoint before this – that you need a holiday. Or at least wine/beer and chocolate/ice-cream!!)
I also think that changing jobs is a last resort thing. In fact I’d go so far as to say that it’s pointless changing jobs within the same sector (from a job satisfaction perspective), unless the place were you work has clearly identifiable and unacceptable failings. I reckon that bouncing from career to career will also end up being soul-destroying, and with every chance of untimately rendering you unemployable.
We need to be big enough to turn the mirror on ourselves and say How much am I part of the problem here?. Even better, get someone you trust and you know loves you to answer that question (easier said than done).
More postively, there are inspiring stories of people who have made the Big Switch, and become teachers, or farmers, or writers, or whatever it is that floats their boat. Of course, from a Christian perspective it’s about service anyway – it’s not about what makes me feel good, or gives me the most satisfaction, but rather the best opportunity for service and ministry. The beauty of it is that, when we stop chasing our own satisfaction that’s exactly when we find the deepest satisfaction of all. It’s only when we stop living for ourselves that we start living.
About this time last year, I finally called time on the inkjet printing thing, and moved solely to laser. To be exact the Samsung ML-1440, which has done us proud for it’s 8,850 pages. In fact, if it were possible to get parts for it still, I probably wouldn’t have changed it..
But change it I did – to a super special offer on a Xerox Phaser 6125, which is a lurvely colour laser printer. Sure, images don’t match up to an Inkjet on photo paper – but pictures are still jolly impressive, are a fraction of the cost, and (best of all), if you don’t print for several weeks the thing still works!
The only small fly in the ointment is the lack of Linux drivers, which meant I had to use the rapidly dying Samsung to print from Linux. But I need fret no more – thanks to those lovely people at OpenPrinting, I know how to get it up and running from Linux over the Ethernet.
For those who want to play along, the page is
http://www.openprinting.org/show_printer.cgi?recnum=Xerox-Phaser_6125 which in turn links to http://www.fujixerox.com.au/support/downloaddriver?productId=307&operatingSystemCode=Linux which in turn has a lovely ZIP file to download containing the drivers bundled up in a RPM, and a fairly idiot proof PDF which leads you gently by the hand though the process of installing it…
I’ve added it twice – once as “phaser” and once as “phaserbw”, with the latter being the default printer on my system, which outputs in black and white and lower quality (b/w being significantly cheaper than colour, even on a laser).
Enjoy!
PS – When I need to print photos? That’s what photobox is for!
Derren Brown’s latest stunt (where he ‘predicted’ the lottery numbers) has been the cause of masses of discussions at work about how he did it. There are plenty of theories about how he did it – so here’s my analysis.
First of all, what do we know?
He turned around a plastic podium containing 6 balls which appeared to show the numbers drawn for Wednesday’s lottery.
Nothing that he said or showed during the program was necessarily true.
Nobody knew what Derren’s ‘prediction’ was in advance – his ‘prediction’ was only revealed once the answer was already known.
Actually that’s about all we can say for sure.
However, to this we can add some reasonable assumptions:
The BBC draw is broadcast live.
Time travel is not possible.
The machine (if not tampered with), does not have a systematic flaw – and it is
therefore impossible to predict any given draw based on past performance.
It is impossible for him to have filmed every possible outcome in advance.
He was always going to get the 6 balls right, so the rest was showmanship.
… so there was no element of chance or luck.
The machine cannot be influenced by ‘physic power’
So, as he said on Friday, there are three sensible options for how it was done.
The numbers on the balls were only set once the numbers had been drawn (what he called “fixing the ticket”).
The numbers were genuinely predicted in advance.
The machine was fixed.
While he was very quick to discount number 1, it is the most likely by a country mile. Given the assumptions above, we can immediately reject (2). The probability of him getting even 5 balls right by chance is infinitesimal. While I haven’t looked up the coin tossing ‘experiment’, conditional probability is a bizarre and counter-intuitive creature (best displayed by that game where you have to choose the door that the prize is behind). However, the lottery isn’t conditional – what has gone before has no bearing on what happens next. I am disinclined to go with the third – but I wouldn’t discount it altogether, and it would also explain his reticence to showing his ‘prediction’ in advance… A lot of questions would be asked…
The really big question is why doesn’t he shows us his prediction in advance? It’s a thousand-fold superior trick if he shows us the numbers before (or even as) they’re drawn. As it stands he doesn’t actually predict anything – as I explained above. There are two reasons I can think of:
He doesn’t know the numbers (“fake the ticket”)
He does know the numbers (“fix the machine”)
Either way, there is no ‘prediction’ – the question is simply then how did he do it?
