Yesterday I posted the AP article about the Swiss accidentally invading Lichtenstein, which is apparently not all that easy given the size of Lichtenstein. AP used the example that it's approximately the size of the District of Columbia.
So, that would make the Swiss Army significantly more accurate in their errors than Al Quaeda and other anti-American terrorists are in their actual planned attacks. When they try to hit a target the size of the District of Columbia, say for example, the District of Columbia, they tend to hit Virginia instead. Interesting point, no?
This got me thinking about Swiss Army knives, too. One has to assume that they are standard issue in the Swiss Army, right? Otherwise they'd be Canadian Army knives or Foreign Legion knives.
I'm no expert on the Swiss Army knife ~ the version I have is the girly one with the tweezers, nail file, scissors, toothpick, etc. But (making a leap here) I have to assume that the really nice ones, that the Swiss Army probably saves for themselves, have all sorts of MacGuyver type paraphernalia. Maybe not the tube socks, but one never knows. Anyway, I'm assuming minimum, the Swiss Army issued Swiss Army knife would have in the very least a compass. (Possibly even GIS or a fold out map...)
Now how did they accidentally invade Lichtenstein again???
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Friday, March 02, 2007
And I thought I was Having a Bad Day....
March 2, 2007
Swiss Accidentally Invade Liechtenstein
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 8:43 a.m. ET
ZURICH, Switzerland (AP) -- What began as a routine training exercise almost ended in an embarrassing diplomatic incident after a company of Swiss soldiers got lost at night and marched into neighboring Liechtenstein.
According to Swiss daily Blick, the 170 infantry soldiers wandered 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) across an unmarked border into the tiny principality early Thursday before realizing their mistake and turning back.
A spokesman for the Swiss army confirmed the story but said that there were unlikely to be any serious repercussions for the mistaken invasion.
''We've spoken to the authorities in Liechtenstein and it's not a problem,'' Daniel Reist told The Associated Press.
Officials in Liechtenstein also played down the incident.
Interior ministry spokesman Markus Amman said nobody in Liechtenstein had even noticed the soldiers, who were carrying assault rifles but no ammunition. ''It's not like they stormed over here with attack helicopters or something,'' he said.
Liechtenstein, which has about 34,000 inhabitants and is slightly smaller than Washington DC, doesn't have an army.
Oops?
You don't suppose we could try to play the whole Iraq invasion off like this? (Don't think for one moment that I'm the only one considering that idea!)
Swiss Accidentally Invade Liechtenstein
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 8:43 a.m. ET
ZURICH, Switzerland (AP) -- What began as a routine training exercise almost ended in an embarrassing diplomatic incident after a company of Swiss soldiers got lost at night and marched into neighboring Liechtenstein.
According to Swiss daily Blick, the 170 infantry soldiers wandered 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) across an unmarked border into the tiny principality early Thursday before realizing their mistake and turning back.
A spokesman for the Swiss army confirmed the story but said that there were unlikely to be any serious repercussions for the mistaken invasion.
''We've spoken to the authorities in Liechtenstein and it's not a problem,'' Daniel Reist told The Associated Press.
Officials in Liechtenstein also played down the incident.
Interior ministry spokesman Markus Amman said nobody in Liechtenstein had even noticed the soldiers, who were carrying assault rifles but no ammunition. ''It's not like they stormed over here with attack helicopters or something,'' he said.
Liechtenstein, which has about 34,000 inhabitants and is slightly smaller than Washington DC, doesn't have an army.
Oops?
You don't suppose we could try to play the whole Iraq invasion off like this? (Don't think for one moment that I'm the only one considering that idea!)
Thursday, March 01, 2007
In Defense of Meredith
The other night my mother and I had dinner at Bess' Bistro, the restaurant owned by Sandra Bullock. I mention this not for the purpose of name dropping, but (Look at me, dropping the names!!!)to set the appropriate scene for this little story. Now the bistro is built in the basement of a building on 6th Street and has all these little alcoves with leather booths and stained concrete floors intermixed with ornate spanish tiles. It all makes for some rather interesting acoustics. It's like the kind of thing you see in parts of the U.S. Capitol building where if you're standing in precise locations under the domed ceilings you can hear a whispered conversation happening on the other side of the room. Funny thing, acoustics. This case is neither as spectacular nor as compelling. It was rather irritating, to be honest. Somehow on my mother's side of our little alcove's booth, the conversation at a nearby table was not even a whisper, I, however, could hear every pause and breath taken between words, never mind the actual conversation.
Now, I have no idea what kind of people frequent a place like Bess' Bistro. My mom wanted to go there specifically because she had seen it written up in the New York Times or Vanity Fair or something. And to the staff, we seemed like obvious tourists. Although, I would love to see the expressions on those same snooty faces if they were actually privy to my mother's net worth or had any idea what kind of money she hoards away. The point is, they knew we wouldn't be coming back and if there was a gift shop we may have bought postcards, but not if they were as outrageously priced as the wine list. Obviously, I'm not the type of person to go out to this hip sell-your-kidney-to-buy-a-bottle-of-vino places. I'm more likely to be found at Austin's more casual places ~ Kerbey Lane, Magnolia Cafe, Chuy's, Maudie's ~ places where my father says the weight staff looks like they came directly from an open casting call for the bar scene in Star Wars. Okay, so maybe he says the more about the staff at Central Market. The point is, I'm used to Austin weird, not Austin elite. After my experience, I thought the food was eh but, the ladies' room rocked!
But, back to the conversation I couldn't stop myself from overhearing. They were two ladies, probably my age or younger and actually reminded me of my days inside the Washington Beltway and the happy hour "fake casts" where everyone drank Amstel Light and acted like some bizarre version of the Stepford wives. But back to the two women in Austin. They were talking about the most recent episode of Grey's Anatomy and how terribly unrealistic it is that someone would stop fighting to live/swim if they fell into the water, that conceptually (they didn't use that big a word, I'm paraphrasing) it was impossible for someone to not chose to live. They went on to complain that Lost is starting to get a bit unreal (starting??? which part of the scifi/fantasy moniker did you not understand???) They then settled into a long discussion on how their moisturizers were working. Seriously. I never thought I would hear two women discuss moisturizers outside of an infomercial, cosmetics counter, ad or the offhanded Cordellia snark "Now there's a woman who knows how to moisturize!"
At this point, my mom was checking out the rockin' ladies' room and as they settled into what became a very lengthy, though pointless, discussion on moisturizer (I mean come on, no mention of SPF or antioxidants, botanical vs chemicals, oxygen peels, exfoliation, nothing? PLEASE I could have scripted a better conversation!) I found myself stuck in a difficult position. Do I turn to look at these people with the expression on my face that no doubt says "I had no idea someone could do so much on brain stem function alone" or do I slam my forehead into the very polished wood table in front of me. I was choosing the later when the waiter brought the check and asked me if everything was okay. I just shook my head motioning to the other table and said the conversation was unbelievable. He smiled and said the entertainment was on the house. So, one point for snooty having sense of humor.
But back to Grey's Anatomy and how no one could ever just give up trying to live.
I think I've already mentioned how I identify with Meredith. When Ellis became lucid for a been hours and gave Meredith that horrible speech that she hadn't raised her to be ordinary. Four words went through my mind. I know that woman.
Maybe you can't get it unless you had some super achieving mother. Maybe it's growing up with that expectation or with the knowledge that your mother is more, does more than any of your friends' mothers. Maybe it's the part of her that got her so far that expects so much of you. No matter what I do, it will never be good enough for my mother. Even if I reach some great career pinnacle, save the lives of millions, if there's a dish in my kitchen sink, I'll still be a failure. That's the standard. She never just says, "I want you to be happy."
But the whole Meredith thing, being the person who looks like they have it all together and have everything going for them, from a safe distance. When you crack the shell, there's no great well of self esteem to hold up everything else. It's terrifying. Half the time it seems like you're a fraud and half the time like you're just not trying hard enough.
Then does the will to live always spring eternal? Hell no! There come times when you get tired of trying so hard. You get tired of waiting for things to "fall into place." You get sick of everything being so hard. And in your own mind, you're not as important to other people as they are to you. You may need them, but they could survive quite nicely without you. Maybe it's part of the whole lack of self esteem, maybe it just keeps you from feeling guilty for not wanting to stick around. Slight of hand, trick of the mind.
But that's life without an absent father (one who even runs interference with the mother), with a sister who is always there and a mother who is always lucid. How does that balance against a McDreamy? I have no idea. I have seen enough friends and family members die and Alzheimer's is the worst way to go, leukemia comes in a distant second, and dying of natural causes at age 21 gets a special mention.
I guess the bottom line is this. I didn't think the story arc was unrealistic. I balled my eyes out, multiple times, but it was real enough to me.
