March 2005 Archives

Since sometime during my tenure at RHIT, I have mostly used block letters when I write. Lately I have been working on making my handwriting more efficient, especially since I have come to loathe it. The key is to use the fewest strokes possible with the least movement of the writing utensil to accurately reproduce a letter -- well, duh. But do you ever think about how efficiently you write?

Some of the bad habits I have been training myself out of is using 4 strokes to make a capital "A;" using 4 and 5 strokes to make an "N" and an "M," respectively; and using horizontal strokes to write "I" and "J."

It's tricky to retrain oneself at the end of one's 28th year. But I'm slowly getting it right. I don't like the way an uncrossed "J" looks, though, so I may keep that inefficiency for the sake of aesthetics.

[This already long post would have been much longer, but the manager of my household thought that I was finished with it before I really was, and disposed of the offending desk litter quite efficiently. So, here is about half of what promised to be a witty and highly entertaining post. I especially regret not sharing with you my thoughts on their carefully objectively worded survey, which mainly consisted of questions like "Yes or no -- I think that George Bush should be allowed to continue clubbing the heads of baby terrorists while he forces people in Africa to be promiscuous thereby dooming them to death from AIDS and starving their children while he eats innocent reporters for breakfast" (that's a paraphrase, mind you). Anywho, here is what I got done:]

I received some correspondance from Amnesty International recently. The following is intended to be an open letter in response:

Sirs and Madams,

I thank you for your interest in my opinion as a member of the voting public. I will be quoting large portions of your letter to me in this response, as I feel it will help you better understand my opinion. To wit:

"Dear Friend, [Okay, whatever, I can be friendly]

"Enclosed is a Public Opinion Poll on the United States Human Rights Policy prepared especially for you. [I think you mean especially for me and all of your other 'friends,' right? Ah well, I've never been one to turn down a request for my opinion. Heck, I usually don't bother waiting to be asked. ;)]

"I urge you to complete this important poll, sign it, and return it to me at Amnesty International USA as soon as you possiby can. [their emphasis]

"Amnesty needs your input on the vital issues covered in your Public Opinion Poll in order to let President Bush know what knowledgeable and concerned Americans like you think of his human rights policies, including. . . ['knowledgeable? What makes you think I'm knowledgeable? What do you know about me? Do you read this blog? If so, I sincerely doubt that you would be soliciting my opinion. I think you meant to send this to an address on the upper west side of Manhatten.]

. . .his decision to oppose the International Criminal Court created to prosecute war criminals. . .his allowing U.S. military and intelligence personnel to use interrogation techniques on 'war on terror' detainees that are tantamount to torture [I'm giving you 5 bonus points for the use of the word 'tantamount']. . .his indifference to the execution of juvenile offenders [yeah, he and the majority of Americans -- at least, up until last week when the SC ruled it unconstitutional]. . .his failure to take action to stop violence against women [hmm, well, Saddam and the Taliban both treated women pretty poorly, but I guess that's not good enough, eh? I'm sure we'll discuss this topic again later. . .]. . .and his assault on the Constitutional guarantee of due process for everyone. [Okay, I have some issues with that one, too, but dangit, terrorists aren't like other criminals.]

"This isn't about politics. Amnesty International is strictly non-partisan. [snicker, snicker. I'd like to see a record of the campaign contributions made by you, everyone on your board of directors, and the top 50 donors to Amnesty International, during the last election cycle. Then we can discuss your assertions of impartiality further.]

"But it is about what we, as the world's leading advocates for human rights, believe are devastating human rights policies. Just consider that. . . [we are not amused by your overuse of ellipses]

". . .at the same time that President Bush speaks of liberating the Iraqi people from oppression, his administration is detaining hundreds of men and boys from 35 countries without charge or access to a lawyer, and is proposing to hold some of them in lifetime detention even though the government admits it lacks enough evidence to charge some of them with a crime. [I agree, that is a Bad Thing. We need to stop it. I'm with you on that one.]

". . .the United States and Somalia are the only two countries on earth that have failed to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child that, among other measures, protects children from being forced into combat, slavery, prostitution, and pornography. [Hmm. Well, since I'm a knowledgeable fellow, I'll guess that the reason we aren't ratifying it is probably that it also protects the 'right' of minors to kill their own children without gaining consent from their parents or legal guardians. But even if that isn't the Bush administration's issue with this convention, why should the U.S. need to sign it anyway? It isn't as though by signing it we are going to stop doing any of those things to children. . .since we DON'T DO OR SUPPORT THOSE WHO DO THEM NOW.]

". . .[gritting my teeth over the incessant ellipses] and even in the wake of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal [personally, I wish Secretary Rumsfeld would have resigned or been forced out over that deal], and with FBI-confirmed allegations of torture surfacing from Guantanamo, the Justice Department still argued in a recent U.S. District Court hearing that President Bush's military tribunals are free to thumb their noses at U.S. law and use evidence extracted from detainees through torture. [Oh come now. Did the DoJ really use the phrase 'thumb their noses' in a courtroom? I'd pay to see that!]

