Jennifer Loven of the AP breathlessly points out that:
Taxpayers pay for Bush's campaign travel
Bankrolled almost entirely by taxpayers, President Bush is roaming far and wide on Air Force One to help Republicans retain control of Congress and capture statehouse contests in high-stakes midterm elections.
In 15 months, including back-to-back fundraisers Wednesday in Little Rock, Ark., and Nashville, Tenn., Bush has collected $166 million for the campaign accounts of 27 Republican candidates, the national GOP and its state counterparts across the country, according to the
Republican National Committee.
High-dollar Washington galas headlined by the fundraiser-in-chief brought in a big share of the total. The president also has scooped up campaign cash in 36 cities, travels that have taken him as near as McLean, Va., in the Washington suburbs and as far as Medina, Wash., 2,800 miles to the west. On Thursday, Bush adds yet another locale to the list: Salt Lake City.
Sounds pretty ominous, doesn't it? We, the taxpayers, are once again getting shafted by the evil, rich-loving, McHitlerChimpyBurton administration. And it's going to get worse:
All this to-and-fro presidential politicking is only expected to increase as November draws closer. And it is the taxpayers, not the campaigns or political parties, who foot most of the travel bill.
Oh, no! What can we do? Can't someone pass a law? Aren't there some federal regulations regarding Presidential fundraising and who pays for it? Actually, as it turns out, there are, but you have to wait four more paragraphs for it:
Bush is not the first president to operate this way. The federal regulations governing reimbursement for political travel have been on the books at least since the Reagan administration, and the White House said Bush adheres to all rules.
Oh, well. So what Bush is doing has been common practice (and, apparently, the letter of the law) for at least twenty years?
And the point of this story was what, exactly?
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Head Trip
Imagine this scene: Tiger Woods, standing on the 18th tee at a major championship. He has a one-shot lead and all he has to do is make par to win. Instead of taking a fairway wood or long-iron and playing it safe, he takes out his driver and unleashes a mighty blow. Unfortunately, it veers left off the clubface and ends up behind a tree in the heavy rough.
Undaunted and again eschewing the safe and sane option of chipping to the fairway, he takes his 3-iron and attempts to slice the ball around the tree and hit the green. Instead, the ball flies straight into the tree and advances about 25 yards. Now, faced with the difficult task of getting up and down to win the championship, he yanks his third shot left and into a bunker. His 4th shot, the shot he needs to hole in order to win, flies long and ends up in the short rough surrounding the green. He now has to hole his chip shot from the thick grass just to tie for the lead and force a playoff.
The chip slides by the hole and he loses the championship.
Does any of this sound familiar? If you follow golf, it should. Two short months ago, Phil Mickelson lost the US Open in just this fashion. And Tiger Woods? Well, Tiger wasn’t there that day, having missed the cut at the Open for the first time as a professional. It was, in fact, the first time he had missed the cut at any major tournament as a professional.
As punishment for his failure, Tiger forced himself to watch every moment of the tournament on television that weekend. What must he have felt, I wonder, as he watched Mickelson’s meltdown on the last hole? It’s not the first time something like this has happened. In the 1999 British Open, Jean Van de Velde blew a 3-stroke lead on the final hole and lost in a playoff. Even great players like Tom Watson and Arnold Palmer have double-bogeyed the last hole to lose the Masters.
It is, however, one of the few things that Tiger hasn’t done. And, as much as anything, it illustrates the yawning divide between Woods and the rest of golfing world. It’s not his physical skills, though they are considerable. Mickelson, currently ranked # 2 in the world, hits the ball almost as far as Tiger does and his short game is considered by some to be even better than Tiger’s. But there is one place where Tiger is, pardon the pun, head and shoulders above the rest. It reminds me of a line from the 1981 horror film Wolfen:
“It’s all in the head, Dewey”.
From the neck up, Tiger Woods has no peers. It begins with his affirmation “Second place sucks” and it continues with his constant efforts to improve his game, to get better. For most golfers at the professional level, tampering with the golf swing is as appealing as bungee-jumping off the Eifel Tower. The ranks of insurance salesmen are overflowing with golfers who’ve “lost” their swing. A minor change here or there, sure, but major changes? No way. They’d just as soon play the game with a rake and shovel. Since turning pro, Tiger has rebuilt his swing from the ground up twice. To get better.
No one has ever consciously combined the physical and the mental game in golf the way Tiger has. Only his idol, Jack Nicklaus, comes close. Obviously, all athletic endeavors require both the mind and the body working in sync but usually this happens on an unconscious level. Ask any player – even a great player – why they’re paying well or poorly and, as a general rule, they can’t tell you. Their best answer is usually a stock cliché: “I’m seeing the ball well” or “I’m in the groove” or “I’m really feeling it” is the best they can do.
Some of this comes from the superstitious nature of most athletes. They don’t really understand how they’re able to do what they do or where it goes when they suddenly can’t do it anymore. It’s a though there is a switch inside them somewhere and sometimes it’s flipped on and sometimes it’s not. There have been very few players who understood themselves and their abilities well enough to be able to perform at a peak level when the switch was turned off and none of them have done it like Tiger Woods.
Take last week’s World Golf Championship at Firestone, for example. In the final two rounds of that tournament, he played more like Tony the Tiger than Tiger Woods. At one point in the third round, he made four bogies in a row, something he’d done only once before as a professional. The temptation must have overwhelming to say “this isn’t my week” and just phone it in for the rest of the tournament. After all, he’d won the last three times he’d teed it up, two of them majors. Anyone can have an off day, or an off week.
Not Tiger. Somehow, he managed to keep himself in contention and finally win his fourth in a row in a playoff. Now, it’s easy enough to say that Tiger was lucky to win. Certainly, the tournament was there for the taking and several players had their shot at it. That they couldn’t close the deal at a time when Tiger was clearly off his feed says more about them than it does about him. No one ever said Tiger couldn’t be beat. But he doesn’t beat himself.
Which, in a roundabout way, brings us back to Phil Mickelson. Since the US Open, Tiger has entered five tournaments. He finished second in one and then won the next four. Mickelson, on the other hand, hasn’t contended in a single tournament since his disastrous finish. He says he’s put it behind him but his play says otherwise. Time will tell if he can clear his head and once again play at the level he’s shown himself capable of the last few years.
Tiger’s level.
For Tiger, however, it’s business as usual. Day by day, hole by hole, swing by swing, thought by thought, the quest for improvement never ends. He’s the greatest player in the game today and his becoming the greatest of all time is almost a fait acompli. And when it happens, he will be remembered for his physical talents: his prodigious drives, his silky putting stroke and his uncanny knack for getting the ball in the hole from impossible lies. But his greatest weapon has never been in his golf bag.
It's in his head.
Undaunted and again eschewing the safe and sane option of chipping to the fairway, he takes his 3-iron and attempts to slice the ball around the tree and hit the green. Instead, the ball flies straight into the tree and advances about 25 yards. Now, faced with the difficult task of getting up and down to win the championship, he yanks his third shot left and into a bunker. His 4th shot, the shot he needs to hole in order to win, flies long and ends up in the short rough surrounding the green. He now has to hole his chip shot from the thick grass just to tie for the lead and force a playoff.
The chip slides by the hole and he loses the championship.