Now, I have no idea what kind of people frequent a place like Bess' Bistro. My mom wanted to go there specifically because she had seen it written up in the New York Times or Vanity Fair or something. And to the staff, we seemed like obvious tourists. Although, I would love to see the expressions on those same snooty faces if they were actually privy to my mother's net worth or had any idea what kind of money she hoards away. The point is, they knew we wouldn't be coming back and if there was a gift shop we may have bought postcards, but not if they were as outrageously priced as the wine list. Obviously, I'm not the type of person to go out to this hip sell-your-kidney-to-buy-a-bottle-of-vino places. I'm more likely to be found at Austin's more casual places ~ Kerbey Lane, Magnolia Cafe, Chuy's, Maudie's ~ places where my father says the weight staff looks like they came directly from an open casting call for the bar scene in Star Wars. Okay, so maybe he says the more about the staff at Central Market. The point is, I'm used to Austin weird, not Austin elite. After my experience, I thought the food was eh but, the ladies' room rocked!
But, back to the conversation I couldn't stop myself from overhearing. They were two ladies, probably my age or younger and actually reminded me of my days inside the Washington Beltway and the happy hour "fake casts" where everyone drank Amstel Light and acted like some bizarre version of the Stepford wives. But back to the two women in Austin. They were talking about the most recent episode of Grey's Anatomy and how terribly unrealistic it is that someone would stop fighting to live/swim if they fell into the water, that conceptually (they didn't use that big a word, I'm paraphrasing) it was impossible for someone to not chose to live. They went on to complain that Lost is starting to get a bit unreal (starting??? which part of the scifi/fantasy moniker did you not understand???) They then settled into a long discussion on how their moisturizers were working. Seriously. I never thought I would hear two women discuss moisturizers outside of an infomercial, cosmetics counter, ad or the offhanded Cordellia snark "Now there's a woman who knows how to moisturize!"
At this point, my mom was checking out the rockin' ladies' room and as they settled into what became a very lengthy, though pointless, discussion on moisturizer (I mean come on, no mention of SPF or antioxidants, botanical vs chemicals, oxygen peels, exfoliation, nothing? PLEASE I could have scripted a better conversation!) I found myself stuck in a difficult position. Do I turn to look at these people with the expression on my face that no doubt says "I had no idea someone could do so much on brain stem function alone" or do I slam my forehead into the very polished wood table in front of me. I was choosing the later when the waiter brought the check and asked me if everything was okay. I just shook my head motioning to the other table and said the conversation was unbelievable. He smiled and said the entertainment was on the house. So, one point for snooty having sense of humor.
But back to Grey's Anatomy and how no one could ever just give up trying to live.
I think I've already mentioned how I identify with Meredith. When Ellis became lucid for a been hours and gave Meredith that horrible speech that she hadn't raised her to be ordinary. Four words went through my mind. I know that woman.
Maybe you can't get it unless you had some super achieving mother. Maybe it's growing up with that expectation or with the knowledge that your mother is more, does more than any of your friends' mothers. Maybe it's the part of her that got her so far that expects so much of you. No matter what I do, it will never be good enough for my mother. Even if I reach some great career pinnacle, save the lives of millions, if there's a dish in my kitchen sink, I'll still be a failure. That's the standard. She never just says, "I want you to be happy."
But the whole Meredith thing, being the person who looks like they have it all together and have everything going for them, from a safe distance. When you crack the shell, there's no great well of self esteem to hold up everything else. It's terrifying. Half the time it seems like you're a fraud and half the time like you're just not trying hard enough.
Then does the will to live always spring eternal? Hell no! There come times when you get tired of trying so hard. You get tired of waiting for things to "fall into place." You get sick of everything being so hard. And in your own mind, you're not as important to other people as they are to you. You may need them, but they could survive quite nicely without you. Maybe it's part of the whole lack of self esteem, maybe it just keeps you from feeling guilty for not wanting to stick around. Slight of hand, trick of the mind.
But that's life without an absent father (one who even runs interference with the mother), with a sister who is always there and a mother who is always lucid. How does that balance against a McDreamy? I have no idea. I have seen enough friends and family members die and Alzheimer's is the worst way to go, leukemia comes in a distant second, and dying of natural causes at age 21 gets a special mention.
I guess the bottom line is this. I didn't think the story arc was unrealistic. I balled my eyes out, multiple times, but it was real enough to me.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Who's on first?
With the Presidential primaries barely 11 months away, no incumbent, no obvious successor and one pissed off electorate, it seems like the fair question to ask ~ who's on first?
Do we even know who is running for President???
Maybe it would be easier to start with who isn't!
This is my list so far:
George W. Bush
Dick Cheney (although I could be wrong about this one)
Karl Rove
Scooter Libby
Al Gore
That guy from Ohio who just announced that he was dropping out of the race (who knew he was in it????)
Colin Powell
Bill Clinton (in his own name, anyway)
Any of the Kennedys (all of the good ones are dead anyway)
Just about anyone who has any business running this country
Conventional wisdom tells us that anyone who has been spending extra time in New Hampshire is suspect. That would include my Uncle Billy. He, like many other candidates testing the water, has a good cover story. He's visiting his sister and brother-in-law and helping to replace all the plumbing fixtures in their house after they became clogged with sediment when work was done on their hot water heater. Now we don't need Stephen Colbert to tell us how this tale of built up sediment from well water is completely bogus. It comes directly from the ground and there's no sediment there, it's all dirt!! My uncle will, I'm sure, also be making multiple public appearances at Home Depot, Sam's Club, WalMart, the Outback Steakhouse, the only Cracker Barrel in the state of New Hampshire and MaryAnn's Diner (a very popular hot spot for Presidential hopefuls). He'll claim the shopping is related to NH's lack of sales tax, but we'll know the truth. And did I mention his recent trip to Iowa??
But seriously, as a born political junkie, a veteran of SEVEN first in the nation primaries (not being able to visit for 2000 & 2004 made me so homesick), I am disturbed by the lack of information! Gone are the days when no one got elected President without first winning New Hampshire. I believe Clinton ended that streak. (And how proud was NH to be held blameless for that fiasco? Paul Tsongas was a much better man.) And good ol' W. didn't win NH the first time around either. Tell me the world wouldn't be a better place with President McCain!!
And people question the wisdom of New Hampshire having all the political power of the first primary....
In New Hampshire, we take the responsibility VERY seriously. Some people don't vote until they have met every candidate. There's actually a woman who has to dance with every candidate, she a little strange, but you're getting my point. In NH and now on C-SPAN, you see the candidates up close and personal interacting with real people. You see them try to court the truly jaded individuals who received the very first promises and were the first to see their promises broken. You don't get to lie in NH and you don't get to charm the local or schmooze or any of that crap. Folks in NH have been doing this for WAY too long to fall for that crap. They don't vote for the hair. They vote for the mind, the ideas, the plans, the individual. Are you getting why W. and Clinton lost NH now? For every four toothed moron wearing hunting gear in a diner that they seem to pull out for national news broadcasts, there are four well educated (or at least well schooled) individuals, most of whom work in the high tech industries surrounding Boston or the medical systems expanded from Dartmouth or Harvard led programs or for defense contractors or one of the many colleges in NH or MA or one of the green corporations like Stonyfield Farms Yogurt or Life is Good apparel or some other system set up to support everything else.
The truth is, in New Hampshire, they take the political system very seriously. They expect to see their national representatives back in town discussing issues with them. They vote. I worked on my first US senate campaign when I was 13. When I wasn't allowed to help count votes because I was too young, I stayed at the precinct just to watch the process. I registered to vote before I was even 18. (The deadline for the November election was before my birthday, but I would be 18 by election day.) Nobody needed to "Rock" my vote. I had been going to see Presidential candidates since before I could walk and talk. I had well formed opinions on national issues and candidates while I was still in elementary school. And unlike many children, lots of them were contrary to at least one of my parents opinions. (My parents have spent the better part of my life cancelling out each other's votes. The big exception was the senate campaign I worked on. He was MY candidate, so they both had to vote for him.)
So this is why I feel lost 2000 miles away from the Granite State. My favorite season has always been primary season. It's the ultimate circus.
But down here, beyond the spotlights ~ Barrack! Hillary! Mitt! Richardson! Rudy! McCain?
I have no idea who is in the running.
Who IS on first?
Do we even know who is running for President???
Maybe it would be easier to start with who isn't!
This is my list so far:
George W. Bush
Dick Cheney (although I could be wrong about this one)
Karl Rove
Scooter Libby
Al Gore
That guy from Ohio who just announced that he was dropping out of the race (who knew he was in it????)
Colin Powell
Bill Clinton (in his own name, anyway)
Any of the Kennedys (all of the good ones are dead anyway)
Just about anyone who has any business running this country
Conventional wisdom tells us that anyone who has been spending extra time in New Hampshire is suspect. That would include my Uncle Billy. He, like many other candidates testing the water, has a good cover story. He's visiting his sister and brother-in-law and helping to replace all the plumbing fixtures in their house after they became clogged with sediment when work was done on their hot water heater. Now we don't need Stephen Colbert to tell us how this tale of built up sediment from well water is completely bogus. It comes directly from the ground and there's no sediment there, it's all dirt!! My uncle will, I'm sure, also be making multiple public appearances at Home Depot, Sam's Club, WalMart, the Outback Steakhouse, the only Cracker Barrel in the state of New Hampshire and MaryAnn's Diner (a very popular hot spot for Presidential hopefuls). He'll claim the shopping is related to NH's lack of sales tax, but we'll know the truth. And did I mention his recent trip to Iowa??
