Sunday, September 28, 2008
I took the "Sample LSAT Critical Reasoning Section" to bed with me last night. There were 25 problems, and you're supposed to do them in 35 minutes. I took 31 minutes, and got 2 wrong. Note that it was 3 am, and I wasn't what you'd call sharp or motivated, and I know what I missed on one of them.
The other, however, I have a major beef with. Their answer is WRONG! It's the conventional answer, but it's wrong.
This is the problem (it's #9 here):
9. Mrs. Mason is gifted with psychic powers that enable her to foretell future events. In the past, Mrs. Mason has predicted such actual events as the election of President Clinton, the stock market crash of 1987, and the St. Loius Cardinals' 1982 World Series victory. These are just a few of Mrs. Mason's accurate predictions. The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the strength of the argument above?
A) What percentage of Mrs. Mason's predictions has come true?
B) Could the election of President Reagan have been predicted without the help of psychic powers?
C) What is the actual mechanism by which Mrs. Mason's psychic powers are supposed to operate?
D) How long before the events in question did Mrs. Mason make her actual predictions?
E) Do most scientists accept the idea that the power to predict the future through psychic means really exists?
Note that "useful in evaluating the strength of the argument" does not mean it helps to make the statement sound truer. It means that it most helps you to decide the validity or invalidity of the statement. Subtle difference there. Another way to think of it, if you could ask one question and one question only to decide whether to believe the statement or not, what would that question be?
"B" can be thrown out immediately as having no relevance (although if it had said "Clinton", it might have a lot. Perhaps it was there to catch the unwary). "C" can be discarded because knowing whether she uses a crystal ball or a spirit guide doesn't matter. "E" I'd throw out because any answer wouldn't have a bearing on this particular case. That left "A" and "D".
If I ask "A", and get "90% of her predictions are accurate", that sounds good, but it still leaves me with questions concerning the validity of her predictions. If I get "10%" of her predictions are accurate, it doesn't make a lot of difference to me. 90% of easy predictions is not 9 times better than 10% of difficult predictions, and there is no indication of the difficulty of her predictions. So knowing that number is not helpful. It does NOT make it easier for me to evaluate the strength of the argument.
Let's try "D". If the answer is "She has made all of these accurate predictions at least 2 years before the events in question", then hey, now we've got something to go on. That's a strong point. Or it could be "She made these accurate predictions three minutes or fewer before the actual results were announced." Whoa! Blows the argument out of the water. Any idiot can do that. Either way, whatever the answer, I DO have more useful information to evaluate the strength of the argument.
So, I answered "D".
They wanted "A".
I don't agree.
"A" is the conventional answer. Their argument is: "The passage cites just three accurate predictions by Mrs. Mason and alludes to others. However, the existence of three successful predictions means nothing by itself; one would need to know what percentage of Mrs. Mason's predictions has been accurate (or inaccurate). A success rate of 95 percent would mean that she is almost surely a legitimate talent [Me - not if all of them were made moments before the event!]; a success rate of 5 percent would strongly suggest that she is a fraud.
Ok. Who do I write to....
.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
2043 Thud
Sunday, September 28, 2008
A pro-Palin woman on a discussion panel on TV this morning insisted that Sarah Palin is still enormously popular - after all, she was at a rally in Florida the other day, and 60,000 people showed up to see her.
The evidence offered does not support the conclusion.
You can bet your last dollar that if Sarah Palin showed up anywhere around here, I'd show up, too! It might be more fun than a demolition derby. I might even cheer at something she said, just to encourage her to say more like it.
Everybody loves a good safe wreck.
.
A pro-Palin woman on a discussion panel on TV this morning insisted that Sarah Palin is still enormously popular - after all, she was at a rally in Florida the other day, and 60,000 people showed up to see her.
The evidence offered does not support the conclusion.
You can bet your last dollar that if Sarah Palin showed up anywhere around here, I'd show up, too! It might be more fun than a demolition derby. I might even cheer at something she said, just to encourage her to say more like it.
Everybody loves a good safe wreck.
.
2042 Adversarial v. Inquisitorial
Sunday, September 28, 2008
About three years ago I wrote an entry about what bothers me about American court procedures, as contrasted with the French system. While looking for samples of the LSAT, I found the following essay in a section on reading comprehension. It nicely describes the differences between the adversarial system (as used in the US) and the inquisitorial (similar to what is used in France). After reading this, which do you prefer? My conclusion, back in that early entry, was "If I were innocent, I'd want a French court. If I were guilty, I'd want an American court and a rich uncle. That doesn't sound nice at all."
There are two major systems of criminal procedure in the modern world--the adversarial and the inquisitorial. The former is associated with common law tradition and the latter with civil law tradition. Both systems were historically preceded by the system of private vengeance in which the victim of a crime fashioned his own remedy and administered it privately, either personally or through an agent. The vengeance system was a system of self-help, the essence of which was captured in the slogan "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." The modern adversarial system is only one historical step removed from the private vengeance system and still retains some of its characteristic features. Thus, for example, even though the right to institute criminal action has now been extended to all members of society and even though the police department has taken over the pretrial investigative functions on behalf of the prosecution, the adversarial system still leaves the defendant to conduct his own pretrial investigation. The trial is still viewed as a duel between two adversaries, refereed by a judge who, at the beginning of the trial has no knowledge of the investigative background of the case. In the final analysis the adversarial system of criminal procedure symbolizes and regularizes the punitive combat.
By contrast, the inquisitorial system begins historically where the adversarial system stopped its development. It is two historical steps removed from the system of private vengeance. Therefore, from the standpoint of legal anthropology, it is historically superior to the adversarial system. Under the inquisitorial system the public investigator has the duty to investigate not just on behalf of the prosecutor but also on behalf of the defendant. Additionally, the public prosecutor has the duty to present to the court not only evidence that may lead to the conviction of the defendant but also evidence that may lead to his exoneration. This system mandates that both parties permit full pretrial discovery of the evidence in their possession. Finally, in an effort to make the trial less like a duel between two adversaries, the inquisitorial system mandates that the judge take an active part in the conduct of the trial, with a role that is both directive and protective.
.
About three years ago I wrote an entry about what bothers me about American court procedures, as contrasted with the French system. While looking for samples of the LSAT, I found the following essay in a section on reading comprehension. It nicely describes the differences between the adversarial system (as used in the US) and the inquisitorial (similar to what is used in France). After reading this, which do you prefer? My conclusion, back in that early entry, was "If I were innocent, I'd want a French court. If I were guilty, I'd want an American court and a rich uncle. That doesn't sound nice at all."
There are two major systems of criminal procedure in the modern world--the adversarial and the inquisitorial. The former is associated with common law tradition and the latter with civil law tradition. Both systems were historically preceded by the system of private vengeance in which the victim of a crime fashioned his own remedy and administered it privately, either personally or through an agent. The vengeance system was a system of self-help, the essence of which was captured in the slogan "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." The modern adversarial system is only one historical step removed from the private vengeance system and still retains some of its characteristic features. Thus, for example, even though the right to institute criminal action has now been extended to all members of society and even though the police department has taken over the pretrial investigative functions on behalf of the prosecution, the adversarial system still leaves the defendant to conduct his own pretrial investigation. The trial is still viewed as a duel between two adversaries, refereed by a judge who, at the beginning of the trial has no knowledge of the investigative background of the case. In the final analysis the adversarial system of criminal procedure symbolizes and regularizes the punitive combat.
By contrast, the inquisitorial system begins historically where the adversarial system stopped its development. It is two historical steps removed from the system of private vengeance. Therefore, from the standpoint of legal anthropology, it is historically superior to the adversarial system. Under the inquisitorial system the public investigator has the duty to investigate not just on behalf of the prosecutor but also on behalf of the defendant. Additionally, the public prosecutor has the duty to present to the court not only evidence that may lead to the conviction of the defendant but also evidence that may lead to his exoneration. This system mandates that both parties permit full pretrial discovery of the evidence in their possession. Finally, in an effort to make the trial less like a duel between two adversaries, the inquisitorial system mandates that the judge take an active part in the conduct of the trial, with a role that is both directive and protective.
.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
2041 Logical Waste
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Well, I managed to completely waste another day. I got curious about the LSAT. After describing it as an aptitude/IQ test, I realized that I had no idea what it was like, so I went digging.
I want to take the real test! It's chock full of exactly the kind of logic, critical reasoning, and comprehension questions I love! (The links go to some examples and samples.) Man, I could really ace this thing (bouncing up and down in chair)! I could blow it out of the water! I had a lot of fun today working the examples and reading the supplied explanations, and I don't know if the examples they give are purposely easy or what, but I got the right answer on all I tried, every time, and I was fast, and really really really enjoyed the hell out of it. I want more.
Of course, with a prediction like that, that I'd ace it, we don't know which end of the scale I'm operating from, but I printed off two versions of the LSAT (one is a "sample", and the other is the actual test given in June 2007), and as soon as I can find a few consecutive hours without distraction, I plan to find out. (Hmm. I haven't looked at them yet, that would be cheating, so I'm not sure the answers are included. It wouldn't be cheating to look at the last page or two, would it? Oops, yes, especially if that's where the answers are, you idiot. Ok, which end of the scale are we coming from again?)
.
Well, I managed to completely waste another day. I got curious about the LSAT. After describing it as an aptitude/IQ test, I realized that I had no idea what it was like, so I went digging.
I want to take the real test! It's chock full of exactly the kind of logic, critical reasoning, and comprehension questions I love! (The links go to some examples and samples.) Man, I could really ace this thing (bouncing up and down in chair)! I could blow it out of the water! I had a lot of fun today working the examples and reading the supplied explanations, and I don't know if the examples they give are purposely easy or what, but I got the right answer on all I tried, every time, and I was fast, and really really really enjoyed the hell out of it. I want more.
Of course, with a prediction like that, that I'd ace it, we don't know which end of the scale I'm operating from, but I printed off two versions of the LSAT (one is a "sample", and the other is the actual test given in June 2007), and as soon as I can find a few consecutive hours without distraction, I plan to find out. (Hmm. I haven't looked at them yet, that would be cheating, so I'm not sure the answers are included. It wouldn't be cheating to look at the last page or two, would it? Oops, yes, especially if that's where the answers are, you idiot. Ok, which end of the scale are we coming from again?)
.
2040 The Overconfidence of the Underachiever
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Again, no links or footnotes. I forget where I read about this study, it's been bumping around in my head for a while, but I'm sure anyone interested could find it. I may have some details wrong, but this is pretty much the basics.
Researchers gave a bunch of random people an LSAT practice test (which is basically a combination aptitude/IQ test). After the test, they asked the testees to estimate how well they thought they did.
Almost everyone overestimated their performance.
The people who scored best on the test estimated closest to their actual scores, and were most likely to have underestimated.
Average scorers, those in the middle, overestimated a bit more than the high scorers, but generally they overestimated by pretty much the same amount. In other words, they were average overestimators, too. The closer they were to an average score, the closer their overestimation was to the average overestimation.
The people who scored the lowest overestimated the most. After having taken the test, most of them were convinced they'd done a good job on it. Even after having been shown the answers of the high scorers, and been told that this is how the high scorers answered, they STILL were confident that they'd done well, too.
Odd.
The researchers' theory is that the less capable we are in a job, the more confident we are that we do it well. The less capable we are of making a decision, the more confident we are of that decision.
Not so odd. We've seen a lot of that in the White House.
.
Again, no links or footnotes. I forget where I read about this study, it's been bumping around in my head for a while, but I'm sure anyone interested could find it. I may have some details wrong, but this is pretty much the basics.
Researchers gave a bunch of random people an LSAT practice test (which is basically a combination aptitude/IQ test). After the test, they asked the testees to estimate how well they thought they did.
Almost everyone overestimated their performance.
The people who scored best on the test estimated closest to their actual scores, and were most likely to have underestimated.
Average scorers, those in the middle, overestimated a bit more than the high scorers, but generally they overestimated by pretty much the same amount. In other words, they were average overestimators, too. The closer they were to an average score, the closer their overestimation was to the average overestimation.
The people who scored the lowest overestimated the most. After having taken the test, most of them were convinced they'd done a good job on it. Even after having been shown the answers of the high scorers, and been told that this is how the high scorers answered, they STILL were confident that they'd done well, too.
Odd.
The researchers' theory is that the less capable we are in a job, the more confident we are that we do it well. The less capable we are of making a decision, the more confident we are of that decision.
Not so odd. We've seen a lot of that in the White House.
.
2039 The Debate, Part 2
Saturday, September 27, 2008
I've been wandering around links to find an analysis of the debate that comes closest to my impressions, and I think this might be it.
I kind of agree with his comment at the end, about how McCain sure can drive a car.
Eight years ago I was all for McCain. I sound liberal sometimes, and I sound Democrat a lot, but I'm a switch-hitter. I'm registered Independent. My actual vote goes to whomever I think can do the kind of job I want done, and back then it was McCain. If he had been the candidate, I'd have voted for him. But now, not. He's too stuck in the old world. There have been too many changes since then. The world requires an ability to analyze and adapt that I don't think he has.
He has too much emotional investment in the old world order.
.
I've been wandering around links to find an analysis of the debate that comes closest to my impressions, and I think this might be it.
I kind of agree with his comment at the end, about how McCain sure can drive a car.
Eight years ago I was all for McCain. I sound liberal sometimes, and I sound Democrat a lot, but I'm a switch-hitter. I'm registered Independent. My actual vote goes to whomever I think can do the kind of job I want done, and back then it was McCain. If he had been the candidate, I'd have voted for him. But now, not. He's too stuck in the old world. There have been too many changes since then. The world requires an ability to analyze and adapt that I don't think he has.
He has too much emotional investment in the old world order.
.
2038 The Conspiracy!
Saturday, September 27, 2008
I'm not going to footnote (i.e. link) anything because you can find anything you like on the internet, so have at it.
Ok. Here's what I've heard and/or read lately, no assurances that any of it is true, but when do you ever get assurances with conspiracy theories?
My Very Own Conspiracy Theory:
Point 1: The US economy is a mess. The debt is enormous. Tax relief, let alone anything like health care assistance will be impossible. Foreign affairs are a mess. The world hates us. We're in one war we can't win and another we don't dare lose, and we can no longer afford either.
Point 2: I hear that Sarah Palin's handlers are having fits. They've had some practice debates, and some mock news conferences, and they've been total disasters. They'd like to cancel the upcoming Palin/Biden debate, or postpone, but that doesn't seem possible. People are freaking. There are those in the GOP rarified levels that would like her to voluntarily withdraw (but I'll bet she keeps insisting she's ready), but it probably wouldn't help anyway (that "experience and judgment" thing McCain thinks he has going for him would be shot full of holes).
Point 3: I hear that Palin was recommended to John McCain by none other than Henry Kissinger.
Point 4: Of all the people in the world who suffers least from cognitive dissonance, I'd put Kissinger pretty far up there. I see him as coldly logical.
Point 5: I think Kissinger knew exactly what he was doing, and I think others were involved.
Conclusion: The GOP wants to lose this election. They will be happy to hand the whole mess over to the Democrats, who will be forced to do some unpleasant and very unpopular things to clean it up. The American public has a very short memory. In a few years, they'll forget who created the mess, and all the anger and frustration of the cleanup will be dumped on the Democrats (who not incidentally don't know how to use the media to the same effect as the right), and in 2012, the Republicans will be able to waltz right in, and look like saviors. And in running McCain and Palin, well, it's not like they sacrificed any of their valuable players.
How's that for a conspiracy theory?
(Oh, and don't forget what the Mayan calendar and Nostradamus and some interpretations of the Bible have to say about 2012.)
.
I'm not going to footnote (i.e. link) anything because you can find anything you like on the internet, so have at it.
Ok. Here's what I've heard and/or read lately, no assurances that any of it is true, but when do you ever get assurances with conspiracy theories?
My Very Own Conspiracy Theory:
Point 1: The US economy is a mess. The debt is enormous. Tax relief, let alone anything like health care assistance will be impossible. Foreign affairs are a mess. The world hates us. We're in one war we can't win and another we don't dare lose, and we can no longer afford either.
Point 2: I hear that Sarah Palin's handlers are having fits. They've had some practice debates, and some mock news conferences, and they've been total disasters. They'd like to cancel the upcoming Palin/Biden debate, or postpone, but that doesn't seem possible. People are freaking. There are those in the GOP rarified levels that would like her to voluntarily withdraw (but I'll bet she keeps insisting she's ready), but it probably wouldn't help anyway (that "experience and judgment" thing McCain thinks he has going for him would be shot full of holes).
Point 3: I hear that Palin was recommended to John McCain by none other than Henry Kissinger.
Point 4: Of all the people in the world who suffers least from cognitive dissonance, I'd put Kissinger pretty far up there. I see him as coldly logical.
Point 5: I think Kissinger knew exactly what he was doing, and I think others were involved.
Conclusion: The GOP wants to lose this election. They will be happy to hand the whole mess over to the Democrats, who will be forced to do some unpleasant and very unpopular things to clean it up. The American public has a very short memory. In a few years, they'll forget who created the mess, and all the anger and frustration of the cleanup will be dumped on the Democrats (who not incidentally don't know how to use the media to the same effect as the right), and in 2012, the Republicans will be able to waltz right in, and look like saviors. And in running McCain and Palin, well, it's not like they sacrificed any of their valuable players.
How's that for a conspiracy theory?
(Oh, and don't forget what the Mayan calendar and Nostradamus and some interpretations of the Bible have to say about 2012.)
