Yikes, Steph. I commend you on not telling your boss she's an ass for rolling over instead of supporting the people who work for her. Where you are so obviously dong your job, she should have your back.

It sounds like the mid-level editors prefer to appear to authors like "I'm in your court, you shouldn't have to suffer like this, but the Exec Managing Editor is such an ungodly bitch that there's no arguing with her. But hey, I agreed with you, I'm a nice person."

To be fair to the mid-level editors, they do generally push back at least once, explaining our editorial policy (which the authors already should have known). But if the authors continue to throw a tantrum, then they just cave in.

(I genuinely don't understand why we can't reply with "Do you want to be published by the AMA or not? There are a lot of other journals that have less exacting standards than we do, and I'm sure they'd be happy to not edit you." Or, you know, at least the first question.)

My boss just asked me if I had had a chance to work on something. I have zero recollection of him ever asking me to do this, so I said no and I do not recall us discussing it. He pulls up an email string THAT I AM NOT ON and says well they've done all this so it should be easy.

I come back to my desk and do an email search, he has never emailed me about this task. Never.

On the nature of sacrifice: I would argue that to sacrifice something you actually have to have it before giving it up. Choosing public service over a lucrative private job? Not a sacrifice, just a choice - and damn weren't you lucky to have one.

I am reading backwards today.

Choosing public service over a lucrative private job? Not a sacrifice, just a choice - and damn weren't you lucky to have one.

Yes, but choosing public service also entails giving up certain things, such as your privacy, regular work hours, being able to speak your mind without second and triple checking any repercussions and so on. And as someone else mentioned, Gabby Giffords is an example of public service potentially meaning sacrificing much more.

Oh, that's charming, msbelle. And Tep.

Bah.

Cannot get my head in the game today. And yet the work keeps on needing to get done. Tiresome.

I would argue that to sacrifice something you actually have to have it before giving it up.

I don't think I agree with that. I would concede that the thing being given up has to be a viable possibility, not just theoretical, but I can imagine giving up the possibility of something one does not actually have yet being a valid sacrifice.

I talked with a coworker and there was one verbal convo about the way we process fuel changing, but I do not process fuel and do not maintain any of the reports they referenced. They just want me to build the PO for this thing I have nothing to do with, and never thought to include me in emails concerning said PO.

Communication Geniuses.

Hi Cindy!

I think sacrifice possibilities is definitely still sacrifice. It reminds me of a segment on NPR where they talked about the meaning of gifts at Christmas were initially intended to be sacrificial. In fact, they implied the most meaningful gifts are ones that require sacrifice from the giver.

Relatedly, someone - I forget who - said something about Clinton's suits being boxy to hide the flack jacket underneath, and now I can't see her sartorial choices any other way.

Same with all of the presidents and Obama's suits, while boring, are fitted better than hers. Even the academic regalia that POTUS and FLOTUS wear at the commencement addresses are kevlar lined.

the meaning of gifts at Christmas were initially intended to be sacrificial. In fact, they implied the most meaningful gifts are ones that require sacrifice from the giver.

See also, O Henry's The Gift of the Magi.