But seriously, as a born political junkie, a veteran of SEVEN first in the nation primaries (not being able to visit for 2000 & 2004 made me so homesick), I am disturbed by the lack of information! Gone are the days when no one got elected President without first winning New Hampshire. I believe Clinton ended that streak. (And how proud was NH to be held blameless for that fiasco? Paul Tsongas was a much better man.) And good ol' W. didn't win NH the first time around either. Tell me the world wouldn't be a better place with President McCain!!
And people question the wisdom of New Hampshire having all the political power of the first primary....
In New Hampshire, we take the responsibility VERY seriously. Some people don't vote until they have met every candidate. There's actually a woman who has to dance with every candidate, she a little strange, but you're getting my point. In NH and now on C-SPAN, you see the candidates up close and personal interacting with real people. You see them try to court the truly jaded individuals who received the very first promises and were the first to see their promises broken. You don't get to lie in NH and you don't get to charm the local or schmooze or any of that crap. Folks in NH have been doing this for WAY too long to fall for that crap. They don't vote for the hair. They vote for the mind, the ideas, the plans, the individual. Are you getting why W. and Clinton lost NH now? For every four toothed moron wearing hunting gear in a diner that they seem to pull out for national news broadcasts, there are four well educated (or at least well schooled) individuals, most of whom work in the high tech industries surrounding Boston or the medical systems expanded from Dartmouth or Harvard led programs or for defense contractors or one of the many colleges in NH or MA or one of the green corporations like Stonyfield Farms Yogurt or Life is Good apparel or some other system set up to support everything else.
The truth is, in New Hampshire, they take the political system very seriously. They expect to see their national representatives back in town discussing issues with them. They vote. I worked on my first US senate campaign when I was 13. When I wasn't allowed to help count votes because I was too young, I stayed at the precinct just to watch the process. I registered to vote before I was even 18. (The deadline for the November election was before my birthday, but I would be 18 by election day.) Nobody needed to "Rock" my vote. I had been going to see Presidential candidates since before I could walk and talk. I had well formed opinions on national issues and candidates while I was still in elementary school. And unlike many children, lots of them were contrary to at least one of my parents opinions. (My parents have spent the better part of my life cancelling out each other's votes. The big exception was the senate campaign I worked on. He was MY candidate, so they both had to vote for him.)
So this is why I feel lost 2000 miles away from the Granite State. My favorite season has always been primary season. It's the ultimate circus.
But down here, beyond the spotlights ~ Barrack! Hillary! Mitt! Richardson! Rudy! McCain?
I have no idea who is in the running.
Who IS on first?
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Ah-HA! Looks like I'll be marrying a younger man....
It's about time men started hearing a biological clock.
FINALLY, researchers (see above link from NYT) are finding that aging fathers can result in complications for children both at birth/childhood and later in life. Every woman has long suspected it. There's no way that just woman have an expiration date on their reproduction and men are pasteurized and need no refrigeration or something. Biology just can't work that way. And if it were the case, why on earth would women consistently have a longer life expectancy? Nature doesn't just screw things up like that.
It's always been a very touchy subject, maternal age. At what point does it become risky? My mother was a maternity ward nurse in the late 60s and early 70s and they used to refer to first time mothers over the age of 35 as "geriatric." Not exactly complimentary. But this came from a generation of women who were finished with their childbearing years before they turned 26, or at least my mother was.
When my sister had her first child at 35, doctors, nurses, radiological technicians, you name it, kept asking her for her age. She became rather miffed as they never asked for her husband's age. Her feeling was they didn't need to write it down, they could just ask conversationally, that it was kind of rude not to ask. They had her completely freaked out about her advanced age and for no good reason.
In public health, we still look at age 35+ as a maternal risk factor, but the data doesn't really back it up. In these days of improved prenatal care and better testing, it seems that 40 should be the age at which we start considering maternal age a potential risk. After all, we have women in their fifties giving birth now ~ why you would want to deal with a teenager in your sixties, I cannot even begin to comprehend, but it happens.
Fertility and maternal health also has a strong genetic component. A woman's likelihood of preterm delivery is doubled if her mother delivered preterm. Simple fertility level and onset of menopause can be predicted from maternal genetic line. A woman whose mother and/or grandmother (most likely both) experienced early menopause, will as well. The same is true of fertility, absent outside factors, like disease or injury.
So what does this all mean? Well, for me it means that having a maternal grandmother who had a child at 39 and a sister who had child (and no trouble getting pregnant) at 38, makes my biological clock a heck of a lot quieter than if I were just comparing my life to my mother's. For other people it's their own history.
Right now they haven't figured out how heredity figures into male fertility, so it's a waste of my time to be scouting fathers and grandfathers. I guess the word to the wise is to lose the father figure issues and marry younger. I'm not saying you have to do the full surgical package like Demi Moore, but she might be on the right track. (But, yes, their still is a certain "ick factor" when you see picture of Ashton with her teen aged daughters...)
Just consider this, it would be an even greater "ick factor" if she had married Dick Cheney...
FINALLY, researchers (see above link from NYT) are finding that aging fathers can result in complications for children both at birth/childhood and later in life. Every woman has long suspected it. There's no way that just woman have an expiration date on their reproduction and men are pasteurized and need no refrigeration or something. Biology just can't work that way. And if it were the case, why on earth would women consistently have a longer life expectancy? Nature doesn't just screw things up like that.
It's always been a very touchy subject, maternal age. At what point does it become risky? My mother was a maternity ward nurse in the late 60s and early 70s and they used to refer to first time mothers over the age of 35 as "geriatric." Not exactly complimentary. But this came from a generation of women who were finished with their childbearing years before they turned 26, or at least my mother was.
When my sister had her first child at 35, doctors, nurses, radiological technicians, you name it, kept asking her for her age. She became rather miffed as they never asked for her husband's age. Her feeling was they didn't need to write it down, they could just ask conversationally, that it was kind of rude not to ask. They had her completely freaked out about her advanced age and for no good reason.
In public health, we still look at age 35+ as a maternal risk factor, but the data doesn't really back it up. In these days of improved prenatal care and better testing, it seems that 40 should be the age at which we start considering maternal age a potential risk. After all, we have women in their fifties giving birth now ~ why you would want to deal with a teenager in your sixties, I cannot even begin to comprehend, but it happens.
Fertility and maternal health also has a strong genetic component. A woman's likelihood of preterm delivery is doubled if her mother delivered preterm. Simple fertility level and onset of menopause can be predicted from maternal genetic line. A woman whose mother and/or grandmother (most likely both) experienced early menopause, will as well. The same is true of fertility, absent outside factors, like disease or injury.
So what does this all mean? Well, for me it means that having a maternal grandmother who had a child at 39 and a sister who had child (and no trouble getting pregnant) at 38, makes my biological clock a heck of a lot quieter than if I were just comparing my life to my mother's. For other people it's their own history.
Right now they haven't figured out how heredity figures into male fertility, so it's a waste of my time to be scouting fathers and grandfathers. I guess the word to the wise is to lose the father figure issues and marry younger. I'm not saying you have to do the full surgical package like Demi Moore, but she might be on the right track. (But, yes, their still is a certain "ick factor" when you see picture of Ashton with her teen aged daughters...)
Just consider this, it would be an even greater "ick factor" if she had married Dick Cheney...
Monday, February 26, 2007
Rights, Rights, Rights!!
There's a point when they become wrong.
Frankly, I'm getting sick about hearing about people's rights.
First, it's gun owners' rights.
Then we're talking about smokers' rights.
Now it's all about parents' rights.
Sure, everyone has rights. I'm all for women's rights, gay rights, children's rights, the rights of the disabled and the rights of the disenfranchised. You have the right to rights just so long as they don't trample on the rights of others. Fair enough?
Now it's only fair that I offer a small disclaimer here: not only am I not a smoker, but I am neither a parent nor a gun owner. BUT, I do aspire to be a parent and I am a highly involved aunt and at some point (hopefully a long time from now) I will inherit a few firearms from my father. I'm also not gay or a child and definitely not disenfranchised.
As far as smoker's rights go: they can go ahead and pour gasoline all over themselves and light a match. The dangers of smoking are just as well established and publicized and we have known them for decades. I'm done with the blame game. If you're smoking in the 21st century, it's all on you. There's no ignorance defense anymore. You'll get your slow and painful death, but you just don't get to take anyone along for the ride, capice?
Now back to the other two. I actually see gun owners' rights and parents' rights as being very similar. If all gun owners were responsible, (using fire proof safes, never keeping weapons loaded, separating weapons from ammunition, practicing gun safety, teaching their children proper respect for firearms, etc), we wouldn't need gun control. It wouldn't even be an issue. But not everyone is the model gun owner. Truth be told, I think my father may make up a significant percentage of that group. And I find that terrifying!