Does any of this sound familiar? If you follow golf, it should. Two short months ago, Phil Mickelson lost the US Open in just this fashion. And Tiger Woods? Well, Tiger wasn’t there that day, having missed the cut at the Open for the first time as a professional. It was, in fact, the first time he had missed the cut at any major tournament as a professional.
As punishment for his failure, Tiger forced himself to watch every moment of the tournament on television that weekend. What must he have felt, I wonder, as he watched Mickelson’s meltdown on the last hole? It’s not the first time something like this has happened. In the 1999 British Open, Jean Van de Velde blew a 3-stroke lead on the final hole and lost in a playoff. Even great players like Tom Watson and Arnold Palmer have double-bogeyed the last hole to lose the Masters.
It is, however, one of the few things that Tiger hasn’t done. And, as much as anything, it illustrates the yawning divide between Woods and the rest of golfing world. It’s not his physical skills, though they are considerable. Mickelson, currently ranked # 2 in the world, hits the ball almost as far as Tiger does and his short game is considered by some to be even better than Tiger’s. But there is one place where Tiger is, pardon the pun, head and shoulders above the rest. It reminds me of a line from the 1981 horror film Wolfen:
“It’s all in the head, Dewey”.
From the neck up, Tiger Woods has no peers. It begins with his affirmation “Second place sucks” and it continues with his constant efforts to improve his game, to get better. For most golfers at the professional level, tampering with the golf swing is as appealing as bungee-jumping off the Eifel Tower. The ranks of insurance salesmen are overflowing with golfers who’ve “lost” their swing. A minor change here or there, sure, but major changes? No way. They’d just as soon play the game with a rake and shovel. Since turning pro, Tiger has rebuilt his swing from the ground up twice. To get better.
No one has ever consciously combined the physical and the mental game in golf the way Tiger has. Only his idol, Jack Nicklaus, comes close. Obviously, all athletic endeavors require both the mind and the body working in sync but usually this happens on an unconscious level. Ask any player – even a great player – why they’re paying well or poorly and, as a general rule, they can’t tell you. Their best answer is usually a stock cliché: “I’m seeing the ball well” or “I’m in the groove” or “I’m really feeling it” is the best they can do.
Some of this comes from the superstitious nature of most athletes. They don’t really understand how they’re able to do what they do or where it goes when they suddenly can’t do it anymore. It’s a though there is a switch inside them somewhere and sometimes it’s flipped on and sometimes it’s not. There have been very few players who understood themselves and their abilities well enough to be able to perform at a peak level when the switch was turned off and none of them have done it like Tiger Woods.
Take last week’s World Golf Championship at Firestone, for example. In the final two rounds of that tournament, he played more like Tony the Tiger than Tiger Woods. At one point in the third round, he made four bogies in a row, something he’d done only once before as a professional. The temptation must have overwhelming to say “this isn’t my week” and just phone it in for the rest of the tournament. After all, he’d won the last three times he’d teed it up, two of them majors. Anyone can have an off day, or an off week.
Not Tiger. Somehow, he managed to keep himself in contention and finally win his fourth in a row in a playoff. Now, it’s easy enough to say that Tiger was lucky to win. Certainly, the tournament was there for the taking and several players had their shot at it. That they couldn’t close the deal at a time when Tiger was clearly off his feed says more about them than it does about him. No one ever said Tiger couldn’t be beat. But he doesn’t beat himself.
Which, in a roundabout way, brings us back to Phil Mickelson. Since the US Open, Tiger has entered five tournaments. He finished second in one and then won the next four. Mickelson, on the other hand, hasn’t contended in a single tournament since his disastrous finish. He says he’s put it behind him but his play says otherwise. Time will tell if he can clear his head and once again play at the level he’s shown himself capable of the last few years.
Tiger’s level.
For Tiger, however, it’s business as usual. Day by day, hole by hole, swing by swing, thought by thought, the quest for improvement never ends. He’s the greatest player in the game today and his becoming the greatest of all time is almost a fait acompli. And when it happens, he will be remembered for his physical talents: his prodigious drives, his silky putting stroke and his uncanny knack for getting the ball in the hole from impossible lies. But his greatest weapon has never been in his golf bag.
It's in his head.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Out of the Blue
I know you're not reading this, but...
Once upon a time
Once when you were mine
I remember skies
Reflected in your eyes
I wonder where you are
I wonder if youThink about me
Once upon a time
In your wildest dreams...
Once upon a time
Once when you were mine
I remember skies
Reflected in your eyes
I wonder where you are
I wonder if youThink about me
Once upon a time
In your wildest dreams...
Manifest Arrogance
Scott Adams thinks the Middle East is one big dysfunctional family:
So the bottom line is that America is the father, the Islamic countries in the Middle East are the mother, and Israel is the offspring conceived by rape
He's kidding, naturally. I think.
So the bottom line is that America is the father, the Islamic countries in the Middle East are the mother, and Israel is the offspring conceived by rape
He's kidding, naturally. I think.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Stuck on Crazy
In today’s Burlington Free Press, there’s this story:
Derek Kimball, 34, of Hinesburg this morning pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated sexual assault and one count of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child in Vermont District Court in Burlington.
Now, in case the name doesn’t ring a bell, let’s read on:
Court papers say Kimball engaged in two incidents of forced rape and forced oral sex with the girl. The girl, whom The Burlington Free Press is not naming because she is a sexual-assault victim, is the same child Mark Hulett sexually assaulted for several years beginning in 2003.
Still nothing? Okay, try this:
Hulett’s case sparked a public outcry after Judge Edward Cashman initially sentenced Hulett, 35, of Williston in January to a 60-day minimum prison term after he pleaded guilty. The judge said his sentence was the only way for Hulett to receive sex-offender treatment. Three weeks later, after the Corrections Department changed its policy and agreed to treat Hulett while he was imprisoned, Cashman increased Hulett’s term to a three-year minimum.
Now you remember, don’t you? Of course you do. Not exactly a high-water mark in Vermont Jurisprudence, is it? Well, brace yourself because it’s about to happen again.
Judge Michael Kupersmith presided over Kimball’s hearing. Under the plea agreement, Kimball faces a minimum sentence of 3 to 10 years in prison, and a maximum of 12 to 50 years. That means he will spend at least 3 years in prison and remain under state supervision for at least 10 years.
Yes, I know it says that he could conceivably get up to 50 years in prison, but let me ask you a question: When Mark Hulett, who admitted sexually assaulting this young girl for over three years – beginning when she was six years old – is given a three-year minimum sentence, why should Derek Kimball expect worse when he’s only admitting to doing it a couple of times? Granted, Vermont lawmakers have tried to address this, but it’s unclear at this time whether the new law will affect this case or not.
Both men can expect to receive sex-offender treatment (Hulett is already guaranteed it) while incarcerated and both will likely be released while still young enough to do more harm. In the case of Hulett, he cannot be held longer than the three-year minimum unless he “misbehaves in prison or is unable to find suitable housing away from children following his release”. Is there any reason to suppose it will be different with Kimball?
All I can say is don’t sell crazy here, we’re all stocked up.
Oh, and read this and ask yourself why the girl’s parents aren’t up on charges as well. It will make your blood boil.
Derek Kimball, 34, of Hinesburg this morning pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated sexual assault and one count of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child in Vermont District Court in Burlington.
