Could someone tell me, please, just how difficult it is to leave a proper telephone message? I've never found it difficult - and, if you're using an automated calling system, there's NO excuse whatever for not Doing It Right.
To leave a proper telephone message, include the following as a minimum:
- Your name
- The organisation you're calling from (if applicable)
- Who you are calling for
- Why you are calling
- Your callback number
- Date and time you called
- Times you are available to receive calls
Easy, right? I learned this stuff in middle school - if not in grammar school! - and it's served me well over the years.
So, I am forced to wonder. Laziness, or lack of education? Both?
Oh - and if a significant portion of your work duties includes interacting on the telephone with the public, might I suggest you work on thinning your accent? I really don't mind hearing English with an accent (there are even some I find quite enjoyable with certain - granted, usually female - voices!) but if I have to have you say everything twice and I still have to decipher what you're saying on my end, it needs work. I don't care where you're from, I don't care what other languages you speak. I really don't. I just need you to speak intelligible English while you're here, so we can communicate. I do my best to make sure you can understand me when I'm speaking - I merely ask the same courtesy of anyone who is talking to me in return. If this marks me as "hopelessly provincial," so be it. I don't see any reason to change - and if I were in another country, they'd expect the same thing of me. If it can be turned around and still seen as a fair deal, it's a fair deal, right?
Monday, December 28, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Non-Traditional Marriages
With all of the banter going on about gay marriage, why don't we take a few minutes to explore the idea of "non-traditional" marriages much more fully? After all, I would think that allowing homosexual couples to officially marry (a concept with which I have NO trouble at all, to be perfectly honest. I know a few monogamous gay couples that have been together longer than many "straight" couples I've knows - married in everything but name...) should open the door for pretty much any sort of marriage.
And, I'm not particularly religious. Leaving the Bible aside, I view marriage as a socioeconomic arrangement allowing for the mutual support of the adults involved, and for the creation of a stable and nurturing home for any children involved. There's no reason why a simple "one man and one woman" is the only arrangement that will work for those purposes, nor is there any real reason to think so. And, plenty of reason why non-traditional arrangements will work rather better.
Yes, I'm going to throw out some ideas that most would consider "odd." I am also going to make a couple of assumptions:
1) All participants are willing to enter into such arrangements.
2) Sex is /not/ a prerequisite of marriage. It's a nice fringe benefit, but it's not the primary reason one should marry. "Why buy a cow when milk is cheap?" may sound cynical, but there is a large measure of truth in it.
3) The government does /not/ get involved and screw things up. Methinks the principal reason they screw things up now is because they don't want to recreate tax forms and tax code wholesale (which is what really needs to happen - but in order to rid ourselves of the current "progressive" system where people can actually get back /more/ /than/ /they/ /pay/ /in/ at the end of the year. Something amiss there...)
So, let's begin:
- Heterosexual monogamy. This is the so-called "traditional" marriage that the Religious Right want to "preserve the sanctity of" and that Hollyweird has diluted sharply ("Been married nine times; Hell, maybe it's /you/." There's something wrong with someone younger than I am having a half-dozen marriages and divorces behind them. Seems that this is what should be addressed if one wants to "preserve the sanctity of marriage.") One man, one woman - theoretically for life.
- Amoandry (homosexual male marriage. From roots "amor-" for love and "andro-" for man. My own construction - haven't seen it anywhere.) One form of "gay marriage" that people want to get going, and I honestly don't have any trouble with it. Divorce should be just as much of a nuisance as for heterosexual marriages.
- Amogyny (homosexual female marriage. Changed root "gyno-" for woman. Another new word...) See 'amoandry.'
- Polygyny (multiple women.) This need not be a "harem" approach, but that's usually what comes to mind first.
- Polyandry (multiple men.) Reverse of polygyny - one woman, many men.
- Polyamory. This is multiple men and multiple women in pretty much any combination.
The three "poly-" marriages would have all partners on an equal footing, with perhaps the eldest partner having any "veto power" on group decisions or "tiebreaker" status, if there is an even number of partners.
And now, the really odd situation:
- "Line Marriage." An example of this can be found in Heinlein's _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_. The typical "line" started with a couple (who become the "senior couple" or "patriarch and matriarch,") and then individuals can "marry into" the line at intervals. Individuals would be allowed to "marry in" at fairly regular intervals, and the gender would typically alternate (although exceptions could be made for logistical reasons, addition of a particular desired trait, trade, or skillset, "going off to war," or suchlike - usually at the discretion of the patriarch and matriarch.) The interesting bit about this would be that the marriage itself would /never/ dissolve due to the deaths of the members, since new members are always on the way in. This would require a contract of sorts to guide the successive members (enforceable by various means,) and the "line" could end up with couples who pair off regularly - again, the idea here is mutual support of the adults and a stable and nurturing home for the children. Considering a line could be allowed to continue for a couple of centuries, and you can see just how stable it could truly be!
The advantage to polyandry, polygyny, polyamory, and line marriage (for the adults) is quite simple - there are going to be a large number of adults avaialable to help with child-rearing. The adults are going to have various skills and various advantages - while someone may not be "baby people," someone else is likely to be. They can handle the child as a baby - when the child gets older and can now be taught complex concepts, this is probably when the person who isn't "baby people" will come to the fore. Therefore, most (if not all) stages of childhood and adolescence would be covered by the person(s) most capable of dealing with the children at that stage in their lives.
Also, an oddity of line marriages would be that the children could "marry back into" the line. Since people from outside the marriage would enter into the line at various intervals, the gene pool could be kept varied - and minimal reinforcable defects brought about - while allowing children to have the continued support of the people they know, only the children are now adults (and the family is still a known quantity to them.)
So, what's the problem here? Primarily twofold:
1) The Religious Right, and their "one man and one woman" rubbish. Yes, it's rubbish - there are plenty of different approaches to raising children effectively, and being able to pool numerous adults and their energy would be greatly effective. I'm sure we've all heard that "it takes a village to raise a child," no? Well, let's put the village in a large home! We used to have the "extended family" living within easy range of each other, until high-speed travel became first a reality, then commonplace - and now related adults are scattered from Hell to breakfast and can't really support each other anymore. My family is /literally/ spread from coast-to-coast, and that makes things difficult. Why not have several adults near to hand in support of each other?
2) Government. More specifically - how are they going to tax polyamorous marriages under the current "progressive" system? That's an easy one - they can't, and they're not. If they were smart, they'd go to something like a "consumption tax" or a "national retail sales tax" (I'll go into that idea in a future posting,) eliminate the entire progressive system (I'll go into the reasons for that as well, when I go into taxation,) and that would take care of the problem. Sure, it would lose the government some revenue - but that can be made up for by simply reducing the number of people in "civil service" (most of which is a sinecure for the incompetent anyhow,) paying elected representatives less (or nothing at all,) eliminating elected retirement and medical coverage (or put them on Medicare - and eliminate retirement entirely,) and the like. Hell, we'd be able to disband the IRS almost entirely once the forms and such go away - since it would be far simpler to administer the NRST than FITW anyhow! THAT should result in a significant savings...
This is a topic that should really be discussed. The rules for comments:
1) Leave out any religious or governmental intonations - they have no real bearing. Government can catch up with the times, and the churches need to understand that they're not necessary to encouraging "moral" behaviour in the populace. I'm looking more for practical discussion here.
2) Practical advantages and disadvantages. It's probably about time for society to swing back over to the idea of an "extended family" like we had in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. There were many benefits to the "extended family" - primarily in logistical and personal support - and with nuclear family units being as far-flung as they are (mine, for instance, is scattered from coast to coast!) we've lost the mutual support of the extended family. Polyamory and line marriage in particular would offer a great advantage - considering the support we've lost, some of it should be regained. The intimacy of an extended marriage can also help - while "meddling relatives" can be intolerable after a bit (because they're not intimates,) co-spouses can be both intimate and mutually supportive.
3) Bear in mind the primary socioeconomic reasons for marriage - the support, education, and rearing of children; provision of a stable home to encourage children; and mutual support for the adults involved. "Mutual support" doesn't necessarily mean "sex" - it simply means that there are more parents available for the children than the normal issue of two. If one of the parents should fall ill, another one can take care of them while the remainder see to the children and the household. Also, having a larger number of parents available means a more complementary skillset, and therefore a more effective teaching environment for the children.
Discuss.
And, I'm not particularly religious. Leaving the Bible aside, I view marriage as a socioeconomic arrangement allowing for the mutual support of the adults involved, and for the creation of a stable and nurturing home for any children involved. There's no reason why a simple "one man and one woman" is the only arrangement that will work for those purposes, nor is there any real reason to think so. And, plenty of reason why non-traditional arrangements will work rather better.
Yes, I'm going to throw out some ideas that most would consider "odd." I am also going to make a couple of assumptions:
1) All participants are willing to enter into such arrangements.
2) Sex is /not/ a prerequisite of marriage. It's a nice fringe benefit, but it's not the primary reason one should marry. "Why buy a cow when milk is cheap?" may sound cynical, but there is a large measure of truth in it.
3) The government does /not/ get involved and screw things up. Methinks the principal reason they screw things up now is because they don't want to recreate tax forms and tax code wholesale (which is what really needs to happen - but in order to rid ourselves of the current "progressive" system where people can actually get back /more/ /than/ /they/ /pay/ /in/ at the end of the year. Something amiss there...)
So, let's begin:
- Heterosexual monogamy. This is the so-called "traditional" marriage that the Religious Right want to "preserve the sanctity of" and that Hollyweird has diluted sharply ("Been married nine times; Hell, maybe it's /you/." There's something wrong with someone younger than I am having a half-dozen marriages and divorces behind them. Seems that this is what should be addressed if one wants to "preserve the sanctity of marriage.") One man, one woman - theoretically for life.
