hi
http://vshwaas.com/chain.php?youll=g11vf9v14uud
halieus@yahoo.com
Matt
Friday, January 22, 2016
Thursday, February 03, 2011
Adopted Family
My neighbor owns a wildlife removal service. He loves animals, so whenever possible he relocates any wild animals he picks up (as long as the law doesn't require burying them) and finds home for the domesticated ones.
2 February 2011 (yesterday) he received a call about a raccoon/dog mix breed animal that a woman wanted trapped and off of her property. Since it was an unusual request (dogs can breed with coons?? that's nothing like a wolfdog or a liger) he went right out. Turns out the woman had a Yorkie, and anything bigger than that was just a monster to her.
He ended up bringing home an abandoned puppy that he thought might have been an Australian Cattle Dog. I looked her up and found out she's actually an Australian Stumpy Tailed Cattle Dog. None of his friends wanted her, the kids have been begging for a dog for months, and she's so good... that today my wife and I asked for her. The kids and I were very happy to find out we just got a new dog.
I don't think she's ever been trained. She went nuts when she first had a leash and collar put on her, but after 15-20 minutes of training this evening (with plain pulled-pork as rewards) I had her walking with me both with and without a leash. This dog is incredibly smart! I can hardly wait for the kids to go to bed. I want to bring her in and teach her to "sit" and "stay." (Although, I think she'll be a back porch dog, at least for the near future. While our house is mildly kid-proof, it's not at all dog-proof.)
My ultimate goal is to train her to herd the cows. Hopefully, she'll be doing this with ease by this time next year. Rounding them up on foot for the last 15 years hasn't been my idea of "fun" -- but it is supposed to be hers.
Now if we can just pick a good name...
2 February 2011 (yesterday) he received a call about a raccoon/dog mix breed animal that a woman wanted trapped and off of her property. Since it was an unusual request (dogs can breed with coons?? that's nothing like a wolfdog or a liger) he went right out. Turns out the woman had a Yorkie, and anything bigger than that was just a monster to her.
He ended up bringing home an abandoned puppy that he thought might have been an Australian Cattle Dog. I looked her up and found out she's actually an Australian Stumpy Tailed Cattle Dog. None of his friends wanted her, the kids have been begging for a dog for months, and she's so good... that today my wife and I asked for her. The kids and I were very happy to find out we just got a new dog.
I don't think she's ever been trained. She went nuts when she first had a leash and collar put on her, but after 15-20 minutes of training this evening (with plain pulled-pork as rewards) I had her walking with me both with and without a leash. This dog is incredibly smart! I can hardly wait for the kids to go to bed. I want to bring her in and teach her to "sit" and "stay." (Although, I think she'll be a back porch dog, at least for the near future. While our house is mildly kid-proof, it's not at all dog-proof.)
My ultimate goal is to train her to herd the cows. Hopefully, she'll be doing this with ease by this time next year. Rounding them up on foot for the last 15 years hasn't been my idea of "fun" -- but it is supposed to be hers.
Now if we can just pick a good name...
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Unusual Friend Requests
If you know me well, you know I'm kinda addicted to FaceBook. I love to see how things are working out for family and friends in other places.
I've had a few people I don't know ask to be my "FaceBook friend" but I usually just ignore them. I do, however have a few people in my friend list that I do not know, and that I did not ignore:
Steven Ertelt, the man behind LifeNews.com
Bill McCollum, the Attorney General of Florida.
Jeff Kottkamp, the Lieutenant Governor of Florida.
And now I'm trying to figure out
1) how they found me?
2) why they would want to be my friend? and,
3) if I should be flattered? wary? or just chalk it up to free advertising for them?
I've had a few people I don't know ask to be my "FaceBook friend" but I usually just ignore them. I do, however have a few people in my friend list that I do not know, and that I did not ignore:
Steven Ertelt, the man behind LifeNews.com
Bill McCollum, the Attorney General of Florida.
Jeff Kottkamp, the Lieutenant Governor of Florida.
And now I'm trying to figure out
1) how they found me?
2) why they would want to be my friend? and,
3) if I should be flattered? wary? or just chalk it up to free advertising for them?
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
A "Gotcha" Moment
Have a friend, Jon, that's something of an "expert" in martial arts, he is a 10th dan black belt in jiu jitsu, kung fu, and shorei ryu karate as well as a 6th dan in judo. He's been teaching me (and some kids from church) a combination of these arts for about a year now. We practice in one of the rooms at church on Tuesday nights (I want to go more often, but my wife doesn't like that idea, so once a week is "it" right now.)
Anyway, after the kids leave Jon and I practice an additional 10 to 15 minutes. When they left tonight, Jon decided we would practice disabling armed and unarmed assailants, and something happened that doesn't happen often... I got him to raise his eyebrows and say, "That was good."