The whole “wisdom of crowds” thing is a nonsense in this context, and the group of 24 is a red herring. Notice on the Wednesday night they don’t get to know the prediction – he gathers in all the numbers, and works it out for himself. My theory is that the guy on the second draw who adds them up is a plant, and the lottery show is being showed with a delay. Either that or the whole thing is faked with 24 actors, but that feels like a bit of a cheat too far for me.
Secondly, the set up with the studio is just that – a setup. I believe that everything up to the cut away to the back camera has been pre-recorded, and we only become live once we cut back to what is almost certainly a camera on a tripod (either computer controlled, or with software shake).
That said, I believe Derren Brown was broadcasting live from a studio, with a TV showing the BBC, and he then walked over and turned around a podium that had six balls with the six lottery numbers actually written on them.
I believe there was either a second studio with an identical set-up and synced tripod movement, or a pre-recorded sequence of the exact same movement. A split screen from the live podium to the pre-recorded one was brought in, the balls were written on with the correct numbers, the dude doing the writing ran out, and the split screen returned to live.
This is exactly the trick used in 1,001 spy films (and Speed) where they pre-record footage, and replace the live feed with that pre-recorded footage. Heck, I’ve even done something similar with my noddy vision mixer. The two twists here are that only half the screen is replaced, and that there is a small amount of motion.
The best evidence for this theory is the well documented “jumping ball”. The leftmost ball (rightmost after they’re turned around) moves up a small amount between the last ball being drawn and Derren Brown walking back behind the podium. Clearly time was extremely tight – which might explain the ‘mistake’. The second piece of evidence was the unnatural movement of the camera – suggesting a tripod mount being moved by a servo.
Eight years ago I was at a BMVC conference in Manchester for the week. I had been browsing an art gallery(!), and wandered out and switched on my phone. Text message from my supervisor, saying he was in the Wetherspoons Pub. This in itself was a bit weird, as he would never normally willingly enter a Weatherspoons…
We found it, and discovered the rest of the crew absolutely glued to the telly.
Someone’s flown two planes into the twin towers.
Sorry?
We just saw a plane fly into the World Trade Center, and then saw both towers collapse, live on TV.
I look at the Telly. There is New York, without the twin towers, but with masses of smoke and dust. Soon enough they replay the clip of the second plane hitting, and then of both towers collapsing.
Hard to take it in, to be honest. A plane flying into a building is Hollywood fare – especially with the time-lapse element and constant review and analysis on voice over.
There was no arguing with the New York skyline though. I have photos from the Empire State Building, clearly showing the twin towers. And they are simply not there anymore.
But I did recently watch one of the C4 documentaries – 100 mins that changed the world (or something like that). This was a real-time review of that morning, spliced together principally from amateur footage that the public took that day, overlayed with phone conversations and radio comms.
This was the first time the event had struck me a real way. If I’d have been in NY that morning, I would have acted in exactly the same way. Stared in amazement in shock at the terrible accident – how can there have been an explosion like that? Then when the second plane hits it becomes clear it’s not an accident – suddenly panic. If I had been in a tall building I would have got out as fast as I could.
And I hadn’t appreciated the sheer scale of the disaster – when the tower came down, the wall of smoke and debris rushing down the avenues.
I am so grateful I wasn’t in New York that morning. And my heart and prayers goes out to all the souls that were on the planes and in their offices that morning, and those they left behind. My heart and prayers also go out to all the civilian causalities there have been in Afghanistan and Iraq since then…
I’m working on a little theory about why we watch television, or rather what we watch what we watch.
This comes from two observations – firstly the popularity of soaps, which I completely fail to grasp, and secondly the shows that my 5-year old likes to watch.
I should add that I’m excluding programmes that are principally about disseminating information, such as the news, or documentaries. In other words, we’re talking about entertainment! I might need to exclude ‘direct’ comedy too.