- Amoandry (homosexual male marriage. From roots "amor-" for love and "andro-" for man. My own construction - haven't seen it anywhere.) One form of "gay marriage" that people want to get going, and I honestly don't have any trouble with it. Divorce should be just as much of a nuisance as for heterosexual marriages.
- Amogyny (homosexual female marriage. Changed root "gyno-" for woman. Another new word...) See 'amoandry.'
- Polygyny (multiple women.) This need not be a "harem" approach, but that's usually what comes to mind first.
- Polyandry (multiple men.) Reverse of polygyny - one woman, many men.
- Polyamory. This is multiple men and multiple women in pretty much any combination.
The three "poly-" marriages would have all partners on an equal footing, with perhaps the eldest partner having any "veto power" on group decisions or "tiebreaker" status, if there is an even number of partners.
And now, the really odd situation:
- "Line Marriage." An example of this can be found in Heinlein's _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_. The typical "line" started with a couple (who become the "senior couple" or "patriarch and matriarch,") and then individuals can "marry into" the line at intervals. Individuals would be allowed to "marry in" at fairly regular intervals, and the gender would typically alternate (although exceptions could be made for logistical reasons, addition of a particular desired trait, trade, or skillset, "going off to war," or suchlike - usually at the discretion of the patriarch and matriarch.) The interesting bit about this would be that the marriage itself would /never/ dissolve due to the deaths of the members, since new members are always on the way in. This would require a contract of sorts to guide the successive members (enforceable by various means,) and the "line" could end up with couples who pair off regularly - again, the idea here is mutual support of the adults and a stable and nurturing home for the children. Considering a line could be allowed to continue for a couple of centuries, and you can see just how stable it could truly be!
The advantage to polyandry, polygyny, polyamory, and line marriage (for the adults) is quite simple - there are going to be a large number of adults avaialable to help with child-rearing. The adults are going to have various skills and various advantages - while someone may not be "baby people," someone else is likely to be. They can handle the child as a baby - when the child gets older and can now be taught complex concepts, this is probably when the person who isn't "baby people" will come to the fore. Therefore, most (if not all) stages of childhood and adolescence would be covered by the person(s) most capable of dealing with the children at that stage in their lives.
Also, an oddity of line marriages would be that the children could "marry back into" the line. Since people from outside the marriage would enter into the line at various intervals, the gene pool could be kept varied - and minimal reinforcable defects brought about - while allowing children to have the continued support of the people they know, only the children are now adults (and the family is still a known quantity to them.)
So, what's the problem here? Primarily twofold:
1) The Religious Right, and their "one man and one woman" rubbish. Yes, it's rubbish - there are plenty of different approaches to raising children effectively, and being able to pool numerous adults and their energy would be greatly effective. I'm sure we've all heard that "it takes a village to raise a child," no? Well, let's put the village in a large home! We used to have the "extended family" living within easy range of each other, until high-speed travel became first a reality, then commonplace - and now related adults are scattered from Hell to breakfast and can't really support each other anymore. My family is /literally/ spread from coast-to-coast, and that makes things difficult. Why not have several adults near to hand in support of each other?
2) Government. More specifically - how are they going to tax polyamorous marriages under the current "progressive" system? That's an easy one - they can't, and they're not. If they were smart, they'd go to something like a "consumption tax" or a "national retail sales tax" (I'll go into that idea in a future posting,) eliminate the entire progressive system (I'll go into the reasons for that as well, when I go into taxation,) and that would take care of the problem. Sure, it would lose the government some revenue - but that can be made up for by simply reducing the number of people in "civil service" (most of which is a sinecure for the incompetent anyhow,) paying elected representatives less (or nothing at all,) eliminating elected retirement and medical coverage (or put them on Medicare - and eliminate retirement entirely,) and the like. Hell, we'd be able to disband the IRS almost entirely once the forms and such go away - since it would be far simpler to administer the NRST than FITW anyhow! THAT should result in a significant savings...
This is a topic that should really be discussed. The rules for comments:
1) Leave out any religious or governmental intonations - they have no real bearing. Government can catch up with the times, and the churches need to understand that they're not necessary to encouraging "moral" behaviour in the populace. I'm looking more for practical discussion here.
2) Practical advantages and disadvantages. It's probably about time for society to swing back over to the idea of an "extended family" like we had in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. There were many benefits to the "extended family" - primarily in logistical and personal support - and with nuclear family units being as far-flung as they are (mine, for instance, is scattered from coast to coast!) we've lost the mutual support of the extended family. Polyamory and line marriage in particular would offer a great advantage - considering the support we've lost, some of it should be regained. The intimacy of an extended marriage can also help - while "meddling relatives" can be intolerable after a bit (because they're not intimates,) co-spouses can be both intimate and mutually supportive.
3) Bear in mind the primary socioeconomic reasons for marriage - the support, education, and rearing of children; provision of a stable home to encourage children; and mutual support for the adults involved. "Mutual support" doesn't necessarily mean "sex" - it simply means that there are more parents available for the children than the normal issue of two. If one of the parents should fall ill, another one can take care of them while the remainder see to the children and the household. Also, having a larger number of parents available means a more complementary skillset, and therefore a more effective teaching environment for the children.
Discuss.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Sociopolitical classification
I seem to have been asked this a fair bit, and I figure I should just put an answer up somewhere where I can point to it - vice having to go through it all at irregular (yet irritatingly frequent!) intervals.
Granted, anyone who pays attention to what I say all the time should be able to suss this out on their own (I have what many view as an irritating tendency to say pretty much what I'm thinking at any given time, unless you just do not need to know) but I guess that's not enough.
Politically, I believe government:
- Should be small. The smaller, the better. It should be just enough to administer the needs of the body politic as a whole, to protect the body politic (as a whole!) and to carry on international congress with the interests of the body politic in mind.
- Should be just large enough to provide truly essential sociopolitical services - infrastructure, public safety, public well-being, and the like. Current service can - and damned well should be - trimmed mightily (as should "civil service" personnel. Granted, there's not much service, and the ones I've dealt with seem to be rarely civil...)
- Should only take what they need to function. There's no particular reason that the total tax bite, at ALL levels, should not exceed ten percent of median income. Yep - including vehicle registration, sales taxes, property taxes, ...
- Should only be allowed to spend the money they can generate through a minimal tax bite. "Deficit spending" is essentially illegal for a private citizen, why should it be legal for governments?
- Should neither pay their elected representatives, nor should they be considered as 'full-time' employ. "Public service" should be precisely that. No retirement, either. No special plans for healtcare and the like. And, you can travel commercial with the rest of us plebes.
- Should be responsible for its actions. "Legislative Immunity" is overused. You want to declare war? You get right out front with everyone else (at a rank not higher than, say, corporal - unless you have prior service and are willing to lead from the front.) You espouse a measure that causes trouble for us? Get ready to be prosecuted for it. So much stupidity comes out of Washington because they can't be held responsible for it. Let legislative immunity stand internationally - but domestically, you can get clobbered. Kinda like diplomatic immunity, but reversed.
Socially? I look for a return of the Social Contract (the unwritten rules of "polite society") to replace the onerous system of laws we have now. Then, wholesale redaction of the laws. There's no reason that the entire body of law to which a person is subject shouldn't fit into a small-to-middlin' paperback book.
Economically? This may sound counter-intuitive, but the basic system should be capitalist with just a bit of socialism mixed in. "Socialism," you say! "That's awful and un-American!"
Not so. No less august a personage than Thomas Paine advocated limited socialism in a capitalist system when he wrote _Common_ _Sense_. The "limited socialism" I advocate is essentially the same as his - pensions for the aged and disabled. Limit payouts to those who actually contributed and/or are citizens (after redaction or total rescinsion of the "anchor baby" laws,) and we can keep it under control rather handily.
Given the current climate of the industry (the industry itself and the litigious nature of the populace,) and MediCare isn't a bad idea, either. Yes, medical industry reform needs to happen - but, as Congress is going about it, I don't expect it to be useful. I know I can get verbose at times, but even I would have a hard time putting out a 1,900-page document on a single subject!
Unemployment? OK, in a limited sense. Social Welfare? Ditto. No-one should stay on either programme for more than a year without some exceptional circumstances being involved. And, I've got my ideas for reform on the latter, if we're going to keep it
Discuss.
Granted, anyone who pays attention to what I say all the time should be able to suss this out on their own (I have what many view as an irritating tendency to say pretty much what I'm thinking at any given time, unless you just do not need to know) but I guess that's not enough.
Politically, I believe government:
- Should be small. The smaller, the better. It should be just enough to administer the needs of the body politic as a whole, to protect the body politic (as a whole!) and to carry on international congress with the interests of the body politic in mind.
- Should be just large enough to provide truly essential sociopolitical services - infrastructure, public safety, public well-being, and the like. Current service can - and damned well should be - trimmed mightily (as should "civil service" personnel. Granted, there's not much service, and the ones I've dealt with seem to be rarely civil...)
- Should only take what they need to function. There's no particular reason that the total tax bite, at ALL levels, should not exceed ten percent of median income. Yep - including vehicle registration, sales taxes, property taxes, ...
- Should only be allowed to spend the money they can generate through a minimal tax bite. "Deficit spending" is essentially illegal for a private citizen, why should it be legal for governments?
- Should neither pay their elected representatives, nor should they be considered as 'full-time' employ. "Public service" should be precisely that. No retirement, either. No special plans for healtcare and the like. And, you can travel commercial with the rest of us plebes.