Before he told me what we were doing, he grabbed my gi and said, "Go ahead and show me what you've got." Because he's my teacher, I let him grab me, and asked him what he was looking for me to attempt. He laughed at me and said, "You're already too slow."
Since I couldn't read his mind, I asked again -- only this time, I asked specifically if he wanted to see strikes, kicks, submission holds, or combinations. I guess he must have had somewhere to go, because he said, "I don't care, just get my hand off of you..." Which was when the words died in his mouth, he took a step back, and told me I'd done well.
When he'd gotten to the "Y" sound in "you" I trapped his hand with my left hand, and simultaneously threw a right elbow to his face. The words "died" because the striking point of my elbow touched his upper lip and nose on the "oo" part of "you." Of course I pulled it at the last second, but normally, he gets away before I'm close enough to touch.
He was a lot more alert for the rest of the practice. =)
Anyway, after the kids leave Jon and I practice an additional 10 to 15 minutes. When they left tonight, Jon decided we would practice disabling armed and unarmed assailants, and something happened that doesn't happen often... I got him to raise his eyebrows and say, "That was good."
Before he told me what we were doing, he grabbed my gi and said, "Go ahead and show me what you've got." Because he's my teacher, I let him grab me, and asked him what he was looking for me to attempt. He laughed at me and said, "You're already too slow."
Since I couldn't read his mind, I asked again -- only this time, I asked specifically if he wanted to see strikes, kicks, submission holds, or combinations. I guess he must have had somewhere to go, because he said, "I don't care, just get my hand off of you..." Which was when the words died in his mouth, he took a step back, and told me I'd done well.
When he'd gotten to the "Y" sound in "you" I trapped his hand with my left hand, and simultaneously threw a right elbow to his face. The words "died" because the striking point of my elbow touched his upper lip and nose on the "oo" part of "you." Of course I pulled it at the last second, but normally, he gets away before I'm close enough to touch.
He was a lot more alert for the rest of the practice. =)
Friday, May 01, 2009
Expendability
A brief talk by Nate Saint over HCJB radio: 1949.
I've been reading Jungle Pilot, by Russell T. Hitt. It's a great book about Nate Saint, and I thought this small excerpt would be an encouragement to my friends: missionaries, military members, and others in service to the King.
You can get a copy of this book free here.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
A fact that is mixed in a very important way with our work is the thing that became commonly known during the last war as "EXPENDABILITY."
The flying business is full of illustrations of this basic principle. God has seen fit to make a vehicle that is expendable essential to progress. There is always a price that must be paid.
During the last war (WW2) we were taught that, in order to obtain our objective, we had to be willing to be expendable, and many lives were spent paying the price of our redemption from the bonds of political slavery.
This very afternoon thousands of soldiers are known by their serial numbers as men who are expendable. During the last war we saw big bombers on the assembly line, row after row, powerful, costly implements of war! Yet we all knew--we actually KNEW that many of those bombers would not accomplish even five missions over enemy territory. We also knew that young fellows, many of them volunteers, would ride in those airborne machine-gun turrets, and their life expectancy behind those guns was (with the trigger down) only four minutes. Tremendous expendability!
We know that there is only one answer when our country demands that we share in the price of freedom--yet when the Lord Jesus asks us to pay the price for world evangelization, we often answer without a word. We cannot go. We say it costs too much.
God Himself laid down the law when He built the universe. He knew when He made it what the price was going to be. And the Lamb of God was slain in the counsels of God from before the foundation of the world. If God didn't hold back His only Son, but gave Him up to pay the price for our failure and sin, then how can we Christians bold back our lives-- the lives He really owns?
The Lord tells us that "He that loveth his life" -- we might say that "he that is selfish with his life" -- "shall lose it." It's inescapable.
Some might say, isn't it too great a price to pay? When missionaries consider themselves--their lives before God--they consider themselves expendable. And in our personal lives as Christians, isn't the same thing true? Isn't the price small in the light of God's infinite love? Those who know the joy of leading a stranger to Christ and those who have gone to tribes who have never heard the Gospel, gladly count themselves expendable. And they count it all joy.
"Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone." The apostle Paul said, "I die daily." "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service."
And Jesus said, "There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the Gospel's, but he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time . . . and in the world to come eternal life."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I've been reading Jungle Pilot, by Russell T. Hitt. It's a great book about Nate Saint, and I thought this small excerpt would be an encouragement to my friends: missionaries, military members, and others in service to the King.
You can get a copy of this book free here.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
A fact that is mixed in a very important way with our work is the thing that became commonly known during the last war as "EXPENDABILITY."The flying business is full of illustrations of this basic principle. God has seen fit to make a vehicle that is expendable essential to progress. There is always a price that must be paid.