It's the same deal with parents. If every parent put their children's well being and health at the top of their priorities and used common sense, there would be no need for child protective services and no need for the government to have laws to protect children. The good parent doesn't feel encroached upon because they have to use a child safety seat in the car or because they are required to vaccinate their child against diseases that could potentially kill them ~ they would do these things anyway, just as they don't allow their toddlers to play with power tools or stick their fingers in electrical outlets. It's called being responsible. Every child deserves that degree of protection and care regardless of what kind of parent they happened to get. And let's face it, there are people out there who have no business being pet owners, forget parents! And I don't mean to sound elitist. Social services have come a long way in providing parenting classes and support programs for adolescent and single mothers. With that kind of help and support, any woman with good intention and a whole lot of effort can be a great parent. We just need to put the rights and needs of the child before those of the parent. Parenting requires sacrifice, but what you get back is so much more. (And I learned that just being an aunt.)
So in this great battle of rights, this battle of wills, think about who is getting wronged in the process.
How can you possibly support a right that is so wrong?
Frankly, I'm getting sick about hearing about people's rights.
First, it's gun owners' rights.
Then we're talking about smokers' rights.
Now it's all about parents' rights.
Sure, everyone has rights. I'm all for women's rights, gay rights, children's rights, the rights of the disabled and the rights of the disenfranchised. You have the right to rights just so long as they don't trample on the rights of others. Fair enough?
Now it's only fair that I offer a small disclaimer here: not only am I not a smoker, but I am neither a parent nor a gun owner. BUT, I do aspire to be a parent and I am a highly involved aunt and at some point (hopefully a long time from now) I will inherit a few firearms from my father. I'm also not gay or a child and definitely not disenfranchised.
As far as smoker's rights go: they can go ahead and pour gasoline all over themselves and light a match. The dangers of smoking are just as well established and publicized and we have known them for decades. I'm done with the blame game. If you're smoking in the 21st century, it's all on you. There's no ignorance defense anymore. You'll get your slow and painful death, but you just don't get to take anyone along for the ride, capice?
Now back to the other two. I actually see gun owners' rights and parents' rights as being very similar. If all gun owners were responsible, (using fire proof safes, never keeping weapons loaded, separating weapons from ammunition, practicing gun safety, teaching their children proper respect for firearms, etc), we wouldn't need gun control. It wouldn't even be an issue. But not everyone is the model gun owner. Truth be told, I think my father may make up a significant percentage of that group. And I find that terrifying!
It's the same deal with parents. If every parent put their children's well being and health at the top of their priorities and used common sense, there would be no need for child protective services and no need for the government to have laws to protect children. The good parent doesn't feel encroached upon because they have to use a child safety seat in the car or because they are required to vaccinate their child against diseases that could potentially kill them ~ they would do these things anyway, just as they don't allow their toddlers to play with power tools or stick their fingers in electrical outlets. It's called being responsible. Every child deserves that degree of protection and care regardless of what kind of parent they happened to get. And let's face it, there are people out there who have no business being pet owners, forget parents! And I don't mean to sound elitist. Social services have come a long way in providing parenting classes and support programs for adolescent and single mothers. With that kind of help and support, any woman with good intention and a whole lot of effort can be a great parent. We just need to put the rights and needs of the child before those of the parent. Parenting requires sacrifice, but what you get back is so much more. (And I learned that just being an aunt.)
So in this great battle of rights, this battle of wills, think about who is getting wronged in the process.
How can you possibly support a right that is so wrong?
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
The Right Thing for all the Wrong Reasons
Here in Texas there is nothing more divisive in the world of public health than the issue of the Executive Order for mandatory HPV vaccination of girls prior to entering sixth grade.
People are against it because Governor Perry has personal connections to the lobbyist from Merck, the manufacturer of Gardisil, the vaccine for HPV. People are against it because the three shot series retails at $360. People are against it because it only received FDA approval last June. People are against it because HPV is a sexually transmitted disease and vaccination against it may lead to promiscuity. People are against it because the order itself over steps the bounds of what a Governor's Executive Order should concern. People are against it because they just don't like things that are mandatory.
But that's just people.
Welcome to Texas, the gerrymandering capital of the universe. A place where the Democratic minority is not beneath hiding out in a Holiday Inn in Oklahoma to block a vote. Seriously. A place where we can hold our heads high and esteem to become the next Tom Delay, George W. Bush, or Enron-like executive. A place where it's okay to go out to shoot fowl and hit your hunting buddy instead. No fowl, no foul? We used to be our own frickin' country! Don't Mess With Us. We really don't like litter.
But behind all this smoke about nepotism, unsafe vaccines, superseding parental judgement, creating a generation of promiscuous little girls and executives using power they don't actually have, there is truth. And if you stop listening to all the loud voices you might actually hear it.
Gardisil prevents 70% of all cervical cancer. It has been endorsed by both the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and ACIP (Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices), part of NIP (the National Immunization Program.) It is now part of the Children's Vaccination Program, which means that CDC/ the Federal Government purchases it in bulk at a substantial discount and provides it to state immunization programs at that same discount. Any child eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) or who gets vaccinated through public clinics or VNA (Visiting Nurses Association) programs will get the vaccine either for free or at the substantial discount. And, many private insurance companies have already started covering it.
As for the whole mandatory thing, in every state, including Texas, there is a means by which a parent can refuse vaccination (specific vaccinations or all of them). They are just required to contact the state health department and fill out some paper work, sometimes they need a notary signature (which you can get at any bank), sometimes not. Some states require a reason, like a religious belief, some don't. But even those that do, are, for the most part, not allowed to investigate what the parents religion is or whether the parents' religion/faith really does have an issue with immunization. Back in Massachusetts, we used to refer to "the Church of No MMR" because of the number of parents who sought exemptions from the measles, mumps & rubella vaccine on religious grounds. The truth, of course, was that they had bought into a very well publicized, but terribly incorrect, theory that MMR (or one of its components, thermisol) caused autism.
As for vaccinating children against a sexually transmitted disease... Guess what?! We're already doing that! Hepatitis B has been out of the blood supply since the late 1980s. Every organ donor is tested for it before their organs are given to someone else and if they are HepB positive, they're organs and tissue will not be used. Which means... You got it! The only way to contract HepB (unless you're a healthcare worker or first responder) is from sex with an infected individual or sharing needles. Every state in the union vaccinates newborns against this virus. Where's the uproar that we're condoning unprotected sex and intravenous drug use???!! Among toddlers, even! What's to stop 3 year olds from developing a heroin habit, I mean, aside from their lack of mobility. (It is kind of hard to drive the car from the carseat in the back...) And perhaps underdeveloped fine motor skills required to cook the spoon, tie the tourniquet, fill the dirty syringe, find a vein and inject.
Now I don't really care if the Governor overstepped his bounds. I'm actually required by law to professionally agree with him. Not the point. If parents are going to leave their daughters unprotected just because they don't like the governor telling them what to do, what does that make them? Adolescents. Now trust me on this one, because I have decades of experience. No matter how many times you don't do something just because an authority figure (say, hypothetically, your mother) tells you to, you will never "train" that individual to stop telling you what to do. It's a battle you can't win.
But just for fun, lets consider an alternate reality where HPV is something different. Let's say, just for fun that it caused disease in males. If it could be weaponized, we would have already tested it extensively, more than anyone would ever need, since we'd have vaccinated all our troops. Anthrax, anyone? Or what if it caused testicular cancer instead of cervical cancer? (And let's be honest, no father wants to admit that his 11 year old little girl even has a cervix...) Would there be the same uproar? Remember, boys can't be promiscuous, that's a trait reserved for females. Boys are just being boys. The pro-vaccine clamor would quickly outweigh the cautious. We would have Lance Armstrong and ever other uniballed man on earth out fighting for this cause. It would be a no brainer.
People are against it because Governor Perry has personal connections to the lobbyist from Merck, the manufacturer of Gardisil, the vaccine for HPV. People are against it because the three shot series retails at $360. People are against it because it only received FDA approval last June. People are against it because HPV is a sexually transmitted disease and vaccination against it may lead to promiscuity. People are against it because the order itself over steps the bounds of what a Governor's Executive Order should concern. People are against it because they just don't like things that are mandatory.
But that's just people.
Welcome to Texas, the gerrymandering capital of the universe. A place where the Democratic minority is not beneath hiding out in a Holiday Inn in Oklahoma to block a vote. Seriously. A place where we can hold our heads high and esteem to become the next Tom Delay, George W. Bush, or Enron-like executive. A place where it's okay to go out to shoot fowl and hit your hunting buddy instead. No fowl, no foul? We used to be our own frickin' country! Don't Mess With Us. We really don't like litter.
But behind all this smoke about nepotism, unsafe vaccines, superseding parental judgement, creating a generation of promiscuous little girls and executives using power they don't actually have, there is truth. And if you stop listening to all the loud voices you might actually hear it.