Now, in case the name doesn’t ring a bell, let’s read on:
Court papers say Kimball engaged in two incidents of forced rape and forced oral sex with the girl. The girl, whom The Burlington Free Press is not naming because she is a sexual-assault victim, is the same child Mark Hulett sexually assaulted for several years beginning in 2003.
Still nothing? Okay, try this:
Hulett’s case sparked a public outcry after Judge Edward Cashman initially sentenced Hulett, 35, of Williston in January to a 60-day minimum prison term after he pleaded guilty. The judge said his sentence was the only way for Hulett to receive sex-offender treatment. Three weeks later, after the Corrections Department changed its policy and agreed to treat Hulett while he was imprisoned, Cashman increased Hulett’s term to a three-year minimum.
Now you remember, don’t you? Of course you do. Not exactly a high-water mark in Vermont Jurisprudence, is it? Well, brace yourself because it’s about to happen again.
Judge Michael Kupersmith presided over Kimball’s hearing. Under the plea agreement, Kimball faces a minimum sentence of 3 to 10 years in prison, and a maximum of 12 to 50 years. That means he will spend at least 3 years in prison and remain under state supervision for at least 10 years.
Yes, I know it says that he could conceivably get up to 50 years in prison, but let me ask you a question: When Mark Hulett, who admitted sexually assaulting this young girl for over three years – beginning when she was six years old – is given a three-year minimum sentence, why should Derek Kimball expect worse when he’s only admitting to doing it a couple of times? Granted, Vermont lawmakers have tried to address this, but it’s unclear at this time whether the new law will affect this case or not.
Both men can expect to receive sex-offender treatment (Hulett is already guaranteed it) while incarcerated and both will likely be released while still young enough to do more harm. In the case of Hulett, he cannot be held longer than the three-year minimum unless he “misbehaves in prison or is unable to find suitable housing away from children following his release”. Is there any reason to suppose it will be different with Kimball?
All I can say is don’t sell crazy here, we’re all stocked up.
Oh, and read this and ask yourself why the girl’s parents aren’t up on charges as well. It will make your blood boil.
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Carnival of the Insanities
Many thanks to Dr. Sanity for including my post "Of Hens and Primates" in this weeks carnival.
If this is your first visit to the Teahouse, please feel free to check out some of my other posts, especially the recent posts concerning the school shooting in Essex, Vermont.
And in case you're wondering, the title of this blog comes from a song of the same name off of Donald Fagen's solo CD, Kamakiriad. That also should help explain why I post under the name Gaucho.
Thanks for stopping by and thanks again to Dr. Sanity for including me in this week's Carnival of the Insanities. She's truly an oasis of sanity in an insane world.
If this is your first visit to the Teahouse, please feel free to check out some of my other posts, especially the recent posts concerning the school shooting in Essex, Vermont.
And in case you're wondering, the title of this blog comes from a song of the same name off of Donald Fagen's solo CD, Kamakiriad. That also should help explain why I post under the name Gaucho.
Thanks for stopping by and thanks again to Dr. Sanity for including me in this week's Carnival of the Insanities. She's truly an oasis of sanity in an insane world.
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Essex Shooting Update
The latest updates on the Essex shooting are here and here. The Free Press article, in particular, has a lot of details, including a timeline of the shooting spree and Christopher Williams complete criminal record.
A couple of things that jump out at me: first, the usual nonsense from the mental health counselor about his unhappy childhood and how he appears to be suffering from the one-size-fits-all post traumatic stress disorder. I don’t mean to be flippant or seem uncaring about Mr. Williams…well, on second thought, maybe I do. When something like this happens, the first thing people want to know is why and the notion that he had a troubled childhood becomes a catch-all of a reason.
No doubt the people he shot are all broken up about his childhood.
“Domestic abuse” is another catch-all phrase. If I had to guess, and in the absence of any facts that’s all I can do, I would say that as a young child, he witnessed his father beating his mother. Or perhaps his father wasn’t around. Maybe he doesn’t know who his father is. There could have been a succession of “fathers” and all of them could have been abusive to his mother. I’d also guess that drugs and alcohol were prevalent in the home.
While the reports suggest that Williams himself was not the object of abuse (there’s no reference to child abuse), he was, according to CNN, “exposed” to it. And yes, these things matter. In trying to understand what makes him tick, of course they matter. It’s also interesting to note that this is the second time that he has reacted violently (or threatened to) when breaking up with a girlfriend and that both instances involved the girlfriend and her mother (or stepmother, in the MA case).
I’d be willing to bet, when all is said and done, that men have not played a dominant role in his life and what role they have played has been almost entirely negative.
The other thing that intrigues me about this case is the realization that Williams has been a fugitive for the past three years and during that time he has managed – by accident or design – to live and work in a neighboring state without calling any attention to himself.
Until now, of course.
Alphecca posts his picture and wonders why was he NOT in jail?
A couple of things that jump out at me: first, the usual nonsense from the mental health counselor about his unhappy childhood and how he appears to be suffering from the one-size-fits-all post traumatic stress disorder. I don’t mean to be flippant or seem uncaring about Mr. Williams…well, on second thought, maybe I do. When something like this happens, the first thing people want to know is why and the notion that he had a troubled childhood becomes a catch-all of a reason.
No doubt the people he shot are all broken up about his childhood.
“Domestic abuse” is another catch-all phrase. If I had to guess, and in the absence of any facts that’s all I can do, I would say that as a young child, he witnessed his father beating his mother. Or perhaps his father wasn’t around. Maybe he doesn’t know who his father is. There could have been a succession of “fathers” and all of them could have been abusive to his mother. I’d also guess that drugs and alcohol were prevalent in the home.
While the reports suggest that Williams himself was not the object of abuse (there’s no reference to child abuse), he was, according to CNN, “exposed” to it. And yes, these things matter. In trying to understand what makes him tick, of course they matter. It’s also interesting to note that this is the second time that he has reacted violently (or threatened to) when breaking up with a girlfriend and that both instances involved the girlfriend and her mother (or stepmother, in the MA case).
I’d be willing to bet, when all is said and done, that men have not played a dominant role in his life and what role they have played has been almost entirely negative.
The other thing that intrigues me about this case is the realization that Williams has been a fugitive for the past three years and during that time he has managed – by accident or design – to live and work in a neighboring state without calling any attention to himself.
Until now, of course.
Alphecca posts his picture and wonders why was he NOT in jail?
Friday, August 25, 2006
Of Hens and Primates
It’s interesting – to me, at least – to compare and contrast two examples of animal rights activism that have been in the news this week. First up is the case of Ben & Jerry’s and their use of eggs purchased from a company that is not entirely on the up and up in their treatment of hens. The original complaint surfaced in Tuesday’s edition of the Burlington Free Press. The Humane Society of the United States claimed that:
…the ice cream maker buys eggs produced by hens cooped in tight cages, a practice that belies Ben & Jerry's reputation as a socially and environmentally conscious company.
…the Humane Society's issue with Ben & Jerry's stems from a campaign against Michael Foods, a Minnesota-based foodservice company that provides eggs and potatoes to grocery stores and companies such as Ben & Jerry's. In a report released late last week on its Web site, Humane Society of United States said it found in an undercover investigation that Michael Foods hens died of dehydration and starvation, and the dead birds were kept in cages with live ones. The hens' cages were too small for the birds to spread their wings, according to the report.