.
Friday, September 26, 2008
2037 Debate
Friday, September 26, 2008
I watched the McCain-Obama debate. Both candidates pretty much made their supporters happy, but of course that doesn't matter. It's the undecideds who count. (Is there really anyone at this point who is truly undecided?)
McCain was dressed to better appeal to Joe Blow, in a medium blue suit, a medium light blue shirt, and a red striped tie. A rather soft look. Obama was dressed to appeal to middle management in a well-tailored very dark blue suit, a pale blue shirt that looked almost white, and a solid red tie. Obama's sharpness may have been a mistake.
You'll find better analyses of what went on elsewhere. This is my personal impression.
My general impression was that McCain's main thrust was threefold: to divorce himself from Bush, to emphasize his foreign policy experience, and to denigrate Obama. By denigrate, I mean he dropped famous names like a third-grade starlet, knowing that Obama couldn't do the same, and he got absolutely disrespectful at times, using words like "naive" and "doesn't understand" in referring to Obama. His contempt was palpable.
Dropping all those world-leader names may have been a mistake. Talking about Eisenhower emphasized his age. Some of the names he mispronounced (Ahmadinejad being the most conspicuous, he stumbled over it several times, think "I'm a dinner jacket", what's so hard about that), and at least once it sounded like he may have confused two leaders. Whatever. To hear him tell it, he has spent the past several years trotting around the world meeting important people. (That might explain how he managed to miss 407 Senate votes (6 key votes) in the past 3.7 years.) He did get across, however, that he has a sense of world history and the relationship of various countries.
I'm not sure what Obama's thrust was, other than to tie McCain more tightly to Bush and to how we got to where we are now. He needed a theme to keep coming back to, something to keep hitting hard. Without a theme, it sometimes seemed like he was just responding to McCain. He made a couple of good points, one being that we are in Iraq at the expense of Afghanistan, and THAT's where the greatest danger from terrorism is. McCain seemed to miss that somehow. He didn't get it. He seemed to be hung up on "winning" in Iraq, perhaps so all those soldiers who had already died would not have died in vain (insert story of bereaved mother here).
The candidates were supposed to talk to each other during the "rebuttal" part of the questions. I got annoyed with McCain because even when he was supposed to be talking to Obama, he didn't look directly at him.
(One part that wasn't there, and will never be part of a formal debate, but I'd have LOVED to see, is them asking each other about the dirty and misleading ads. I'd LOVE to hear McCain tell his supporters right out that Obama is not Muslim.)
The part that stood out for me was about the president talking directly with foreign leaders without preconditions. A refusal to speak to foreign leaders with whom we have arguments without their conceding to preconditions is a tenet of the Bush administration. Lower officials, like Secretaries or ambassadors, yes. President, no.
This has always struck me as exceedingly stupid. Like, does Bush think we're punishing them by refusing to speak to them? It smacks of high school politics. "I'm not talking to her until she apologises for what she did!" "But she says she didn't do it, and she won't apologize for something she didn't do." "Well I don't care. I won't talk to her until she apologizes!"
Obama said he'd talk to anyone. McCain didn't like that. Obama pointed out that McCain's own advisor, Henry Kissinger, said that the President should talk directly with other leaders without preconditions. McCain bristled and said that Kissinger had never said that! Well, within minutes, Katie Couric had Kissinger on the phone, and Kissinger said yes, a president should talk with other world leaders without preconditions.
Snork.
There's a popular buzzword (buzzphrase?) in psychology these days - "cognitive dissonance". That's when one continues to believe something in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
fMRIs have shown that formation of beliefs and opinions originates in the emotional part of the brain, and then moves to the logical part, so that they come into our logical mind for examination already festooned with emotions and preconceptions, of which we are unaware. The more emotionally invested we are in the conclusion, the less likely we are to listen to any facts or arguments to the contrary.
Politics is highly emotional.
If you listen to two people who are especially emotionally invested argue about "their" candidates, you'll notice that they really don't listen to or hear or consider anything that doesn't suit their belief, and may even react violently to even deserved criticism of their candidate. Poor Elizabeth on "The View" is almost pitiful that way.
So that's why I don't think this debate will change any minds that aren't already made up.
I mean, look at all the people defending Palin. How can anyone thinking logically want her as the VP?
We also need to be aware of the areas where our candidates might have some cognitive dissonance of their own going on.
Heh heh --- next post. Kissinger and Palin. The conspiracy connection!
.
I watched the McCain-Obama debate. Both candidates pretty much made their supporters happy, but of course that doesn't matter. It's the undecideds who count. (Is there really anyone at this point who is truly undecided?)
McCain was dressed to better appeal to Joe Blow, in a medium blue suit, a medium light blue shirt, and a red striped tie. A rather soft look. Obama was dressed to appeal to middle management in a well-tailored very dark blue suit, a pale blue shirt that looked almost white, and a solid red tie. Obama's sharpness may have been a mistake.
You'll find better analyses of what went on elsewhere. This is my personal impression.
My general impression was that McCain's main thrust was threefold: to divorce himself from Bush, to emphasize his foreign policy experience, and to denigrate Obama. By denigrate, I mean he dropped famous names like a third-grade starlet, knowing that Obama couldn't do the same, and he got absolutely disrespectful at times, using words like "naive" and "doesn't understand" in referring to Obama. His contempt was palpable.
Dropping all those world-leader names may have been a mistake. Talking about Eisenhower emphasized his age. Some of the names he mispronounced (Ahmadinejad being the most conspicuous, he stumbled over it several times, think "I'm a dinner jacket", what's so hard about that), and at least once it sounded like he may have confused two leaders. Whatever. To hear him tell it, he has spent the past several years trotting around the world meeting important people. (That might explain how he managed to miss 407 Senate votes (6 key votes) in the past 3.7 years.) He did get across, however, that he has a sense of world history and the relationship of various countries.
I'm not sure what Obama's thrust was, other than to tie McCain more tightly to Bush and to how we got to where we are now. He needed a theme to keep coming back to, something to keep hitting hard. Without a theme, it sometimes seemed like he was just responding to McCain. He made a couple of good points, one being that we are in Iraq at the expense of Afghanistan, and THAT's where the greatest danger from terrorism is. McCain seemed to miss that somehow. He didn't get it. He seemed to be hung up on "winning" in Iraq, perhaps so all those soldiers who had already died would not have died in vain (insert story of bereaved mother here).
The candidates were supposed to talk to each other during the "rebuttal" part of the questions. I got annoyed with McCain because even when he was supposed to be talking to Obama, he didn't look directly at him.
(One part that wasn't there, and will never be part of a formal debate, but I'd have LOVED to see, is them asking each other about the dirty and misleading ads. I'd LOVE to hear McCain tell his supporters right out that Obama is not Muslim.)
The part that stood out for me was about the president talking directly with foreign leaders without preconditions. A refusal to speak to foreign leaders with whom we have arguments without their conceding to preconditions is a tenet of the Bush administration. Lower officials, like Secretaries or ambassadors, yes. President, no.
This has always struck me as exceedingly stupid. Like, does Bush think we're punishing them by refusing to speak to them? It smacks of high school politics. "I'm not talking to her until she apologises for what she did!" "But she says she didn't do it, and she won't apologize for something she didn't do." "Well I don't care. I won't talk to her until she apologizes!"
Obama said he'd talk to anyone. McCain didn't like that. Obama pointed out that McCain's own advisor, Henry Kissinger, said that the President should talk directly with other leaders without preconditions. McCain bristled and said that Kissinger had never said that! Well, within minutes, Katie Couric had Kissinger on the phone, and Kissinger said yes, a president should talk with other world leaders without preconditions.
Snork.
There's a popular buzzword (buzzphrase?) in psychology these days - "cognitive dissonance". That's when one continues to believe something in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
fMRIs have shown that formation of beliefs and opinions originates in the emotional part of the brain, and then moves to the logical part, so that they come into our logical mind for examination already festooned with emotions and preconceptions, of which we are unaware. The more emotionally invested we are in the conclusion, the less likely we are to listen to any facts or arguments to the contrary.
Politics is highly emotional.
If you listen to two people who are especially emotionally invested argue about "their" candidates, you'll notice that they really don't listen to or hear or consider anything that doesn't suit their belief, and may even react violently to even deserved criticism of their candidate. Poor Elizabeth on "The View" is almost pitiful that way.
So that's why I don't think this debate will change any minds that aren't already made up.
I mean, look at all the people defending Palin. How can anyone thinking logically want her as the VP?
We also need to be aware of the areas where our candidates might have some cognitive dissonance of their own going on.
Heh heh --- next post. Kissinger and Palin. The conspiracy connection!
.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
2036 OMG! Incoherent Babbling!
Thursday, September 25, 2008
I somehow missed the Katie Couric interview with Sarah Palin. So I went looking for clips on YouTube.
Even if what I found is carefully selected pieces that make her look like an idiot, it boggles my mind that there were that many bits that make her look like an idiot. And it's odd that there are only a few very short clips in which she is coherent.
The woman is in WAY over her head. It becomes obvious why she's been kept from interviews. This one was a mistake. Biden will eat her for lunch - um - unless that debate is canceled, too.
.
I somehow missed the Katie Couric interview with Sarah Palin. So I went looking for clips on YouTube.
Even if what I found is carefully selected pieces that make her look like an idiot, it boggles my mind that there were that many bits that make her look like an idiot. And it's odd that there are only a few very short clips in which she is coherent.
The woman is in WAY over her head. It becomes obvious why she's been kept from interviews. This one was a mistake. Biden will eat her for lunch - um - unless that debate is canceled, too.
.
2035 A Little Better
Thursday, September 25, 2008
I slept all day yesterday. Got up twice to drink water, and I ate a few small wheat crackers. Today I still ache all over. Some of it may be the muscle ache of virus, but I think a lot of it is from the violence of the shivering. Every muscle in my body got a total workout.
I ate a bowl of oatmeal today. Drinking lots of water. What I really want is macaroni and cheese.
I usually shrug and think, oh well, purging from both ends isn't so very bad - at least I'll lose some weight. Ha! Got on the scale this afternoon, and I haven't lost an ounce. I guess that means I'm drinking enough water.
.
I slept all day yesterday. Got up twice to drink water, and I ate a few small wheat crackers. Today I still ache all over. Some of it may be the muscle ache of virus, but I think a lot of it is from the violence of the shivering. Every muscle in my body got a total workout.
I ate a bowl of oatmeal today. Drinking lots of water. What I really want is macaroni and cheese.
I usually shrug and think, oh well, purging from both ends isn't so very bad - at least I'll lose some weight. Ha! Got on the scale this afternoon, and I haven't lost an ounce. I guess that means I'm drinking enough water.
.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
2034 Sick
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The previous post was set up Tuesday night, and scheduled to be published today. Otherwise it wouldn't have happened. Not like I had any kind of premonition....
I was sick during the night. I was fine when I went to bed a little after midnight, was reading a book, and then I got cold. Shivering violently. Shaking so badly I couldn't put my glasses on. Boosted the heat, put three layers of clothes on, put a heating pad in the bed. I had to clench my jaws because I was afraid the clattering would break teeth. By 4 am I was sitting on the floor next to the john with a bucket in my lap.
It's times like that that I realize how alone I am.
Today I have a 101 fever, and my whole body feels like I've been beaten badly, kicked all over (I do know exactly what that feels like). The cramps and nausea are gone, though. My hands, feet, and buttocks are desperate for massage, and my jaw aches from the clenching. I am miserable, but it's all up from here, I think.
It's probably norovirus. Don't know where I might have picked it up. I won't wish it on you.
I slept most of today, and now I'm going back to bed.
.
The previous post was set up Tuesday night, and scheduled to be published today. Otherwise it wouldn't have happened. Not like I had any kind of premonition....
I was sick during the night. I was fine when I went to bed a little after midnight, was reading a book, and then I got cold. Shivering violently. Shaking so badly I couldn't put my glasses on. Boosted the heat, put three layers of clothes on, put a heating pad in the bed. I had to clench my jaws because I was afraid the clattering would break teeth. By 4 am I was sitting on the floor next to the john with a bucket in my lap.
It's times like that that I realize how alone I am.
Today I have a 101 fever, and my whole body feels like I've been beaten badly, kicked all over (I do know exactly what that feels like). The cramps and nausea are gone, though. My hands, feet, and buttocks are desperate for massage, and my jaw aches from the clenching. I am miserable, but it's all up from here, I think.
It's probably norovirus. Don't know where I might have picked it up. I won't wish it on you.
I slept most of today, and now I'm going back to bed.
.
2033 Repeating an old post - Abortion
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
This is a post from my original AOL journal, at http://journals.aol.com/jaykolb/Moraine/. It contains entries from June 22, 2004 to November 16, 2005.
--------------------------------------
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
In general, things I say are often taken in a way I don't at all mean them to be taken. I think maybe because listeners interpret what I say in the context of what they are thinking at the moment. They think I am headed the same direction they're heading -but I'm often looking at things from a slightly different angle. I don't say what they expect, but they hear (or read) what they expect. So that's why one of the things I like about Mensa is that my comments are not (well, not quite as often) misunderstood. Therefore I was surprised when I said something at lunch recently that was not immediately understood.
The conversation had veered into general politics, in particular into the influence of the religious right on conservative thinking, and the role of religion in decision-making, and eventually into Roe v Wade. My comment was, "The thinking is obvious. It's not ok to kill an unborn baby. You have to wait until they're old enough to put on a uniform, then you can kill as many as you want to." I was surprised when it took a minute. No, I was not saying that it's ok to kill young men in uniform. Sheesh!
By the way, to reiterate my personal opinion, abortion is a BAD THING. I hate that there are people who treat it casually. I hate that it exists as an option. On the other hand, women MUST have the right to control their own lives, to determine the uses to which their bodies are put. (The old saw about keeping women barefoot and pregnant wasn't a joke. Pregnancy was not so very long ago one of many powers that men exercised over women.) Therefore, we must keep abortion legal until we have eliminated all the reasons that some women feel an abortion is necessary. It's unfair to do otherwise!
So don't work against abortion - not yet, anyway - work for inexpensive and convenient daycare at hours that suit the job, equal pay, safe birth control, cheap prenatal care, paid maternity leave, guaranteed jobs and continued seniority over the leave, gentle deliveries, paid paternal leave, etc. Work to find out why women turn to abortion, how did they get into such a desperate position, and work to eliminate those conditions.
The antiabortion folks terrorize women with stories about bad dreams for years afterward - but women who give babies up for adoption have bad dreams, too. Don't forget that for every picture of a dead fetus, there is a picture of an abused, broken, unloved toddler. Equally as bad as abortion is having and keeping a baby you don't want, can't afford, and aren't mature or committed enough to raise. Instead of outlawing abortion, we need to eliminate male (sorry guys, but it's still true) physical, emotional, and financial control over women's destinies, and make it easier for a woman to be a mother, and only by conscious choice.
Having been a single mother, I know whereof I speak. Daycare was my biggest problem. The "large computer manufacturer" didn't feel at all guilty about assigning huge amounts of overtime and requiring third shift lab time on short notice, and yet refusing to provide 24-hour company-sponsored daycare. They made it very difficult to be both a good parent and a good employee. Extremely high-stress. And if I'd had a minimum wage at-will job, it would have been impossible. In that situation, you can't even complain. When you live paycheck to paycheck, a parent can't just quit and look for a more accomodating job. There's no cushion, and no leeway.
I am annoyed that so many people think children are of utmost importance, until they are asked to help take care of them. Then, it's your problem, not theirs. I don't think anyone should speak out against abortion until they have adopted several unloved babies, and have taken desperate pregnant women into their homes, and have given material help to establish decent daycare. Otherwise, they are just looking down their noses, and sneering "Well, if you lived like I do, you wouldn't have gotten into that position in the first place." First, make it possible for them to live like you do. Then you can complain when they don't.
This is a post from my original AOL journal, at http://journals.aol.com/jaykolb/Moraine/. It contains entries from June 22, 2004 to November 16, 2005.
--------------------------------------
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
In general, things I say are often taken in a way I don't at all mean them to be taken. I think maybe because listeners interpret what I say in the context of what they are thinking at the moment. They think I am headed the same direction they're heading -but I'm often looking at things from a slightly different angle. I don't say what they expect, but they hear (or read) what they expect. So that's why one of the things I like about Mensa is that my comments are not (well, not quite as often) misunderstood. Therefore I was surprised when I said something at lunch recently that was not immediately understood.
The conversation had veered into general politics, in particular into the influence of the religious right on conservative thinking, and the role of religion in decision-making, and eventually into Roe v Wade. My comment was, "The thinking is obvious. It's not ok to kill an unborn baby. You have to wait until they're old enough to put on a uniform, then you can kill as many as you want to." I was surprised when it took a minute. No, I was not saying that it's ok to kill young men in uniform. Sheesh!
By the way, to reiterate my personal opinion, abortion is a BAD THING. I hate that there are people who treat it casually. I hate that it exists as an option. On the other hand, women MUST have the right to control their own lives, to determine the uses to which their bodies are put. (The old saw about keeping women barefoot and pregnant wasn't a joke. Pregnancy was not so very long ago one of many powers that men exercised over women.) Therefore, we must keep abortion legal until we have eliminated all the reasons that some women feel an abortion is necessary. It's unfair to do otherwise!
So don't work against abortion - not yet, anyway - work for inexpensive and convenient daycare at hours that suit the job, equal pay, safe birth control, cheap prenatal care, paid maternity leave, guaranteed jobs and continued seniority over the leave, gentle deliveries, paid paternal leave, etc. Work to find out why women turn to abortion, how did they get into such a desperate position, and work to eliminate those conditions.