Gardisil prevents 70% of all cervical cancer. It has been endorsed by both the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and ACIP (Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices), part of NIP (the National Immunization Program.) It is now part of the Children's Vaccination Program, which means that CDC/ the Federal Government purchases it in bulk at a substantial discount and provides it to state immunization programs at that same discount. Any child eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) or who gets vaccinated through public clinics or VNA (Visiting Nurses Association) programs will get the vaccine either for free or at the substantial discount. And, many private insurance companies have already started covering it.
As for the whole mandatory thing, in every state, including Texas, there is a means by which a parent can refuse vaccination (specific vaccinations or all of them). They are just required to contact the state health department and fill out some paper work, sometimes they need a notary signature (which you can get at any bank), sometimes not. Some states require a reason, like a religious belief, some don't. But even those that do, are, for the most part, not allowed to investigate what the parents religion is or whether the parents' religion/faith really does have an issue with immunization. Back in Massachusetts, we used to refer to "the Church of No MMR" because of the number of parents who sought exemptions from the measles, mumps & rubella vaccine on religious grounds. The truth, of course, was that they had bought into a very well publicized, but terribly incorrect, theory that MMR (or one of its components, thermisol) caused autism.
As for vaccinating children against a sexually transmitted disease... Guess what?! We're already doing that! Hepatitis B has been out of the blood supply since the late 1980s. Every organ donor is tested for it before their organs are given to someone else and if they are HepB positive, they're organs and tissue will not be used. Which means... You got it! The only way to contract HepB (unless you're a healthcare worker or first responder) is from sex with an infected individual or sharing needles. Every state in the union vaccinates newborns against this virus. Where's the uproar that we're condoning unprotected sex and intravenous drug use???!! Among toddlers, even! What's to stop 3 year olds from developing a heroin habit, I mean, aside from their lack of mobility. (It is kind of hard to drive the car from the carseat in the back...) And perhaps underdeveloped fine motor skills required to cook the spoon, tie the tourniquet, fill the dirty syringe, find a vein and inject.
Now I don't really care if the Governor overstepped his bounds. I'm actually required by law to professionally agree with him. Not the point. If parents are going to leave their daughters unprotected just because they don't like the governor telling them what to do, what does that make them? Adolescents. Now trust me on this one, because I have decades of experience. No matter how many times you don't do something just because an authority figure (say, hypothetically, your mother) tells you to, you will never "train" that individual to stop telling you what to do. It's a battle you can't win.
But just for fun, lets consider an alternate reality where HPV is something different. Let's say, just for fun that it caused disease in males. If it could be weaponized, we would have already tested it extensively, more than anyone would ever need, since we'd have vaccinated all our troops. Anthrax, anyone? Or what if it caused testicular cancer instead of cervical cancer? (And let's be honest, no father wants to admit that his 11 year old little girl even has a cervix...) Would there be the same uproar? Remember, boys can't be promiscuous, that's a trait reserved for females. Boys are just being boys. The pro-vaccine clamor would quickly outweigh the cautious. We would have Lance Armstrong and ever other uniballed man on earth out fighting for this cause. It would be a no brainer.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Is America Ready to Make Nice?
So it wasn't all that long ago that people were burning the Dixie Chicks recordings and sending them hate mail and such. Country music had practically disowned them. Why? Because Natalie Maines had commented on a stage in London (not one of the Axis of Evil, FYI) that she was ashamed to be from the same state as good ol' W. Having since moved to said state, I can't say I exactly blame her. It's a rather nice place to be sullied by such a twit.
So then how did the Dixie Chicks manage to win THREE Grammy awards tonight? Two of them for the song, Not Ready to Make Nice, which represented their non-apology for their comments about the president and the resulting backlash against them.
Has America finally figured out that there's a reason Molly Ivins (may she rest in peace) always called him shrub? Or have Bush's approval ratings (or lack thereof) finally caught up with him? Where was Karl Rove to spin the Grammy voters? He must have been too busy with Scooter Libby's jury...
Seriously, it couldn't just be that a good band won for a great song?
I know, I know better than that.
So then how did the Dixie Chicks manage to win THREE Grammy awards tonight? Two of them for the song, Not Ready to Make Nice, which represented their non-apology for their comments about the president and the resulting backlash against them.
Has America finally figured out that there's a reason Molly Ivins (may she rest in peace) always called him shrub? Or have Bush's approval ratings (or lack thereof) finally caught up with him? Where was Karl Rove to spin the Grammy voters? He must have been too busy with Scooter Libby's jury...
Seriously, it couldn't just be that a good band won for a great song?
I know, I know better than that.
Monday, February 05, 2007
I've worked in that office....
Watched the superbowl yesterday with a group of friends. After four years of high school marching band, I really hate football, so I was mainly there for the socializing and the ads.
Below are two of my favorites, mainly because they remind me of previous jobs.
After the first ad, I commented "I worked in that office" and one of the other guests (a DellHell employee) responded "I DO work in that office."
Below are two of my favorites, mainly because they remind me of previous jobs.
After the first ad, I commented "I worked in that office" and one of the other guests (a DellHell employee) responded "I DO work in that office."
Defending the rights of selfish smokers...
Seriously?
With everything that's happening in the world and in legislatures across the country and someone is actually moved to write an Op Ed for the New York Times opposing laws that make it illegal to smoke in a car with a minor. Yeah! Go smokers' rights!! Everyone should have the opportunity to increase their children's risk of asthma, several forms of cancer and increase their susceptibility to upper respiratory infections!! What's a little war in Iraq or an invasion of Iran when we're talking about upholding the rights of STUPID selfish parents???
Seriously.
Give me a break.
Let's just get past this silly idea that the rights of parents should supersede the rights of their children even when the child's welfare is at stake. Just because you can conceive a child does not make you a master of some great domain. If that were the case, cockroaches would rule the world.
Now before you start painting me as some knee jerk liberal, government interventionist, etc, etc, let me offer you a little bit of information. I was born and raised in the Granite State. You know, Live Free or Die, the only state in the union without a seat belt law? Ringing any bells? And I have no difficulty defending that. Why? NH does have seat belt laws for minors and they do have safety seat laws for children. The government may not have the right to tell citizens how to live their lives (they can die if they want), but when parents are not protecting their children, the government has an affirmative responsibility to step in and protect them.
This is where auto smoking laws and smokers' rights (and please, someone point out the Constitutional amendment that protects the right to smoke,) part ways. No one says you can't smoke in your car as much as you want. Hey! Smoke all twenty cigarettes in the pack at once for all I care!! You just don't get to fill a confined space that you're sharing with a child with cigarette smoke. Capiche?
And please! The research that proves second hand smoke is harmful was funded by pharmaceutical companies that make alternative nicotine delivery products?? Get real!! Second hand smoke and environmental tobacco smoke research began years before there even were alternative nicotine delivery products!! And the funding of it? NIH, CDC, good ol' federal tax dollars! And if you don't find this research compelling and proof enough of the danger of secondhand smoke, let me introduce to a good friend, Medline. There is 60 years of medical literature that supports these laws.
Now explain to me again where the right to smoke comes from?
With everything that's happening in the world and in legislatures across the country and someone is actually moved to write an Op Ed for the New York Times opposing laws that make it illegal to smoke in a car with a minor. Yeah! Go smokers' rights!! Everyone should have the opportunity to increase their children's risk of asthma, several forms of cancer and increase their susceptibility to upper respiratory infections!! What's a little war in Iraq or an invasion of Iran when we're talking about upholding the rights of STUPID selfish parents???
Seriously.
Give me a break.
Let's just get past this silly idea that the rights of parents should supersede the rights of their children even when the child's welfare is at stake. Just because you can conceive a child does not make you a master of some great domain. If that were the case, cockroaches would rule the world.
Now before you start painting me as some knee jerk liberal, government interventionist, etc, etc, let me offer you a little bit of information. I was born and raised in the Granite State. You know, Live Free or Die, the only state in the union without a seat belt law? Ringing any bells? And I have no difficulty defending that. Why? NH does have seat belt laws for minors and they do have safety seat laws for children. The government may not have the right to tell citizens how to live their lives (they can die if they want), but when parents are not protecting their children, the government has an affirmative responsibility to step in and protect them.
This is where auto smoking laws and smokers' rights (and please, someone point out the Constitutional amendment that protects the right to smoke,) part ways. No one says you can't smoke in your car as much as you want. Hey! Smoke all twenty cigarettes in the pack at once for all I care!! You just don't get to fill a confined space that you're sharing with a child with cigarette smoke. Capiche?
And please! The research that proves second hand smoke is harmful was funded by pharmaceutical companies that make alternative nicotine delivery products?? Get real!! Second hand smoke and environmental tobacco smoke research began years before there even were alternative nicotine delivery products!! And the funding of it? NIH, CDC, good ol' federal tax dollars! And if you don't find this research compelling and proof enough of the danger of secondhand smoke, let me introduce to a good friend, Medline. There is 60 years of medical literature that supports these laws.