On Wednesday, Michael Foods responded:
In that one-page document, Michael Foods outlined how its practices meet standards set by United Egg Producers, a national alliance of five organizations that provide services to the egg industry. Company procedure meets standards in use of feed, beak trimming, hen handling and transportation, and ammonia standard, Michael Foods said.
"The one area Michael Foods doesn't consistently meet UEP standards is hen cage space," the company said in the statement. Industry standards by 2008 will provide 67 square inches per cage. "Michael Foods has committed to transitioning all our cages to meet or exceed" the UEP standards, the company said.
Yesterday, Ben & Jerry’s made this announcement:
The chief executive officer of Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc. said Wednesday the Vermont-based ice cream company will sever ties with Michael Foods Inc., a Minnesota egg producer accused of mistreating hens.
End of story, right? Well, not exactly, but before we go any further with this, let’s look at the second example, courtesy of the Good Professor:
The constant calls, the people frightening his children, and the demonstrations in front of his home apparently became a little too much.
Dario Ringach, an associate neurobiology professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, decided this month to give up his research on primates because of pressure put on him, his neighborhood, and his family by the UCLA Primate Freedom Project, which seeks to stop research that harms animals.
…colleagues suggested that Ringach, who did not return e-mails seeking comment, was spooked by an attack on a colleague. In June, the Animal Liberation Front took credit for trying to put a Molotov cocktail on the doorstep of Lynn Fairbanks, another UCLA researcher who does experimentation on animals. The explosive was accidentally placed on the doorstep of Fairbanks’s elderly neighbor’s house, and did not detonate.
Now, I will grant you that the two stories are not completely analogous, but in the main they are very similar: two animal rights groups protest against cruelty to animals – the way in which hens are cooped and the killing of primates for scientific research – and both are successful, at least to a degree. The methods they used, however, are light-years apart.
In the case of Ben & Jerry’s, the Humane Society of the United States used a time-honored concept – public pressure – to put the onus on B&J to publicly answer their charge and it’s interesting to note that the two organizations had been in private discussions about the issue for nearly a year. There is a financial component to this issue; the eggs from cage-free hens are more expensive than those collected from caged hens – except, apparently, in the UK – and it’s clear that, despite their rep as a socially responsible company, the ice-cream maker isn’t going to rush into a decision that might make it more expensive to sell their product.
Even today’s announcement doesn’t mean that Ben & Jerry’s won’t possibly buy eggs from caged hens in the future. It just means that, from now on, they’re going to deal only with companies that are completely UEP certified. Still, the Humane Society of the United States has to feel pretty good about the situation. They got, if not what they wanted, at least a large step in the right direction.
On the other hand, it’s pretty obvious that organizations such as the UCLA Primate Freedom Project and the Animal Liberation Front won’t be satisfied until all animal testing is a thing of the past, and they’re willing to go to extreme lengths to achieve their goal.
I have to be honest and admit that the whole idea of animal testing makes me a bit queasy and I don’t think I’m alone in this. Just as I don’t spend a lot of time dwelling on the process behind the nicely wrapped cuts of meat at the supermarket, or, for that matter, the conditions under which the eggs I buy are produced, I don’t think a whole lot about animal testing. This is probably because when I do think about it, I usually end up conflicted.
On the one hand, the thought of animals being experimented on and then killed in the name of science is a dicey one, especially if said science is in the name of a cosmetic company. On the other, the idea that such testing might lead to a cure for AIDS or cancer is definitely a point in the plus column. It also makes a difference as to just what animal is being used as a subject. Blinding bunnies, for example, is definitely a no-no, but slicing up mice gonads is fair game.
I’m also aware of some of the half-truths we tell ourselves in order to rationalize actions that we’re not comfortable with. I’ve worked in the furniture industry for a number of years and I’ve heard over and over, “Animals are not killed for their hides; it’s merely a byproduct of the meat industry” or words to that effect. And it may very well be true. But in my mind it always conjures up an image of someone standing around a slaughterhouse going “Oh, look at all this leather! Let’s make a sofa!”
But it’s clear that outfits like the Animal Liberation Front and the UCLA Primate Freedom Project have no such ambivalence. For them, the ends (no more animal testing) justify the means and the means can get pretty scary. Harassing emails, phone calls, posting names, phone numbers and addresses on their websites, damaging property, intimidating children and even planting bombs are not beyond the pale. To them, there is little or no difference between an animal life and a human life.
And, unlike organizations like the Humane Society of the United States, the individuals involved in these groups maintain their anonymity, refusing to be held accountable for any of their actions. They even go so far as to offer instructions in the art of anonymously harassing their targets:
For your privacy and protection (since it is well known that these scum may call or e-mail you back with threats - or even lie and say that YOU were making threatening phone calls and sending threatening e-mails to THEM), you may want to use a phone booth and send your e-mails from an anonymous computer.
Let's "phone bank" the vivvys and others who make their livings off of torturing and murdering animals in the experimentation and allied-services businesses.
Their attitude is perhaps best summed up by Doctor Jerry Vlasak, a spokesman for the Animal Liberation Press Office and former animal researcher. When queried about the Molotov cocktail, he responded “force is a poor second choice, but if that’s the only thing that will work…there’s certainly moral justification for that”.
So here you have groups that are uncompromising in their ideals, unscrupulous and unapologetic for their methods, unwavering in their moral rectitude and unaccountable for their actions. Do these people sound like anyone else we know?
Okay, anyone who answered “the Bush Administration,” thanks for playing. Your consolation prize is a one-way ticket here. No, the correct answer is…terrorists.
…the ice cream maker buys eggs produced by hens cooped in tight cages, a practice that belies Ben & Jerry's reputation as a socially and environmentally conscious company.
…the Humane Society's issue with Ben & Jerry's stems from a campaign against Michael Foods, a Minnesota-based foodservice company that provides eggs and potatoes to grocery stores and companies such as Ben & Jerry's. In a report released late last week on its Web site, Humane Society of United States said it found in an undercover investigation that Michael Foods hens died of dehydration and starvation, and the dead birds were kept in cages with live ones. The hens' cages were too small for the birds to spread their wings, according to the report.
On Wednesday, Michael Foods responded:
In that one-page document, Michael Foods outlined how its practices meet standards set by United Egg Producers, a national alliance of five organizations that provide services to the egg industry. Company procedure meets standards in use of feed, beak trimming, hen handling and transportation, and ammonia standard, Michael Foods said.
"The one area Michael Foods doesn't consistently meet UEP standards is hen cage space," the company said in the statement. Industry standards by 2008 will provide 67 square inches per cage. "Michael Foods has committed to transitioning all our cages to meet or exceed" the UEP standards, the company said.
Yesterday, Ben & Jerry’s made this announcement:
The chief executive officer of Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc. said Wednesday the Vermont-based ice cream company will sever ties with Michael Foods Inc., a Minnesota egg producer accused of mistreating hens.
End of story, right? Well, not exactly, but before we go any further with this, let’s look at the second example, courtesy of the Good Professor:
The constant calls, the people frightening his children, and the demonstrations in front of his home apparently became a little too much.
Dario Ringach, an associate neurobiology professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, decided this month to give up his research on primates because of pressure put on him, his neighborhood, and his family by the UCLA Primate Freedom Project, which seeks to stop research that harms animals.