During the last war (WW2) we were taught that, in order to obtain our objective, we had to be willing to be expendable, and many lives were spent paying the price of our redemption from the bonds of political slavery.
This very afternoon thousands of soldiers are known by their serial numbers as men who are expendable. During the last war we saw big bombers on the assembly line, row after row, powerful, costly implements of war! Yet we all knew--we actually KNEW that many of those bombers would not accomplish even five missions over enemy territory. We also knew that young fellows, many of them volunteers, would ride in those airborne machine-gun turrets, and their life expectancy behind those guns was (with the trigger down) only four minutes. Tremendous expendability!
We know that there is only one answer when our country demands that we share in the price of freedom--yet when the Lord Jesus asks us to pay the price for world evangelization, we often answer without a word. We cannot go. We say it costs too much.
God Himself laid down the law when He built the universe. He knew when He made it what the price was going to be. And the Lamb of God was slain in the counsels of God from before the foundation of the world. If God didn't hold back His only Son, but gave Him up to pay the price for our failure and sin, then how can we Christians bold back our lives-- the lives He really owns?
The Lord tells us that "He that loveth his life" -- we might say that "he that is selfish with his life" -- "shall lose it." It's inescapable.
Missionaries constantly face expendability. And people who do not know the Lord ask why in the world we waste our lives as missionaries. They forget that they too are expending their lives. They forget that when their lives are spent and the bubble has burst, they will have nothing of eternal significance to show for the years they have wasted.
Some might say, isn't it too great a price to pay? When missionaries consider themselves--their lives before God--they consider themselves expendable. And in our personal lives as Christians, isn't the same thing true? Isn't the price small in the light of God's infinite love? Those who know the joy of leading a stranger to Christ and those who have gone to tribes who have never heard the Gospel, gladly count themselves expendable. And they count it all joy.
"Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone." The apostle Paul said, "I die daily." "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service."
And Jesus said, "There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the Gospel's, but he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time . . . and in the world to come eternal life."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Early April "Kid-ism"
Was down at the Pastor's house yesterday trouble-shooting an electrical problem -- was a bad breaker. I had Caleb with me, he was holding the electrical meter while I checked for current, loose connections, and bad breakers.
I finished installing the new breakers into the panel outside and (since he will talk all day to anyone that won't tell him to be quiet) I told him when we went inside, if he wanted to help me, then he couldn't talk -- he could only listen. We walked inside and the Pastor said, "Well hello, Caleb. How are you doing?"
Complete silence.
Caleb stared straight ahead, grinned widely, and only held up the meter as he walked right on past. I'd forgotten to tell him he could answer questions! So I told the Pastor, he chuckled, and Caleb and I went to check the first outlet on the recently replaced breaker's circuit.
Everything was fine, as we prepared to go, the Pastor's daughter came into her brother's room (where we were working) and asked Caleb if he wanted to stay and play. (She talks almost as much as Caleb, and much faster.) He looked at me, I nodded, and told him that was fine, so he said, "Well, OK; what could I play with?"
She replied, "Good. You want to play -- let's play with my Barbies. I'll be right back, wait while I go get them."
It took Caleb a few seconds to respond, but he stammered out, "I don't play with Barbies!" before she got to the door.
The neighbor girl barely slowed but she said, "That's OK, I have boy Barbies too. You can play with the boy Barbies and I'll play with the girl Barbies."
He barely had time to blurt out, "No! I don't play with Barbies!" before she left.
So she said, "Don't worry, they're really boy Barbies! I took their shirts off so you can see. It's OK."
By that time I was having trouble finishing screwing in the outlet because I was (silently) laughing so hard. In the other room, the Pastor came to Caleb's defense and said, "Honey, Caleb doesn't play with Barbies."
So she returned and tried another tack. She pulled three cars from under her brother's bed and let Caleb pick one. That was right up his alley -- the Cars movie was on TV the other night, and he was pumped about race cars. He even let her pick which car she wanted to play with. Then she started in on him again with, "This is good, we can pretend the Barbies are in the cars. Here, I'll take this girl car, and you can take this boy car." (I couldn't tell the "girl's" and "boy's" cars apart, but she liked the Porsche better than the American made ones.)
Caleb had finally figured out she had ulterior motives and said something to her about racing the cars instead. She kept right on the Barbies-in-the-cars idea though, when she hit on a brainstorm. She pulled a Superman action figure from the toy box and said, "Here, this isn't a Barbie. This is Superman, 'Da da da daaaaaahn!' He has a cape and everything! Here, you play with Superman and I'll go get my Barbies."