The antiabortion folks terrorize women with stories about bad dreams for years afterward - but women who give babies up for adoption have bad dreams, too. Don't forget that for every picture of a dead fetus, there is a picture of an abused, broken, unloved toddler. Equally as bad as abortion is having and keeping a baby you don't want, can't afford, and aren't mature or committed enough to raise. Instead of outlawing abortion, we need to eliminate male (sorry guys, but it's still true) physical, emotional, and financial control over women's destinies, and make it easier for a woman to be a mother, and only by conscious choice.
Having been a single mother, I know whereof I speak. Daycare was my biggest problem. The "large computer manufacturer" didn't feel at all guilty about assigning huge amounts of overtime and requiring third shift lab time on short notice, and yet refusing to provide 24-hour company-sponsored daycare. They made it very difficult to be both a good parent and a good employee. Extremely high-stress. And if I'd had a minimum wage at-will job, it would have been impossible. In that situation, you can't even complain. When you live paycheck to paycheck, a parent can't just quit and look for a more accomodating job. There's no cushion, and no leeway.
I am annoyed that so many people think children are of utmost importance, until they are asked to help take care of them. Then, it's your problem, not theirs. I don't think anyone should speak out against abortion until they have adopted several unloved babies, and have taken desperate pregnant women into their homes, and have given material help to establish decent daycare. Otherwise, they are just looking down their noses, and sneering "Well, if you lived like I do, you wouldn't have gotten into that position in the first place." First, make it possible for them to live like you do. Then you can complain when they don't.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
2032 Thud
Plaintiff on TV: "... I borrowed it to him."
Judge Judy, correcting her: "... I loaned it to him."
Me, yelling at TV: "... I lent it to him!"
"Loan" is a noun.
The verb is "lend", past tense "lent".
Bleck.
.
Judge Judy, correcting her: "... I loaned it to him."
Me, yelling at TV: "... I lent it to him!"
"Loan" is a noun.
The verb is "lend", past tense "lent".
Bleck.
.
2031 Shame
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
There are about 18 houses in our little neighborhood. Several of them are summer or weekend homes. There's very little visiting back and forth, mostly just next-door neighbors interaction.
One of the houses is occupied by a couple whom everyone avoids. He is big, vicious, violent, nasty, vindictive, and more than a bit crazy. She is older than he, from central Europe, and does not have the use of her left hand. He beats her. She doesn't drive, and he refuses to take her shopping. He leaves her alone all day with no transportation, but expects the larder to be full, and dinner on the table when he comes home.
So she rides her bicycle the two miles into the village to shop. There's a limit to how much food and household supplies she can carry home on the bike, so she has to go several times a week, no matter the weather.
I first met her one winter day two or three years ago when she appeared on my doorstep asking if she could have some of my firewood. A neighbor had called the police to one of those beatings, and she had a three-month order of protection against him, so he wasn't allowed to go to the house, and the furnace was broken, and she had no money to fix it, could I please give her some of my wood. I did.
Over the next few weeks and cups of tea, I offered her rides to town and to medical treatment, and talked with her about her life and her options. It turned out she had several friends in the area, and she had in the past gone to stay with them when things got really bad, but she always came back because she couldn't see any other choice, she has no money of her own and can't afford a lawyer, and now all those friends refuse to take her in any more because her husband always found her, and he's crazy and scares them, and she always went back to him anyway.
I started researching. Research is one thing I do well. I found her free legal assistance. I found her all kinds of aid and social services, including the battered women's shelters. And --- she refused to consider any of it. I soon discovered that all she really wanted was money, donations of food, rides, and someone to complain to. She didn't seem to really want to change anything.
Along about that time, another neighbor who lives across the street from them and had seen the guy in action, strongly advised me to get out of the situation. Do not attempt to help her. He also pointed out that she will gradually drain me of anything I can give her, but she won't make any changes. And, more importantly, if the husband gets the idea that I'm interfering, I could come out some morning to find both my vehicles keyed and all eight tires punctured, and I wouldn't be able to prove he did it.
I'd about reached that conclusion myself.
The next time she called, I told her that in finding the legal and social services, I'd done as much for her as I could, and that I can't do any more. If she needed a ride to any of those offices, she could call, but otherwise I have to stay out of her life. I didn't respond to her next few phone messages, and eventually they stopped.
I occasionally see her on the highway on her bicycle. I don't think she sees me. She always has her head down.
Today I went to the grocery store, and passed her, her gray head bent over the bars, her thin legs pedaling hard. I knew she would be heading for the grocery store, too. When I got to the store, I tore around filling the basket so that I'd be gone before she arrived. Then when I left, I turned south to the pharmacy, rather than pass her again.
And I feel so very guilty.
.
There are about 18 houses in our little neighborhood. Several of them are summer or weekend homes. There's very little visiting back and forth, mostly just next-door neighbors interaction.
One of the houses is occupied by a couple whom everyone avoids. He is big, vicious, violent, nasty, vindictive, and more than a bit crazy. She is older than he, from central Europe, and does not have the use of her left hand. He beats her. She doesn't drive, and he refuses to take her shopping. He leaves her alone all day with no transportation, but expects the larder to be full, and dinner on the table when he comes home.
So she rides her bicycle the two miles into the village to shop. There's a limit to how much food and household supplies she can carry home on the bike, so she has to go several times a week, no matter the weather.
I first met her one winter day two or three years ago when she appeared on my doorstep asking if she could have some of my firewood. A neighbor had called the police to one of those beatings, and she had a three-month order of protection against him, so he wasn't allowed to go to the house, and the furnace was broken, and she had no money to fix it, could I please give her some of my wood. I did.
Over the next few weeks and cups of tea, I offered her rides to town and to medical treatment, and talked with her about her life and her options. It turned out she had several friends in the area, and she had in the past gone to stay with them when things got really bad, but she always came back because she couldn't see any other choice, she has no money of her own and can't afford a lawyer, and now all those friends refuse to take her in any more because her husband always found her, and he's crazy and scares them, and she always went back to him anyway.
I started researching. Research is one thing I do well. I found her free legal assistance. I found her all kinds of aid and social services, including the battered women's shelters. And --- she refused to consider any of it. I soon discovered that all she really wanted was money, donations of food, rides, and someone to complain to. She didn't seem to really want to change anything.
Along about that time, another neighbor who lives across the street from them and had seen the guy in action, strongly advised me to get out of the situation. Do not attempt to help her. He also pointed out that she will gradually drain me of anything I can give her, but she won't make any changes. And, more importantly, if the husband gets the idea that I'm interfering, I could come out some morning to find both my vehicles keyed and all eight tires punctured, and I wouldn't be able to prove he did it.
I'd about reached that conclusion myself.
The next time she called, I told her that in finding the legal and social services, I'd done as much for her as I could, and that I can't do any more. If she needed a ride to any of those offices, she could call, but otherwise I have to stay out of her life. I didn't respond to her next few phone messages, and eventually they stopped.
I occasionally see her on the highway on her bicycle. I don't think she sees me. She always has her head down.
Today I went to the grocery store, and passed her, her gray head bent over the bars, her thin legs pedaling hard. I knew she would be heading for the grocery store, too. When I got to the store, I tore around filling the basket so that I'd be gone before she arrived. Then when I left, I turned south to the pharmacy, rather than pass her again.
And I feel so very guilty.
.
2030 Disturbing Section in the Mortgage Bailout Proposal
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
You can read the entire proposed legislation here. It's short and pretty clear.
Catch this part:
Scary!
.
You can read the entire proposed legislation here. It's short and pretty clear.
Catch this part:
Isn't that going a bit too far? What about that "three branch balance" thingy we learned about in government classes? Will Congress actually pass this?Sec. 8. Review.
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
Scary!
.
Monday, September 22, 2008
2029 Bonk!
Monday, September 22, 2008
I may have a black eye tomorrow.
I have a wooden kitchen stool that has a post sticking up to move it around easily. The post reaches to exactly the height of my hand as it hangs by my side. There's a big wooden ball on the end to grab it by. I know this stool well. I designed it, Jay made it, I decorated and varnished it (there are snakes spiraling up the post), and I've been using it more than ten years.
A few minutes ago I dropped a tissue, and bent down quickly to catch it, and came down hard on the ball. It got me on and below my left eyebrow. I've already got a headache.
Bag of frozen peas, right? Um, will a block of frozen squash do?
.
I may have a black eye tomorrow.
I have a wooden kitchen stool that has a post sticking up to move it around easily. The post reaches to exactly the height of my hand as it hangs by my side. There's a big wooden ball on the end to grab it by. I know this stool well. I designed it, Jay made it, I decorated and varnished it (there are snakes spiraling up the post), and I've been using it more than ten years.
A few minutes ago I dropped a tissue, and bent down quickly to catch it, and came down hard on the ball. It got me on and below my left eyebrow. I've already got a headache.
Bag of frozen peas, right? Um, will a block of frozen squash do?
.
2028 More Short Stuff
Monday, September 22, 2008
Talked w. Piper today. Learned more about "selling short". The description I gave is indeed a kindergarten version of the theory behind it, but the way it actually works is much more complicated. There's no "you", and no real stock "in hand". It's a gambling game in virtual space, but with real money. And if I described how it really worked, you'd laugh me out of the room.
---------------------
Ok, here goes, attempt #2:
- Stock ABC is selling at $30 a share.
- I go to you and offer to sell you 1000 shares at $30 per.
- I don't actually have any shares of ABC.
- You say ok, and you set up an account for me with $30,000 credit, what they're paying for the stock, in it.
- In exchange for this, I have to deposit a real $15,000 into the account.
- The account now has $45,000 in it. This is my money, and I owe you 1000 shares.
- You are betting the stock goes up.
- I am betting the stock goes down.
- The money sits there in the account.
- I get all the money in the account when I hand you the 1000 shares of ABC.
- If the stock goes down, say to $10 a share, I buy 1000 shares for $10,000, send them to you, and you release the $45,000 to me. I made $20,000 on the deal.
- If the stock goes up, I'm covered by what's in the account until it goes to $45 a share (or something - the amount of coverage is a bit fuzzy to me). If it goes over $45 a share, I have to put more money in the account to cover the increased value of the stock I owe you! At some point, say $50 a share, I panic at all the money I'm putting in that account, so I buy 1000 shares at the current price, $50, and send them to you, and you send me all the money in the account. (Seems like it would make more sense for you to just use the money in the account to buy 1000 shares, and send me any money left over, if any.) I made no money. Remember, I sold you the stock for $30 a share, but I had to buy it at $50 to fill my debt. I'm out $20,000. You made $20,000.
Stop laughing.
.
Talked w. Piper today. Learned more about "selling short". The description I gave is indeed a kindergarten version of the theory behind it, but the way it actually works is much more complicated. There's no "you", and no real stock "in hand". It's a gambling game in virtual space, but with real money. And if I described how it really worked, you'd laugh me out of the room.
---------------------
Ok, here goes, attempt #2:
- Stock ABC is selling at $30 a share.
- I go to you and offer to sell you 1000 shares at $30 per.
- I don't actually have any shares of ABC.
- You say ok, and you set up an account for me with $30,000 credit, what they're paying for the stock, in it.
- In exchange for this, I have to deposit a real $15,000 into the account.
- The account now has $45,000 in it. This is my money, and I owe you 1000 shares.
- You are betting the stock goes up.
- I am betting the stock goes down.
- The money sits there in the account.
- I get all the money in the account when I hand you the 1000 shares of ABC.
- If the stock goes down, say to $10 a share, I buy 1000 shares for $10,000, send them to you, and you release the $45,000 to me. I made $20,000 on the deal.
- If the stock goes up, I'm covered by what's in the account until it goes to $45 a share (or something - the amount of coverage is a bit fuzzy to me). If it goes over $45 a share, I have to put more money in the account to cover the increased value of the stock I owe you! At some point, say $50 a share, I panic at all the money I'm putting in that account, so I buy 1000 shares at the current price, $50, and send them to you, and you send me all the money in the account. (Seems like it would make more sense for you to just use the money in the account to buy 1000 shares, and send me any money left over, if any.) I made no money. Remember, I sold you the stock for $30 a share, but I had to buy it at $50 to fill my debt. I'm out $20,000. You made $20,000.
Stop laughing.
.
2027 Perception of Women
Monday, September 22, 2008
[Reading this over, I see I've combined the problem of an uneducated electorate, and negative views of the capability of women, and kind of tangled them up. Well, yeah. I could edit and rewrite to make it cleaner, but ... fooey. They ARE intertwined. ]
Of all the developed countries, the US ranks something like 75th in the participation of women in government (per a program on PBS). Why is it so difficult in this country for women to be elected to the House, or Senate, let alone the Presidency? Or even to rise to CEO of a corporation? Why do we still have that stupid glass ceiling?
Basically, because so many Americans, both male and female, don't believe that women are capable. They think whatever the job is, a man, any man, can do it better.
Why?
Because, and this is entirely my opinion, most of the women most people, male and female, come into contact with day to day are arbitrary, emotional, prone to playing "gotcha games", bitchy, backbiting, shallow, tend to react more than think, are unaware of issues beyond the latest Hollywood scandal and their next manicure, and are treated as sex objects because that's the way they present themselves. No, that's not all women, but it IS the ones the people who vote most heavily are most familiar with. That's the definition of "woman" to most people, including those who should know better.
Americans in general are not taught to think in schools. They learn to parrot, but seldom learn to think and analyze. If you need proof of this, sit down and talk with a group of suburban American teenagers, and then talk with some British or French or German teens of approximately the same social class. The European kids know more about the American government and the election issues that the American kids, and far outstrip them on world issues. Sample some blogs from around the world.
The great mass of Americans don't vote on the issues, but on their "gut feel", whatever that is. And their gut feeling is that women are stupid and cannot be trusted. Any woman who clearly ISN'T like that, obviously isn't really a woman. If she's smart and capable, then she must be hiding a set of balls.
Huh?
How do we change this perception? We won't get full representation until we do. We have to somehow make our young women stronger, give them concerns that extend beyond preoccupation with the contents of their bras. We have to educate our kids better. Teach them to think. Get them interested in the world.
Until we do, the mass of voters will vote in the way they are told by the few who have an interest in maintaining the status quo. Our government has an interest in keeping the electorate stupid. Stupid people are easier to herd in the direction you want them to go, and they don't know enough to complain when they're being mistreated.
.
[Reading this over, I see I've combined the problem of an uneducated electorate, and negative views of the capability of women, and kind of tangled them up. Well, yeah. I could edit and rewrite to make it cleaner, but ... fooey. They ARE intertwined. ]
Of all the developed countries, the US ranks something like 75th in the participation of women in government (per a program on PBS). Why is it so difficult in this country for women to be elected to the House, or Senate, let alone the Presidency? Or even to rise to CEO of a corporation? Why do we still have that stupid glass ceiling?
Basically, because so many Americans, both male and female, don't believe that women are capable. They think whatever the job is, a man, any man, can do it better.
Why?
Because, and this is entirely my opinion, most of the women most people, male and female, come into contact with day to day are arbitrary, emotional, prone to playing "gotcha games", bitchy, backbiting, shallow, tend to react more than think, are unaware of issues beyond the latest Hollywood scandal and their next manicure, and are treated as sex objects because that's the way they present themselves. No, that's not all women, but it IS the ones the people who vote most heavily are most familiar with. That's the definition of "woman" to most people, including those who should know better.
Americans in general are not taught to think in schools. They learn to parrot, but seldom learn to think and analyze. If you need proof of this, sit down and talk with a group of suburban American teenagers, and then talk with some British or French or German teens of approximately the same social class. The European kids know more about the American government and the election issues that the American kids, and far outstrip them on world issues. Sample some blogs from around the world.
The great mass of Americans don't vote on the issues, but on their "gut feel", whatever that is. And their gut feeling is that women are stupid and cannot be trusted. Any woman who clearly ISN'T like that, obviously isn't really a woman. If she's smart and capable, then she must be hiding a set of balls.
Huh?
How do we change this perception? We won't get full representation until we do. We have to somehow make our young women stronger, give them concerns that extend beyond preoccupation with the contents of their bras. We have to educate our kids better. Teach them to think. Get them interested in the world.
Until we do, the mass of voters will vote in the way they are told by the few who have an interest in maintaining the status quo. Our government has an interest in keeping the electorate stupid. Stupid people are easier to herd in the direction you want them to go, and they don't know enough to complain when they're being mistreated.
.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
2026 What Does "Sell Short" mean?
Sunday, September 21, 2008
This is a very simple explanation.
- You have 10 shares of ABC, and it's selling for $100 a share right now.
- ABC looks to me like it might be overvalued, and the stock might be on the verge of a slide.
- I go to you and ask you to "lend" me your 10 shares, and I'll pay you Z dollars "rent" for them.
- I sell those shares, and pocket $1,000 dollars, minus the Z dollars "rent" I pay you.
- The stock drops. Now it's $20 a share.
- I buy 10 shares at $20 each, $200 worth, and I give them to you.
- I just made $800 minus Z dollars profit.
Of course there are a lot more details, but that's the basic theory. I am a short seller, and you are a fool. That's pretty much it, except that it's done on the level of hundreds of thousands of shares at a time, not 10.
I can get hurt doing it if the stock goes up instead of down and you demand your stock back, or the term of our contract ends, while it's high, and I have to buy stock to replace yours at a higher price. Piper has told me horror stories about people who were "caught short".