Now explain to me again where the right to smoke comes from?
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Getting my butt kicked by a *shrub*??!
So they call it Cedar Fever here in Texas.
It's actually a phenomenon reserved mostly for Central Texas, specifically for the areas surrounding the Edwards Plateau (between Austin and San Antonio) where the cursed Mountain Cedar grows in abundance. It's been referred to by Texas Monthly magazine as hazing ritual for new Texans. And it's caused not by Cedar trees, the kind used to make cedar chests, closets, etc, but mountain cedar, which is really juniper. Basically, you're being bested not by some stately tree, but rather a bunch of scrub brush. Comforting, no?
Now as a person with entirely too many allergies, I feel like I can talk about allergic reactions with a decent understanding of scale, avoidability and seriousness of reaction with a certain amount of objectivity and expert knowledge.
Cedar Fever just sucks.
I am currently doped up on decongestants ~ I'm actually using MS Outlook Calendar to remind myself to re-dose every four hours so I can be sure not to miss a single moment of medicated assistance ~ and yet, my ears are still popping, my head feels like it's about 30 feet under water, and my sinuses are experiencing a whole new level of pressure. I'm thinking guy-who-knocked-up-a-17-year-old-girl-and-is-now-at-the-business-end-of-her-father's-shotgun-in-rural-Louisiana pressure? But I could be off. Maybe it's a cousin in West Virginia... Okay, so maybe I've spent too much time in Virginia...
Regardless, I'm told this first year is the worst. My sister seems to have developed immunity after five years. Gee. That's promising. Now I have something to look forward to besides not having to file state income tax returns. Oh, life is good.
If only I could get the stuff out of my ears....
It's actually a phenomenon reserved mostly for Central Texas, specifically for the areas surrounding the Edwards Plateau (between Austin and San Antonio) where the cursed Mountain Cedar grows in abundance. It's been referred to by Texas Monthly magazine as hazing ritual for new Texans. And it's caused not by Cedar trees, the kind used to make cedar chests, closets, etc, but mountain cedar, which is really juniper. Basically, you're being bested not by some stately tree, but rather a bunch of scrub brush. Comforting, no?
Now as a person with entirely too many allergies, I feel like I can talk about allergic reactions with a decent understanding of scale, avoidability and seriousness of reaction with a certain amount of objectivity and expert knowledge.
Cedar Fever just sucks.
I am currently doped up on decongestants ~ I'm actually using MS Outlook Calendar to remind myself to re-dose every four hours so I can be sure not to miss a single moment of medicated assistance ~ and yet, my ears are still popping, my head feels like it's about 30 feet under water, and my sinuses are experiencing a whole new level of pressure. I'm thinking guy-who-knocked-up-a-17-year-old-girl-and-is-now-at-the-business-end-of-her-father's-shotgun-in-rural-Louisiana pressure? But I could be off. Maybe it's a cousin in West Virginia... Okay, so maybe I've spent too much time in Virginia...
Regardless, I'm told this first year is the worst. My sister seems to have developed immunity after five years. Gee. That's promising. Now I have something to look forward to besides not having to file state income tax returns. Oh, life is good.
If only I could get the stuff out of my ears....
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Fixing the system
As we get to the end of the year and thoughts turn to income tax returns and getting in those last minute deductions or credits and whatnot, one can't help but reflect upon how hopelessly broken the American system is.
Paul Krugman wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times on Christmas day (link above)about how the British have handled the same issues of poverty and income disparities, much by using the American model, and have been far more successful at it than we have.
Part of the problem is we don't really want to be successful. We don't care that much. We could raise the Earned Income Credit. We could raise the child/dependent deduction. But we don't. Would it really hurt American businesses? Seriously. Everyone knows that the quickest way to burn money is to have a child. They are ridiculously expensive. Kids just don't have lobbyists. Maybe it's their lack of income ~ they can't afford them.
Another recent NYT op-ed pointed to budget shortfalls for SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) which could be remedied by rolling back or even just halting the Bush tax cuts for the richest 1% (Those earning over $1 million ~ and that would probably be after adjusting for all their charitable donations and deductions, etc. So, the folks just barely making 7 digits are probably not included...) And seriously, which is more important? Having the rich get tax refunds or the poor children get health insurance??? (Hint: it's the latter)
Which brings me to my own favorite topic of holiday cheer. Healthcare. Apparently one of the leading causes of bankruptcy in America. Nice, huh? And they are ruthless. My own little tale: two and a half years ago I took a fall outside my office and somehow was completely unable to get my hands or arms down in front of me. My face took most of the impact, along with one knee and lower leg. Anyway, a coworker brought me to the ER since I was in shock. (There was all sorts of blood and I was clinging to pieces of my front teeth that had broken off.) So, examined for a concussion, x-rayed for a broken nose and broken leg, cleaned up and treated for abrasions and referred to a dentist, I was released a few hours later. I'm still getting bills from that afternoon.
Here's what really pisses me off ~ more even than my insurance company's refusal to pay a claim that clearly should be covered ~ the ease with which the hospital turns the bill over to a collection agency which then pursues legal action against you, or me in this case. It's textbook extortion. Pay this hospital bill or I'll F-up your credit rating. And I have to wonder, why am I even involved in this conversation? I paid my portion of my health insurance premium. I gave the hospital my insurance information. The bill clearly should be paid by the insurance company ~ why aren't they going after them? Wait. They are much harder to extort. They don't need a mortgage. And they most likely wouldn't fall for "If your insurance company does pay, we'll send you a refund check." Of course ya will. That's why you're call a "collection" agency.
Paul Krugman wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times on Christmas day (link above)about how the British have handled the same issues of poverty and income disparities, much by using the American model, and have been far more successful at it than we have.
Part of the problem is we don't really want to be successful. We don't care that much. We could raise the Earned Income Credit. We could raise the child/dependent deduction. But we don't. Would it really hurt American businesses? Seriously. Everyone knows that the quickest way to burn money is to have a child. They are ridiculously expensive. Kids just don't have lobbyists. Maybe it's their lack of income ~ they can't afford them.
Another recent NYT op-ed pointed to budget shortfalls for SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) which could be remedied by rolling back or even just halting the Bush tax cuts for the richest 1% (Those earning over $1 million ~ and that would probably be after adjusting for all their charitable donations and deductions, etc. So, the folks just barely making 7 digits are probably not included...) And seriously, which is more important? Having the rich get tax refunds or the poor children get health insurance??? (Hint: it's the latter)
Which brings me to my own favorite topic of holiday cheer. Healthcare. Apparently one of the leading causes of bankruptcy in America. Nice, huh? And they are ruthless. My own little tale: two and a half years ago I took a fall outside my office and somehow was completely unable to get my hands or arms down in front of me. My face took most of the impact, along with one knee and lower leg. Anyway, a coworker brought me to the ER since I was in shock. (There was all sorts of blood and I was clinging to pieces of my front teeth that had broken off.) So, examined for a concussion, x-rayed for a broken nose and broken leg, cleaned up and treated for abrasions and referred to a dentist, I was released a few hours later. I'm still getting bills from that afternoon.
Here's what really pisses me off ~ more even than my insurance company's refusal to pay a claim that clearly should be covered ~ the ease with which the hospital turns the bill over to a collection agency which then pursues legal action against you, or me in this case. It's textbook extortion. Pay this hospital bill or I'll F-up your credit rating. And I have to wonder, why am I even involved in this conversation? I paid my portion of my health insurance premium. I gave the hospital my insurance information. The bill clearly should be paid by the insurance company ~ why aren't they going after them? Wait. They are much harder to extort. They don't need a mortgage. And they most likely wouldn't fall for "If your insurance company does pay, we'll send you a refund check." Of course ya will. That's why you're call a "collection" agency.
Friday, December 22, 2006
Bow to the POWER!!
Truly. Unbelievable.
I blog about someone. Someone I don't even know. And within days, he's dead.
That whole President-For-Life thing just got a whole lot short than our old friend, Turkmenbashi, had anticipated. Oops. My bad.
Am I suggesting that my blog somehow brought about his death? Am I even suggesting that anyone actually READS my blog?
I would never do such a thing!!!
Trust me, even my family doesn't read this.
Although, I'm not opposed to testing this theory that my blog can bring about death. There's a certain narcissistic ex-boyfriend who could be a topic or perhaps a bear killing former supervisor. I could try and do a good deed and blog about a certain world leader who will also be spending the holidays in Texas, but would we really be better off with Cheney at the wheel? That actually scares me at this point.
I'll have to give it some thought. And in the mean time, not blog about anyone I like. At least not by name.
I blog about someone. Someone I don't even know. And within days, he's dead.
That whole President-For-Life thing just got a whole lot short than our old friend, Turkmenbashi, had anticipated. Oops. My bad.
Am I suggesting that my blog somehow brought about his death? Am I even suggesting that anyone actually READS my blog?
I would never do such a thing!!!
Trust me, even my family doesn't read this.