…colleagues suggested that Ringach, who did not return e-mails seeking comment, was spooked by an attack on a colleague. In June, the Animal Liberation Front took credit for trying to put a Molotov cocktail on the doorstep of Lynn Fairbanks, another UCLA researcher who does experimentation on animals. The explosive was accidentally placed on the doorstep of Fairbanks’s elderly neighbor’s house, and did not detonate.
Now, I will grant you that the two stories are not completely analogous, but in the main they are very similar: two animal rights groups protest against cruelty to animals – the way in which hens are cooped and the killing of primates for scientific research – and both are successful, at least to a degree. The methods they used, however, are light-years apart.
In the case of Ben & Jerry’s, the Humane Society of the United States used a time-honored concept – public pressure – to put the onus on B&J to publicly answer their charge and it’s interesting to note that the two organizations had been in private discussions about the issue for nearly a year. There is a financial component to this issue; the eggs from cage-free hens are more expensive than those collected from caged hens – except, apparently, in the UK – and it’s clear that, despite their rep as a socially responsible company, the ice-cream maker isn’t going to rush into a decision that might make it more expensive to sell their product.
Even today’s announcement doesn’t mean that Ben & Jerry’s won’t possibly buy eggs from caged hens in the future. It just means that, from now on, they’re going to deal only with companies that are completely UEP certified. Still, the Humane Society of the United States has to feel pretty good about the situation. They got, if not what they wanted, at least a large step in the right direction.
On the other hand, it’s pretty obvious that organizations such as the UCLA Primate Freedom Project and the Animal Liberation Front won’t be satisfied until all animal testing is a thing of the past, and they’re willing to go to extreme lengths to achieve their goal.
I have to be honest and admit that the whole idea of animal testing makes me a bit queasy and I don’t think I’m alone in this. Just as I don’t spend a lot of time dwelling on the process behind the nicely wrapped cuts of meat at the supermarket, or, for that matter, the conditions under which the eggs I buy are produced, I don’t think a whole lot about animal testing. This is probably because when I do think about it, I usually end up conflicted.
On the one hand, the thought of animals being experimented on and then killed in the name of science is a dicey one, especially if said science is in the name of a cosmetic company. On the other, the idea that such testing might lead to a cure for AIDS or cancer is definitely a point in the plus column. It also makes a difference as to just what animal is being used as a subject. Blinding bunnies, for example, is definitely a no-no, but slicing up mice gonads is fair game.
I’m also aware of some of the half-truths we tell ourselves in order to rationalize actions that we’re not comfortable with. I’ve worked in the furniture industry for a number of years and I’ve heard over and over, “Animals are not killed for their hides; it’s merely a byproduct of the meat industry” or words to that effect. And it may very well be true. But in my mind it always conjures up an image of someone standing around a slaughterhouse going “Oh, look at all this leather! Let’s make a sofa!”
But it’s clear that outfits like the Animal Liberation Front and the UCLA Primate Freedom Project have no such ambivalence. For them, the ends (no more animal testing) justify the means and the means can get pretty scary. Harassing emails, phone calls, posting names, phone numbers and addresses on their websites, damaging property, intimidating children and even planting bombs are not beyond the pale. To them, there is little or no difference between an animal life and a human life.
And, unlike organizations like the Humane Society of the United States, the individuals involved in these groups maintain their anonymity, refusing to be held accountable for any of their actions. They even go so far as to offer instructions in the art of anonymously harassing their targets:
For your privacy and protection (since it is well known that these scum may call or e-mail you back with threats - or even lie and say that YOU were making threatening phone calls and sending threatening e-mails to THEM), you may want to use a phone booth and send your e-mails from an anonymous computer.
Let's "phone bank" the vivvys and others who make their livings off of torturing and murdering animals in the experimentation and allied-services businesses.
Their attitude is perhaps best summed up by Doctor Jerry Vlasak, a spokesman for the Animal Liberation Press Office and former animal researcher. When queried about the Molotov cocktail, he responded “force is a poor second choice, but if that’s the only thing that will work…there’s certainly moral justification for that”.
So here you have groups that are uncompromising in their ideals, unscrupulous and unapologetic for their methods, unwavering in their moral rectitude and unaccountable for their actions. Do these people sound like anyone else we know?
Okay, anyone who answered “the Bush Administration,” thanks for playing. Your consolation prize is a one-way ticket here. No, the correct answer is…terrorists.
Shooting in Essex
If you read the reports here, here, here and especially here, there's not a whole lot to add at this point, except...
It's interesting to note that only the CBS/WCAX article describes the man:
WCAX initially said police were looking for two cars and for a suspect described as a black man in his early 30s, about 6-foot-3, with shoulder-length cornrows. He was reported to be armed with a large-caliber handgun and police were calling him "armed and dangerous."
All schools in the area went into a lockdown procedure when the shootings occurred. My daughter was at soccer practice at her high school in South Burlington (about ten miles from Essex) and when I went to pick her up, I was met at the entrance to the driveway by the Vice-Principal, who was directing traffic in and out of the school. All of the kids had been directed into the gym and were only being released to parents. I don't have a cell phone, so I don't know if they were trying to contact me or not.
My wife, who works at another local high school, tells me the lockdown procedure is something that's been in effect at most (if not all) schools since the Columbine tragedy. At her school, the lockdown drill is practiced twice a year, unlike fire drills, which are practiced monthly.
I imagine this incident will prompt the schools to take a closer look at their lockdown drills, especially in light of the one teacher being shot through the locked door to her classroom. Was she following the procedure correctly or should she have been elsewhere in her room, somewhere out of line of sight from the door? Did it happen so quickly that she didn’t have time to get away from the door? She was, by all accounts, not the intended victim so, why was she shot?
Lots of questions and very few answers at the moment.
One thing, however, I can predict with utmost certainty: a lot of people are going to be calling for tighter gun laws here in Vermont. No doubt Alphecca will be watching this closely.
It's interesting to note that only the CBS/WCAX article describes the man:
WCAX initially said police were looking for two cars and for a suspect described as a black man in his early 30s, about 6-foot-3, with shoulder-length cornrows. He was reported to be armed with a large-caliber handgun and police were calling him "armed and dangerous."
All schools in the area went into a lockdown procedure when the shootings occurred. My daughter was at soccer practice at her high school in South Burlington (about ten miles from Essex) and when I went to pick her up, I was met at the entrance to the driveway by the Vice-Principal, who was directing traffic in and out of the school. All of the kids had been directed into the gym and were only being released to parents. I don't have a cell phone, so I don't know if they were trying to contact me or not.
My wife, who works at another local high school, tells me the lockdown procedure is something that's been in effect at most (if not all) schools since the Columbine tragedy. At her school, the lockdown drill is practiced twice a year, unlike fire drills, which are practiced monthly.
I imagine this incident will prompt the schools to take a closer look at their lockdown drills, especially in light of the one teacher being shot through the locked door to her classroom. Was she following the procedure correctly or should she have been elsewhere in her room, somewhere out of line of sight from the door? Did it happen so quickly that she didn’t have time to get away from the door? She was, by all accounts, not the intended victim so, why was she shot?
Lots of questions and very few answers at the moment.
One thing, however, I can predict with utmost certainty: a lot of people are going to be calling for tighter gun laws here in Vermont. No doubt Alphecca will be watching this closely.
Monday, August 21, 2006
Dumpster-Diving for the Homeless
According to this report from the Seattle Times, the old saw about an "ill wind" apparently still holds true:
Toiletries discarded at the airport because of new security rules have turned into a boon for the homeless in Eugene.