If the stock doesn't go down, you will get Z dollars profit and you still own the stock. It's like renting out your second home or something.
However, I still have trouble understanding why ANYONE would "rent out" the stock to a short seller. That would be like renting real estate to college students. It ISN'T likely to come back in the same condition.
The market is stacked in favor of short sellers, because if several of them sell huge blocks of stock all at once, that almost guarantees the price will fall. They can make their prediction come true simply by predicting it. There's gotta be something wrong with that. And that's why it's banned right now - to prevent an avalanche.
----------------------
UPDATE: 9/22/08 I talked with Piper today. The above description is the general theory of what happens, but it's not exactly how it happens. There's no "you", and no real "in the hand" stock. And if I told how it really worked, nobody'd believe me.
.
This is a very simple explanation.
- You have 10 shares of ABC, and it's selling for $100 a share right now.
- ABC looks to me like it might be overvalued, and the stock might be on the verge of a slide.
- I go to you and ask you to "lend" me your 10 shares, and I'll pay you Z dollars "rent" for them.
- I sell those shares, and pocket $1,000 dollars, minus the Z dollars "rent" I pay you.
- The stock drops. Now it's $20 a share.
- I buy 10 shares at $20 each, $200 worth, and I give them to you.
- I just made $800 minus Z dollars profit.
Of course there are a lot more details, but that's the basic theory. I am a short seller, and you are a fool. That's pretty much it, except that it's done on the level of hundreds of thousands of shares at a time, not 10.
I can get hurt doing it if the stock goes up instead of down and you demand your stock back, or the term of our contract ends, while it's high, and I have to buy stock to replace yours at a higher price. Piper has told me horror stories about people who were "caught short".
If the stock doesn't go down, you will get Z dollars profit and you still own the stock. It's like renting out your second home or something.
However, I still have trouble understanding why ANYONE would "rent out" the stock to a short seller. That would be like renting real estate to college students. It ISN'T likely to come back in the same condition.
The market is stacked in favor of short sellers, because if several of them sell huge blocks of stock all at once, that almost guarantees the price will fall. They can make their prediction come true simply by predicting it. There's gotta be something wrong with that. And that's why it's banned right now - to prevent an avalanche.
----------------------
UPDATE: 9/22/08 I talked with Piper today. The above description is the general theory of what happens, but it's not exactly how it happens. There's no "you", and no real "in the hand" stock. And if I told how it really worked, nobody'd believe me.
.
2025 Netting it out
Gretchen Morgenson just said something cool re the bailouts, as I walked past the TV (PBS), "This is privatizing gains and nationalizing losses, putting the losses on you and me." Yup.
.
.
2024 Down With the FoMo!
Sunday, September 21, 2008
What's with the popularity of the faux mohawk hairdo among young men? Where did it come from? Why do they want to look like a rooster? Every time I see a guy with that ridge on their head, I expect then to bob their head when they walk. The only people I remember having it a few years ago were flamboyant gays, and I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't gay hairdressers who pushed it on you. It looks stupid, guys! Really stupid. As stupid as that disconnected bump young women have been wearing on the top front of their heads. Every bit as stupid as the '50s jellyrolls and DAs, which, by the way, only the relative outcasts fell for. Ten years from now you'll look at photos and wonder whatever possessed you to walk around with a POINT on the top of your head. Faux dunce cap! Stop it!
Speaking of points, what's with the point on the back of Sarah Palin's head? What's she hiding in there? Is she unaware that teasing is bad for your hair, and never looks natural? She looked like Woody Woodpecker in profile every time I've seen her on TV.
.
What's with the popularity of the faux mohawk hairdo among young men? Where did it come from? Why do they want to look like a rooster? Every time I see a guy with that ridge on their head, I expect then to bob their head when they walk. The only people I remember having it a few years ago were flamboyant gays, and I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't gay hairdressers who pushed it on you. It looks stupid, guys! Really stupid. As stupid as that disconnected bump young women have been wearing on the top front of their heads. Every bit as stupid as the '50s jellyrolls and DAs, which, by the way, only the relative outcasts fell for. Ten years from now you'll look at photos and wonder whatever possessed you to walk around with a POINT on the top of your head. Faux dunce cap! Stop it!Speaking of points, what's with the point on the back of Sarah Palin's head? What's she hiding in there? Is she unaware that teasing is bad for your hair, and never looks natural? She looked like Woody Woodpecker in profile every time I've seen her on TV.
.
2023 Hey! I have a great idea!
Sunday, September 21, 2008
I read that the bailouts have cost American taxpayers between 2 and 5 thousand dollars each. I don't know whether that's taxpayers only or everybody, that may be the difference between the 2 and 5 estimates, but that doesn't matter to my idea.
Somebody really screwed up, and those somebodies who screwed it up took money out hand over fist until the bottom fell out, and now they get to walk away with their profits, leaving us to pay their bills.
Boo, hiss, not fair. But there's not a lot that can be done about that now.
Here's my idea to even things out a little.
At sometime in the past five years, stock in those companies was at a high of, let's say, $100 a share.
At the time of the bailout, the stock was worth, let's say, $1 a share.
I figure that my paying for the bailout should have bought me 2 to 5 thousand shares of that stock! I think I ought to have some interest in that stock!
Ok, we've got a lot of taxpayers, and that's a lot more than the market could support, so let's assign stock to taxpayers based on its high of the past five years - in our example that was $100, so each of us should get credit for 20 to 50 shares of stock. The government should hold it for us.
Then as the bailed-out companies recover and the price of their shares goes back up, we can sell "our" shares at any time, and we get to keep personally any profit over $100 per share. We can even apply it to future tax payments.
Whether the government has to buy and hold actual stock (they'd acquire it at the current (frozen) price and sell it at a future price) or just assign virtual interest to each of us is a detail to be worked out.
Why not?
.
I read that the bailouts have cost American taxpayers between 2 and 5 thousand dollars each. I don't know whether that's taxpayers only or everybody, that may be the difference between the 2 and 5 estimates, but that doesn't matter to my idea.
Somebody really screwed up, and those somebodies who screwed it up took money out hand over fist until the bottom fell out, and now they get to walk away with their profits, leaving us to pay their bills.
Boo, hiss, not fair. But there's not a lot that can be done about that now.
Here's my idea to even things out a little.
At sometime in the past five years, stock in those companies was at a high of, let's say, $100 a share.
At the time of the bailout, the stock was worth, let's say, $1 a share.
I figure that my paying for the bailout should have bought me 2 to 5 thousand shares of that stock! I think I ought to have some interest in that stock!
Ok, we've got a lot of taxpayers, and that's a lot more than the market could support, so let's assign stock to taxpayers based on its high of the past five years - in our example that was $100, so each of us should get credit for 20 to 50 shares of stock. The government should hold it for us.
Then as the bailed-out companies recover and the price of their shares goes back up, we can sell "our" shares at any time, and we get to keep personally any profit over $100 per share. We can even apply it to future tax payments.
Whether the government has to buy and hold actual stock (they'd acquire it at the current (frozen) price and sell it at a future price) or just assign virtual interest to each of us is a detail to be worked out.
Why not?
.
2022 A Peeve
Sunday, September 21, 2008
One of the things that bug me is people who have a strong opinion on something, but have never examined where that opinion came from, never questioned why they hold that opinion and not another. So if you say "blah blah" to me, and my left eyebrow shoots up, you'd better be able to follow it with "because blah blah." The because doesn't have to make sense - all I ask is that you have one that means something to you.
The Man is very good at that. He always has a because, and sometimes he frankly admits that it's not reasonable, it's entirely emotional, based on his past experience, and that's ok with me.
Just try to have a because that you know is true, ok?
.
One of the things that bug me is people who have a strong opinion on something, but have never examined where that opinion came from, never questioned why they hold that opinion and not another. So if you say "blah blah" to me, and my left eyebrow shoots up, you'd better be able to follow it with "because blah blah." The because doesn't have to make sense - all I ask is that you have one that means something to you.
The Man is very good at that. He always has a because, and sometimes he frankly admits that it's not reasonable, it's entirely emotional, based on his past experience, and that's ok with me.
Just try to have a because that you know is true, ok?
.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
2021 Kitty Versus Printer
There are a lot of videos on YouTube of cats attacking printers, more specifically the paper emerging. Jasper feels that way about water. He has discovered that when Mommy brushes her teeth, there's a narrow stream of water dribbling from the faucet. He tries to catch it. I removed him from the sink seven times this morning during the brushing of the teeth. His being in the sink doesn't bother me so much - it's his rear end and tail in my face.
I'm glad he's more interested in the faucet than the printer. He can't break the faucet.
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG-swkL0s7M]
This one's cuter - a kitty who wants to repair the printer:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvBiSW5QFKY]
.
I'm glad he's more interested in the faucet than the printer. He can't break the faucet.
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG-swkL0s7M]
This one's cuter - a kitty who wants to repair the printer:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvBiSW5QFKY]
.
2020 What I Want (& other stuff)
Saturday, September 20, 2008
I visited NJ in the hospital on Thursday. I knew that her daughter would tell her about May having got the police to break into NJ's house on Tuesday, so I wrote her a letter explaining how everyone had been worried, and how I had been at the house, and there's nothing to worry about, and her location is safe with me, and I think I've convinced May, too, and wishing her a quick recovery. I was under the impression that she could not receive visitors (and the hospital does not allow flowers (huh? They really don't. I don't know why)), so my intent was to just deliver the note to the desk for them to give to her.
To my surprise, the desk called her room, and then told me to go on up.
When I walked in the door, the first thing she said was "Do you know what that crazy May did? She called the police to break into my house!" I broke into her sputtering to say yes, she'd also called me, and I was there at the house, and that's why I'm here.
She looked good - eyes good, good color, full cheeks - but she was obviously very tired. Picking at a tray of food.
She says if May shows up, she'll have her thrown out. When May had called the hospital on Tuesday, NJ told them to tell May no visitors and no calls. Which of course will only worry May more, so I think it's only a matter of time....
-----------------------------
Major navel-gazing here. Ignore. Skip. Go away.
TV on in background yesterday. Soap opera, I think. Woman has two suitors who have proposed marriage, one rich, the other poor, likes the poor one a bit more than the rich. Oh dear, what to do, which to select.
It reminded me of my mother's best friend of a few decades ago. She, like my mother, was a widow in her mid-50s, without, as my mother put it, "a pot to piss in". But she was tall, slender, long-legged, with full fluffy black hair and excellent taste - in short, she was beautiful and sophisticated-looking.
She also had two suitors. One man was not wealthy, in fact, living rather simply. He adored her, and shared her taste in opera and literature. The other was a multimillionaire, with several homes. He'd made his money in construction, and was a bit coarse in his tastes. He wanted her to help him socially, to look more civilized.
She chose the rich guy, because, as she explained to my horrified mother, she was tired of struggling, she wanted to relax, and she wanted nice things.
The day before the wedding, he presented her with a pre-nup. Sign or we don't get married.
Among other things, it specified that if they were to divorce (on either party's initiation), assets would be split in the same proportion as each brought into the marriage. Which meant if he brought 4 million, and she brought 2 thousand, and "their" assets doubled after 10 years of marriage, and they split, she'd get 4 thousand. Even if he left her.
Another requirement was that they would have sex a minimum of twice a week. Her refusing him would be acceptable grounds for divorce.
He would give her a very large monthly stipend which she could spend or invest in any way she wished without restriction. (Of course, invested money, or purchases with that money, would be part of the total assets should they divorce.)
She sighed, she signed, and she married him. I doubt that it ever occurred to her to consult a lawyer.
Yeah, she was very unhappy. She told my mother that she had assumed that the twice-a-week thing would gradually drift away. It didn't. Right from the start she had found him physically repulsive, called him "The Frog". He had no reason to court her, didn't require enthusiastic participation or even affection, and so was rather brusque in his demands. She got to where she cringed every time he looked at her. Ten years later it was still the same.
Otherwise, life was easy. She stayed married to him.
In my mind, she had sold her body for material comforts. That's what was most important to her, so I guess that was ok.
Got me thinking.
Right now, I know four relatively wealthy men about my age, with assets ranging from just over one to several mind-boggling millions. I am certain that if I batted my eyelashes and played my cards right, I could reel any of them in. No, that's not overconfidence. Two have made definite interest clear. The third has been dogging me for over thirty years. All I'd have to do is give a green light. The fourth guy isn't as clear, but he's in "wanna get married" mode, and when a man gets in that mood, he'll marry the first woman who coos over him.
I could make it happen. I really could.
But I couldn't.
I like them all a lot. In their own way they're nice guys. But actually living with any of them 24/7 would require keeping my mouth shut, biting my tongue when they do or say certain things that bug the hell out of me, and with two of them, anyway, there's a cringe factor. A certain amount of ick.
I'd be selling me for physical comfort, and I can't do it.
So, is it because I'm financially independent, and content with what I have? Would I think differently if I didn't have anything of my own? I really did think hard about it. Maybe the market fluctuations of the past few days spurred the thought. Probably not, because I'm not really all that worried (when I mentioned to Daughter how much loss I'd "suffered" in a mere four days, she said "You haven't lost anything until you want to cash it in", and she's right).
Nope. I don't think I can sell myself. Not now, not any more, not since I found myself.
I married the first two husbands for reasons other than "this is someone I love and want to be with". There was a certain amount of settling, and self-protection involved.
I married Jay because I loved him, pure and simple, and we suited each other so well. I'd quite happily have lived in a hovel with him. As long as there's food and heat, I can be happy, if the company's good.
Ex#2 was a miser. He handled all the money, paid all the bills, and gave me a household allowance. I had no idea how much he made, or how much was available for discretionary spending. I do know that I didn't have enough left over from the household funds to buy clothing. I literally had to beg for a new pair of jeans, or for Daughter's clothes as she grew, and he always grumbled at the expense. I had $70 a month for food (1980), and I fed the three of us on that, with the help of a garden and a freezer. So I do know how to live cheaply, and when you come right down to it, I don't mind. There's a well-earned pride in it.
If I don't want financial support from a relationship, what do I want?
This took a lot of thinking. I tend to define what I want by what the current man's got. If he hasn't got it, then obviously I don't want it, right?
Not true. Gotta get past that. I don't see how I can be truly happy in a relationship unless I can define what my needs are, and be satisfied that they're being met - as opposed to convincing myself I'm happy with what I'm getting.
I don't know what I want.
. I do know that I want his time and attention. I need a lot of that.
. I want a deep friendship, where we are emotionally open to each other, and can say almost anything knowing that it will be understood.
. I need a mind that meshes with mine.
. I want to be able to respect him, and get respect in return.
. I want lots of mindblowing, experimental, and playful sex. Lots. Frequently. Like daily. I feel like I've missed that in my life, and in the time that's left I want to make up for it.
That much I know I want. I can't be happy with any one of them missing.
There's other stuff, like someone who wants to travel with me. I think that's not a requirement, more of a bonus, but it would be nice.
Trouble is, I don't know how to get it all, I don't know if it's possible any more, and I don't know if I'd be happy if I did. There'd probably be something else I'd discover I need. But if I settle for less, could I be happy? If I get an overabundance of half of them, can I do without the others? I don't think so. But if that's the case, can I give up the half I've got because it's not enough? Isn't not enough better than nothing?
I don't know.
(Yeah, this is all me me. So what do I have to give? Is it enough? But that's not something I can answer. That's for him to figure out for himself.)
.
I visited NJ in the hospital on Thursday. I knew that her daughter would tell her about May having got the police to break into NJ's house on Tuesday, so I wrote her a letter explaining how everyone had been worried, and how I had been at the house, and there's nothing to worry about, and her location is safe with me, and I think I've convinced May, too, and wishing her a quick recovery. I was under the impression that she could not receive visitors (and the hospital does not allow flowers (huh? They really don't. I don't know why)), so my intent was to just deliver the note to the desk for them to give to her.
To my surprise, the desk called her room, and then told me to go on up.
When I walked in the door, the first thing she said was "Do you know what that crazy May did? She called the police to break into my house!" I broke into her sputtering to say yes, she'd also called me, and I was there at the house, and that's why I'm here.
She looked good - eyes good, good color, full cheeks - but she was obviously very tired. Picking at a tray of food.
She says if May shows up, she'll have her thrown out. When May had called the hospital on Tuesday, NJ told them to tell May no visitors and no calls. Which of course will only worry May more, so I think it's only a matter of time....
-----------------------------
Major navel-gazing here. Ignore. Skip. Go away.
TV on in background yesterday. Soap opera, I think. Woman has two suitors who have proposed marriage, one rich, the other poor, likes the poor one a bit more than the rich. Oh dear, what to do, which to select.
It reminded me of my mother's best friend of a few decades ago. She, like my mother, was a widow in her mid-50s, without, as my mother put it, "a pot to piss in". But she was tall, slender, long-legged, with full fluffy black hair and excellent taste - in short, she was beautiful and sophisticated-looking.
She also had two suitors. One man was not wealthy, in fact, living rather simply. He adored her, and shared her taste in opera and literature. The other was a multimillionaire, with several homes. He'd made his money in construction, and was a bit coarse in his tastes. He wanted her to help him socially, to look more civilized.
She chose the rich guy, because, as she explained to my horrified mother, she was tired of struggling, she wanted to relax, and she wanted nice things.
The day before the wedding, he presented her with a pre-nup. Sign or we don't get married.