"This is the unfortunate state of human rights under President Bush. And we cannot allow it to go on any longer! [Okay, Mr. non-partisan pants, if you're going to give a fair and balanced account of the state of human rights under Bush, you need to mention the positives, too. Like the expansion of AIDS relief programs, the cessation of U.S. aid to countries that force their women to have abortions, Bush's campaign against the sex slave trade, etc., etc. Give me a reason to believe that you really aren't partisan. Just one. Please?]

"Amnesty International is working to stop the Bush Administration's assault on America's proud legacy of human rights. [I'm picking up on your unbiased, non-partisan language here. It's coming though loudly and clearly.] And to defend the human rights of every man, woman and child on earth -- that has been our charge for more than forty years. [Incidentally, how do you define 'child?' Is that a subjective term, based on whether or not the parents of the 'fetal tissue' want it or not, or is it an objective term based on a common sense definition of life? Just asking.]

Since 1961, [this is where I stopped that fateful night. Sorry you don't get to be entertained anymore. . .originally authored on 03-11-05]

The Economist is certainly one for witty titles. This article was filed under "phototheology." If it happens, it would be very cool.

Chicken Little had a nice little entry today in which he asserted several times that if something is permissable, it is mandatory. At least, that's how I read statements like

"Yesterday The Washington Post reported on the growing number of pharmacists who, on religious grounds, refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control or morning-after pills. These pharmacists talk of personal belief; but the effect is to undermine laws that make these drugs available."

Does anybody really believe that refusing to provide services that one finds reprehensible (such as abortion on demand) is undermining the law? Krugman apparently thinks so.

An economist as intelligent and perspicacious as Mr. Krugman should surely understand that in a free market, anyone is free to provide or not provide any service or goods he or she chooses. The market will always supply, to some extent, that which the consumer demands. Whether or not certain goods or services are legal or illegal to buy and sell makes little difference if there is truly a demand for them. I realize that this is an oversimplification, but the bottom line is that if some producers refuse to supply a demand, there will always be others who will be more than willing to step up to the plate, if there is money to be made. And as I have noted many times in this space before, there are few markets more lucrative in this country than baby-killing, whether it be by chemical, surgical, or other means.

A much greater threat to democracy and the free market is that producers are forced to provide goods and/or services that they do not wish to provide. Like when the states of California or New York make it illegal not to provide abortions and abortifacients. That truly undermines the freedoms that we hold so dear -- not the other way around.

(By the by, I do agree with several other positions that Krugman takes in the above-referenced column, including his take on "Terri's Law" and his opposition to the Republican rumblings about giving the filibuster the heave-ho.)

When I was in college, one of my favorite snacks was the little breadsticks that Jer taught me to pilfer[1] from the cafeteria. You know, the ones that they have at salad bars, they come in a two-pack. We'd stuff our pockets full of them and take them back to the room. I think my preferred flavor was the garlic and onion, although the sesame seed ones are good, too.

The salad bar at our corporate cafeteria carries just the sesame seed ones, and whenever I eat there I always grab a couple of handfuls, just to keep the tradition alive. I'm snacking on some right now, by the by, which is of course the impetus for this post.

[1] Edited per request of my partner in, er, arbitrage. . .

So, last week I read in several articles that letting Terri Schiavo starve to death was perfectly humane and totally painless, given that she is in a PVS. Then in Sunday's local paper, I read an AP article reporting that the hospice nurses are giving her morphine to ease the pain of her death. So, which is it? Is she PVS, and unable to experience the pain of starvation? Or not? Why the discrepancy?

My wife caught part of a television interview with lawyers representing the opposing sides. Michael Schiavo's lawyer said that Terri was dying peacefully, that there were no painful side effects to her dehydration. The Schindlers' lawyer contradicted that assertion, saying that Terri's lips were cracked and bleeding and her skin was drying up and flaking off. So, which is it? Whom do we believe?

At the risk of aligning myself with some right-wing militant groups, I nonetheless must state publicly my dissent to any expansion of UN powers. (Good article from The Economist can be found here.)

Why, you might ask? I'm glad you did. A more powerful UN necessarily means a less powerful (and less sovereign) US, imho. Many of the other central powers in the UN don't respect some of the basic freedoms that Americans enjoy. For instance, the freedom to punish murder by execution. I realize that a scenario in which the UN comes to blows with us over such an issue is farfetched. . .right now. It's sort of the same reason that I don't like the Patriot Act. It's bad enough in the hands of the Bushies. . .just wait until the leftists get back in power. Ugh.

Okay, enough on that one.

I agree with this editorial. It doesn't happen very often that I agree with the New York Times editors, but this is one of them. I find it highly ironic, though, that the champions of the left are pining for state's rights in this case, while they seek to trample it with their libertine social agenda in almost every other.