- Should be responsible for its actions. "Legislative Immunity" is overused. You want to declare war? You get right out front with everyone else (at a rank not higher than, say, corporal - unless you have prior service and are willing to lead from the front.) You espouse a measure that causes trouble for us? Get ready to be prosecuted for it. So much stupidity comes out of Washington because they can't be held responsible for it. Let legislative immunity stand internationally - but domestically, you can get clobbered. Kinda like diplomatic immunity, but reversed.
Socially? I look for a return of the Social Contract (the unwritten rules of "polite society") to replace the onerous system of laws we have now. Then, wholesale redaction of the laws. There's no reason that the entire body of law to which a person is subject shouldn't fit into a small-to-middlin' paperback book.
Economically? This may sound counter-intuitive, but the basic system should be capitalist with just a bit of socialism mixed in. "Socialism," you say! "That's awful and un-American!"
Not so. No less august a personage than Thomas Paine advocated limited socialism in a capitalist system when he wrote _Common_ _Sense_. The "limited socialism" I advocate is essentially the same as his - pensions for the aged and disabled. Limit payouts to those who actually contributed and/or are citizens (after redaction or total rescinsion of the "anchor baby" laws,) and we can keep it under control rather handily.
Given the current climate of the industry (the industry itself and the litigious nature of the populace,) and MediCare isn't a bad idea, either. Yes, medical industry reform needs to happen - but, as Congress is going about it, I don't expect it to be useful. I know I can get verbose at times, but even I would have a hard time putting out a 1,900-page document on a single subject!
Unemployment? OK, in a limited sense. Social Welfare? Ditto. No-one should stay on either programme for more than a year without some exceptional circumstances being involved. And, I've got my ideas for reform on the latter, if we're going to keep it
Discuss.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Shot at & missed and shit at & hit...
(I never promised this would always be a "work-safe" blog...)
Pthargh. Just when you think you've got enough on your plate, someone just has to toss something else on. As I've heard before; "I know God doesn't give me more than He thinks I can handle, but I sometimes wish He didn't trust me so much."
Case in point:
For the last eight years or so, I've been taking care of my mother-in-law (those of you who know me personally already know how I feel about that.) I've been doing this without help from pretty much anyone (save my wife - she's been wonderful about the whole thing!) and for not even thanks from anyone else (my brother-in-law wouldn't even acknowledge that I was doing much of anything for the first five or six years - by then it was too little, too late - and I spend most of my time being bitched at by my mother-in-law.)
I've probably been doing the job too well - logistics, medical decisions, and all - according to her pulmonologist and cardiologist, I've added something like five years to her life (and I was told this a couple of years ago.)
What problems have I been trying to manage? Let's see:
- End-stage emphysema
- Asthma
- Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder (COPD)
- Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA)
- Hiatal Hernia
- Antral Gastritis, Severe
- Gastric Ulcer, Healed
- Osteoporosis
- Urinary Incontinence
- Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS)
- Congestive Heart Failure (CHF)
- Atrial Fibrillation (a. fib)
- And more that I can't remember offhand and some that I can hardly pronounce or spell easily.
This takes up, typically, between thirty and sixty hours a week of my time. Most of it is spent in logistics and organisation (with my own CRS from a fairly recent brain trauma, this means that I must write everything down. The number of notepads I go through is amazing...) Thirty to sixty hours, naturally, does not include trips to the ER (I just took her in again on 07OCT - I thought it was a cardiac event, but it was bilateral pneumonia. Again.)
I have a 1" ring binder that I carry with me whenever I have to take her to a doctor's appointment. I have a pair of 4" ring binders on the shelf in my home office for the detailed records - the 1" binder is merely a summation and ready reference. It also contains the current precis that I maintain for trips to the ER - instead of answering all of the questions, I simply hand them a copy of the precis for their chart and call it done - I can always print another one should I need it.
The precis? That's the short-short form - all of her medications (well over a dozen, plus dosing strength and interval, why prescribed, and by whom,) her extant medical conditions (plenty of those,) copies of her insurance cards (they can then scan them at will,) hospitalisation history, surgical history, and a list of physicians and emergency contact information. I've been told I maintain these records quite well - but that's as much for my own benefit (recall the CRS I mentioned? CRS = Can't Remember Shit. I've been hit in the head entirely too many times in this lifetime, I've long since stopped counting concussions...) as theirs. Drug allergies and contraindications are atop and down bottom of every page in red as well.
My wife has expressed her appreciation for what I do (and she doesn't mind that I'm rather dispassionate about it. If I got emotionally invested, I'd have gotten exhausted much sooner than I have...) Our boys appreciate all of the work I do.
But, I'm doing what is essentially my brother-in-law's job, and I don't get a "Hi" or "Go to Hell" or anything for the first five or six years. Wha?
She recently stayed out with them - only because we (my wife and I) had to put them on the spot for it. She stayed out there for seven months, and saw a doctor (cardiopulmonologist) three times. Out here, it's about every six weeks (if not more) - and that's just for one specialist! We also see the gastroenterologist roughly quarterly, and the cardiologist semi-annually. The podiatrist (yep - she has feet trouble) sees her annually. The urologist roughly semi-annually as well.
And I have a very good working relationship with these doctors. I've had to remind their office staff that I'm not an MD in my own right (I've just associated with them entirely too much, and I speak the language well enough to leave an RN in the dust once I get going,) I'm just a man with a lot of practical experience.
After she came back from visiting her son for seven months, it took me two months to undo everything he'd done (and screwed up...) and she was immediately ill on arrival. Bugger.
My wife and I were talking to her, and we figured out why we had to deal with her being ill - again! - instead of Mike. Why? Because she was afraid to get sick out there - primarily because of his wife. She knows that I may get annoyed with her for getting herself sick again (which is often the literal truth - if she'd listen to me, she wouldn't get so damned sick all the time...) but I'll still see to it and get her taken care of. I'll still sit the twelve-hour ER vigil until she gets admitted. I'll still talk to the doctors and nurses down in ER to get everything to happen.
I may be tired of it, and hate every damned minute of it, but I still do it.
OK, this blog post is probably the most vitriol I'll express in a while. But, dammit, I've needed to do this. It's either this, or I go back to two packs of Luckies a day...
So, now, here's the question. Or "the crux of the biscuit," to borrow from Frank Zappa:
- Does anyone out there consider it wrong that I've finally given up on doing this for anything altruistic, and being about to demand getting paid for what I've been doing?
Mike didn't want to help before because I "wasn't working full time" (because I was spending all of my time taking care of his mother.) I was indeed working full time - I'm pretty much "on call" all 168 hours of every week! I'm just not getting paid for it, so I can't help pay the bills.
I don't want money from my wife - we can't spare it anyhow (we're getting clobbered with medical bills of our own, plus all of the electric for keeping the MIL's medical gear running, plus the fuel for running her about.) I don't want the MIL's money - she's got to fork over enough as it is for her medical, insurance, and upkeep. I want Mike's money - mainly because he's done fuck-all to help so far. Five hundred a month for the past eight years - as back pay - plus five hundred a month ongoing isn't so bad. Considering how many people he'd have to hire to replace me in everything I do, he's getting off awfully light! Although, that $48k up-front payout for back pay is going to smart - but he can live without goodies for a bit (if he's so damned broke, why does he have a 50" Plasma screen in his living room, while we don't even have a TV in ours? Why does he have two relatively new vehicles, while my wife and I share one? Hmm... Sounds like someone's been pissing away money of late - he and his wife both work, their cost of living is less than half of ours, but they never have any damned money...)
So, it's a question for all of you. Am I out of line here? Am I being needlessly mercenary? Or, perhaps, am I not wanting enough? If you've an opinion, I'd love to hear it! If you've got questions about what I spend most of my time doing, I'll do what I can to answer them.
JDK
Pthargh. Just when you think you've got enough on your plate, someone just has to toss something else on. As I've heard before; "I know God doesn't give me more than He thinks I can handle, but I sometimes wish He didn't trust me so much."
Case in point:
For the last eight years or so, I've been taking care of my mother-in-law (those of you who know me personally already know how I feel about that.) I've been doing this without help from pretty much anyone (save my wife - she's been wonderful about the whole thing!) and for not even thanks from anyone else (my brother-in-law wouldn't even acknowledge that I was doing much of anything for the first five or six years - by then it was too little, too late - and I spend most of my time being bitched at by my mother-in-law.)
I've probably been doing the job too well - logistics, medical decisions, and all - according to her pulmonologist and cardiologist, I've added something like five years to her life (and I was told this a couple of years ago.)
What problems have I been trying to manage? Let's see:
- End-stage emphysema
- Asthma
- Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder (COPD)
- Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA)
- Hiatal Hernia
- Antral Gastritis, Severe
- Gastric Ulcer, Healed
- Osteoporosis
- Urinary Incontinence
- Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS)
- Congestive Heart Failure (CHF)
- Atrial Fibrillation (a. fib)
- And more that I can't remember offhand and some that I can hardly pronounce or spell easily.
This takes up, typically, between thirty and sixty hours a week of my time. Most of it is spent in logistics and organisation (with my own CRS from a fairly recent brain trauma, this means that I must write everything down. The number of notepads I go through is amazing...) Thirty to sixty hours, naturally, does not include trips to the ER (I just took her in again on 07OCT - I thought it was a cardiac event, but it was bilateral pneumonia. Again.)
I have a 1" ring binder that I carry with me whenever I have to take her to a doctor's appointment. I have a pair of 4" ring binders on the shelf in my home office for the detailed records - the 1" binder is merely a summation and ready reference. It also contains the current precis that I maintain for trips to the ER - instead of answering all of the questions, I simply hand them a copy of the precis for their chart and call it done - I can always print another one should I need it.