Among other things, it specified that if they were to divorce (on either party's initiation), assets would be split in the same proportion as each brought into the marriage. Which meant if he brought 4 million, and she brought 2 thousand, and "their" assets doubled after 10 years of marriage, and they split, she'd get 4 thousand. Even if he left her.
Another requirement was that they would have sex a minimum of twice a week. Her refusing him would be acceptable grounds for divorce.
He would give her a very large monthly stipend which she could spend or invest in any way she wished without restriction. (Of course, invested money, or purchases with that money, would be part of the total assets should they divorce.)
She sighed, she signed, and she married him. I doubt that it ever occurred to her to consult a lawyer.
Yeah, she was very unhappy. She told my mother that she had assumed that the twice-a-week thing would gradually drift away. It didn't. Right from the start she had found him physically repulsive, called him "The Frog". He had no reason to court her, didn't require enthusiastic participation or even affection, and so was rather brusque in his demands. She got to where she cringed every time he looked at her. Ten years later it was still the same.
Otherwise, life was easy. She stayed married to him.
In my mind, she had sold her body for material comforts. That's what was most important to her, so I guess that was ok.
Got me thinking.
Right now, I know four relatively wealthy men about my age, with assets ranging from just over one to several mind-boggling millions. I am certain that if I batted my eyelashes and played my cards right, I could reel any of them in. No, that's not overconfidence. Two have made definite interest clear. The third has been dogging me for over thirty years. All I'd have to do is give a green light. The fourth guy isn't as clear, but he's in "wanna get married" mode, and when a man gets in that mood, he'll marry the first woman who coos over him.
I could make it happen. I really could.
But I couldn't.
I like them all a lot. In their own way they're nice guys. But actually living with any of them 24/7 would require keeping my mouth shut, biting my tongue when they do or say certain things that bug the hell out of me, and with two of them, anyway, there's a cringe factor. A certain amount of ick.
I'd be selling me for physical comfort, and I can't do it.
So, is it because I'm financially independent, and content with what I have? Would I think differently if I didn't have anything of my own? I really did think hard about it. Maybe the market fluctuations of the past few days spurred the thought. Probably not, because I'm not really all that worried (when I mentioned to Daughter how much loss I'd "suffered" in a mere four days, she said "You haven't lost anything until you want to cash it in", and she's right).
Nope. I don't think I can sell myself. Not now, not any more, not since I found myself.
I married the first two husbands for reasons other than "this is someone I love and want to be with". There was a certain amount of settling, and self-protection involved.
I married Jay because I loved him, pure and simple, and we suited each other so well. I'd quite happily have lived in a hovel with him. As long as there's food and heat, I can be happy, if the company's good.
Ex#2 was a miser. He handled all the money, paid all the bills, and gave me a household allowance. I had no idea how much he made, or how much was available for discretionary spending. I do know that I didn't have enough left over from the household funds to buy clothing. I literally had to beg for a new pair of jeans, or for Daughter's clothes as she grew, and he always grumbled at the expense. I had $70 a month for food (1980), and I fed the three of us on that, with the help of a garden and a freezer. So I do know how to live cheaply, and when you come right down to it, I don't mind. There's a well-earned pride in it.
If I don't want financial support from a relationship, what do I want?
This took a lot of thinking. I tend to define what I want by what the current man's got. If he hasn't got it, then obviously I don't want it, right?
Not true. Gotta get past that. I don't see how I can be truly happy in a relationship unless I can define what my needs are, and be satisfied that they're being met - as opposed to convincing myself I'm happy with what I'm getting.
I don't know what I want.
. I do know that I want his time and attention. I need a lot of that.
. I want a deep friendship, where we are emotionally open to each other, and can say almost anything knowing that it will be understood.
. I need a mind that meshes with mine.
. I want to be able to respect him, and get respect in return.
. I want lots of mindblowing, experimental, and playful sex. Lots. Frequently. Like daily. I feel like I've missed that in my life, and in the time that's left I want to make up for it.
That much I know I want. I can't be happy with any one of them missing.
There's other stuff, like someone who wants to travel with me. I think that's not a requirement, more of a bonus, but it would be nice.
Trouble is, I don't know how to get it all, I don't know if it's possible any more, and I don't know if I'd be happy if I did. There'd probably be something else I'd discover I need. But if I settle for less, could I be happy? If I get an overabundance of half of them, can I do without the others? I don't think so. But if that's the case, can I give up the half I've got because it's not enough? Isn't not enough better than nothing?
I don't know.
(Yeah, this is all me me. So what do I have to give? Is it enough? But that's not something I can answer. That's for him to figure out for himself.)
.
Friday, September 19, 2008
2019 Bits and Pieces
Friday, September 19, 2008
Judging Age
There are video clips of the next set of Survivor contestants. One of the men is listed as 58 years old. I'd put him as at least 68. At least!
On the news, a teenager arrived home and found a strange man in the house. He left when she asked who he was. She described him as 35 years old.
Also on the news, they showed mug shots of some guys accused of breakins. They were both 19. I'd have sworn the one on the left was at least 37.
Once into their middle teens, I can't judge anyone's age just by looking at them. Never could, and I don't see how anyone else can, either. I might be mostly right about over or under 50, but only if it's at least a decade over or under 50.
I can do a bit better with the younger ones if I can talk to them for a while. I can see age or lack thereof in a brain better than a face.
I'd make a very bad crime eyewitness.
---------------------------
Eyewitness Accounts
In one of my criminal law classes, the instructor, a criminal defense lawyer, walked into class a bit late one day. As he walked to the front of the room, he muttered an excuse. He had a briefcase in one hand, and something dark in the other. When he got to the front of the room, he looked briefly at the dark thing, and then put it behind the lectern. He took his tie off and put it into the briefcase. He asked if anyone had a copy of the previous day's outline, and as we shuffled papers he took something else out of the briefcase (a gun!), looked at it briefly, and put it behind the lectern. A few minutes into his lecture, which was about the reliability of eyewitnesses, he reached under his belt, pulled his underwear up above the belt, and then tucked it back in. At one point when a student asked a tricky question, he whipped around and said "For that, you die! Bang bang! Bang! Bang bang bang! Anyone else (blowing on his finger) have any smart-ass questions?"
At the end of the afternoon, he gave a snap quiz.
What was his excuse for being late?
What time did he come in?
What did he carry in besides the briefcase?
What color is his tie?
What did he take out of the briefcase?
What color is his underwear?
Who did he "shoot"?
How many shots did he get off?
What did he do with the gun?
...and a few other questions.
We were to mark our answers as to how sure we were. Not one person in the class got more than 1/4 of the answers right, and the ones they got wrong, they were most likely to be sure were correct.
So much for eyewitness accounts.
I think he cheated, though. I am 100% positive his underpants were red, and the reason I'm so sure is that I was also wearing red, but when he pulled them out again to prove the color, they were blue. I think he was wearing two pair - one red, one blue - and pulled up the inner or outer as needed.
-----------------------
Exported Democracy
Have you noticed that in almost every country where a long history of monarchy or dictatorship has been supplanted by a democratically elected government, that government is soon frankly and openly corrupt? (Quick, think of five!) ((Start with Russia.))
Ever since we invaded Iraq, I've been muttering that democracy just won't work there. Under centuries of a monarchy or dictatorship (actual or virtual), tribal, ethnic, social class, and family ties strengthen. When the old powers are overthrown and supplanted by an elected government, the winners think they've WON! That's WON in capital letters. Their SIDE has WON over the others, and there's a natural tendency, when there have been tribal, ethnic, class, and family divisions and frictions, to distribute the spoils among their tribe, ethnic group, social class, or family.
Does this sound familiar?
Maybe we need to elect some middle class people.
---------------------------
Vibrating Mice
Researchers have demonstrated that brief daily periods of low level vibrations can prevent the development of fat cells and encourage the growth of bone mass in mice.
That explains why Californians tend to be thinner than the rest of us. Ha! And they wanted us to think they were doing right things! It's just their ground imperceptibly trembling all the time.
.
Judging Age
There are video clips of the next set of Survivor contestants. One of the men is listed as 58 years old. I'd put him as at least 68. At least!
On the news, a teenager arrived home and found a strange man in the house. He left when she asked who he was. She described him as 35 years old.
Also on the news, they showed mug shots of some guys accused of breakins. They were both 19. I'd have sworn the one on the left was at least 37.
Once into their middle teens, I can't judge anyone's age just by looking at them. Never could, and I don't see how anyone else can, either. I might be mostly right about over or under 50, but only if it's at least a decade over or under 50.
I can do a bit better with the younger ones if I can talk to them for a while. I can see age or lack thereof in a brain better than a face.
I'd make a very bad crime eyewitness.
---------------------------
Eyewitness Accounts
In one of my criminal law classes, the instructor, a criminal defense lawyer, walked into class a bit late one day. As he walked to the front of the room, he muttered an excuse. He had a briefcase in one hand, and something dark in the other. When he got to the front of the room, he looked briefly at the dark thing, and then put it behind the lectern. He took his tie off and put it into the briefcase. He asked if anyone had a copy of the previous day's outline, and as we shuffled papers he took something else out of the briefcase (a gun!), looked at it briefly, and put it behind the lectern. A few minutes into his lecture, which was about the reliability of eyewitnesses, he reached under his belt, pulled his underwear up above the belt, and then tucked it back in. At one point when a student asked a tricky question, he whipped around and said "For that, you die! Bang bang! Bang! Bang bang bang! Anyone else (blowing on his finger) have any smart-ass questions?"
At the end of the afternoon, he gave a snap quiz.
What was his excuse for being late?
What time did he come in?
What did he carry in besides the briefcase?
What color is his tie?
What did he take out of the briefcase?
What color is his underwear?
Who did he "shoot"?
How many shots did he get off?
What did he do with the gun?
...and a few other questions.
We were to mark our answers as to how sure we were. Not one person in the class got more than 1/4 of the answers right, and the ones they got wrong, they were most likely to be sure were correct.
So much for eyewitness accounts.
I think he cheated, though. I am 100% positive his underpants were red, and the reason I'm so sure is that I was also wearing red, but when he pulled them out again to prove the color, they were blue. I think he was wearing two pair - one red, one blue - and pulled up the inner or outer as needed.
-----------------------
Exported Democracy
Have you noticed that in almost every country where a long history of monarchy or dictatorship has been supplanted by a democratically elected government, that government is soon frankly and openly corrupt? (Quick, think of five!) ((Start with Russia.))
Ever since we invaded Iraq, I've been muttering that democracy just won't work there. Under centuries of a monarchy or dictatorship (actual or virtual), tribal, ethnic, social class, and family ties strengthen. When the old powers are overthrown and supplanted by an elected government, the winners think they've WON! That's WON in capital letters. Their SIDE has WON over the others, and there's a natural tendency, when there have been tribal, ethnic, class, and family divisions and frictions, to distribute the spoils among their tribe, ethnic group, social class, or family.
Does this sound familiar?
Maybe we need to elect some middle class people.
---------------------------
Vibrating Mice
Researchers have demonstrated that brief daily periods of low level vibrations can prevent the development of fat cells and encourage the growth of bone mass in mice.
That explains why Californians tend to be thinner than the rest of us. Ha! And they wanted us to think they were doing right things! It's just their ground imperceptibly trembling all the time.
.
2018 Strict Interpretation of the Constitution?
Friday, September 19, 2008
Senator McCain, when asked on "The View" a few days ago about appointing Supreme Court Judges likely to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, said that abortion would not be a litmus test, but that he would try to appoint judges who were strict constitutionalists - who interpreted the Constitution in the way that the Founding Fathers meant it when they wrote it, to understand what the FFs had in mind and rule that way. He doesn't consider the Constitution to be a living document, changing with the times.
I have a lot of trouble with that. It seems to me that people, even those who want to be called "strict constitutionalists", interpret it any way they want, to justify anything they want to do, or ban anything they don't want you to do.
I've brought up the following point in every government-oriented class and every Constitutional law class I've ever taken, and I've never got a satisfactory answer.
The country was named "The United States of America". Not just "America". Before the states united, they were separate. They were almost like separate little countries, and they were very jealous of their separateness, their desire to govern themselves. Delegates from the separate states met to form a sort of super-government, for the common defense, to allow free commerce among the states, and so on. I don't believe the individual states ever meant to give up their sovereignty, and that's why they were all given equal representation in the senate. I really believe that is what was in the minds of the Founding Fathers. Witness that the states can elect or appoint their senators and representatives to the union in any way they want.
The states joined voluntarily. (It's sort of like the United Nations.) It so happened that all the states did join, but they didn't have to if they didn't want to. Some, even among the original 13, didn't join right away. Every state (except purchased territories) joined the union of states voluntarily.
Think of it as a subscription. Sovereign states subscribed to the union of states, the United States. The big advantage of membership was defense against attack from without, and free trade among the union members. I believe that was the intent of the Founding Fathers. I do not believe there was an intent to meddle with anything within a state.
Have you ever subscribed to something, a magazine or service that offered a 60-day free trial, but you had to give a credit card number to start the free trial, and then 30 days into the trial you decided it was crap, so you tried to cancel? And you couldn't get them to cancel? And they kept charging your credit card month after month for things you kept trying to tell them you didn't want? That's illegal. They can't DO that.
I fully believe, moral issues aside, that the southern states had every right to cancel their subscription to the union when the price-setting of cotton by the northern states made membership in the union of states no longer economically comfortable. I believe they had every right to secede from the union when it no longer served their interests to be a member.
There was no way the northern states were going to allow export duties on cotton to increase the price of cotton (yes, that's a simplistic depiction, but basically true, slavery became an issue only later, to gain the common citizen's moral support for the war when "help the rich folks" didn't work), and all of a sudden the intent of the Founding Fathers no longer mattered.
On "The View", when McCain mentioned strict interpretation of the Constitution as the FF's intended, Whoopi asked if that meant she'd have to be a slave.
Well, if we get a Supreme Court who REALLY interpreted the Constitution as the Founding Fathers were thinking, then they'd have to declare the Civil War as an illegal war, let states secede, and maybe Whoopie would have to be shipped off to the Carolinas to pick cotton. And I KNOW the FFs NEVER intended for women to vote. I'm sure that never entered their mind. Or for women to inherit, either. Or to get the same jobs, let alone the same pay.
All McCain means by "as the FFs intended" is judges who think that a fertilized egg has a right to life. And then someone is going to point out that birth control pills and IUDs and the like don't prevent fertilization of the egg, they prevent implantation, which amounts to nothing more than very early abortion, and we could find those forms of contraception banned, too.
So I get pissed when "they" blather about strict interpretation. That's pure bull poop.
.
Senator McCain, when asked on "The View" a few days ago about appointing Supreme Court Judges likely to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, said that abortion would not be a litmus test, but that he would try to appoint judges who were strict constitutionalists - who interpreted the Constitution in the way that the Founding Fathers meant it when they wrote it, to understand what the FFs had in mind and rule that way. He doesn't consider the Constitution to be a living document, changing with the times.
I have a lot of trouble with that. It seems to me that people, even those who want to be called "strict constitutionalists", interpret it any way they want, to justify anything they want to do, or ban anything they don't want you to do.
I've brought up the following point in every government-oriented class and every Constitutional law class I've ever taken, and I've never got a satisfactory answer.
The country was named "The United States of America". Not just "America". Before the states united, they were separate. They were almost like separate little countries, and they were very jealous of their separateness, their desire to govern themselves. Delegates from the separate states met to form a sort of super-government, for the common defense, to allow free commerce among the states, and so on. I don't believe the individual states ever meant to give up their sovereignty, and that's why they were all given equal representation in the senate. I really believe that is what was in the minds of the Founding Fathers. Witness that the states can elect or appoint their senators and representatives to the union in any way they want.
The states joined voluntarily. (It's sort of like the United Nations.) It so happened that all the states did join, but they didn't have to if they didn't want to. Some, even among the original 13, didn't join right away. Every state (except purchased territories) joined the union of states voluntarily.
Think of it as a subscription. Sovereign states subscribed to the union of states, the United States. The big advantage of membership was defense against attack from without, and free trade among the union members. I believe that was the intent of the Founding Fathers. I do not believe there was an intent to meddle with anything within a state.
Have you ever subscribed to something, a magazine or service that offered a 60-day free trial, but you had to give a credit card number to start the free trial, and then 30 days into the trial you decided it was crap, so you tried to cancel? And you couldn't get them to cancel? And they kept charging your credit card month after month for things you kept trying to tell them you didn't want? That's illegal. They can't DO that.
I fully believe, moral issues aside, that the southern states had every right to cancel their subscription to the union when the price-setting of cotton by the northern states made membership in the union of states no longer economically comfortable. I believe they had every right to secede from the union when it no longer served their interests to be a member.
There was no way the northern states were going to allow export duties on cotton to increase the price of cotton (yes, that's a simplistic depiction, but basically true, slavery became an issue only later, to gain the common citizen's moral support for the war when "help the rich folks" didn't work), and all of a sudden the intent of the Founding Fathers no longer mattered.
On "The View", when McCain mentioned strict interpretation of the Constitution as the FF's intended, Whoopi asked if that meant she'd have to be a slave.
Well, if we get a Supreme Court who REALLY interpreted the Constitution as the Founding Fathers were thinking, then they'd have to declare the Civil War as an illegal war, let states secede, and maybe Whoopie would have to be shipped off to the Carolinas to pick cotton. And I KNOW the FFs NEVER intended for women to vote. I'm sure that never entered their mind. Or for women to inherit, either. Or to get the same jobs, let alone the same pay.