The St. Vincent de Paul Society of Lane County has started picking up some of the items people have jettisoned for security reasons before they board flights at the Eugene airport.
Charley Harvey, assistant executive director of the charity, dug through trash bags Tuesday and took every bottle of shampoo and shaving cream he could find. The items will be distributed at the organization's First Place Family Center.
If you discover that you have banned items in your carry-on luggage (and according to Seth Godin, there's no shortage of you out there) just make sure you dispose of them in a public trash can. If they're confiscated by the TSA, the items will be disposed of by the government and we all know how well that goes.
Who knows, if this keeps up, maybe the Salvation Army will set up a stand at the airport.
Toiletries discarded at the airport because of new security rules have turned into a boon for the homeless in Eugene.
The St. Vincent de Paul Society of Lane County has started picking up some of the items people have jettisoned for security reasons before they board flights at the Eugene airport.
Charley Harvey, assistant executive director of the charity, dug through trash bags Tuesday and took every bottle of shampoo and shaving cream he could find. The items will be distributed at the organization's First Place Family Center.
If you discover that you have banned items in your carry-on luggage (and according to Seth Godin, there's no shortage of you out there) just make sure you dispose of them in a public trash can. If they're confiscated by the TSA, the items will be disposed of by the government and we all know how well that goes.
Who knows, if this keeps up, maybe the Salvation Army will set up a stand at the airport.
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Anticipating a Denial
It’s Sunday and I’m in need of some inspiration. I scan through my usual list of suspects and, luckily for me, Dr. Sanity has just what I need. She uses her experience as a NASA flight surgeon to introduce the subject of anticipation and how a bit of honest thought about the future can help keep you in the pink, psychologically speaking.
Anticipation is defined as the realistic planning for future discomfort, and it involves something more than simply making long to-do lists, or even obsessive and careful planning for some event in the future. In particular, it necessitates both thinking and feeling about the affective components of potentially stressful or threatening future events.
Since I’ve been doing a whole lot of anticipating – okay, in my case, worrying – about things lately, this subject is right in my wheelhouse. Granted, the excavation of my bowels is um, behind me now, but there are plenty of other future events for me to dwell on: my teeth are in pretty awful shape and my dentist has informed me that the work to fix them will be a “challenge”; my daughter is starting high school this week and, oh yeah, I’m still jobless and the savings account is about to go on life support.
Maybe I should hold a blogathon for my favorite charity: me.
Anyway, since, as the good doctor points out, anticipation is the realistic planning for future discomfort and not just a song by Carly Simon, it turns out I’ve been doing it all wrong. As she puts it:
…anticipation is a psychological strategy that spreads out anxiety or other distressing emotions (e.g., fear, anger) over time. The advantage of this approach is that, like a psychological immunization, the process slowly allows the individual to accommodate to what otherwise might be an emotionally or physically overwhelming, or impossible-to-handle situation.
In my case, “over time” means every night around four AM but I understand what she means. Thinking about, and planning a strategy for dealing with, unpleasant situations is something that can only be done in fairly small doses over a period of time. Otherwise, the anger or fear aroused by the situation will paralyze the thought process, leaving a person about as rational as a democrat discussing the war on terror.
Of course, there are problems with this strategy, the first one being that few of us want to employ it:
In the world outside of space, or aviation, or other stressful or risky professions, anticipation is not used nearly often enough to learn to cope. The truth is that most people don't much like to think about situations that might cause or result in emotional distress at all, let alone plan in any way for it. And that is the major reason why anticipation is a psychological defense that frequently requires a social structure or network that supports it and encourages it.
In this case, “most people” and I are a lot alike. I don’t so much think about situations involving emotional distress as let them wash over me like the last reel of a horror movie. And the only “social structure” I have for dealing with the aftermath consists of Jim Beam or Johnny Walker. I’m joking, of course. Sometimes, I prefer Cutty Sark.
But the point is still valid: most people would rather actually go through unpleasant situations resulting in emotional distress than spend any time thinking about or preparing for them ahead of time. Once is more than enough, thank you very much. What’s more, not planning for the future can give you a certain level of deniability, as most of the elected officials in Louisiana can attest.
So where does that leave me? Well, I’d love to deny that I have a dental appointment on Wednesday, but I can’t. So I guess I’ll have to anticipate a strategy for not screaming during my root canal.
Anticipation is defined as the realistic planning for future discomfort, and it involves something more than simply making long to-do lists, or even obsessive and careful planning for some event in the future. In particular, it necessitates both thinking and feeling about the affective components of potentially stressful or threatening future events.
Since I’ve been doing a whole lot of anticipating – okay, in my case, worrying – about things lately, this subject is right in my wheelhouse. Granted, the excavation of my bowels is um, behind me now, but there are plenty of other future events for me to dwell on: my teeth are in pretty awful shape and my dentist has informed me that the work to fix them will be a “challenge”; my daughter is starting high school this week and, oh yeah, I’m still jobless and the savings account is about to go on life support.
Maybe I should hold a blogathon for my favorite charity: me.
Anyway, since, as the good doctor points out, anticipation is the realistic planning for future discomfort and not just a song by Carly Simon, it turns out I’ve been doing it all wrong. As she puts it:
…anticipation is a psychological strategy that spreads out anxiety or other distressing emotions (e.g., fear, anger) over time. The advantage of this approach is that, like a psychological immunization, the process slowly allows the individual to accommodate to what otherwise might be an emotionally or physically overwhelming, or impossible-to-handle situation.
In my case, “over time” means every night around four AM but I understand what she means. Thinking about, and planning a strategy for dealing with, unpleasant situations is something that can only be done in fairly small doses over a period of time. Otherwise, the anger or fear aroused by the situation will paralyze the thought process, leaving a person about as rational as a democrat discussing the war on terror.
Of course, there are problems with this strategy, the first one being that few of us want to employ it:
In the world outside of space, or aviation, or other stressful or risky professions, anticipation is not used nearly often enough to learn to cope. The truth is that most people don't much like to think about situations that might cause or result in emotional distress at all, let alone plan in any way for it. And that is the major reason why anticipation is a psychological defense that frequently requires a social structure or network that supports it and encourages it.
In this case, “most people” and I are a lot alike. I don’t so much think about situations involving emotional distress as let them wash over me like the last reel of a horror movie. And the only “social structure” I have for dealing with the aftermath consists of Jim Beam or Johnny Walker. I’m joking, of course. Sometimes, I prefer Cutty Sark.
But the point is still valid: most people would rather actually go through unpleasant situations resulting in emotional distress than spend any time thinking about or preparing for them ahead of time. Once is more than enough, thank you very much. What’s more, not planning for the future can give you a certain level of deniability, as most of the elected officials in Louisiana can attest.
So where does that leave me? Well, I’d love to deny that I have a dental appointment on Wednesday, but I can’t. So I guess I’ll have to anticipate a strategy for not screaming during my root canal.
Friday, August 18, 2006
Ahead of the Curve
Ed Driscoll points us to an article that suggests I was being too critical of NorthWest Airlines for giving their about to be laid-off employees some advice in the art of trash-picking. According to the Washington Post, NorthWest just may be on to something:
Washington Post staff writer Megan Greenwell devoted her article on the front page of the August 16 Metro section to the new trend for young liberal dumpster divers.