The precis? That's the short-short form - all of her medications (well over a dozen, plus dosing strength and interval, why prescribed, and by whom,) her extant medical conditions (plenty of those,) copies of her insurance cards (they can then scan them at will,) hospitalisation history, surgical history, and a list of physicians and emergency contact information. I've been told I maintain these records quite well - but that's as much for my own benefit (recall the CRS I mentioned? CRS = Can't Remember Shit. I've been hit in the head entirely too many times in this lifetime, I've long since stopped counting concussions...) as theirs. Drug allergies and contraindications are atop and down bottom of every page in red as well.
My wife has expressed her appreciation for what I do (and she doesn't mind that I'm rather dispassionate about it. If I got emotionally invested, I'd have gotten exhausted much sooner than I have...) Our boys appreciate all of the work I do.
But, I'm doing what is essentially my brother-in-law's job, and I don't get a "Hi" or "Go to Hell" or anything for the first five or six years. Wha?
She recently stayed out with them - only because we (my wife and I) had to put them on the spot for it. She stayed out there for seven months, and saw a doctor (cardiopulmonologist) three times. Out here, it's about every six weeks (if not more) - and that's just for one specialist! We also see the gastroenterologist roughly quarterly, and the cardiologist semi-annually. The podiatrist (yep - she has feet trouble) sees her annually. The urologist roughly semi-annually as well.
And I have a very good working relationship with these doctors. I've had to remind their office staff that I'm not an MD in my own right (I've just associated with them entirely too much, and I speak the language well enough to leave an RN in the dust once I get going,) I'm just a man with a lot of practical experience.
After she came back from visiting her son for seven months, it took me two months to undo everything he'd done (and screwed up...) and she was immediately ill on arrival. Bugger.
My wife and I were talking to her, and we figured out why we had to deal with her being ill - again! - instead of Mike. Why? Because she was afraid to get sick out there - primarily because of his wife. She knows that I may get annoyed with her for getting herself sick again (which is often the literal truth - if she'd listen to me, she wouldn't get so damned sick all the time...) but I'll still see to it and get her taken care of. I'll still sit the twelve-hour ER vigil until she gets admitted. I'll still talk to the doctors and nurses down in ER to get everything to happen.
I may be tired of it, and hate every damned minute of it, but I still do it.
OK, this blog post is probably the most vitriol I'll express in a while. But, dammit, I've needed to do this. It's either this, or I go back to two packs of Luckies a day...
So, now, here's the question. Or "the crux of the biscuit," to borrow from Frank Zappa:
- Does anyone out there consider it wrong that I've finally given up on doing this for anything altruistic, and being about to demand getting paid for what I've been doing?
Mike didn't want to help before because I "wasn't working full time" (because I was spending all of my time taking care of his mother.) I was indeed working full time - I'm pretty much "on call" all 168 hours of every week! I'm just not getting paid for it, so I can't help pay the bills.
I don't want money from my wife - we can't spare it anyhow (we're getting clobbered with medical bills of our own, plus all of the electric for keeping the MIL's medical gear running, plus the fuel for running her about.) I don't want the MIL's money - she's got to fork over enough as it is for her medical, insurance, and upkeep. I want Mike's money - mainly because he's done fuck-all to help so far. Five hundred a month for the past eight years - as back pay - plus five hundred a month ongoing isn't so bad. Considering how many people he'd have to hire to replace me in everything I do, he's getting off awfully light! Although, that $48k up-front payout for back pay is going to smart - but he can live without goodies for a bit (if he's so damned broke, why does he have a 50" Plasma screen in his living room, while we don't even have a TV in ours? Why does he have two relatively new vehicles, while my wife and I share one? Hmm... Sounds like someone's been pissing away money of late - he and his wife both work, their cost of living is less than half of ours, but they never have any damned money...)
So, it's a question for all of you. Am I out of line here? Am I being needlessly mercenary? Or, perhaps, am I not wanting enough? If you've an opinion, I'd love to hear it! If you've got questions about what I spend most of my time doing, I'll do what I can to answer them.
JDK
Thursday, September 24, 2009
"Universal Health Care" - Pelosi
Figuring that someone needed to say something reasonably coherent (and, for me, not terribly wordy...) about the whole "universal healthcare" debacle, I've just sent this message to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
Will it help? Probably not. But, taking the effort and having it fail is certainly better than not taking any effort at all. I'll probably write something similar to President Obama, and I'll put that up here as well.
----- SNIP -----
Speaker Pelosi -
I've been hearing much in the news of late about the "universal healthcare bill" being tossed around in committee, and I'd like to take a moment to weigh in with the comments of a constituent:
1) I find it worrisome that not only is the wretched thing some 1100 pages long, but everyone seems to be in a hurry to pass this thing. Has anyone actually read it all the way through? If not, why are we trying to accelerate a vote on it? How can anyone, in good conscience, vote on something they haven't even read, much less understand?
2) Why are so many pages needed to describe what needs to be done? I'm writing technical books that are considerably shorter than that, and I've got engineering texts that go into much greater detail on subjects in fewer pages - and give a better understanding of the topic at hand (I must admit, I've not even read the thing yet - legislative language tends to be a cure for insomnia for me. However, this sort of thing is what you and your colleagues are paid to do - so you should be able to read it, and you should be provided with the opportunity to do so.)
3) I've also been given to understand that there is to be no tort reform in this bill. Pity that - tort reform would be one of the single greatest things that could be done to bring medical costs down overall! Raise the bar for a malpractise suit to proceed (have a panel akin to a Grand Jury that hears the initial merits of the case, and decides whether or not true malpractise actually occurred, for instance;) and the cost of malpractise insurance should drop sharply. Considering what a malpractise policy typically goes for, this would be HUGE.
4) Streamlining the FDA approval process for new drugs (or - and possibly more importantly - the manufacture of ALREADY ESTABLISHED generic versions of drugs on the market) would work wonders for bringing the costs of prescriptions down. I'm on several due to a massive physical trauma I sustained in NOV2005, and they're expensive even with insurance (seeing the "Your Insurance Saved You:" line on the receipt worries me greatly... Most of this stuff is second-tier or third-tier on the schedule for our insurance plan.) Pharmaceutical companies seem to be willing to work with patients if asked. Medicare recipients can get supplemental coverage (through AARP) for a reasonable cost to bring their prescription costs down to effectively nothing out-of-pocket at the pharmacy. If the FDA simplifies their approval process for generics (simply making the manufacturer hold to quality materials and proper manufacturing processes, instead of having to do pretty much the entire process over again,) then MOST OF US would be able to get our prescriptions covered fully or nearly fully by insurance.
5) Make it easier for service providers to deal with insurance companies, and vice versa. Perhaps have the fixed "Medicare negotiated rate" paid out by any insurance company - this should effectively eliminate overbilling as a negotiation tool with individual insurance companies, and should help to get more providers "in network" for various insured persons using an employer's plan.
6) I've also read in the news how some of your colleagues are considering fining people for NOT carrying insurance under the new plan. I'm not so certain this is a good idea - allow me to modify it slightly:
- There are people who don't carry health insurance in general, paying out of pocket (OOP) for their physical every year or so instead. Why? Because they're reasonably healthy, and paying OOP for the annual (or so) checkup is cheaper than carrying a regular healthcare plan.
- Many of these people have a catastrophic medical coverage plan ("cat coverage",) which covers them in the event of a massive trauma or illness.
- There are also people who, I am sure, WILL NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD any insurance plan. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "working poor?" There are more of them than you probably think. If they can't afford coverage, how will they afford to pay the fine for not having it?
Offer a "cat coverage" plan for the healthy, since that's really all they need.
For the "uninsured" who end up going to the ER at a County hospital for even a mild case of the sniffles, perhaps having "neighbourhood clinics" for that sort of thing will bring the ultimate costs down, reduce the billable expense, and perhaps enable low-income people to be able to actually pay AT LEAST SOME of their billable expenses, or carry coverage that can cost less due to the availability of a clinic? The clinic may be located near an ER - anyone who gets triaged as "non-critical" would then be sent to the clinic, rather than treated in the ER. This would also free up ER resources - having been a trauma case a few times myself, and being a caretaker for an end-stage emphysema patient (my mother-in-law,) this would be a good thing for me. I see people in the ER that I would like to honestly check for malingering, myself.
I place myself at your disposal for further discussion. However, I feel that further discussion IS necessary - with whomever, but preferably with constituents who actually have to DEAL with this sort of thing - before action be taken. Rushing this sort of thing through committee, through voting, and for the President's signature can not possibly be a good idea.
However, if you and your colleages are in such an all-fired hurry to pass this, please allow me to offer a couple of options:
1) ALL CITIZENS go on Medicare. Yep - including you and your colleages. That should handle any perceived disparities in the system (and probably get Medicare sorted rather quickly to boot.)
2) ALL CITIZENS go on whatever plan you have. It must be good - I'm sure Senator Ted Kennedy never even saw a bill for his medical treatment before he expired (I had to fight to get a bill dismissed as "Paid By Insurance" after my trauma four years ago. Not fun to do. Took only two months.)
Either one should put everyone on an equal footing and make access to healthcare more "universal" than it is now. I'm sure most of American would prefer the second option - especially those of us who are tired of fighting with insurance companies.
I certainly shan't argue that something does need to be done. However, it should NOT be done in a hurry, it should NOT be made overly complex, and it SHOULD be carefully thought-out and discussed out in the open - and made relatively equal for EVERYONE. A line from Orwell comes to mind whenever I see a news blurb on this: "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Will it help? Probably not. But, taking the effort and having it fail is certainly better than not taking any effort at all. I'll probably write something similar to President Obama, and I'll put that up here as well.