All McCain means by "as the FFs intended" is judges who think that a fertilized egg has a right to life. And then someone is going to point out that birth control pills and IUDs and the like don't prevent fertilization of the egg, they prevent implantation, which amounts to nothing more than very early abortion, and we could find those forms of contraception banned, too.
So I get pissed when "they" blather about strict interpretation. That's pure bull poop.
.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
2017 How to get a promotion
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Lots of people think that if they do their job really well, they will get a promotion. I don't know how it works in small companies, but in large corporations that isn't enough.
If your company has "levels", like Basic Grunt, Grunt First Class, Senior Grunt, and so on, they will likely have a job definition for each level. When you are promoted to Grunt First class, you will probably be given a sheet of paper with your responsibilities on it.
The temptation is to do those things, and do them well, and say "Hey, I'm a good Grunt First Class." That's not enough. That's a good way to stay a Grunt First Class, because you're so good at it.
Once you're fairly sure you can handle that job, go to your manager and ask for the sheet for the Senior Grunt. These days, it's probably available online, but don't just quietly print it off for yourself and take it into your corner. Make sure in some subtle way that your manager knows you're looking at it. Perhaps you could find some section that you could ask questions about - clarification, you know.
Then you start doing the things on that list. Start doing things that Senior Grunts do. Most Senior Grunts will be happy to delegate stuff to you.** Start small to gain their confidence.
In those 1-on-1s that I recommended last month, and the weekly accomplishment reports, mention those Senior-level things you're doing. If you do them well, you'll get more Seniors willing to delegate to you, and of course you can delegate your overflow Grunt First Class jobs to a Basic Grunt who looks ready to move up. (Make sure you can trust him or her, because even though they might be doing the work, you are still responsible for it.)
Eventually 80% of the work you're doing, and doing well, will be Senior Grunt work. You have demonstrated your readiness. At that point, you can go to your management and say, "I'm ready for a promotion, and here's the reason why...", and they'll have a very difficult time denying you.
That's how I got five promotions (and salary ladder jumps) in three years with The Company.
-----------------------
** If Senior Grunts aren't willing to delegate to you, that's a sign that they're afraid for their own jobs, don't want competition, and it might be more profitable for you to work on your resume as well as on increasing your level of responsibility.
.
Lots of people think that if they do their job really well, they will get a promotion. I don't know how it works in small companies, but in large corporations that isn't enough.
If your company has "levels", like Basic Grunt, Grunt First Class, Senior Grunt, and so on, they will likely have a job definition for each level. When you are promoted to Grunt First class, you will probably be given a sheet of paper with your responsibilities on it.
The temptation is to do those things, and do them well, and say "Hey, I'm a good Grunt First Class." That's not enough. That's a good way to stay a Grunt First Class, because you're so good at it.
Once you're fairly sure you can handle that job, go to your manager and ask for the sheet for the Senior Grunt. These days, it's probably available online, but don't just quietly print it off for yourself and take it into your corner. Make sure in some subtle way that your manager knows you're looking at it. Perhaps you could find some section that you could ask questions about - clarification, you know.
Then you start doing the things on that list. Start doing things that Senior Grunts do. Most Senior Grunts will be happy to delegate stuff to you.** Start small to gain their confidence.
In those 1-on-1s that I recommended last month, and the weekly accomplishment reports, mention those Senior-level things you're doing. If you do them well, you'll get more Seniors willing to delegate to you, and of course you can delegate your overflow Grunt First Class jobs to a Basic Grunt who looks ready to move up. (Make sure you can trust him or her, because even though they might be doing the work, you are still responsible for it.)
Eventually 80% of the work you're doing, and doing well, will be Senior Grunt work. You have demonstrated your readiness. At that point, you can go to your management and say, "I'm ready for a promotion, and here's the reason why...", and they'll have a very difficult time denying you.
That's how I got five promotions (and salary ladder jumps) in three years with The Company.
-----------------------
** If Senior Grunts aren't willing to delegate to you, that's a sign that they're afraid for their own jobs, don't want competition, and it might be more profitable for you to work on your resume as well as on increasing your level of responsibility.
.
2016 Just plain thinking
Thursday, September 18, 2008
This is a reader comment on an article by Daniel Laris0n in The American Cons3rvative.
-----------------------------------------------
#
Elvis Elvisb3rg, on September 17th, 2008 at 2:13 pm Said:
FWIW, a conservative defense of Obama, from ex-NR Publisher Wick Allison.
Barack Obama is not my ideal candidate for president. (In fact, I made the maximum donation to John McCain during the primaries, when there was still hope he might come to his senses.) But I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history. I disagree with him on many issues. But those don’t matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative view of the world. Nobody can read Obama’s books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.
Most important, Obama will be a realist. I doubt he will taunt Russia, as McCain has, at the very moment when our national interest requires it as an ally. The crucial distinction in my mind is that, unlike John McCain, I am convinced he will not impulsively take us into another war unless American national interests are directly threatened.
“Every great cause,” Eric Hoffer wrote, “begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” As a cause, conservatism may be dead. But as a stance, as a way of making judgments in a complex and difficult world, I believe it is very much alive in the instincts and predispositions of a liberal named Barack Obama.
--------------------------------
I highly recommend this online magazine. There's a lot of perception and good thinking there.
.
This is a reader comment on an article by Daniel Laris0n in The American Cons3rvative.
-----------------------------------------------
#
Elvis Elvisb3rg, on September 17th, 2008 at 2:13 pm Said:
FWIW, a conservative defense of Obama, from ex-NR Publisher Wick Allison.
Barack Obama is not my ideal candidate for president. (In fact, I made the maximum donation to John McCain during the primaries, when there was still hope he might come to his senses.) But I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history. I disagree with him on many issues. But those don’t matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative view of the world. Nobody can read Obama’s books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.
Most important, Obama will be a realist. I doubt he will taunt Russia, as McCain has, at the very moment when our national interest requires it as an ally. The crucial distinction in my mind is that, unlike John McCain, I am convinced he will not impulsively take us into another war unless American national interests are directly threatened.
“Every great cause,” Eric Hoffer wrote, “begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” As a cause, conservatism may be dead. But as a stance, as a way of making judgments in a complex and difficult world, I believe it is very much alive in the instincts and predispositions of a liberal named Barack Obama.
--------------------------------
I highly recommend this online magazine. There's a lot of perception and good thinking there.
.
2015 Thinking even bigger
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Judge show on TV, "Joe Brown". A couple suing their landlady. They all worked together at Burger King, and the landlady offered to share her townhouse with the couple for $400 a month.
The judge asked, "$400 a month?"
The couple answered, "She said $400 a month, but we decided to pay $100 a week."
Duh? Do they not realize that $100 a week is higher than $400 a month? Ok, that explains a career at Burger King.
.
Judge show on TV, "Joe Brown". A couple suing their landlady. They all worked together at Burger King, and the landlady offered to share her townhouse with the couple for $400 a month.
The judge asked, "$400 a month?"
The couple answered, "She said $400 a month, but we decided to pay $100 a week."
Duh? Do they not realize that $100 a week is higher than $400 a month? Ok, that explains a career at Burger King.
.
2014 Thinking big
Thursday, September 18, 2008
There's some young woman (somebody Milano?) as a guest on the Jimmy Kimmel show right now. She says she "just came in from her ranch", which is 40 miles outside LA.
"Ranch?"
"Yeah. We have five acres and [some] horses..."
I giggled. Ranch? Around here, five acres is a back yard.
.
There's some young woman (somebody Milano?) as a guest on the Jimmy Kimmel show right now. She says she "just came in from her ranch", which is 40 miles outside LA.
"Ranch?"
"Yeah. We have five acres and [some] horses..."
I giggled. Ranch? Around here, five acres is a back yard.
.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
2013 Enjoying the trip down?
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Piper and I didn't walk Monday or today because he's been chained to his desk because of what's been going on with Wall Street. I went to the post office a few minutes ago and ran into Piper heading home. We pulled into the CVS parking lot and talked.
I could tell just by looking at him that he's having a ball. His eyes were sparkling, his cheeks were pink, and his dimples were deep. Piper has a broker's license, but he rarely deals in individual stocks. He prefers to steer his clients into a mix of bonds and mutual funds, which is where he's got me. He was almost giggling because back on August 8th, he was specifically directed by one of his big institutional clients to buy a few million dollars worth of AIG stock for their portfolio. It's now worth less than a hundred thousand.
He's buying shares in mutual funds as fast as he can get them now.
I pointed out that it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Yeah, investments like mine are insured by private companies (what company, by the way? Tell me it's not AIG!), but as people start calling on that insurance, insurance companies will be selling off their investments to pay off those claims, and some of them won't be able to survive. It's going to domino. He laughed, and said "Yes! Guess who insured Lehman Brothers' mortgage interests? AIG! (Snork! Bounce up and down.)" He's really enjoying this.
I said I was worried about all the people out of work now. He said he was a little worried about his daughter. She had left BOA to go to work for Merrill Lynch, and at the end of last week was in the final contract negotiations. Guess who bought Merrill Lynch.
So far the disasters seem to be mainly in the financial services businesses. It will spread. It will get worse. The federal government seems to think they can contain the situation with bailouts, but where will they get the money to do that? Borrow it, meaning higher deficit, or print it, which devalues the dollar all over the world? Both bad bad bad.
Time to go to the mattresses. The lumpy mattresses.
.
Piper and I didn't walk Monday or today because he's been chained to his desk because of what's been going on with Wall Street. I went to the post office a few minutes ago and ran into Piper heading home. We pulled into the CVS parking lot and talked.
I could tell just by looking at him that he's having a ball. His eyes were sparkling, his cheeks were pink, and his dimples were deep. Piper has a broker's license, but he rarely deals in individual stocks. He prefers to steer his clients into a mix of bonds and mutual funds, which is where he's got me. He was almost giggling because back on August 8th, he was specifically directed by one of his big institutional clients to buy a few million dollars worth of AIG stock for their portfolio. It's now worth less than a hundred thousand.
He's buying shares in mutual funds as fast as he can get them now.
I pointed out that it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Yeah, investments like mine are insured by private companies (what company, by the way? Tell me it's not AIG!), but as people start calling on that insurance, insurance companies will be selling off their investments to pay off those claims, and some of them won't be able to survive. It's going to domino. He laughed, and said "Yes! Guess who insured Lehman Brothers' mortgage interests? AIG! (Snork! Bounce up and down.)" He's really enjoying this.
I said I was worried about all the people out of work now. He said he was a little worried about his daughter. She had left BOA to go to work for Merrill Lynch, and at the end of last week was in the final contract negotiations. Guess who bought Merrill Lynch.
So far the disasters seem to be mainly in the financial services businesses. It will spread. It will get worse. The federal government seems to think they can contain the situation with bailouts, but where will they get the money to do that? Borrow it, meaning higher deficit, or print it, which devalues the dollar all over the world? Both bad bad bad.
Time to go to the mattresses. The lumpy mattresses.
.
2012 Settling
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
A friend confided in me recently that she is not very happy in her marriage. He's a nice guy, has a lot to recommend him, treats her well for the most part, but he has one serious problem. She said that she was aware of the problem before they were married, but decided to accept it, because she thought he was the best she could do, he was what she deserved, and, perennially female, she hoped it would go away.
I have heard this from so many people over the decades. Not just in choice of life partners, but in accepting certain treatment on the job, from family, teachers, acquaintances. They accept bad treatment not because they overlook it in others, but because they feel they don't deserve any better.
They accept the judgment of others. They've been taught what kind of treatment to expect.
Steps to getting what you really deserve:
1. Understand your real value.
2. Figure out how you really deserve to be treated.
3. Recognize bad treatment when you see it.
4. Reject, do not allow, bad treatment.
Sounds so simple, eh?
It has taken me a long time, and some painful lessons, but I finally know my value. I know I am valuable. I know exactly how valuable I am, and it's pretty durn high! I know what kind of treatment I deserve. I deserve the best, because that's what I'm worth.
I am intelligent, loyal, charitable, thorough, skillful, open-minded, respectful, independent, compassionate, honest, steadfast. I can be one of the best friends or lovers anyone can have.
I've pretty much got a lock on steps 1 and 2.
Now I need to learn how to recognize shoddy treatment and stop forgiving others for treating me badly. I tend to be too easy on others, especially when I get to know them well, and know that they don't do some of the bad things on purpose - that's just the way they are. But even if that is the way they've learned to relate, I don't have to take it. I have to learn to say "You are not allowed to treat me that way. It's not good for me." Saying it to FM last year was a major step forward. I learned I can do it without getting hit by lightning, but FM was an egregious case.
There are more subtle things going on with another, and I have allowed it to continue because I kept hoping it would change or get better. But instead, it's starting to erode my hard-won confidence in myself, something I absolutely cannot allow. I need to slap some sense into me.
I deserve better.
.
A friend confided in me recently that she is not very happy in her marriage. He's a nice guy, has a lot to recommend him, treats her well for the most part, but he has one serious problem. She said that she was aware of the problem before they were married, but decided to accept it, because she thought he was the best she could do, he was what she deserved, and, perennially female, she hoped it would go away.
I have heard this from so many people over the decades. Not just in choice of life partners, but in accepting certain treatment on the job, from family, teachers, acquaintances. They accept bad treatment not because they overlook it in others, but because they feel they don't deserve any better.
They accept the judgment of others. They've been taught what kind of treatment to expect.
Steps to getting what you really deserve:
1. Understand your real value.
2. Figure out how you really deserve to be treated.
3. Recognize bad treatment when you see it.
4. Reject, do not allow, bad treatment.
Sounds so simple, eh?
It has taken me a long time, and some painful lessons, but I finally know my value. I know I am valuable. I know exactly how valuable I am, and it's pretty durn high! I know what kind of treatment I deserve. I deserve the best, because that's what I'm worth.
I am intelligent, loyal, charitable, thorough, skillful, open-minded, respectful, independent, compassionate, honest, steadfast. I can be one of the best friends or lovers anyone can have.
I've pretty much got a lock on steps 1 and 2.
Now I need to learn how to recognize shoddy treatment and stop forgiving others for treating me badly. I tend to be too easy on others, especially when I get to know them well, and know that they don't do some of the bad things on purpose - that's just the way they are. But even if that is the way they've learned to relate, I don't have to take it. I have to learn to say "You are not allowed to treat me that way. It's not good for me." Saying it to FM last year was a major step forward. I learned I can do it without getting hit by lightning, but FM was an egregious case.
There are more subtle things going on with another, and I have allowed it to continue because I kept hoping it would change or get better. But instead, it's starting to erode my hard-won confidence in myself, something I absolutely cannot allow. I need to slap some sense into me.
I deserve better.
.
2011 SS
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Back when the Republicans were making a lot of noise about privatizing Social Security, I was aghast. (I wrote a blog entry on it, but I can't find it now.)
Those people have to be close to my age -- and yet they don't "remember" where Social Security came from? Why it exists? Why the government controls it?
Social Security came out of the Great Depression. Companies had failed, and people lost jobs, retirement plans, and investments. Banks failed, so savings of a lifetime were gone. Elderly people who had worked and saved all their lives were left with nothing. Their children, if they had any, were struggling, too. Social Security was designed to ensure that people who did a lifetime of honest work would not be left with nothing. It may not be much, but it's more than nothing.
Many large companies no longer fund employee retirement. They instead "give" the employees X dollars a year that the employees are to invest themselves in 401Ks or IRAs. And let's pretend Social Security had been privatized several years ago. Being a good little investor, you had diversified. You put
1/6 of your total funds into Lehman Brothers,
1/6 into Merrill Lynch,
1/6 into an annuity with American International Group,
1/6 into a Bear Stearns account,
1/6 into Fannie Mae stock, and
1/6 into Freddie Mac stock,
all good big sturdy companies.
You intended to retire at the end of this year.
Congratulations.
Social Security isn't much, but it's a whole lot more than NOTHING!
Some of those investments will be completely lost. Some will eventually recover, but it could take a decade. You will be forced to work until they (if you still have a job) fold, spindle, and mutilate you into the grave. And forget a decent salary. Do you know who many people your age are desperate for any job?
Aren't you glad there's a Wal-Mart just down the street?
.
Back when the Republicans were making a lot of noise about privatizing Social Security, I was aghast. (I wrote a blog entry on it, but I can't find it now.)
Those people have to be close to my age -- and yet they don't "remember" where Social Security came from? Why it exists? Why the government controls it?
Social Security came out of the Great Depression. Companies had failed, and people lost jobs, retirement plans, and investments. Banks failed, so savings of a lifetime were gone. Elderly people who had worked and saved all their lives were left with nothing. Their children, if they had any, were struggling, too. Social Security was designed to ensure that people who did a lifetime of honest work would not be left with nothing. It may not be much, but it's more than nothing.
Many large companies no longer fund employee retirement. They instead "give" the employees X dollars a year that the employees are to invest themselves in 401Ks or IRAs. And let's pretend Social Security had been privatized several years ago. Being a good little investor, you had diversified. You put
1/6 of your total funds into Lehman Brothers,
1/6 into Merrill Lynch,
1/6 into an annuity with American International Group,
1/6 into a Bear Stearns account,
1/6 into Fannie Mae stock, and
1/6 into Freddie Mac stock,
all good big sturdy companies.
You intended to retire at the end of this year.
Congratulations.
Social Security isn't much, but it's a whole lot more than NOTHING!
Some of those investments will be completely lost. Some will eventually recover, but it could take a decade. You will be forced to work until they (if you still have a job) fold, spindle, and mutilate you into the grave. And forget a decent salary. Do you know who many people your age are desperate for any job?