Although, I'm not opposed to testing this theory that my blog can bring about death. There's a certain narcissistic ex-boyfriend who could be a topic or perhaps a bear killing former supervisor. I could try and do a good deed and blog about a certain world leader who will also be spending the holidays in Texas, but would we really be better off with Cheney at the wheel? That actually scares me at this point.
I'll have to give it some thought. And in the mean time, not blog about anyone I like. At least not by name.
Monday, December 18, 2006
God loves Wikipedia
Okay, so I couldn't let it go.
I needed to know more.
Yes, there are statues everywhere of the infamous Saparmurat Atayevich Niyazov and apparently also his mother. (Now there's a bit of psychological profiling you just don't want to touch...) Included among the statues is the one in the photo which rotates to always be facing the sun. He's renamed airports, schools, towns and even a meteorite after himself. But not to worry, he's still the same humble guy we've always known. "I'm personally against seeing my pictures and statues in the streets - but it's what the people want," Niyazov has said.
But what about the clocks? Still nothing about the clocks.
Here's the cheery one. He's rewritten the history of the Turkmens in a book called Ruhnama (or Book of the Soul). It is used extensively in the Turkmen educational system, replacing the Koran at least one day a week. He's also written another book of lyrical poetry and short stories.. One can only imagine.
The story about renaming the days of the week may have been overstated. It appears he has only renamed the months of the year. January is after himself and April is after his mother.
Alright, not so impressed anymore. Revisionist history, renaming everything after yourself, statues, reforming religion to make oneself a central figure ~ it's all right out of the dictator's playbook.
Forget my earlier statements. He's nothing special.
I needed to know more.
Yes, there are statues everywhere of the infamous Saparmurat Atayevich Niyazov and apparently also his mother. (Now there's a bit of psychological profiling you just don't want to touch...) Included among the statues is the one in the photo which rotates to always be facing the sun. He's renamed airports, schools, towns and even a meteorite after himself. But not to worry, he's still the same humble guy we've always known. "I'm personally against seeing my pictures and statues in the streets - but it's what the people want," Niyazov has said.
But what about the clocks? Still nothing about the clocks.
Here's the cheery one. He's rewritten the history of the Turkmens in a book called Ruhnama (or Book of the Soul). It is used extensively in the Turkmen educational system, replacing the Koran at least one day a week. He's also written another book of lyrical poetry and short stories.. One can only imagine.
The story about renaming the days of the week may have been overstated. It appears he has only renamed the months of the year. January is after himself and April is after his mother.
Alright, not so impressed anymore. Revisionist history, renaming everything after yourself, statues, reforming religion to make oneself a central figure ~ it's all right out of the dictator's playbook.
Forget my earlier statements. He's nothing special.
Things that never would have occurred to me if I was a totalitarian ruler
Okay, so I'm linking you to an article about iodization of salt. Yeah, yeah, yeah, we all the the public health implications. (Step off if you're still concerned that thermisol causes autism or that the U.S. government set off charges in the World Trade Center to make sure the buildings collapsed on 9/11.) The little girl with the umbrella has been delivering all the healthy American children a safe dose of Iodine for decades, protecting them from stunted growth and diminished itellect. (Kind of makes you wonder whose mother kept them on a low salt diet as a child, huh?)
But that's not what this entry is about. Oh, no! I found something far more interesting in that article. And in case you're not interested enough in iodized salt to read to the second page or if you just don't want to click on the link, I've quoted the paragraph of interest below.
In neighboring Turkmenistan, President Saparmurat Niyazov — a despot who requires all clocks to bear his likeness and renamed the days of the week after his family — solved the problem by simply declaring plain salt illegal in 1996 and ordering shops to give each citizen 11 pounds of iodized salt a year at state expense.
Now this guy is not just your average narcissistic dictator. He can't be placated with portraits of himself on the side of buildings and larger than life statues. Not even of portrait of himself in every home will do! He wants his constituents to see his face every time they check the time!! How this works in digital, I'm honestly not sure... But I may feel the need to investigate....
But seriously, Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Sadam, Castro, Noriega ~ none of them had the creativity, nay, the ingenuity, to place themselves on timepieces. (This is obviously a man who was raised with iodized salt!)
And the days of the week thing, well that's just icing on the cake. How much you want to bet that Monday is named after his mother-in-law???
But that's not what this entry is about. Oh, no! I found something far more interesting in that article. And in case you're not interested enough in iodized salt to read to the second page or if you just don't want to click on the link, I've quoted the paragraph of interest below.
In neighboring Turkmenistan, President Saparmurat Niyazov — a despot who requires all clocks to bear his likeness and renamed the days of the week after his family — solved the problem by simply declaring plain salt illegal in 1996 and ordering shops to give each citizen 11 pounds of iodized salt a year at state expense.
Now this guy is not just your average narcissistic dictator. He can't be placated with portraits of himself on the side of buildings and larger than life statues. Not even of portrait of himself in every home will do! He wants his constituents to see his face every time they check the time!! How this works in digital, I'm honestly not sure... But I may feel the need to investigate....
But seriously, Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Sadam, Castro, Noriega ~ none of them had the creativity, nay, the ingenuity, to place themselves on timepieces. (This is obviously a man who was raised with iodized salt!)
And the days of the week thing, well that's just icing on the cake. How much you want to bet that Monday is named after his mother-in-law???
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
I'm at a loss
I think I've mentioned before on this blog how highly skeptical I am of the antidepressants/suicide link in adolescents. No one would ever suggest an insulin/foot amputation link or an antihypertensive/stroke link because both are know adverse outcomes of the disease that those drugs treat. Why is depression different from diabetes or heart disease? I mean, for everyone other than Tom Cruise? (Who, let's face it, is in SERIOUS need of some psychiatric care...)
Anyway, the above linked article was published in today's NYT ~ something that would almost make you believe that it was recent information, not something released by the FDA nearly 6 months ago to support recommendations that were issued two years ago. WHATEVER. Maybe this news wasn't "fit to print" until now.
This is what has me thinking. In the article, Dr. Nierenberg from Harvard Medical School points out that not only is all this data based on clinical trials (which I'll get to in just a minute), but individuals with suicidal ideations were excluded from the trial.
This is where I'm at a loss. How would excluding those who were previously suicidal effect the outcome? First of all, it would make it impossible to tell if the drugs reduced suicidal ideation. Second, since being suicidal kept one out of the drug trial, we can't assume that everyone who entered the trial was honest about whether or not they were suicidal. They claimed not to be in order to get medication; an act of desperation no one could blame them for, but if they then "became" suicidal it would have nothing to do with the drug. It would just be honesty. But if we do assume that everyone was honest at the entry into the clinical trial, they were medicated for 4 to 16 weeks at a standardized dose, not necessarily a therapeutic one. Now, the placebo would assumably have no side effects, but the antidepressants would immediately start wrecking havoc on their patients ~ dry mouth, constipation, nausea, diarrhea, excessive sweating, tremor, head ache, orthostatic hypertension, syncope, urinary retention, weight gain ~ a real boatload of fun for someone who is already hating life. Now keep in mind that most antidepressants take 8 to 12 weeks to treat depression, and then only if at a therapeutic dose. Most of these folks weren't even on the drugs long enough to get any positive effects, just all the negative stuff. Meanwhile, everyone in placebo-land is hanging out, side effect free, waiting for their drugs to kick in. No one is actually getting "treated", but at least the placebo crowd isn't getting put through the side effect ringer for their efforts. Just thinking about that kind of makes me want to kill myself.
But back to the clinical trial issue. Clinical trials are not real life. They don't account for any type of non-compliance. They exclude anyone who steps outside their very strict parameters. They avoid comorbidities, they avoid difficult cases, they use small samples and they're a self selected group of people who are then cherry picked by the drug companies. Not real life. You ever wonder why we don't find out about some of the really troubling side effects until a drug has been on the market and out in the general public for a few years? Because clinical trials in no way resemble real life!!
So then what's the answer? Probably registries. Controlled data collection of real world patients that are being voluntarily treated by doctors with specific drugs. Their history, treatment and outcomes are recorded into a database along with a control group, say of adolescents being treated with only talk therapy, and after a period of time, when enough data has been collected, it can be analyzed to see if the hypothesis holds in the real world or if the anecdotal reports of treating physicians who have successfully used these medications are really the norm. Registries are the only way to identify the tetragenic properties of drugs since doing anything but observational research on pregnant women is ethically out of the question. Since there are women who need certain drugs to survive their pregnancy (and let's face it, survival of the mother through the pregnancy is crucial to survival of the baby!) there experience is invaluable for women who may have a choice or at least want to see if they do.
Am I suggesting that clinical trials are worthless? No, but I'm at a loss for a reason at the moment. I'm sure one will come to me sooner or later. They play an important role in monitoring and controlling the safety of U.S. pharmaceuticals. (That was a statement of fact, still don't have a reason....)
Perhaps I'll find one and get back to you...