----- SNIP -----
Speaker Pelosi -
I've been hearing much in the news of late about the "universal healthcare bill" being tossed around in committee, and I'd like to take a moment to weigh in with the comments of a constituent:
1) I find it worrisome that not only is the wretched thing some 1100 pages long, but everyone seems to be in a hurry to pass this thing. Has anyone actually read it all the way through? If not, why are we trying to accelerate a vote on it? How can anyone, in good conscience, vote on something they haven't even read, much less understand?
2) Why are so many pages needed to describe what needs to be done? I'm writing technical books that are considerably shorter than that, and I've got engineering texts that go into much greater detail on subjects in fewer pages - and give a better understanding of the topic at hand (I must admit, I've not even read the thing yet - legislative language tends to be a cure for insomnia for me. However, this sort of thing is what you and your colleagues are paid to do - so you should be able to read it, and you should be provided with the opportunity to do so.)
3) I've also been given to understand that there is to be no tort reform in this bill. Pity that - tort reform would be one of the single greatest things that could be done to bring medical costs down overall! Raise the bar for a malpractise suit to proceed (have a panel akin to a Grand Jury that hears the initial merits of the case, and decides whether or not true malpractise actually occurred, for instance;) and the cost of malpractise insurance should drop sharply. Considering what a malpractise policy typically goes for, this would be HUGE.
4) Streamlining the FDA approval process for new drugs (or - and possibly more importantly - the manufacture of ALREADY ESTABLISHED generic versions of drugs on the market) would work wonders for bringing the costs of prescriptions down. I'm on several due to a massive physical trauma I sustained in NOV2005, and they're expensive even with insurance (seeing the "Your Insurance Saved You:" line on the receipt worries me greatly... Most of this stuff is second-tier or third-tier on the schedule for our insurance plan.) Pharmaceutical companies seem to be willing to work with patients if asked. Medicare recipients can get supplemental coverage (through AARP) for a reasonable cost to bring their prescription costs down to effectively nothing out-of-pocket at the pharmacy. If the FDA simplifies their approval process for generics (simply making the manufacturer hold to quality materials and proper manufacturing processes, instead of having to do pretty much the entire process over again,) then MOST OF US would be able to get our prescriptions covered fully or nearly fully by insurance.
5) Make it easier for service providers to deal with insurance companies, and vice versa. Perhaps have the fixed "Medicare negotiated rate" paid out by any insurance company - this should effectively eliminate overbilling as a negotiation tool with individual insurance companies, and should help to get more providers "in network" for various insured persons using an employer's plan.
6) I've also read in the news how some of your colleagues are considering fining people for NOT carrying insurance under the new plan. I'm not so certain this is a good idea - allow me to modify it slightly:
- There are people who don't carry health insurance in general, paying out of pocket (OOP) for their physical every year or so instead. Why? Because they're reasonably healthy, and paying OOP for the annual (or so) checkup is cheaper than carrying a regular healthcare plan.
- Many of these people have a catastrophic medical coverage plan ("cat coverage",) which covers them in the event of a massive trauma or illness.
- There are also people who, I am sure, WILL NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD any insurance plan. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "working poor?" There are more of them than you probably think. If they can't afford coverage, how will they afford to pay the fine for not having it?
Offer a "cat coverage" plan for the healthy, since that's really all they need.
For the "uninsured" who end up going to the ER at a County hospital for even a mild case of the sniffles, perhaps having "neighbourhood clinics" for that sort of thing will bring the ultimate costs down, reduce the billable expense, and perhaps enable low-income people to be able to actually pay AT LEAST SOME of their billable expenses, or carry coverage that can cost less due to the availability of a clinic? The clinic may be located near an ER - anyone who gets triaged as "non-critical" would then be sent to the clinic, rather than treated in the ER. This would also free up ER resources - having been a trauma case a few times myself, and being a caretaker for an end-stage emphysema patient (my mother-in-law,) this would be a good thing for me. I see people in the ER that I would like to honestly check for malingering, myself.
I place myself at your disposal for further discussion. However, I feel that further discussion IS necessary - with whomever, but preferably with constituents who actually have to DEAL with this sort of thing - before action be taken. Rushing this sort of thing through committee, through voting, and for the President's signature can not possibly be a good idea.
However, if you and your colleages are in such an all-fired hurry to pass this, please allow me to offer a couple of options:
1) ALL CITIZENS go on Medicare. Yep - including you and your colleages. That should handle any perceived disparities in the system (and probably get Medicare sorted rather quickly to boot.)
2) ALL CITIZENS go on whatever plan you have. It must be good - I'm sure Senator Ted Kennedy never even saw a bill for his medical treatment before he expired (I had to fight to get a bill dismissed as "Paid By Insurance" after my trauma four years ago. Not fun to do. Took only two months.)
Either one should put everyone on an equal footing and make access to healthcare more "universal" than it is now. I'm sure most of American would prefer the second option - especially those of us who are tired of fighting with insurance companies.
I certainly shan't argue that something does need to be done. However, it should NOT be done in a hurry, it should NOT be made overly complex, and it SHOULD be carefully thought-out and discussed out in the open - and made relatively equal for EVERYONE. A line from Orwell comes to mind whenever I see a news blurb on this: "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Shaving...
I got tired of the King Gillette model - which, with my beard, costs a good deal of money.
"My beard?" Yeah. I can't use an electric - it would hurt less to get my face waxed, or even pluck it clean with a pair of tweezers one whisker at a time. So, that's out (tweezers are cheaper than an electric.) I could probably scrub pots with my chin, if I thought I needed to (and if I needed something more aggressive than Scotch-Brite or Brillo pads...)
I used to use a cartridge blade razor - but those cartridges are spendy. And, I can only do about a one-inch pass before I've clogged the blades and have to clean them out (usually with a toothbrush.) Yes, I shave in hot water, and I try to soften things up first.
I got to pillaging around looking for something else, and managed to find a straight razor handle that took a replacable blade. In fact, it takes a half of a blade - you take a conventional double-edged safety razor blade, snap it in half, and insert one half into a slide-out carrier. Change the blade by sliding out the carrier and using the other half of the blade.
Seven bucks for the razor, and it came with a box of ten blades (total of twenty, once you snap them in half.)
Now, I'd used a Gillette Mach 3 - and only shaved on Fridays, weddings, funerals, and court. Considering I could only use a cartridge about twice before it was shot, and throwing away a cartridge for that razor amounts to throwing away about four dollars, it was getting old rather quickly (I got the Mach 3 as a sample - just as I did the Sensor Excel, and a couple of razors before it.) I hadn't used a straight razor in a number of years, so it took a little bit of practise - mainly to avoid gouging myself.
But, I've noticed something: shaving has become less of "an onerous task" and more "something I enjoy." I don't shave every day, but I now shave on Mondays and Fridays - plus weddings, court, and funerals.
Why? There are a couple of things I can think of:
1) While it did take some practise (a couple weeks' worth) to get back into using the thing, I find it easier to use than a cartridge razor. Hell, I can clear-cut a full beard with a straight, if I feel like it! Yeah, I sometimes snag moles and blemishes, but that can be handled.
2) I don't get shaving bumps anywhere near as badly with the straight than I did with the Mach 3. The Derby blades I'd gotten with the straight were OK, but the Lord blades I'd bought to replace it (stainless ground in Egypt) are much better! The Middle East and Northern Africa really understand blades - almost as well as the Japanese.
3) It's a return to an old-fashioned, purely physical skill. That, more than anything else, is probably why I enjoy it so much.
You see, when I was a kid in Indiana, one of the greatest joys I ever had was learning yet another purely physical skill. Little involvement of the brain - it was just there in a supervisory role, and could pop off for lunch if it wanted to without interfering with what was going on, most times. Yah, some things it had to stay around to watch - but it could think about other things (usually several other things) while it was watching what the body was doing. This is what I mean by "purely physical." Sharpening a knife is a purely physical skill. Whittling is, most times, a physical skill. Riding a bicycle, roller skating, and the like are all physical skills.
And shaving, using a single bare blade, is a physical skill. And, using the single bare blade is more comfortable all around than using a cartridge blade, believe me! I'd honestly suggest that any man who doesn't have palsy at least try a straight razor - what you find out may surprise you!
I'll probably eventually assemble a "real" straight razor kit - good hollow-ground Solingen blade perhaps, strop, brush, shave cup, and the like - but this will work for the moment (and it got me set up to save a bunch of money on shaving for an initial outlay of about ten bucks.) I get one shave out of a half-blade, but I don't throw them away (they're stainless, they go in the cannister for recycled stainless steel...) and they're only about seven cents a shave anyhow. I pay half as much for fifty double-edge blades (of better quality!) than I did for four cartridges.
And, I don't dread shaving anymore. Sounds pretty win-win to me!
I'll have to see what other skills I can renew that are considered "old-fashioned." I can already navigate effectively using a map and compass (on-road or off,) and resolve my position closer than can be done with a GPS device - typical CEP (Circular Error Probable) with a GPS is something around fifteen metres, while I can usually nail myself down to within a half-metre. All by knowing how to read a variety of maps, being able to use a compass, and knowing the length of my pace... Map reading is becoming a lost art - but it's bloody useful! The batteries in a GPS can go flat on you. In your head? Not so much. And, a compass doesn't use batteries in the first place!
"My beard?" Yeah. I can't use an electric - it would hurt less to get my face waxed, or even pluck it clean with a pair of tweezers one whisker at a time. So, that's out (tweezers are cheaper than an electric.) I could probably scrub pots with my chin, if I thought I needed to (and if I needed something more aggressive than Scotch-Brite or Brillo pads...)
I used to use a cartridge blade razor - but those cartridges are spendy. And, I can only do about a one-inch pass before I've clogged the blades and have to clean them out (usually with a toothbrush.) Yes, I shave in hot water, and I try to soften things up first.