Aren't you glad there's a Wal-Mart just down the street?
.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
2010 Afternoon with police and housebreaking
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
I had a lot of things to do this afternoon, but didn't get to any of it.
Back in July I had gone to NJ's annual Moonlight Madness, and discovered that she had been diagnosed with colon cancer, was on chemo, and was scheduled for radiation and surgery in mid-August. The next morning I called and left a phone message to offer my assistance in any way she could use it. She didn't respond. A few days later I heard that several people had called or emailed her, and they also did not get a response. Of course after the party the news had spread like wildfire, and I can understand her choosing not to listen to phone messages. Too much "Oh you poor thing" can really drag you down. So I sent an email with the same offer, and again got no response.
Time passed. Surgery time passed. Emails were zipping around the group asking if anyone knew what was happening. We were all shocked to find that her best friend, Les, didn't know anything either. He didn't know what hospital she'd be in. Nothing.
I figured that if she was communicating with no one, that was her choice, and she's entitled to it. She has a daughter that lives fairly close, so I figured she was with her daughter. No one knew her daughter's name, so we couldn't check.
I got a phone call this afternoon from May. I've mentioned May before, but not in a very long time. May is the one who rarely leaves her house, and is quietly drinking herself to death. She's only two years older than I, but she has decided that she's ready to die. Her main topic of conversation these days is her funeral arrangements.
May told me that she was convinced that NJ was lying dead on the floor in her house. The mansion that NJ had lived in for so many years had been sold last year, and NJ had moved into a cute little house at the end of a steep potholed dirt private road, on the banks of the Hudson River. May kept saying "She'd stink for a month before anyone discovered her!" May had called the county police and asked them to check NJ's house, but she wasn't sure they'd actually do it.
I said ok, I'll go and check myself.
Thirty miles later, I found NJ's car and two police cruisers in NJ's driveway, and her front door open. The fire department heavy rescue truck had just left (the heavy rescue truck is the one that carries all the fancy equipment, like the "jaws of life", saws, super power wrenches, and so on - a safe-cracker's wet dream).
The deputies weren't completely sure what the story was, so I filled them in. They had arrived to find the house closed up, so they had the fire department, with their ladders, come and locate a window that wasn't latched. They went in through the window. They said that the electric company said the power had been shut off a month ago.
I told them NJ had a daughter, but we didn't know what her name was. They searched the house and car, and all they found was a "Happy Birthday, Mom" card, without an address, but it at least gave us a first name. It was an unusual first name.
On that flimsy information, and access to data bases that we poor mortals can't reach, they actually found the daughter, and called her! She confirmed that her mother was in a particular hospital. The deputy explained what was going on, that they had checked the house because her friends had been worried, that they were locking the house up again, and that when the daughter visited the house next, she should latch the window they had found unlatched and entered through. It was all pretty nifty.
But I was left with a bit of a dilemma. I now know where NJ is. I think it's obvious that NJ would prefer not to be found. I told the deputies that I would pass the word that she is being well cared for, but we should not tell anyone where. I don't think she wants people to know.
I drove home, and was in the process of composing a broadcast email to that effect, when May called again. She had called the police, and they had TOLD HER where NJ was. She had then called the hospital, who told her that NJ "is not up to receiving visitors or talking on the phone."
ACK!!! Of all the people in the world, I suspect that May may be one of the last NJ would want to know. She's very sweet when she's sober (well, when she's drunk, too) but she can be TOO helpful, if you know what I mean. And her favorite topic of conversation is depressing.
I convinced her that I am pretty sure NJ would not want that info disseminated. We should keep it quiet. It's enough for people to know that NJ is being well cared for. We overstepped already by breaking into her house. NJ will contact people herself when she's ready.
Les doesn't have email, so May said she'd call him and fill him in, but promised she wouldn't tell him which hospital.
There followed a flurry of phone calls, including one from Les asking for a translation of May's call, and another flurry of emails.
NJ is the treasurer for the local Mensa group, and apparently she didn't turn over the books or assign an alternate signator before she dropped out of sight. So I got pretty miffed when one of our members (ok, Zig) tried to hint that since I know where she is, I should try to get the books. Or maybe I read him wrong. Whatever. I responded that they should forget getting anything from NJ. Pretend she has eloped to Tahiti. I hope y'all have a Plan B. Implement it.
.
I had a lot of things to do this afternoon, but didn't get to any of it.
Back in July I had gone to NJ's annual Moonlight Madness, and discovered that she had been diagnosed with colon cancer, was on chemo, and was scheduled for radiation and surgery in mid-August. The next morning I called and left a phone message to offer my assistance in any way she could use it. She didn't respond. A few days later I heard that several people had called or emailed her, and they also did not get a response. Of course after the party the news had spread like wildfire, and I can understand her choosing not to listen to phone messages. Too much "Oh you poor thing" can really drag you down. So I sent an email with the same offer, and again got no response.
Time passed. Surgery time passed. Emails were zipping around the group asking if anyone knew what was happening. We were all shocked to find that her best friend, Les, didn't know anything either. He didn't know what hospital she'd be in. Nothing.
I figured that if she was communicating with no one, that was her choice, and she's entitled to it. She has a daughter that lives fairly close, so I figured she was with her daughter. No one knew her daughter's name, so we couldn't check.
I got a phone call this afternoon from May. I've mentioned May before, but not in a very long time. May is the one who rarely leaves her house, and is quietly drinking herself to death. She's only two years older than I, but she has decided that she's ready to die. Her main topic of conversation these days is her funeral arrangements.
May told me that she was convinced that NJ was lying dead on the floor in her house. The mansion that NJ had lived in for so many years had been sold last year, and NJ had moved into a cute little house at the end of a steep potholed dirt private road, on the banks of the Hudson River. May kept saying "She'd stink for a month before anyone discovered her!" May had called the county police and asked them to check NJ's house, but she wasn't sure they'd actually do it.
I said ok, I'll go and check myself.
Thirty miles later, I found NJ's car and two police cruisers in NJ's driveway, and her front door open. The fire department heavy rescue truck had just left (the heavy rescue truck is the one that carries all the fancy equipment, like the "jaws of life", saws, super power wrenches, and so on - a safe-cracker's wet dream).
The deputies weren't completely sure what the story was, so I filled them in. They had arrived to find the house closed up, so they had the fire department, with their ladders, come and locate a window that wasn't latched. They went in through the window. They said that the electric company said the power had been shut off a month ago.
I told them NJ had a daughter, but we didn't know what her name was. They searched the house and car, and all they found was a "Happy Birthday, Mom" card, without an address, but it at least gave us a first name. It was an unusual first name.
On that flimsy information, and access to data bases that we poor mortals can't reach, they actually found the daughter, and called her! She confirmed that her mother was in a particular hospital. The deputy explained what was going on, that they had checked the house because her friends had been worried, that they were locking the house up again, and that when the daughter visited the house next, she should latch the window they had found unlatched and entered through. It was all pretty nifty.
But I was left with a bit of a dilemma. I now know where NJ is. I think it's obvious that NJ would prefer not to be found. I told the deputies that I would pass the word that she is being well cared for, but we should not tell anyone where. I don't think she wants people to know.
I drove home, and was in the process of composing a broadcast email to that effect, when May called again. She had called the police, and they had TOLD HER where NJ was. She had then called the hospital, who told her that NJ "is not up to receiving visitors or talking on the phone."
ACK!!! Of all the people in the world, I suspect that May may be one of the last NJ would want to know. She's very sweet when she's sober (well, when she's drunk, too) but she can be TOO helpful, if you know what I mean. And her favorite topic of conversation is depressing.
I convinced her that I am pretty sure NJ would not want that info disseminated. We should keep it quiet. It's enough for people to know that NJ is being well cared for. We overstepped already by breaking into her house. NJ will contact people herself when she's ready.
Les doesn't have email, so May said she'd call him and fill him in, but promised she wouldn't tell him which hospital.
There followed a flurry of phone calls, including one from Les asking for a translation of May's call, and another flurry of emails.
NJ is the treasurer for the local Mensa group, and apparently she didn't turn over the books or assign an alternate signator before she dropped out of sight. So I got pretty miffed when one of our members (ok, Zig) tried to hint that since I know where she is, I should try to get the books. Or maybe I read him wrong. Whatever. I responded that they should forget getting anything from NJ. Pretend she has eloped to Tahiti. I hope y'all have a Plan B. Implement it.
.
2009 A Letter dated 8/17/01
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
This is the third note I found in Jay's father's files. It is an email that I sent to all of his family and friends. His father did not use email, so I sent him a printout of it.
If you might ever be faced with a decision as to whether to go with Hospice or not, read this.
This is only nine days after the previous letter.
---------------------------
Dear Folks,
The past week has been very busy.
The insurance case-manager has been urging me to consider Hospice, but I didn't want to for a plethora of reasons: We'd had bad experiences with a local home nursing service. I'd been to a seminar where I got the impression that Hospice's main thrust was spiritual and emotional support (do-gooders, which I find more annoying than helpful). Jay considers Hospice giving up, and he won't give up, and I would feel like I was betraying him if I called in the "give-up team". Lastly, the only thing I could find in the insurance contract that seemed to even remotely relate to Hospice was under the heading "Home Nursing Care", and it explicitly stated that the insurance covered no services "that could be performed by a family member" - which meant that I wasn't going to get respite, bits of time off, from the insurance, just skilled nursing services, which I happened to enjoy doing for Jay anyway, so why repeat the bad visiting nurse experience for no reason.
But about two weeks ago I realized I was going to need some help soon. We will need a medically skilled sitter so I can get the vehicles inspected, a mammogram, a trip to the optometrist, the lawn mower fixed, some shopping beyond what's available for delivery, and so on. I also need advice on stuff like, for example, how to get medicine into him during those times when I can't get him to swallow the pills. (The regular doctor's nurses try to help by telephone, but they haven't seen Jay lately, and they don't really understand what we're dealing with.) There is only one place I am likely to find all this.
So I called Hospice and asked for an information packet.
Last Friday the insurance case manager called to ask how Jay was doing, and I told her I had made the call to Hospice but had not yet received anything. She said she'd nudge them. By that evening I had an appointment (here) with a Hospice nurse on the next Tuesday, and it's been a whirlwind since. The packet I had requested also arrived on Tuesday.
What I hadn't realized is that Hospice takes over entirely. On Tuesday the intake nurse told me that they have their own doctor who works in concert with our chosen doctors. They provide ALL the equipment - from the hospital bed and the oxygen concentrator to the mouth swabs and bed pads, and all the prescriptions. No more co-pays for meds or equipment, which is significant, because our share of the [reciprocating, pneumatic, to prevent bed sores] air mattress alone was $190 a month, and the oxygen concentrator was $150. Plus the Hoyer lift, wheelchair, overbed table, all the nits that were nickel-and-dime-ing us to distraction. The only co-pay is a flat $70 a week. We get a social worker who will find out all kinds of stuff for us, a nurse who comes twice a week to check and evaluate him, and is available for advice 24 hours, and an aide who will be here from 3:30 to 5:30 Monday through Friday. (My first thought when I heard that was "what on earth am I going to do with her for two hours every day?") I can leave when the aide is here. She can give him sponge baths, massage his back and feet, read to him, do his mouthcare, change the bed, and so on. If I need more time out, they will send a trained volunteer to sit with him. [Housekeeping assistance was also available. I could have a maid once a week! I turned that down.]
We are allowed a total of 271 days of care during periods when he is not getting aggressive treatment, and we can drop out and back in at any time - which means we could have used Hospice during the "rest periods" between treatments (but of course I'd have been afraid of using it up too soon.) Hospice doesn't "do" things like artificial feeding, for example, it's considered aggressive, but if we want something like that, we'd drop out for the day or two that it would take to get the IV or feeding tube or whatever, and then he'd come back in with the system in place, and they'd absorb and maintain it.
I expressed surprise because the insurance contract was so restrictive under "Home Health Care", and she said this is an entirely different contract, that I apparently don't have a copy of. (Huyh? Oh well, accept, don't look the gift horse....)
Wednesday the registered nurse came and examined him, took the history, gave advice, and set up delivery of everything. Even the meds are delivered to the door. Thursday the social worker and the aide came, and while the sw and I talked in the kitchen, the aide bathed Jay and handled two "accidents" resulting in laundry (she really moved right in and took over, nothing fazed her!) Today, Friday, I had an opportunity to talk with the aide while she massaged Jay's feet, and I think I won't be too nervous about leaving her alone here.
So, things are looking a lot more manageable.
M[youngest sister], I have returned all but two of the last set of library books on tape that you sent us. He is now working on "A Passion to Know...", which is thumbnail biographies of many famous scientists and Nobel Prize winners, with the stories of how they arrived at their great discoveries. It turns out to be the perfect book for him right now. The science is not so technical that he has to work to understand, and he can fall asleep, wake up later, and enjoy some more without having lost any plot. We can even play it over and over, and catch what he missed, or get more out of what he'd already heard. He's not communicating very well right now, but I can tell he likes it because he really does try to stay awake. Excellent choice!
[Silk]
--------------------------------
Again, this reminded me of things I had forgotten.
We had medical insurance through my retiree benefits from The Company. When Jay was first diagnosed, I realized that we had no information whatsoever on exactly what was covered under our insurance, and what was not. Medical care was fully funded by The Company, but was administered by a national health care insurance company. So who decided what was covered, and how much? The only information we had was about co-pays for doctor visits and prescriptions, things like that.
I called The Company HR and asked. Believe it or not, they didn't know. I asked for a copy of the contract, and was told that the contract was "in negotiation" and was not yet available. I pointed out that I was paying a portion of the premium, and had a right to know what I was paying for. Believe it or not again, it took a year to get it in writing what our coverage included, and as stated above, there was no mention of Hospice, the "separate contract".
Even though with Hospice I was able to get out of the bedroom for a few hours a day, it turned out that I was not able to go further than the village unless the twice-weekly nurse was able to extend her visit. One of the most dangerous things for Jay was seizures. If he started having seizures one after another in rapid succession, or a long extended seizure, it could kill him. So we had a syringe in the refrigerator filled with something-or-other which I would have to give him if he started seizing. It had to be given within ten minutes of the start. The aide was not allowed to inject him. Therefore I couldn't be more than 10 minutes from the house, so that if he started she could call me to come home and stop it. It was still a relief to be able to leave the bedroom, even if I couldn't get anything done.
As to Jay seeing Hospice as giving up, I explained the "drop in, drop out" aspect, and that satisfied him. It was just a temporary thing to help me.
He died at the end of October. He stopped fighting on 9/11/2001, when he realized he was unable to protect me, and slid rapidly after that.
.
This is the third note I found in Jay's father's files. It is an email that I sent to all of his family and friends. His father did not use email, so I sent him a printout of it.
If you might ever be faced with a decision as to whether to go with Hospice or not, read this.
This is only nine days after the previous letter.
---------------------------
August 17, 2001
Dear Folks,
The past week has been very busy.
The insurance case-manager has been urging me to consider Hospice, but I didn't want to for a plethora of reasons: We'd had bad experiences with a local home nursing service. I'd been to a seminar where I got the impression that Hospice's main thrust was spiritual and emotional support (do-gooders, which I find more annoying than helpful). Jay considers Hospice giving up, and he won't give up, and I would feel like I was betraying him if I called in the "give-up team". Lastly, the only thing I could find in the insurance contract that seemed to even remotely relate to Hospice was under the heading "Home Nursing Care", and it explicitly stated that the insurance covered no services "that could be performed by a family member" - which meant that I wasn't going to get respite, bits of time off, from the insurance, just skilled nursing services, which I happened to enjoy doing for Jay anyway, so why repeat the bad visiting nurse experience for no reason.
But about two weeks ago I realized I was going to need some help soon. We will need a medically skilled sitter so I can get the vehicles inspected, a mammogram, a trip to the optometrist, the lawn mower fixed, some shopping beyond what's available for delivery, and so on. I also need advice on stuff like, for example, how to get medicine into him during those times when I can't get him to swallow the pills. (The regular doctor's nurses try to help by telephone, but they haven't seen Jay lately, and they don't really understand what we're dealing with.) There is only one place I am likely to find all this.
So I called Hospice and asked for an information packet.
Last Friday the insurance case manager called to ask how Jay was doing, and I told her I had made the call to Hospice but had not yet received anything. She said she'd nudge them. By that evening I had an appointment (here) with a Hospice nurse on the next Tuesday, and it's been a whirlwind since. The packet I had requested also arrived on Tuesday.
What I hadn't realized is that Hospice takes over entirely. On Tuesday the intake nurse told me that they have their own doctor who works in concert with our chosen doctors. They provide ALL the equipment - from the hospital bed and the oxygen concentrator to the mouth swabs and bed pads, and all the prescriptions. No more co-pays for meds or equipment, which is significant, because our share of the [reciprocating, pneumatic, to prevent bed sores] air mattress alone was $190 a month, and the oxygen concentrator was $150. Plus the Hoyer lift, wheelchair, overbed table, all the nits that were nickel-and-dime-ing us to distraction. The only co-pay is a flat $70 a week. We get a social worker who will find out all kinds of stuff for us, a nurse who comes twice a week to check and evaluate him, and is available for advice 24 hours, and an aide who will be here from 3:30 to 5:30 Monday through Friday. (My first thought when I heard that was "what on earth am I going to do with her for two hours every day?") I can leave when the aide is here. She can give him sponge baths, massage his back and feet, read to him, do his mouthcare, change the bed, and so on. If I need more time out, they will send a trained volunteer to sit with him. [Housekeeping assistance was also available. I could have a maid once a week! I turned that down.]