Here’s my theory; we enjoy watching shows that we (secretly) wish we were in. It’s like a whole vicarious living thing.
So the programmes I like:
Doctor Who – who wouldn’t want to be a Time Lord (or at least his assistant)?
Top Gear – I’d love to be driving fast cars round a race track!
QI, Have I Got News For You – yup, would love to be a panellist (or, at least, clever enough to be a panellist).
Star Trek – again, how cool to be on the Enterprise?
Northern Exposure – this probably falls into the comedy bracket, but there is a part of me that would love to live in the wilds of Alaska. Just stunning.
Friends – again, we all want to be living in that situation.
Midsomer Murders, Sherlock Homles, Poirot – the whole point of detective shows is trying to solve the case before the chief protagonist.
24, Lost – harder call. I was hooked for one episode, which I think was novelty, but subsequently lost interest.
Bond – not TV I know, but probably the strongest example. Every man wants to be 007.
If we move on to my boy – he loves various programmes, but he strongly associates with the characters on the screen. To the extent he will lean sideways watching them. He will also go away and ‘play’ that character, or games based on the TV show.
The best example of this was Escape From Scorpion Island (sort of Survivor for 11 year olds) – when the series was over, his question was When can I go onto Scorpion Island, and do all those things?.
I’m obviously on dodgy ground when I start extrapolating to shows I don’t like – but I wonder if the same applies to soaps? That somehow the community being portrayed, however dysfunctional, is desirable? I guess society today is so fragmented that geographical communities like Albert Square or Corrie simply don’t exist anymore.
On the comedy note, I wonder if it applies backwards. Take The Office – it takes a situation we are in (or can closely related to), and twists it into something we wouldn’t want to be in. Maybe it’s actually all down to emotional response, be that happiness, sadness, fear, laughter, tears, outrage, disgust?
I had some creme fraiche and maple syrup cobbling around the fridge, so I decided to do an ice-cream experiment.
I thought that something else in the mix would be nice, so I experimented with various combinations, and settled on added chopped up walnuts.
My approach was simplicity itself. I’ve guessed the quantities, as I didn’t bother measuring them.
Ingredients (makes about 500 ml ice cream)
~300 ml creme fraiche
~100 ml milk
50-100g sugar
4 tbsp maple syrup
75g-100g chopped walnuts
Method
If using a ice-cream maker, do the freezy bowl thing plenty in advance.
Put the creme fraiche in a mixing bowl, and beat in the milk until it has the consistency of single cream.
Now beat in the sugar and maple syrup.
Do a taste test – the mixture should be very sweet, and maple flavour should be very strong (both get suppressed by the cold). If not, add some more syrup.
Pour the mixture into the ice-cream maker.
A couple of minutes before it’s ready – when the mixture has thickened – pour in the walnuts.
If you’re not using an ice-cream maker, add the walnuts, and transfer the whole lot to the freezer. After 3-4 hours, whizz it up with an electric whisk to break up all the ice, and return for a further 3-4 hrs until it’s fully frozen.
Enjoy (or transfer to the freezer).
This melts pretty quickly – probably because it’s a fairly light base. If you like richer/heavier ice-cream you could hold back on the milk, or use a creme fraiche custard base. No idea who that person is – first hit on Google for creme fraiche ice cream at time of writing!
Couple of quotes from yesterday that caught my eye.
Of poor leaders they say We did it despite them
Of good leaders they say We did it with them.”
Of great leaders they say We did it ourselves.
And (at the risk of doing a Bernie), the difference between charismatic and inspirational leaders:
They say after an audience with Hilter, you came out saying He can do anything.
They say after an audience with Churchill, you can out saying I can do anything.
The point of both is that you seldom hear of truly great and inspirational leaders, because what they do is enable others to achieve amazing things.
While I have no pretensions of being a great or inspirational leader, I would rather see someone that I have walked alongside do extraordinary things than to do extraordinary things myself. I don’t want to be great, and don’t imagine I ever will be – but I do want to try and help others be!
I spent today in Leeds, at a Growing Leaders training day (“training the trainers”), and I’m really excited.