I got to pillaging around looking for something else, and managed to find a straight razor handle that took a replacable blade. In fact, it takes a half of a blade - you take a conventional double-edged safety razor blade, snap it in half, and insert one half into a slide-out carrier. Change the blade by sliding out the carrier and using the other half of the blade.
Seven bucks for the razor, and it came with a box of ten blades (total of twenty, once you snap them in half.)
Now, I'd used a Gillette Mach 3 - and only shaved on Fridays, weddings, funerals, and court. Considering I could only use a cartridge about twice before it was shot, and throwing away a cartridge for that razor amounts to throwing away about four dollars, it was getting old rather quickly (I got the Mach 3 as a sample - just as I did the Sensor Excel, and a couple of razors before it.) I hadn't used a straight razor in a number of years, so it took a little bit of practise - mainly to avoid gouging myself.
But, I've noticed something: shaving has become less of "an onerous task" and more "something I enjoy." I don't shave every day, but I now shave on Mondays and Fridays - plus weddings, court, and funerals.
Why? There are a couple of things I can think of:
1) While it did take some practise (a couple weeks' worth) to get back into using the thing, I find it easier to use than a cartridge razor. Hell, I can clear-cut a full beard with a straight, if I feel like it! Yeah, I sometimes snag moles and blemishes, but that can be handled.
2) I don't get shaving bumps anywhere near as badly with the straight than I did with the Mach 3. The Derby blades I'd gotten with the straight were OK, but the Lord blades I'd bought to replace it (stainless ground in Egypt) are much better! The Middle East and Northern Africa really understand blades - almost as well as the Japanese.
3) It's a return to an old-fashioned, purely physical skill. That, more than anything else, is probably why I enjoy it so much.
You see, when I was a kid in Indiana, one of the greatest joys I ever had was learning yet another purely physical skill. Little involvement of the brain - it was just there in a supervisory role, and could pop off for lunch if it wanted to without interfering with what was going on, most times. Yah, some things it had to stay around to watch - but it could think about other things (usually several other things) while it was watching what the body was doing. This is what I mean by "purely physical." Sharpening a knife is a purely physical skill. Whittling is, most times, a physical skill. Riding a bicycle, roller skating, and the like are all physical skills.
And shaving, using a single bare blade, is a physical skill. And, using the single bare blade is more comfortable all around than using a cartridge blade, believe me! I'd honestly suggest that any man who doesn't have palsy at least try a straight razor - what you find out may surprise you!
I'll probably eventually assemble a "real" straight razor kit - good hollow-ground Solingen blade perhaps, strop, brush, shave cup, and the like - but this will work for the moment (and it got me set up to save a bunch of money on shaving for an initial outlay of about ten bucks.) I get one shave out of a half-blade, but I don't throw them away (they're stainless, they go in the cannister for recycled stainless steel...) and they're only about seven cents a shave anyhow. I pay half as much for fifty double-edge blades (of better quality!) than I did for four cartridges.
And, I don't dread shaving anymore. Sounds pretty win-win to me!
I'll have to see what other skills I can renew that are considered "old-fashioned." I can already navigate effectively using a map and compass (on-road or off,) and resolve my position closer than can be done with a GPS device - typical CEP (Circular Error Probable) with a GPS is something around fifteen metres, while I can usually nail myself down to within a half-metre. All by knowing how to read a variety of maps, being able to use a compass, and knowing the length of my pace... Map reading is becoming a lost art - but it's bloody useful! The batteries in a GPS can go flat on you. In your head? Not so much. And, a compass doesn't use batteries in the first place!
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Posting in online fori...
Gang -
I frequent a number of online fori. I also pillage around online doing a great deal of research. I've noted a few things...
1) "Text-talk." Guys, please ditch the silly abbreviations! Most online bulletin boards don't have limits on text - if they do, it's usually something silly like 60Kchars, and most people won't hit those (except perhaps me - I do tend toward verbosity at times.) Those asinine abbreviations may go down fine with your high school buddies when you're texting, but they make your prose online more difficult to read, not less. There is a time and a place for such things, please learn the difference.
2) Grammar. When you're online, how you write is a reflection of who you are. The printed word - generated by you - will be all that your boardmates will have to know you by. Make that image a good one, hm? Learning to construct a proper sentence goes a long way toward respect online.
3) Punctuation/capitalisation. just try reading sentences where ideas run together and that aren't separated visibly by periods and capital letters. maybe a period every now and then. but ideas running together is a problem. (If you're at all like me, that was the most difficult part of this posting to read. Hell, I had a hard time writing it!) You get the idea. Break sentences down so that each one contains a single idea. If you have to take a breath reading it aloud, it's too long. The periods, commas, and other punctuation characters are visual cues toward organising information. Capitalisation serves to show proper nouns and where sentences start.
4) Spelling. This is a huge one with me - moreso even than "text talk!" Try to spell properly, especially on any sort of technical board. Why? Because chances are, someone else is going to have the same problem you had. The "old hands" on the board are going to say something along the lines of, "Search, n00b!" Some are fairly decent about it, others are not.
- But, the call to, "Search, n00b!" usually goes out because someone can remember having answered that very question a fortnight ago, and I know I dislike repeating myself. If you didn't find it when you searched, there are two primary reasons why this would be so:
A) You didn't enter the proper search paramters. Don't give up the first time - be creative with your searching.
B) Critical terms in the post were spelled wrong.
- Conversely, don't get insulted when I put a few words in brackets (<>) at the end of my answer - they're seach strings, meant to help the next guy that comes along. If you see words like that, you may want to learn how they're spelt so you can spell them properly next time. Honest, I'm not trying to be insulting!
5) Profanity. Some fori allow it, others do not. If a forum does not allow profanity, don't go crying about your "First Amendment Rights" - it's a privately-owned forum, and that goes give them the right to maintain an atmosphere of their choosing. "Free speech" isn't about profanity anyhow - primarily, it's about having the right to speak out against the government, if/when you find it necessary. It's about being able to hold differing opinions from the mainstream.
- But, it's not about having the ability to spout off profanity whenever you feel like it. So get over it. I'm a moderator on some of these boards - while I may not personally care for the decision being taken, it's not mine to reverse. "A man sometimes has to do something in his official capacity that he would not normally do as a private citizen."
6) Arguments. I enjoy a spirited debate, so just the fact of arguing isn't at question here. What I do have a problem with is anything like:
I frequent a number of online fori. I also pillage around online doing a great deal of research. I've noted a few things...
1) "Text-talk." Guys, please ditch the silly abbreviations! Most online bulletin boards don't have limits on text - if they do, it's usually something silly like 60Kchars, and most people won't hit those (except perhaps me - I do tend toward verbosity at times.) Those asinine abbreviations may go down fine with your high school buddies when you're texting, but they make your prose online more difficult to read, not less. There is a time and a place for such things, please learn the difference.
2) Grammar. When you're online, how you write is a reflection of who you are. The printed word - generated by you - will be all that your boardmates will have to know you by. Make that image a good one, hm? Learning to construct a proper sentence goes a long way toward respect online.
3) Punctuation/capitalisation. just try reading sentences where ideas run together and that aren't separated visibly by periods and capital letters. maybe a period every now and then. but ideas running together is a problem. (If you're at all like me, that was the most difficult part of this posting to read. Hell, I had a hard time writing it!) You get the idea. Break sentences down so that each one contains a single idea. If you have to take a breath reading it aloud, it's too long. The periods, commas, and other punctuation characters are visual cues toward organising information. Capitalisation serves to show proper nouns and where sentences start.
4) Spelling. This is a huge one with me - moreso even than "text talk!" Try to spell properly, especially on any sort of technical board. Why? Because chances are, someone else is going to have the same problem you had. The "old hands" on the board are going to say something along the lines of, "Search, n00b!" Some are fairly decent about it, others are not.
- But, the call to, "Search, n00b!" usually goes out because someone can remember having answered that very question a fortnight ago, and I know I dislike repeating myself. If you didn't find it when you searched, there are two primary reasons why this would be so:
A) You didn't enter the proper search paramters. Don't give up the first time - be creative with your searching.
B) Critical terms in the post were spelled wrong.
- Conversely, don't get insulted when I put a few words in brackets (<>) at the end of my answer - they're seach strings, meant to help the next guy that comes along. If you see words like that, you may want to learn how they're spelt so you can spell them properly next time. Honest, I'm not trying to be insulting!
5) Profanity. Some fori allow it, others do not. If a forum does not allow profanity, don't go crying about your "First Amendment Rights" - it's a privately-owned forum, and that goes give them the right to maintain an atmosphere of their choosing. "Free speech" isn't about profanity anyhow - primarily, it's about having the right to speak out against the government, if/when you find it necessary. It's about being able to hold differing opinions from the mainstream.
- But, it's not about having the ability to spout off profanity whenever you feel like it. So get over it. I'm a moderator on some of these boards - while I may not personally care for the decision being taken, it's not mine to reverse. "A man sometimes has to do something in his official capacity that he would not normally do as a private citizen."
6) Arguments. I enjoy a spirited debate, so just the fact of arguing isn't at question here. What I do have a problem with is anything like:
- Childish attacks disguised as logical arguments
- Reductio ad absurdium assaults on logic (an "assault on logic" in general - reductio ad absurdium isn't a properly logical argument technique, even if it is using what would be considere the "logical conclusion" of the point being made.)
- Singling out one point you find distasteful, and assaulting that to the exclusion of all else.
- Argumentum ad hominem - if you don't like a conclusion of mine, work on the conclusion to convince me to change it. Don't attack me personally, since that will usually have the opposite effect of the one intended.