Prince Frederick, Md teen Bryan Meadows “considers himself a ‘freegan,’” Greenwell wrote, describing the term as “a melding of the words ‘free’ and ‘vegan’” because Meadows “tries not to contribute to what he sees as the exploitation of land, resources and animals wrought by commercial production.”
Greenwell, a Berkeley, Calif. native, later dumped the quotation marks around “freegan” as she continued her story.
“The number of freegans in the D.C. region is anybody’s guess, but the ranks appear to be growing,” Greenwell insisted, citing anecdotal evidence. The Post writer also blamed “disillusionment with the Bush administration’s environmental policies” that have “pushed some young people to everyday forms of protest.”
But Greenwell didn’t just cite everyday bored left-leaning suburban teens. She also turned to an editor from a liberal Christian magazine, Ryan Beiler of Washington, D.C. who defended his dumpster-diving as a protest of “corporate farming practices” and in reaction to “the absurdity of how the American economy works.”
No word yet on whether "freegetarians" will join the protest.
Washington Post staff writer Megan Greenwell devoted her article on the front page of the August 16 Metro section to the new trend for young liberal dumpster divers.
Prince Frederick, Md teen Bryan Meadows “considers himself a ‘freegan,’” Greenwell wrote, describing the term as “a melding of the words ‘free’ and ‘vegan’” because Meadows “tries not to contribute to what he sees as the exploitation of land, resources and animals wrought by commercial production.”
Greenwell, a Berkeley, Calif. native, later dumped the quotation marks around “freegan” as she continued her story.
“The number of freegans in the D.C. region is anybody’s guess, but the ranks appear to be growing,” Greenwell insisted, citing anecdotal evidence. The Post writer also blamed “disillusionment with the Bush administration’s environmental policies” that have “pushed some young people to everyday forms of protest.”
But Greenwell didn’t just cite everyday bored left-leaning suburban teens. She also turned to an editor from a liberal Christian magazine, Ryan Beiler of Washington, D.C. who defended his dumpster-diving as a protest of “corporate farming practices” and in reaction to “the absurdity of how the American economy works.”
No word yet on whether "freegetarians" will join the protest.
Stay Out of my Parlor
Sorry, but when a spider shows up in my house, the only message they're giving me is that they want to die. Charlotte can stay in the barn with Wilbur. (h/t Rebecca Blood)
The Royal Spam
Scott Adams notes the poor quality of the spam he's been receiving:
Are these guys even TRYING? I have some respect for the spam with subject lines such as “From Bob” or “quick question.” Those are good attempts. If I’m not paying attention, I might even open one of those. But who opens a message titled “Re: NEW age of good old PENPILs.Scientists says YES!”?
I would agree that most spam is ridiculously easy to spot - except for Yahoo Spamguard, apparently, which never seems to get any better no matter how many bogus emails I forward to it. I would also agree with the notion that some idiot somewhere will open them, no matter how stupid they are, but what bothers me is not the quality of spam but the quantity of it.
Yesterday, I downloaded this app to my desktop. This morning I had no fewer than forty spam emails at the address I'd given them. When I went to uninstall the program, the first thing that showed up was a survey, asking me why I wanted to get rid of it. The very first listed reason for me to check was "I'm receiving too many unwanted (spam) emails".
Gee, you think?
Are these guys even TRYING? I have some respect for the spam with subject lines such as “From Bob” or “quick question.” Those are good attempts. If I’m not paying attention, I might even open one of those. But who opens a message titled “Re: NEW age of good old PENPILs.Scientists says YES!”?
I would agree that most spam is ridiculously easy to spot - except for Yahoo Spamguard, apparently, which never seems to get any better no matter how many bogus emails I forward to it. I would also agree with the notion that some idiot somewhere will open them, no matter how stupid they are, but what bothers me is not the quality of spam but the quantity of it.
Yesterday, I downloaded this app to my desktop. This morning I had no fewer than forty spam emails at the address I'd given them. When I went to uninstall the program, the first thing that showed up was a survey, asking me why I wanted to get rid of it. The very first listed reason for me to check was "I'm receiving too many unwanted (spam) emails".
Gee, you think?
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Sever Me Timbers!
Can this be for real?
Northwest is laying off its customer service workers and baggage handlers at many smaller airports as it reorganizes under bankruptcy protection.
Earlier this month, it sent workers in Bismarck, N.D.; Bozeman, Mont.; and Austin, Texas, a handbook with tips for handling their layoffs. It included 101 money-saving ideas such as, "Don't be shy about pulling something you like out of the trash."
Other tips included using old newspapers for cat litter, asking friends and family for hand-me-down clothes and asking a doctor for free prescription drug samples.
Don't be shy about pulling something you like out of the trash? Whose trash are we talking about? Are they suggesting that their ex-employees go dumpster-diving for scraps of food? Are these people insane?
It sounds like management at Northwest has been sampling a few too many drugs, free or otherwise. Or maybe they're just using old cat litter for brains. (h/t Jane Galt)
Northwest is laying off its customer service workers and baggage handlers at many smaller airports as it reorganizes under bankruptcy protection.
Earlier this month, it sent workers in Bismarck, N.D.; Bozeman, Mont.; and Austin, Texas, a handbook with tips for handling their layoffs. It included 101 money-saving ideas such as, "Don't be shy about pulling something you like out of the trash."
Other tips included using old newspapers for cat litter, asking friends and family for hand-me-down clothes and asking a doctor for free prescription drug samples.
Don't be shy about pulling something you like out of the trash? Whose trash are we talking about? Are they suggesting that their ex-employees go dumpster-diving for scraps of food? Are these people insane?
It sounds like management at Northwest has been sampling a few too many drugs, free or otherwise. Or maybe they're just using old cat litter for brains. (h/t Jane Galt)
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Take the Blue Pill
Well, it’s done. And, all things considered, I’m feeling pretty good. Not exactly Walking on Sunshine but not bad, either. There’s some truth to the statement that the preparation is the worst part of the exam. As I noted yesterday, it wasn’t fun. But I do have some words of advice for anyone getting ready for one of these.
When the doctor asks if you want them to make you feel sleepy, say yes.
Now, I like my doctor. He’s a pretty nice guy, considering his line of work, and I believed him when he said they weren’t going to ‘hurt’ me. Even when he had me sign the form relieving him of liability just in case he poked a hole in my colon, which, as he pointed out, almost never happens. So when he gave me the option of undergoing the procedure without using medication, I listened to him.
If they didn’t use drugs, he told me, I’d be able to go home sooner, I’d be able to eat something sooner and I’d be able to watch the whole thing on television. While I was thinking about it, he also mentioned that if I became uncomfortable at any point they could stop and give me something and it would work in about 30 seconds.
I weighed the options. Going home sooner was a definite plus. I’ve never been a big fan of hospitals and my blood pressure was spiking to begin with. On the other hand, watching myself get shtupped by a ten-foot hose on TV was not so big an attraction. But telling a person who has just fasted for a day and a half that they can eat something, well, that’s almost unfair, isn’t it? I said yes.
There were a few, fumbling preliminaries – a brief finger-wave from an intern (the doctor confided that he got the job because he had the biggest fingers) – and then the procedure started. The first part was so smooth, almost seductive, I half expected the nurse to lean down and kiss me. Pictures of my nether regions flashed by on the screen and the doctor was talking quietly – everything was fine. Then they came to the first bend in the road.
