Mornings...Ugh...

I hate mornings. Perhaps this is a leftover from my childhood, and I will grow out of it eventually. Perhaps it's hereditary (my father is also not a "morning person", although he bears up under the necessity of early rising much better and more consistently than I). Or perhaps I'm just, at some level lazy. I don't know.

Either way, I hate mornings. Indeed, my worst time of day is the moment I have to arise -- not simply to awake (that is fine, as long as I can just lie in bed and "veg"), but the moment that I must actually haul my carcass out of bed. Now, that doesn't mean I don't do it. It just means that I dread doing it, and would gladly skip mornings if I could.

So, you can imagine my horror when, after having worked until 4:00 a.m. and gotten to sleep at 5:00 a.m. (today), the client for whom I was working calls my cell phone with the *ahem* wonderful news that something else was broken, and that I had to fix it immediately because the person whose job it is to do something with the process that was broken was there "now". Oh, joy!

Well, anyway, before I realized it, I was in the shower: awake and getting ready. And so I made an interesting observation: I find it much less painful to get out of bed after only a few hours' sleep (3 hrs., 49 min., to be exact, in this case) than after a full 8 or 9 hours of regular sleep.

(Of course, I wind up paying for it in dulled focus and constant need to "push" myself throughout the day; but I'll take what I can get. :) )

I've noticed this in the past as well: I can get up at oh-dark-30 to get to the airport for a 6:00 a.m. flight, or to get to the church to leave for a week of camp at 7:00 a.m.; but to get up at 8:45 a.m. (after having gone to bed at midnight) in order to get to work on time at 9:30 a.m. is absolute torture. So I suffer the same amount in either case, but if I've only gotten a few hours' sleep, the suffering is spread out.

:)

Comments

Post a Comment

Hi! Feel free to comment. However, I was getting posts from different Anonymous people, and it's difficult to know who is who so I can keep the conversation straight in my head. So I'm requesting that you please bear with my weakness, and identify yourself. Even if you want to use a different name than your real name -- that's fine. But give yourself a handle for me, please. :) Thanks...

Popular posts from this blog

Non-Intervention In the Real World

I received a list of excellent questions from an Anonymous commenter on my last post, summarized by the first one: "How does non-intervention work in the real world?"  There are several followup questions, so I'll answer them here. You write: "If we maintain a standing army, we keep it at home to secure our own borders" So there is some discussion amongst non-interventionists as to whether or not the U.S. would keep a standing army?  This is more a dispute between Libertarians in general.  Most non-interventionists (including myself) would not go as far as to completely disband the military.  However, we would significantly reduce it's size when not in times of declared war.  The details of the reduction (which branches get cut the most, what we do with the hardware in the meanwhile, how we keep people trained in it, etc.) would be up for serious discussion. Would I be correct in assuming that “standing army” is a metaphor for all branches of the
Read more

Complementarianism...Why?

I just finished reading this post, entitled "Why women cannot be head pastors", by C. Michael Patton, whose insights I usually find spot on. However, I must disagree with his argument on this one, for the simple reason that it's not rooted in anything but a generalization, as several of the egalitarians, and a couple of the complementarians even, have pointed out in the comments (to his post, not this one — as of the time of writing at least). I am a complementarian as well, and as such it pains me to see this kind of argument being offered, because of it's weakness. Since it comes from someone who normally offers great insights, my fear is that people will get the impression, as one commenter did, that this is the best complementarians have to offer. EDIT 2/16/2010 10:33PM PST: Mr. Patton has clarified that he was not making an argument for complementarianism, but rather speculating on God's reason for the design, assuming it's true. However, I believe t
Read more

That Jesus Was In Fact Crucified On a Friday, According to the Scriptures

Introduction There are some who madly fight against the Tradition which the Church has received throughout the whole world, that our Lord was crucified on a Friday, and attempt to overthrow this taking as their key the sign given to that wicked and adulterous generation, that the Son of Man shall be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth , which is found in Matthew 12:40 . It is our purpose with what follows to show that they thus introduce an irreconcilable contradiction with ALL of the other Scriptures. Preparation To aid us in this task, we begin with the God-inspired Scriptures, which, as the beloved Paul says, are profitable for such reproof and correction and instruction. Here follows an exhaustive list of those sayings on this matter recorded in the Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles — that is, the New Testament. (NB: All Scriptures quoted from the King James.) Matthew For as Jonas was three da
Read more