- Know something about the subject - if you don't know anything about the position you're trying to take, how can you be qualified to hold and/or defend it? Faith-orientated debates are particularly guilty of this - I'll sit there and tear you apart if you don't try to defend yourself in a practical manner. "Just because" hasn't worked as a reason for anything on me since I was six - and it's certainly not going to work know. "Faith" != "Knowledge". On other topics, if you don't know anything about it you aren't entitled to hold an opinion. I would be out of my depth rapidly in a debate on high-energy or particle physics, so I don't debate those topics. I don't know enough to hold an opinion. I can debate gun control and self-defence rights all day long - I know plenty about those.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Driving - mainly in California.
OK - I've had it with what I've been seeing out here of late. Let me tell you what I'm seeing wrong, and hopefully it can get fixed. I've been told I should open a driving school, but there are problems with that idea:
1) I'd want to make it mandatory. Sooner or later, if you want to get or keep a driving license, you'd have to go through the class.
2) It would be taught in English only. All the signs here are in English, all the cops speak English, and English is the working language of this country. Learn it - quick.
3) People will fail the course. Either through sheer incompetence (don't bother trying again,) failure to learn English (learn it and come back,) or through making enough mistakes that they'd need to be retrained (go get the primary training again, then come back.) If you fail, you don't get your license - or, if current, it is suspended until you manage to pass.
4) There will be, I'm sure, people who will not be able to pass the course. We need to reduce traffic on the roadways anyhow, y'ask me (you try driving in this mess! Every time I have to go out during commute hours, I'm in danger of a psychotic break from dealing with everyone.)
So, what all is happening that shouldn't be - or what is not happening that should be? Let's touch on some highlights:
- A STOP sign is a STOP sign. Wherever it is. Chances are, it's there for a pretty decent reason (usually due to foot traffic in parking lots - often around a corner that you can't see. Stopping forces you to go around the corner slowly.) This means you stop. Period.
Oddly, the worst offences for this that I see are in hospital parking lots. I suppose if you're going to get hit by a car, there are worse places than a hospital parking lot - but getting hit by a car has little to recommend it. It's happened to me a few times, so I've got a pretty good idea what I'm talking about. Let's try to avoid this one, shall we?
- In America (as with most of the rest of the world) we drive on the right side of the road. Not on the left, not down the middle, on the right. Yes, even if the roadway lanes are not clearly marked. The only exceptions to this are when a one-way direction is posted - drive on the right, pass on the left. There are typcally arrows indicating which way you should be driving down that particular road, either on the road proper or on signposts. Pay attention!
- Likewise, we do not park on a line for a parking space - we park between the lines. You may be a small person - I've nothing against small people (I have a known fixation on small women, in fact,) but not all of us are small. If I have to push your vehicle out of my way, I will. Don't be surprised if this happens because you couldn't be bothered to fit in between the lines. In case you hadn't guessed, I'm not a small person...
Likewise, note well that a full-size pickup truck, van, or passenger car is not a "Compact" vehicle, nor will it ever be. If you stick out past the end of the parking space three feet, back out of it and find one that fits you better. Laziness is not an excuse. Ditto if you park on both lines in your space - if that happens, your vehicle is too large for the space and you should find a larger one.
- Bicyclists: I've no objection to sharing the road with you - I'm on a bicycle at times myself (my doctors are all after me to lose some weight.) However, know this: if we're all going to play in the same sandbox, we all need to play by the same rules. If I have to stop at a STOP sign or a red light, you have to stop at the sign or light. If I have to have lights on at night, so do you. (I need to see you to avoid you. Wearing dark colours and having no lamps or reflectors on your bicycle is just gagging to be hit. I've been hit by a car while on my bicycle as well - I got lucky. I can't guarantee you the same luck...) It's simple - if you're on the roadway, you're a road vehicle, and you have to follow the same rules that other road vehicles do. Why? Because this means you will behave in a predictable manner, and that means you will be a good deal less likely to be hit by a motor vehicle!
Also note that wearing the silly styrene helmet is not proof against getting hurt - paying attention to what is going on around you is. You're not the only person on the road, nor are you likely to be. "Share the Road" cuts both ways.
- On that latter note; no-one in a motor vehicle is the only person on the roadway, either. People who drive like they are all alone cause the most roads incidents (I hesitate to call them "accidents" - very few of them are truly accidental, and almost none of them are mechanically caused. Most roads incidents are caused by a negligent lapse.) Look around you if you're going to do anything besides drive straight and level - and keep your attention around you if you're doing that.
- Changing lanes: use your turn indicator (I'm psychotic, not psychic) and turn your head and look. I quit counting how many times I've almost been wiped out - in a car, in a truck, or on a bicycle - by someone who couldn't be arsed looking around. If you do use your turn indicator (thank you!) bear in mind that it doesn't automatically clear the lane for you. I want to give you some space, but I need to have the space to give you.
- More on lane changes: one lane at a time. If you miss your freeway exit, take the next one and turn around. Believe me, it's safer to do that than to dive all the way across the freeway. I've seen this cause roads incidents more times than I'd care to admit to.
- When driving: Drive. Anything you're doing that is not driving is a distraction. I've seen it all - reading newspapers/magazines, yapping on the cellphone (DWY - Driving While Yapping,) text messaging! - putting on makeup (eye makeup offenders are the worst) - men shaving their faces, and even women shaving their legs (she had her foot up on the dashboard so she could extend her leg.) The maximum distraction I'm willing to tolerate is taking a drink of something-or-other - I don't even like to eat while I'm driving. I can do it - but I prefer not to.
Guys, you're in command of a 3,000+-pound effective guided missile. This thing can kill people when it hits them. Do you want to be responsible for ending someone's life?
- Speaking of which: 'way back when, when I took Driver's Ed in high school in the Midwest (out here, it's a farkin' joke. Both of my boys took it, and I'm not sure why...) we had one thing hammered into us - when driving, you are responsible for your vehicle, everyone in it, everything that happens to it, and everything that happens because of it. Period.
So why for can't anyone tie a load down into their pickup truck properly? Gardeners are the worst offenders at this - with contractors close behind. I get the twitching awfuls every time I see an unsecure load in the back of a truck, and I've dodged an amazing array of stuff that bounced or flew out of the back of a pickup truck. If you're in a box truck, there's a reason that it's illegal to drive around with the rollup door open.
Obviously, the tickets for this offense aren't large enough. Don't depend on the weight of something to hold it in your truck bed. As they say in Australia - "Tie me kangaroo down, sport." If it's not in an enclosed cargo area, tie it down nice and solid. I'm tired of dodging mattresses and bookcases, dimension lumber, plywood, rubbish bins, and the occasional lawnmower! A good rope can be had for just a few bucks, chain only costs a bit more.
- Motorcyclists: I'm not talking so much about the cruisers on Harleys, Indians, or other touring bikes. This is directed toward the "rice rocketeers" zipping about through traffic and making a nuisance of themselves.
1) Ducking/weaving through traffic isn't the greatest idea in the world. Doing so when traffic is moving is less bright. Doing so at 95mph when traffic is doing 60 or so is downright stupid, bordering on suicidal. Please stop - you're making me nervous. I never know what you're going to do. Just like the bicyclists - same sandbox, same rules.
2) Splitting lanes. I'm not sure why this is still legal. "Same sandbox, same rules" - if I can't do it, why should you be able to? You make me nervous doing this as well, since you always zoom up from behind. You're just about always doing traffic +20 or so - dumb. Besides, you already get to use the HOV lane lone-handed (that damned HOV lane ends up costing me money - because I get stuck in traffic when I need to be somewhere.)
3) Slow down. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I know the Interstate freeway system was designed as an unlimited-speed roadway, but speed limits have been imposed. It's damned near suicidal to zip around at top speed when people are stuck at 60-65 - "Same sandbox, same rules." Go to the drags at Laguna Seca or Sears Point if you want to get speed out of your system. I don't see us instituting Autobahn/U-bahn style traffic regulations and speed limits anytime soon (since it would take a massive shift in driver training to make it work, and it's training that would have to have been in place for 15-20 years before the first change is made.)
4) Bear in mind, we can't always see you. Drive your motorcycle accordingly - you'll live longer that way.
You know, it's occurred to me that most traffic laws have been passed for one or the other of the following reasons: 1) The "least common intellect" needs to be protected from itself. 2) Everyone else needs to be protected from the "least common intellect." 3) The "least common intellect" needs to be protected from everyone else.
The solution is simple - don't allow the "least common intellect" to drive. Driving a motor vehicle is a permitted activity - meaning that a test must be passed and a permit issued in order to do so. The test has become too simple for people, training is too simplistic, and I've found that incompetent instructors and careless evaluators do not make for the most highly-qualified individuals when all is said and done. This system needs to be fixed - and fixed soon! When I first came out to California, I was amazed at the number of roads incidents I saw in the small amount of freeway between San Jose Airport and NAS Moffett Field. As I've got more years out here behind me, that attitude has shifted - I'm amazed there aren't more, given what I see of people behind the wheel.
Just about every vehicle out here has a loose nut behind the wheel, and it's high time we tightened them!
1) I'd want to make it mandatory. Sooner or later, if you want to get or keep a driving license, you'd have to go through the class.
2) It would be taught in English only. All the signs here are in English, all the cops speak English, and English is the working language of this country. Learn it - quick.
3) People will fail the course. Either through sheer incompetence (don't bother trying again,) failure to learn English (learn it and come back,) or through making enough mistakes that they'd need to be retrained (go get the primary training again, then come back.) If you fail, you don't get your license - or, if current, it is suspended until you manage to pass.
4) There will be, I'm sure, people who will not be able to pass the course. We need to reduce traffic on the roadways anyhow, y'ask me (you try driving in this mess! Every time I have to go out during commute hours, I'm in danger of a psychotic break from dealing with everyone.)