Even with the nurse pressing against my stomach I almost jumped off the gurney. Holy shit, I screamed. When did you put that gerbil inside me and how did it get loose? Well, I thought I screamed it. What actually came out of my mouth was “UHHHHHHHH!” And then the pain disappeared. “Okay,” the doctor said, “that’s the first one.”
First one? Give me the meds, you fucking asshole! All right, I didn’t say that, either. For the next fifteen minutes or so, the doctor played Mario Kart in my bowels while the nurse told me to take deep breaths and let them out slowly. And I survived.
The good news is that my colon is looking pretty spiffy. The bad news is that, since I don’t have to have another of these for ten years, I will completely forget what it felt like. But I know this much; when the doctor asks if I want to feel sleepy, I’m gonna say “Give me the blue pill”.
When the doctor asks if you want them to make you feel sleepy, say yes.
Now, I like my doctor. He’s a pretty nice guy, considering his line of work, and I believed him when he said they weren’t going to ‘hurt’ me. Even when he had me sign the form relieving him of liability just in case he poked a hole in my colon, which, as he pointed out, almost never happens. So when he gave me the option of undergoing the procedure without using medication, I listened to him.
If they didn’t use drugs, he told me, I’d be able to go home sooner, I’d be able to eat something sooner and I’d be able to watch the whole thing on television. While I was thinking about it, he also mentioned that if I became uncomfortable at any point they could stop and give me something and it would work in about 30 seconds.
I weighed the options. Going home sooner was a definite plus. I’ve never been a big fan of hospitals and my blood pressure was spiking to begin with. On the other hand, watching myself get shtupped by a ten-foot hose on TV was not so big an attraction. But telling a person who has just fasted for a day and a half that they can eat something, well, that’s almost unfair, isn’t it? I said yes.
There were a few, fumbling preliminaries – a brief finger-wave from an intern (the doctor confided that he got the job because he had the biggest fingers) – and then the procedure started. The first part was so smooth, almost seductive, I half expected the nurse to lean down and kiss me. Pictures of my nether regions flashed by on the screen and the doctor was talking quietly – everything was fine. Then they came to the first bend in the road.
Even with the nurse pressing against my stomach I almost jumped off the gurney. Holy shit, I screamed. When did you put that gerbil inside me and how did it get loose? Well, I thought I screamed it. What actually came out of my mouth was “UHHHHHHHH!” And then the pain disappeared. “Okay,” the doctor said, “that’s the first one.”
First one? Give me the meds, you fucking asshole! All right, I didn’t say that, either. For the next fifteen minutes or so, the doctor played Mario Kart in my bowels while the nurse told me to take deep breaths and let them out slowly. And I survived.
The good news is that my colon is looking pretty spiffy. The bad news is that, since I don’t have to have another of these for ten years, I will completely forget what it felt like. But I know this much; when the doctor asks if I want to feel sleepy, I’m gonna say “Give me the blue pill”.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Fun, Fun, Fun
I’m fasting.
Well, not exactly. I’m scheduled tomorrow for one of those exams that require you to, um, cleanse your innards, is probably the best way to put it. You know, it begins with ‘c’ and it ends with ‘py’ and it semi-sorta-kinda rhymes with colostomy. That’s right. One of those exams. The kind you never even had nightmares about until you were old enough to learn the meaning of the word “prostate”.
When I was young and read that word somewhere – in the newspaper, maybe – I always read it as “prostrate”, just as, for years, whenever I came across the word “pubic”, I read it as “public”. Okay, so you’re probably right to question my choice of reading material but, frankly, I think my relative innocence as to the subject matter is somewhat charming. Just as a fear of the boogeyman or the Thing under the bed is charming compared with a fear of the Hallucinating Madman with Nuclear Ambitions and his Incredibly Senile Interviewer, but I digress.
So, I’m fasting. And by fasting, I mean that I’m not partaking of anything solid, seedy, nutty, fatty or red. All that leaves me is water, ginger ale, some juices and broth. Sounds appetizing, doesn’t it? Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. I also have to take two bottles of something that’s designed – according to the instructions – to turn my stool the “consistency and color of urine”.
So yeah, this is fun.
Well, not exactly. I’m scheduled tomorrow for one of those exams that require you to, um, cleanse your innards, is probably the best way to put it. You know, it begins with ‘c’ and it ends with ‘py’ and it semi-sorta-kinda rhymes with colostomy. That’s right. One of those exams. The kind you never even had nightmares about until you were old enough to learn the meaning of the word “prostate”.
When I was young and read that word somewhere – in the newspaper, maybe – I always read it as “prostrate”, just as, for years, whenever I came across the word “pubic”, I read it as “public”. Okay, so you’re probably right to question my choice of reading material but, frankly, I think my relative innocence as to the subject matter is somewhat charming. Just as a fear of the boogeyman or the Thing under the bed is charming compared with a fear of the Hallucinating Madman with Nuclear Ambitions and his Incredibly Senile Interviewer, but I digress.
So, I’m fasting. And by fasting, I mean that I’m not partaking of anything solid, seedy, nutty, fatty or red. All that leaves me is water, ginger ale, some juices and broth. Sounds appetizing, doesn’t it? Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. I also have to take two bottles of something that’s designed – according to the instructions – to turn my stool the “consistency and color of urine”.
So yeah, this is fun.
Food for Thought
An even better analogy would be music. As a matter of fact, I employ many musical analogies in the book. As an aside, it’s just amazing how many mysteries of the cosmos are unlocked by the existence of music. I have always been a great music lover, and now I see that, even in my atheistic days, it was one of the things that kept me connected to Spirit, for music is a spiritual transmission, pure and simple. Great music casts a luster of noetic light from one world into this one, somehow riding piggyback on vibrations of air. No one knows how or why this should be so in a species that was simply selected by evolution to hunt for food and sexual partners. Why on earth should vibrating air molecules be beautiful, even to the point of moving one to tears or to ecstasy?
...but the point, of course, is not to study the score but to hear the music. The score is pointless unless it achieves the purpose of making music present. It must be read, performed, and understood experientially, not theoretically. Where was music before humans made it present? Roughly speaking, it was in the same place God is before you make him present. I don’t mean to sound flip, but this is why it is so easy to find God, because the finding is in the seeking. Don’t worry. If you seek earnestly and sincerely, you will soon enough find, just as, if you pick up a guitar and learn a few chords, you will soon be able to play Smoke on the Water. You will be able to start making music present, in however a limited degree. And as you practice, you will be able to make more and more music present–music that would not have existed had you not gone to the trouble of practicing and bringing it into being.
(h/t Dr. Sanity)
...but the point, of course, is not to study the score but to hear the music. The score is pointless unless it achieves the purpose of making music present. It must be read, performed, and understood experientially, not theoretically. Where was music before humans made it present? Roughly speaking, it was in the same place God is before you make him present. I don’t mean to sound flip, but this is why it is so easy to find God, because the finding is in the seeking. Don’t worry. If you seek earnestly and sincerely, you will soon enough find, just as, if you pick up a guitar and learn a few chords, you will soon be able to play Smoke on the Water. You will be able to start making music present, in however a limited degree. And as you practice, you will be able to make more and more music present–music that would not have existed had you not gone to the trouble of practicing and bringing it into being.
(h/t Dr. Sanity)
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