Anyway, the above linked article was published in today's NYT ~ something that would almost make you believe that it was recent information, not something released by the FDA nearly 6 months ago to support recommendations that were issued two years ago. WHATEVER. Maybe this news wasn't "fit to print" until now.
This is what has me thinking. In the article, Dr. Nierenberg from Harvard Medical School points out that not only is all this data based on clinical trials (which I'll get to in just a minute), but individuals with suicidal ideations were excluded from the trial.
This is where I'm at a loss. How would excluding those who were previously suicidal effect the outcome? First of all, it would make it impossible to tell if the drugs reduced suicidal ideation. Second, since being suicidal kept one out of the drug trial, we can't assume that everyone who entered the trial was honest about whether or not they were suicidal. They claimed not to be in order to get medication; an act of desperation no one could blame them for, but if they then "became" suicidal it would have nothing to do with the drug. It would just be honesty. But if we do assume that everyone was honest at the entry into the clinical trial, they were medicated for 4 to 16 weeks at a standardized dose, not necessarily a therapeutic one. Now, the placebo would assumably have no side effects, but the antidepressants would immediately start wrecking havoc on their patients ~ dry mouth, constipation, nausea, diarrhea, excessive sweating, tremor, head ache, orthostatic hypertension, syncope, urinary retention, weight gain ~ a real boatload of fun for someone who is already hating life. Now keep in mind that most antidepressants take 8 to 12 weeks to treat depression, and then only if at a therapeutic dose. Most of these folks weren't even on the drugs long enough to get any positive effects, just all the negative stuff. Meanwhile, everyone in placebo-land is hanging out, side effect free, waiting for their drugs to kick in. No one is actually getting "treated", but at least the placebo crowd isn't getting put through the side effect ringer for their efforts. Just thinking about that kind of makes me want to kill myself.
But back to the clinical trial issue. Clinical trials are not real life. They don't account for any type of non-compliance. They exclude anyone who steps outside their very strict parameters. They avoid comorbidities, they avoid difficult cases, they use small samples and they're a self selected group of people who are then cherry picked by the drug companies. Not real life. You ever wonder why we don't find out about some of the really troubling side effects until a drug has been on the market and out in the general public for a few years? Because clinical trials in no way resemble real life!!
So then what's the answer? Probably registries. Controlled data collection of real world patients that are being voluntarily treated by doctors with specific drugs. Their history, treatment and outcomes are recorded into a database along with a control group, say of adolescents being treated with only talk therapy, and after a period of time, when enough data has been collected, it can be analyzed to see if the hypothesis holds in the real world or if the anecdotal reports of treating physicians who have successfully used these medications are really the norm. Registries are the only way to identify the tetragenic properties of drugs since doing anything but observational research on pregnant women is ethically out of the question. Since there are women who need certain drugs to survive their pregnancy (and let's face it, survival of the mother through the pregnancy is crucial to survival of the baby!) there experience is invaluable for women who may have a choice or at least want to see if they do.
Am I suggesting that clinical trials are worthless? No, but I'm at a loss for a reason at the moment. I'm sure one will come to me sooner or later. They play an important role in monitoring and controlling the safety of U.S. pharmaceuticals. (That was a statement of fact, still don't have a reason....)
Perhaps I'll find one and get back to you...
Thursday, November 30, 2006
MY life
Do you ever get the feeling that you're not really living your own life?
I mean, sometimes it just seems like your whole existence is for the convenience of others.
Right now, my sole purpose appears to be to provide lodging and transportation to visiting grandparents and to act as back-up parent for my sister and brother-in-law. What I want is really inconsequential. SERIOUSLY, would I really vonlunteer to have my mother visit me for two weeks over Christmas??
So what do I want?
Apparently only things I can't have.
I met a guy. Someone actually worthwhile for a change. I don't know, the first time we actually looked into each others' eyes it was like, spark? And we had this great date. We talked and we laughed and he did that thing that no one ever does, he swept my hair out of my face. Thirty years my hair has been falling in my eyes and no one else has ever taken it upon themselves to move it.
So, obviously, he's leaving the state in two weeks. And he'll be gone for at least four months. Maybe never to return.
And I'm completely broken hearted about what will never be.
We agreed we wanted to continue seeing one another. Have we?
You'd think he'd be wanting to make time for that if it were important, right? So do I jump head first to the conclusion that I'm just not *that* important? It's never failed me in the past...
In fact, it's allowed me to go on believing that I've never been particularly important to anyone. I'm not saying this isn't true, I'm just saying it's what I believe.
So, today, on a particularly cold day in TX, when I'd really just like to sleep (it's one of my better options), I'm off to pick up dinner for the whole big happy family. Do I get to tell them that I'd really rather be alone?
At least then it's my life.
I mean, sometimes it just seems like your whole existence is for the convenience of others.
Right now, my sole purpose appears to be to provide lodging and transportation to visiting grandparents and to act as back-up parent for my sister and brother-in-law. What I want is really inconsequential. SERIOUSLY, would I really vonlunteer to have my mother visit me for two weeks over Christmas??
So what do I want?
Apparently only things I can't have.
I met a guy. Someone actually worthwhile for a change. I don't know, the first time we actually looked into each others' eyes it was like, spark? And we had this great date. We talked and we laughed and he did that thing that no one ever does, he swept my hair out of my face. Thirty years my hair has been falling in my eyes and no one else has ever taken it upon themselves to move it.
So, obviously, he's leaving the state in two weeks. And he'll be gone for at least four months. Maybe never to return.
And I'm completely broken hearted about what will never be.
We agreed we wanted to continue seeing one another. Have we?
You'd think he'd be wanting to make time for that if it were important, right? So do I jump head first to the conclusion that I'm just not *that* important? It's never failed me in the past...
In fact, it's allowed me to go on believing that I've never been particularly important to anyone. I'm not saying this isn't true, I'm just saying it's what I believe.
So, today, on a particularly cold day in TX, when I'd really just like to sleep (it's one of my better options), I'm off to pick up dinner for the whole big happy family. Do I get to tell them that I'd really rather be alone?
At least then it's my life.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Opportunities
I've always believed in opportunities.
You come across them throughout your life and it's left to free will whether you act upon them. We have missed opportunities; blown opportunities; those that we've squandered and oh so many that we never recognized for what they were.
I've been thinking recently about exactly how many opportunities we get in life. We can't be allowed an infinite number. It would be like a little league baseball game where you could wait for your pitch forever and never be expected to swing. That can't be right. At some point, fate or a higher power or whatever, has to stop throwing these opportunities in your path. You have to take what you're given and run with it.
So what does that mean? Hell if I know????
I'm the one pushing the late thirties who has been sabotaging herself for decades!!
I'm lying. I do know what I think it means. It means that when an opportunity is place in front of you that you grab hold and fight tooth and nail to keep it if it's something you really want. Even if it is only temporary. Life is made up of experiences. Of hours and evenings and days and weeks and months. It's never been about quantity, only quality.
Why would you marry a man who was two weeks away from leaving for the South Pacific to battle the Japaneses in 1942? Then find yourself pregnant having his child and not see him again until October of 1945. And let's be honest. His ship was sunk at Guadlacanal. I don't believe there was some magical true love that existed between my grandparents. They would have set a better example for their own children if that were the case.
When they were presented with the opportunity of one another, they just recoginized that it was something worth holding on to; something worth acting on. Maybe that's all life really is.
You come across them throughout your life and it's left to free will whether you act upon them. We have missed opportunities; blown opportunities; those that we've squandered and oh so many that we never recognized for what they were.
I've been thinking recently about exactly how many opportunities we get in life. We can't be allowed an infinite number. It would be like a little league baseball game where you could wait for your pitch forever and never be expected to swing. That can't be right. At some point, fate or a higher power or whatever, has to stop throwing these opportunities in your path. You have to take what you're given and run with it.
So what does that mean? Hell if I know????
I'm the one pushing the late thirties who has been sabotaging herself for decades!!
I'm lying. I do know what I think it means. It means that when an opportunity is place in front of you that you grab hold and fight tooth and nail to keep it if it's something you really want. Even if it is only temporary. Life is made up of experiences. Of hours and evenings and days and weeks and months. It's never been about quantity, only quality.
Why would you marry a man who was two weeks away from leaving for the South Pacific to battle the Japaneses in 1942? Then find yourself pregnant having his child and not see him again until October of 1945. And let's be honest. His ship was sunk at Guadlacanal. I don't believe there was some magical true love that existed between my grandparents. They would have set a better example for their own children if that were the case.
When they were presented with the opportunity of one another, they just recoginized that it was something worth holding on to; something worth acting on. Maybe that's all life really is.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Welcome Baby James
I'm an Aunt again!! James Augustin (named after my dad) joined the family this morning. He and my sister are both healthy and his big brother is excited to bring him home.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Seriously....
Sometimes things just hit you.
They speak to you and say the things that you haven't been able to manage to say yourself.
How am I still unemployed? Why am I still not over what happened to me over a year ago? Why, when I am closer to family than I have been in over 20 years, do I feel so alone?
Why does it still hurt "everywhere"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