We are allowed a total of 271 days of care during periods when he is not getting aggressive treatment, and we can drop out and back in at any time - which means we could have used Hospice during the "rest periods" between treatments (but of course I'd have been afraid of using it up too soon.) Hospice doesn't "do" things like artificial feeding, for example, it's considered aggressive, but if we want something like that, we'd drop out for the day or two that it would take to get the IV or feeding tube or whatever, and then he'd come back in with the system in place, and they'd absorb and maintain it.
I expressed surprise because the insurance contract was so restrictive under "Home Health Care", and she said this is an entirely different contract, that I apparently don't have a copy of. (Huyh? Oh well, accept, don't look the gift horse....)
Wednesday the registered nurse came and examined him, took the history, gave advice, and set up delivery of everything. Even the meds are delivered to the door. Thursday the social worker and the aide came, and while the sw and I talked in the kitchen, the aide bathed Jay and handled two "accidents" resulting in laundry (she really moved right in and took over, nothing fazed her!) Today, Friday, I had an opportunity to talk with the aide while she massaged Jay's feet, and I think I won't be too nervous about leaving her alone here.
So, things are looking a lot more manageable.
M[youngest sister], I have returned all but two of the last set of library books on tape that you sent us. He is now working on "A Passion to Know...", which is thumbnail biographies of many famous scientists and Nobel Prize winners, with the stories of how they arrived at their great discoveries. It turns out to be the perfect book for him right now. The science is not so technical that he has to work to understand, and he can fall asleep, wake up later, and enjoy some more without having lost any plot. We can even play it over and over, and catch what he missed, or get more out of what he'd already heard. He's not communicating very well right now, but I can tell he likes it because he really does try to stay awake. Excellent choice!
[Silk]
--------------------------------
Again, this reminded me of things I had forgotten.
We had medical insurance through my retiree benefits from The Company. When Jay was first diagnosed, I realized that we had no information whatsoever on exactly what was covered under our insurance, and what was not. Medical care was fully funded by The Company, but was administered by a national health care insurance company. So who decided what was covered, and how much? The only information we had was about co-pays for doctor visits and prescriptions, things like that.
I called The Company HR and asked. Believe it or not, they didn't know. I asked for a copy of the contract, and was told that the contract was "in negotiation" and was not yet available. I pointed out that I was paying a portion of the premium, and had a right to know what I was paying for. Believe it or not again, it took a year to get it in writing what our coverage included, and as stated above, there was no mention of Hospice, the "separate contract".
Even though with Hospice I was able to get out of the bedroom for a few hours a day, it turned out that I was not able to go further than the village unless the twice-weekly nurse was able to extend her visit. One of the most dangerous things for Jay was seizures. If he started having seizures one after another in rapid succession, or a long extended seizure, it could kill him. So we had a syringe in the refrigerator filled with something-or-other which I would have to give him if he started seizing. It had to be given within ten minutes of the start. The aide was not allowed to inject him. Therefore I couldn't be more than 10 minutes from the house, so that if he started she could call me to come home and stop it. It was still a relief to be able to leave the bedroom, even if I couldn't get anything done.
As to Jay seeing Hospice as giving up, I explained the "drop in, drop out" aspect, and that satisfied him. It was just a temporary thing to help me.
He died at the end of October. He stopped fighting on 9/11/2001, when he realized he was unable to protect me, and slid rapidly after that.
.
2008 A Letter dated 8/8/01
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
This is the second letter I found in Jay's father's files. In August of 2001, Jay was three years into the brain cancer battle. His father called twice a week to talk with Jay. He wasn't a stupid man, but he couldn't seem to understand that Jay had no short-term memory, was blind and hemi-paralyzed, completely bedridden, pretty much incapable of logical or coherent thought, suffering frequent bouts of confusion, delusion, and hallucination, and that Jay was unaware that we had ceased active treatment.
Jay's father seemed in complete and total denial.
He kept urging that Jay concentrate on his physical therapy, get stronger, do crossword puzzles to keep his mind sharp, and so on. He tried to discuss scientific ideas and theories. I know he was trying to be encouraging, but what he encouraged was impossible, and Jay was always very upset and confused after phone conversations with his father.
This was my attempt to set him straight. I was tough and blunt.
Again, "[ ]" is today's edits.
-----------------------------------
Dear Dad,
I'm never quite sure how much Jay hears or understands, so I'm more comfortable writing than calling. [I couldn't leave Jay alone for more than three or four minutes, or he panicked because he didn't know where I was, and he was sleeping only minutes at a time, so a call would have had to have been made from our bedroom.] I need to tell you what Jay's status is right now.
He has had three craniotomies, 35 sessions of fractionated radiotherapy, one steriotactic radiosurgery, 5 or 6 different chemotherapies, and immunotherapy. He's had everything medical science has to offer for his type of tumor. We knew from the start that malignant brain tumors are so far incurable, but there's a lot of research going on, so we figured we'd just try to keep him going as long as possible and maybe we'd be there for the great breakthrough.
He is now on his fifth recurrence. Most people don't make it past the second. A few make it to the third. Almost no one makes it to the fourth. So Jay has been very exceptional. It's been a heroic effort, and throughout it all, he has never whined or complained. We've made it this far only because he has been very good at following orders, and I've been vigilant and very aggressive. Throughout it all, we have maintained a positive attitude (Jay more so than I, because I tend to be more realistic).
But it's easy to tip over from positive to denial. I will let Jay be in denial right now, but I have to be realistic.
The immunotherapy worked very well. The researchers are happy with the results Jay has shown, because he proved that they can get the white cells to attack his type of tumor. However, in Jay's particular case, the tumor was just plain too fast. For every cell that was killed, another divided. When I talked with Dr. H[---], she said that continuing with the immunotherapy would probably be no longer effective, plus he is too weak to withstand more anyway. She recommended another debulking surgery and another radiosurgery. I sent the MRIs to Albany for another opinion, and Dr. W[---] and Dr. P[---] agree with me, that another surgery would not do any good - in fact would probably hurt more than help.
Look at your closed fist. That's what the tumor looked like for the first two surgeries. Now close the fist and stick out the thumb. That was the third surgery. He lost a lot of cognitive function in that surgery (numbers, dates, spatial relationships, ability to read a map, control of his left side, awareness of the left side of the world, etc.) Now open your fist and spread the fingers out wide. That's what the tumor looks like now. The material between the fingers may or may not be functioning.
Dr. W[---] says that the tumor now involves up to 3/4 of the right hemisphere and she doesn't know of any surgeon who would be willing to remove that much for so little potential benefit. If he survived the surgery, there would probably be very little "Jay" left. (The problems are not just on the right. There is so much pressure that the midline of the brain is deviated, causing pressure on the left hemisphere, and the brain sinuses are blocked so that fluid tends to build up on the left as well as on the right side of the brain.)
Dr. W[---] also agreed with me that the area involved is much too large for radiosurgery to be effective.
Jay's neurological status is so deteriorated at this point that he is no longer eligible for clinical trials (except the phase 1 dose-escalation trials where they keep giving more and more until they find the point where the patient is poisoned - they like terminal patients for those).
So, there is nothing more we can do.
When you call, don't ask Jay about treatments. I haven't told him that there's nothing more. He doesn't notice the passage of time, doesn't notice we're not doing anything, and I'd prefer to keep him that way. There's no point in upsetting him.
We had been doing the physical therapy exercises, but he was deteriorating so fast that there didn't seem to be any point any longer. It was becoming increasingly hard on my back and increasingly more painful and frustrating for him, and so we often ended up yelling at each other. One has to consider WHY we do these things, is the benefit worth the price, and given his prognosis the answer is an emphatic NO! So please don't ask about physical therapy, either. He isn't going to get any stronger, isn't going to sit up let alone walk again, so let's not remind him.
He does listen to the TV and his talking books, but I'm not sure how much or what sort of information he gets from them. In the "Magic Mirror" book, there was a newspaper man who was described as sloppy and hulking and constantly smelling of whiskey and tobacco [ Dad was skinny, never smoked and did not drink whiskey]. But because the story took place in Paris, in environs familiar to you, Jay decided that the character was you - and wondered how the author had got to know you. He wondered why you had never mentioned this murder in the museum that you had been involved in. Just this morning, he heard a voice on the telephone on TV, and decided it was you. Not that it sounded like you, that it was you. He wondered why you were calling a psychic reader.
So I'm not sure how much he absorbs. He listens to the news, but none of it matters to him. I get lonely sometimes because there are things I want to get indignant about or marvel at, and it's no use saying anything to him about it. He mostly doesn't understand.
I also get frustrated because every time I buy him something, within a week he is no longer able to use it - from the lighted magnifier just before his sight winked out, to the pedal-pusher he can't coordinate, the $400 gel cushion for the wheelchair which he used only twice, and the electric-ramp van he was able to ride in only a month. It feels like my buying him stuff causes him to deteriorate to where it becomes useless.
Right now he is a rag doll. He can't roll over in bed. I lift him over. [Daughter] marvels at the muscle development in my forearms. He can't hold his head up straight - it's turned to the right and tilted right. To feed him or give him something to drink, I have to support his head with my shoulder. He can't take pills any more, I crush the dexamethasone and mix it into jello or pudding, and we finally got liquid Dilantin.
He has a severe case of thrush (oral candida albicans). We got some medicine for it, but it makes him throw up (projectile), and that's too dangerous because he inhales the vomit. So I've been treating it by painting his mouth with gentian violet - but now he can't hold his mouth open or his tongue still enough for that, so I don't know what to do. We could try swishing with 1-3 part hydrogen peroxide, but he can't "swish and spit" - more than half the time he swallows it. How dangerous is that? I don't know, but I suspect it's no good. But - that's the least of the problems.
Well, that's all the facts. I need to get this into the mail. (Since I can't leave Jay alone, mail comes in and goes out with the nurse who comes once a week for his Dilantin levels.)
The main purpose of this was to fill you in, and to ask you not to draw Jay's attention to what's not happening. To level-set you.
When you call, probably the best things to talk about with him are good times from the past - like "Remember the time we went to...", "Remember when we built the...", "Remember So-and-so? Well, now he's...". His long-term memory is still in pretty good shape, and it might lift his spirits a little. (Short-term memory and logic, any thinking that requires work, is out the window---)
Nurse is here.
Yours,
[Silk]
--------------------------------
The letter had no effect. His father continued to upset Jay.
.
This is the second letter I found in Jay's father's files. In August of 2001, Jay was three years into the brain cancer battle. His father called twice a week to talk with Jay. He wasn't a stupid man, but he couldn't seem to understand that Jay had no short-term memory, was blind and hemi-paralyzed, completely bedridden, pretty much incapable of logical or coherent thought, suffering frequent bouts of confusion, delusion, and hallucination, and that Jay was unaware that we had ceased active treatment.
Jay's father seemed in complete and total denial.
He kept urging that Jay concentrate on his physical therapy, get stronger, do crossword puzzles to keep his mind sharp, and so on. He tried to discuss scientific ideas and theories. I know he was trying to be encouraging, but what he encouraged was impossible, and Jay was always very upset and confused after phone conversations with his father.
This was my attempt to set him straight. I was tough and blunt.
Again, "[ ]" is today's edits.
-----------------------------------
August 8, 2001
Dear Dad,
I'm never quite sure how much Jay hears or understands, so I'm more comfortable writing than calling. [I couldn't leave Jay alone for more than three or four minutes, or he panicked because he didn't know where I was, and he was sleeping only minutes at a time, so a call would have had to have been made from our bedroom.] I need to tell you what Jay's status is right now.
He has had three craniotomies, 35 sessions of fractionated radiotherapy, one steriotactic radiosurgery, 5 or 6 different chemotherapies, and immunotherapy. He's had everything medical science has to offer for his type of tumor. We knew from the start that malignant brain tumors are so far incurable, but there's a lot of research going on, so we figured we'd just try to keep him going as long as possible and maybe we'd be there for the great breakthrough.
He is now on his fifth recurrence. Most people don't make it past the second. A few make it to the third. Almost no one makes it to the fourth. So Jay has been very exceptional. It's been a heroic effort, and throughout it all, he has never whined or complained. We've made it this far only because he has been very good at following orders, and I've been vigilant and very aggressive. Throughout it all, we have maintained a positive attitude (Jay more so than I, because I tend to be more realistic).
But it's easy to tip over from positive to denial. I will let Jay be in denial right now, but I have to be realistic.
The immunotherapy worked very well. The researchers are happy with the results Jay has shown, because he proved that they can get the white cells to attack his type of tumor. However, in Jay's particular case, the tumor was just plain too fast. For every cell that was killed, another divided. When I talked with Dr. H[---], she said that continuing with the immunotherapy would probably be no longer effective, plus he is too weak to withstand more anyway. She recommended another debulking surgery and another radiosurgery. I sent the MRIs to Albany for another opinion, and Dr. W[---] and Dr. P[---] agree with me, that another surgery would not do any good - in fact would probably hurt more than help.
Look at your closed fist. That's what the tumor looked like for the first two surgeries. Now close the fist and stick out the thumb. That was the third surgery. He lost a lot of cognitive function in that surgery (numbers, dates, spatial relationships, ability to read a map, control of his left side, awareness of the left side of the world, etc.) Now open your fist and spread the fingers out wide. That's what the tumor looks like now. The material between the fingers may or may not be functioning.
Dr. W[---] says that the tumor now involves up to 3/4 of the right hemisphere and she doesn't know of any surgeon who would be willing to remove that much for so little potential benefit. If he survived the surgery, there would probably be very little "Jay" left. (The problems are not just on the right. There is so much pressure that the midline of the brain is deviated, causing pressure on the left hemisphere, and the brain sinuses are blocked so that fluid tends to build up on the left as well as on the right side of the brain.)
Dr. W[---] also agreed with me that the area involved is much too large for radiosurgery to be effective.
Jay's neurological status is so deteriorated at this point that he is no longer eligible for clinical trials (except the phase 1 dose-escalation trials where they keep giving more and more until they find the point where the patient is poisoned - they like terminal patients for those).
So, there is nothing more we can do.
When you call, don't ask Jay about treatments. I haven't told him that there's nothing more. He doesn't notice the passage of time, doesn't notice we're not doing anything, and I'd prefer to keep him that way. There's no point in upsetting him.
We had been doing the physical therapy exercises, but he was deteriorating so fast that there didn't seem to be any point any longer. It was becoming increasingly hard on my back and increasingly more painful and frustrating for him, and so we often ended up yelling at each other. One has to consider WHY we do these things, is the benefit worth the price, and given his prognosis the answer is an emphatic NO! So please don't ask about physical therapy, either. He isn't going to get any stronger, isn't going to sit up let alone walk again, so let's not remind him.
He does listen to the TV and his talking books, but I'm not sure how much or what sort of information he gets from them. In the "Magic Mirror" book, there was a newspaper man who was described as sloppy and hulking and constantly smelling of whiskey and tobacco [ Dad was skinny, never smoked and did not drink whiskey]. But because the story took place in Paris, in environs familiar to you, Jay decided that the character was you - and wondered how the author had got to know you. He wondered why you had never mentioned this murder in the museum that you had been involved in. Just this morning, he heard a voice on the telephone on TV, and decided it was you. Not that it sounded like you, that it was you. He wondered why you were calling a psychic reader.
So I'm not sure how much he absorbs. He listens to the news, but none of it matters to him. I get lonely sometimes because there are things I want to get indignant about or marvel at, and it's no use saying anything to him about it. He mostly doesn't understand.
I also get frustrated because every time I buy him something, within a week he is no longer able to use it - from the lighted magnifier just before his sight winked out, to the pedal-pusher he can't coordinate, the $400 gel cushion for the wheelchair which he used only twice, and the electric-ramp van he was able to ride in only a month. It feels like my buying him stuff causes him to deteriorate to where it becomes useless.
Right now he is a rag doll. He can't roll over in bed. I lift him over. [Daughter] marvels at the muscle development in my forearms. He can't hold his head up straight - it's turned to the right and tilted right. To feed him or give him something to drink, I have to support his head with my shoulder. He can't take pills any more, I crush the dexamethasone and mix it into jello or pudding, and we finally got liquid Dilantin.
He has a severe case of thrush (oral candida albicans). We got some medicine for it, but it makes him throw up (projectile), and that's too dangerous because he inhales the vomit. So I've been treating it by painting his mouth with gentian violet - but now he can't hold his mouth open or his tongue still enough for that, so I don't know what to do. We could try swishing with 1-3 part hydrogen peroxide, but he can't "swish and spit" - more than half the time he swallows it. How dangerous is that? I don't know, but I suspect it's no good. But - that's the least of the problems.
Well, that's all the facts. I need to get this into the mail. (Since I can't leave Jay alone, mail comes in and goes out with the nurse who comes once a week for his Dilantin levels.)
The main purpose of this was to fill you in, and to ask you not to draw Jay's attention to what's not happening. To level-set you.
When you call, probably the best things to talk about with him are good times from the past - like "Remember the time we went to...", "Remember when we built the...", "Remember So-and-so? Well, now he's...". His long-term memory is still in pretty good shape, and it might lift his spirits a little. (Short-term memory and logic, any thinking that requires work, is out the window---)
Nurse is here.
Yours,
[Silk]
--------------------------------
The letter had no effect. His father continued to upset Jay.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)