I’ve been reading the book of the course, and there’s a lot of it that excites me because of what I believe to be my overall calling in life, but also that resonates with stuff that I think God has specifically been saying to me over the last few years.
Two of the verses in the bible that excite me the most are Ephesians 4:11-13 (NKJV)
And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.
And Jeremiah 3:15 (NIV)
Then I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will lead you with knowledge and understanding.
That phrase equipping the saints just sums up perfectly where my passion lies. The Jeremiah passage I find hugely encouraging – it’s kind of a two-way promise. To the people, it’s a promise of good shepherds, but to the shepherds, it’s a promise that they will be made into good shepherd’s for God’s purpose.
In terms of stuff I think God has been saying. Well, I’ve discovered contemplative spirituality over the last few years in a whole new way. Exercises the like Awareness Examen and Lectio Divino, and experiential bible meditation. I have to give a huge nod here to Mark Yaconelli, in particular his book Contemplative Youth Ministry: Practicing the Presence of Jesus with Young People (link is to Amazon), which I think should be required reading for anyone in any form of Christian leadership. The title is misleading in a way, as I believe the principles apply across the board, and it’s a hugely accessible way into a more contemplative and reflective (as opposed to anxious) way of life.
The other stuff has been about shape and direction (in particular, Rick Warren’s S.H.A.P.E acrostic). I find it very easy to strive for balance, and being able to do everything. If there’s a particular ministry or activity I struggle to do, I easily see that as a failing, and try to rectify it. I’m slowly becoming more accepting of who I am and how God’s made me. That means I’m good at some things, and rubbish at others. It means that my character traits are not inherently good or bad (they just have associated strengths and weaknesses).
Two examples.
First – youth work. Broadly speaking, I am academic. I think, ponder, reflect, pontificate, and review. I try to give a considered response to questions, that I can back up with a solid argument. (It drives my wife mad!). I often s.p.e.a.k ….. q…u…i…t…e … … … … s….l…..o……w…..l…y. (not always, but often). My co-leaders are not wired up this way. They are dynamic, exciting, enthused and responsive, and most of time are bouncing off the ceiling.
I find it very easy to think they are “better” than me, because they connect very easily with the youth, and find it much easier to joke and laugh with them then I do.
But I think the reality is both are important. The youth need to connect, for sure, but I think I bring a depth that might not otherwise be present. I spent the first couple of years as a youth leader trying to be hip and exciting like the others. Now I accept that God called me into that role, as I am, and me being me is far more valuable and real than me trying to be a 21 year old. In addition, I have come to see that some of the (particularly older) young people actually find it easier to connect with someone who’s a bit more quiet and reflective in their approach…
The irony here is that one of the key aims of ministry to teenagers is helping them to feel comfortable in their own skin, and accepting of who they are!
Second example – DIY. In direct contradiction to what I just said, I also tend to rush in. I get excited by new things, and by getting things done, and tend to charge on in, without always taking the preparation steps that really the job requires.
This is not always a good thing where DIY is involved. In fact, it is rarely a good thing.
On the other hand, jobs gets done. I actually get on and do stuff. I know of people with a more measured approach, who actually never end up getting anything done, either because they never get around to it, or because the preparation takes so long there doesn’t end up being enough time.
I am coming to see that neither approach is in and off itself better or worse. There are strengths and weaknesses to both. I get the job done, but with rather more mess or with less than ideal results. Others may do it perfectly, but take a lot longer to do it, if indeed they get round to it at all.
They key for me is self-awareness. If you know who you are, and what your character is, then you can get help in areas which don’t come naturally.
Ermm, forgotten my point now.
Oh yes, Growing Leaders. I’m very excited because it is all about equipping the saints. I’m so excited about learning more about my own calling and leading in a sustainable way, and then having the privilege of helping others do the same thing (and even better, helping them to then pass that on to others in turn).
Pete Broadbent (Bishop of Willesdon) said on Twitter:
It works right across the church spectrum. Much recommended. Growing Leaders is a gift to the Church.
(which is a pretty good recommendation)
Anyway, it looks like I’ve got a year to work through the course, and try to get a leadership strategy in place (there may be one already that I’m not aware of), and then we’ll kick it off Sept ’10 – Insha’Allah.