So, what all is happening that shouldn't be - or what is not happening that should be? Let's touch on some highlights:
- A STOP sign is a STOP sign. Wherever it is. Chances are, it's there for a pretty decent reason (usually due to foot traffic in parking lots - often around a corner that you can't see. Stopping forces you to go around the corner slowly.) This means you stop. Period.
Oddly, the worst offences for this that I see are in hospital parking lots. I suppose if you're going to get hit by a car, there are worse places than a hospital parking lot - but getting hit by a car has little to recommend it. It's happened to me a few times, so I've got a pretty good idea what I'm talking about. Let's try to avoid this one, shall we?
- In America (as with most of the rest of the world) we drive on the right side of the road. Not on the left, not down the middle, on the right. Yes, even if the roadway lanes are not clearly marked. The only exceptions to this are when a one-way direction is posted - drive on the right, pass on the left. There are typcally arrows indicating which way you should be driving down that particular road, either on the road proper or on signposts. Pay attention!
- Likewise, we do not park on a line for a parking space - we park between the lines. You may be a small person - I've nothing against small people (I have a known fixation on small women, in fact,) but not all of us are small. If I have to push your vehicle out of my way, I will. Don't be surprised if this happens because you couldn't be bothered to fit in between the lines. In case you hadn't guessed, I'm not a small person...
Likewise, note well that a full-size pickup truck, van, or passenger car is not a "Compact" vehicle, nor will it ever be. If you stick out past the end of the parking space three feet, back out of it and find one that fits you better. Laziness is not an excuse. Ditto if you park on both lines in your space - if that happens, your vehicle is too large for the space and you should find a larger one.
- Bicyclists: I've no objection to sharing the road with you - I'm on a bicycle at times myself (my doctors are all after me to lose some weight.) However, know this: if we're all going to play in the same sandbox, we all need to play by the same rules. If I have to stop at a STOP sign or a red light, you have to stop at the sign or light. If I have to have lights on at night, so do you. (I need to see you to avoid you. Wearing dark colours and having no lamps or reflectors on your bicycle is just gagging to be hit. I've been hit by a car while on my bicycle as well - I got lucky. I can't guarantee you the same luck...) It's simple - if you're on the roadway, you're a road vehicle, and you have to follow the same rules that other road vehicles do. Why? Because this means you will behave in a predictable manner, and that means you will be a good deal less likely to be hit by a motor vehicle!
Also note that wearing the silly styrene helmet is not proof against getting hurt - paying attention to what is going on around you is. You're not the only person on the road, nor are you likely to be. "Share the Road" cuts both ways.
- On that latter note; no-one in a motor vehicle is the only person on the roadway, either. People who drive like they are all alone cause the most roads incidents (I hesitate to call them "accidents" - very few of them are truly accidental, and almost none of them are mechanically caused. Most roads incidents are caused by a negligent lapse.) Look around you if you're going to do anything besides drive straight and level - and keep your attention around you if you're doing that.
- Changing lanes: use your turn indicator (I'm psychotic, not psychic) and turn your head and look. I quit counting how many times I've almost been wiped out - in a car, in a truck, or on a bicycle - by someone who couldn't be arsed looking around. If you do use your turn indicator (thank you!) bear in mind that it doesn't automatically clear the lane for you. I want to give you some space, but I need to have the space to give you.
- More on lane changes: one lane at a time. If you miss your freeway exit, take the next one and turn around. Believe me, it's safer to do that than to dive all the way across the freeway. I've seen this cause roads incidents more times than I'd care to admit to.
- When driving: Drive. Anything you're doing that is not driving is a distraction. I've seen it all - reading newspapers/magazines, yapping on the cellphone (DWY - Driving While Yapping,) text messaging! - putting on makeup (eye makeup offenders are the worst) - men shaving their faces, and even women shaving their legs (she had her foot up on the dashboard so she could extend her leg.) The maximum distraction I'm willing to tolerate is taking a drink of something-or-other - I don't even like to eat while I'm driving. I can do it - but I prefer not to.
Guys, you're in command of a 3,000+-pound effective guided missile. This thing can kill people when it hits them. Do you want to be responsible for ending someone's life?
- Speaking of which: 'way back when, when I took Driver's Ed in high school in the Midwest (out here, it's a farkin' joke. Both of my boys took it, and I'm not sure why...) we had one thing hammered into us - when driving, you are responsible for your vehicle, everyone in it, everything that happens to it, and everything that happens because of it. Period.
So why for can't anyone tie a load down into their pickup truck properly? Gardeners are the worst offenders at this - with contractors close behind. I get the twitching awfuls every time I see an unsecure load in the back of a truck, and I've dodged an amazing array of stuff that bounced or flew out of the back of a pickup truck. If you're in a box truck, there's a reason that it's illegal to drive around with the rollup door open.
Obviously, the tickets for this offense aren't large enough. Don't depend on the weight of something to hold it in your truck bed. As they say in Australia - "Tie me kangaroo down, sport." If it's not in an enclosed cargo area, tie it down nice and solid. I'm tired of dodging mattresses and bookcases, dimension lumber, plywood, rubbish bins, and the occasional lawnmower! A good rope can be had for just a few bucks, chain only costs a bit more.
- Motorcyclists: I'm not talking so much about the cruisers on Harleys, Indians, or other touring bikes. This is directed toward the "rice rocketeers" zipping about through traffic and making a nuisance of themselves.
1) Ducking/weaving through traffic isn't the greatest idea in the world. Doing so when traffic is moving is less bright. Doing so at 95mph when traffic is doing 60 or so is downright stupid, bordering on suicidal. Please stop - you're making me nervous. I never know what you're going to do. Just like the bicyclists - same sandbox, same rules.
2) Splitting lanes. I'm not sure why this is still legal. "Same sandbox, same rules" - if I can't do it, why should you be able to? You make me nervous doing this as well, since you always zoom up from behind. You're just about always doing traffic +20 or so - dumb. Besides, you already get to use the HOV lane lone-handed (that damned HOV lane ends up costing me money - because I get stuck in traffic when I need to be somewhere.)
3) Slow down. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I know the Interstate freeway system was designed as an unlimited-speed roadway, but speed limits have been imposed. It's damned near suicidal to zip around at top speed when people are stuck at 60-65 - "Same sandbox, same rules." Go to the drags at Laguna Seca or Sears Point if you want to get speed out of your system. I don't see us instituting Autobahn/U-bahn style traffic regulations and speed limits anytime soon (since it would take a massive shift in driver training to make it work, and it's training that would have to have been in place for 15-20 years before the first change is made.)
4) Bear in mind, we can't always see you. Drive your motorcycle accordingly - you'll live longer that way.
You know, it's occurred to me that most traffic laws have been passed for one or the other of the following reasons: 1) The "least common intellect" needs to be protected from itself. 2) Everyone else needs to be protected from the "least common intellect." 3) The "least common intellect" needs to be protected from everyone else.
The solution is simple - don't allow the "least common intellect" to drive. Driving a motor vehicle is a permitted activity - meaning that a test must be passed and a permit issued in order to do so. The test has become too simple for people, training is too simplistic, and I've found that incompetent instructors and careless evaluators do not make for the most highly-qualified individuals when all is said and done. This system needs to be fixed - and fixed soon! When I first came out to California, I was amazed at the number of roads incidents I saw in the small amount of freeway between San Jose Airport and NAS Moffett Field. As I've got more years out here behind me, that attitude has shifted - I'm amazed there aren't more, given what I see of people behind the wheel.
Just about every vehicle out here has a loose nut behind the wheel, and it's high time we tightened them!
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Introductory Post -
Well, looks like I've finally broken down and done it.
Granted, I never said I'd never have a blog, but it always seemed like a silly thing to me - most of them that I've seen are of the "Look at me! Look! LOOK!" variety, but I'm hoping I can do it differently.
I'm not after padding my ego - I try to keep my ego in check. What I want to do is take what I see, what I hear, and what's going on, and apply a little rational analysis to it. Think of this as part "Uncle Jay" and part "Robert Heinlein" - with a little bit of Diogenes the Cynic thrown in as well. (But no Zeno of Cittium - I'm not a Stoic, I'm a Cynic. I'm not good at just accepting things as they are...)
Update schedule? If and when. It really depends on what is going on, and how often it's happening. I could update this thing nine times a week, four times a day - or a few months could go by without a post. It's up to the world as I see it, not up to me.
But, I have a feeling that I'll be updating fairly frequently due to Obama's presidency, and the Democrats being in control of both houses won't hurt anything, either. To quote Will Rogers - "I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts." Some humour just writes itself, you know?
"In the house of the rich man, there is nowhere to spit but in his face." -Diogenes
Granted, I never said I'd never have a blog, but it always seemed like a silly thing to me - most of them that I've seen are of the "Look at me! Look! LOOK!" variety, but I'm hoping I can do it differently.
I'm not after padding my ego - I try to keep my ego in check. What I want to do is take what I see, what I hear, and what's going on, and apply a little rational analysis to it. Think of this as part "Uncle Jay" and part "Robert Heinlein" - with a little bit of Diogenes the Cynic thrown in as well. (But no Zeno of Cittium - I'm not a Stoic, I'm a Cynic. I'm not good at just accepting things as they are...)
Update schedule? If and when. It really depends on what is going on, and how often it's happening. I could update this thing nine times a week, four times a day - or a few months could go by without a post. It's up to the world as I see it, not up to me.
But, I have a feeling that I'll be updating fairly frequently due to Obama's presidency, and the Democrats being in control of both houses won't hurt anything, either. To quote Will Rogers - "I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts." Some humour just writes itself, you know?
"In the house of the rich man, there is nowhere to spit but in his face." -Diogenes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