My post yesterday was not intended to endorse the actions of Congress. While I had hoped for a different outcome in Terri's case -- unlike my dear boy Nagi, I do not believe that Michael Schiavo has comported himself honorably -- I do not believe that Congress should have intervened.

Somehow you had to know that the Schindler-Schiavo tragedy (see, I can use loaded language, too!) would boil over the way it has. I am particularly impressed, though, by the MSM's persistance in labeling it as a "right-to-die" case (see CNN and NYTimes.com -- I don't follow Foxnews, so I don't know if they are giving it a more accurate spin or not).

At any rate, Terri's Fight is the "save Terri" side of things. Particularly interesting, in my mind, is the timeline that gives some detail on the millions of dollars awarded to Terri (and her husband -- though I use that term loosely in his case -- Michael) that were supposed to be used to rehabilitate her, but which were not.

Since a quarter to 5:00 AM this morning. But we're done now. So I'm going home. But I've added one more experience to my repertoire: driving rail spikes. It gets old quickly, let me tell you. OK, I love you all, buh-bye and goodnight.

Being a food plant, we are held to very high hygiene and food safety standards by our customers. My rules for passing audits are pretty simple.

Plan A: Know what the customer expects and have everything in place before the auditor shows up. Always have the plant looking clean and tidy, i. e. always be audit ready.

Plan B: If you're going to do everything last minute, learn how to make it look like you didn't do everything last minute. Plan B, as usual, requires more effort than Plan A.

The new motherboard works. The old graphics card that I was going to use is not working. Nuts to that! So, I'm in the market. Not looking for anything fancy, though if I find a good deal on a nicer card I'll take it. I'd like at 64 MB of RAM, prefer 128. Not sure what else -- any recommendations?

I have been making good use of Rose's online alumni directory recently. One of my more fortunate finds was that Michael Treaster is living close by in central IL. Mike was a frequent participant in WarII LAN parties on BSB 2 my freshman year as well as a philosophical foil in our many collegial intellectual discussions. He came over for dinner last night and I stayed up way too late catching up. Oh, and I claim responsibility for getting him hooked on disc golf, so we may be playing some courses together this summer.

At any rate, my success in reconnecting with Mike only encourages me to continue mining the alumni database. Dear old Rose!

Gotta get me one of these.

Article. I haven't bothered calling the number yet -- I prefer to let the darker sides of my mind speculate freely.

Link from FPA daily digest.

So, some bright-eyed and bushy-tailed state congresswoman (a Republican, no less) has introduced a bill in the state legislature to give grants for doctors to help repay their student loans. The only catch is that to receive the grants, the doctors would have to stay in Illinois practicing medicine for at least 3 years.

Hello! This is a great example of the exact wrong way for government to approach a problem. Instead of addressing the root cause for doctor's leaving Illinois (which is, primarily, because of the absurdly high cost of malpractice insurance in the lawsuit-friendly confines of Illinois' borders), throw government money at it! If I were a doctor, I would take the money, put in my 3 years doing something with a low chance of resulting in malpractice suits, and then bolt for Indiana.

Here's a suggestion: how about some tort reform to put a cap on damages awarded in malpractice suits? I can't believe that a REPUBLICAN congressperson came up with this idea for a big waste of my money. Thank-you very much.

/rant

Our microwave blew up on Sunday. By blew up, I mean that when Jamie pushed the start button, there was a very loud popping noise, and then the fan noise got louder by twofold.

I don't really want to get it repaired. We are strongly considering not replacing it at all. I'll keep you posted.

I'd say that's an oxymoron, but it will be interesting to see if this bill gets passed. If so, my level of disdain for all things Californian will go down at least one notch.

Here is Seth being a model for the cloth diapers that we use. (He's at the top of the page in the blue diaper, laying on a blue boppy pillow.)

I wonder if Maureen Dowd, in the deepest part of her soul, ever acknowledges the connection between the libertine feminist movement she represents and the objectification of women that she derides in today's column? I'm guessing no.

If you want a good analysis of the link, I recommend reading Wendy Shalit's "A Return to Modesty."

I got a delivery from peppermints.com yesterday. Mmmm, minty caffeinated goodness. I also got a sample of all three flavors of the energy gum. All three are good, but I like the citrus best. I was pretty wired yesterday since I had to try a little bit of everything. I got the variety pack of mints again; I like the cinnamon quite a bit.

. . .that I worked somewhere that, when my stapler wouldn't staple the stack of papers that I wanted it to secure together this afternoon and I exclaimed "Agh! Not enough mana!" everyone would "get it" and laugh instead of either tactfully ignoring me or giving me a strange look. Oh well. I can share it with you and hope you'll appreciate it.

Yesterday was my 2-year blogiversary. Thanks to all my loyal readers, or whatever.

Stats:
561 posts (this is number 562), 1508 non-spam comments (make yours count!)