(Singing the theme song was a nice touch.) By that time I was getting the faceplate started (and having trouble -- because I was still laughing), but Caleb had collected his thoughts. He said, "No thanks, I'd rather play with what I have here. I don't want to play with any Barbies." She continued, trying to convince him that action figures are MUCH different than Barbies, but he was adamant in his response. He wanted to play with the cars and he didn't want anything to do with anything remotely resembling a Barbie.
She wasn't very happy with his decision, but I got a kick out of the whole episode.
I finished installing the new breakers into the panel outside and (since he will talk all day to anyone that won't tell him to be quiet) I told him when we went inside, if he wanted to help me, then he couldn't talk -- he could only listen. We walked inside and the Pastor said, "Well hello, Caleb. How are you doing?"
Complete silence.
Caleb stared straight ahead, grinned widely, and only held up the meter as he walked right on past. I'd forgotten to tell him he could answer questions! So I told the Pastor, he chuckled, and Caleb and I went to check the first outlet on the recently replaced breaker's circuit.
Everything was fine, as we prepared to go, the Pastor's daughter came into her brother's room (where we were working) and asked Caleb if he wanted to stay and play. (She talks almost as much as Caleb, and much faster.) He looked at me, I nodded, and told him that was fine, so he said, "Well, OK; what could I play with?"
She replied, "Good. You want to play -- let's play with my Barbies. I'll be right back, wait while I go get them."
It took Caleb a few seconds to respond, but he stammered out, "I don't play with Barbies!" before she got to the door.
The neighbor girl barely slowed but she said, "That's OK, I have boy Barbies too. You can play with the boy Barbies and I'll play with the girl Barbies."
He barely had time to blurt out, "No! I don't play with Barbies!" before she left.
So she said, "Don't worry, they're really boy Barbies! I took their shirts off so you can see. It's OK."
By that time I was having trouble finishing screwing in the outlet because I was (silently) laughing so hard. In the other room, the Pastor came to Caleb's defense and said, "Honey, Caleb doesn't play with Barbies."
So she returned and tried another tack. She pulled three cars from under her brother's bed and let Caleb pick one. That was right up his alley -- the Cars movie was on TV the other night, and he was pumped about race cars. He even let her pick which car she wanted to play with. Then she started in on him again with, "This is good, we can pretend the Barbies are in the cars. Here, I'll take this girl car, and you can take this boy car." (I couldn't tell the "girl's" and "boy's" cars apart, but she liked the Porsche better than the American made ones.)
Caleb had finally figured out she had ulterior motives and said something to her about racing the cars instead. She kept right on the Barbies-in-the-cars idea though, when she hit on a brainstorm. She pulled a Superman action figure from the toy box and said, "Here, this isn't a Barbie. This is Superman, 'Da da da daaaaaahn!' He has a cape and everything! Here, you play with Superman and I'll go get my Barbies."
(Singing the theme song was a nice touch.) By that time I was getting the faceplate started (and having trouble -- because I was still laughing), but Caleb had collected his thoughts. He said, "No thanks, I'd rather play with what I have here. I don't want to play with any Barbies." She continued, trying to convince him that action figures are MUCH different than Barbies, but he was adamant in his response. He wanted to play with the cars and he didn't want anything to do with anything remotely resembling a Barbie.
She wasn't very happy with his decision, but I got a kick out of the whole episode.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Food for Thought
Last week, Dr. Russell Anderson came to our church and preached three messages: Sunday School, Sunday morning worship service, and Sunday evening service. He is the Anderson half of Hyles-Anderson College. He's also a multi-millionaire many times over.
I had the privilege of driving him to and from church as well as riding back to the airport with him. He asked what I do at the church so I explained all I do, and that I try to work outside the church as much as possible to earn most of my money. So then he asked what kind of work I've done. And I asked if he thought I should concentrate on working at church, or on working outside of it and increasing my giving.
He had an interesting (to me anyway) answer. He said at my age, with my skills, knowledge, and experience he thought I should continue doing what I'm doing in ministry, hire people to do the physical labor I do for the church, and become a multi-millionaire myself.
That was quite a jaw-dropper.
Personally, I'm really not all that concerned with making money and becoming rich; never have been. Money is just one of those things I need to do the things I want to do. He said that's exactly the kind of person that can really do a lot for God, because I probably wouldn't be as concerned with how much was "mine." He also said if I would continue to give money away to my church (and other God-serving ministries), then I'd make more than I could possibly imagine. He gave me a few ideas on how to go about it, where to start, what to focus on, and told me to call him with any questions because he'd be more than happy to answer any further questions I have.
So as you can probably guess, I've been a little distracted in the last few days. Not sure if I'd call it "excited" -- definitely a lot to think about. I will definitely have some phone calls to make in the near future.
EDIT: April 3rd, 2009.
There are a few others, but one of the more interesting projects I'm looking at now: a friend wants to close or sell his business (he's not sure, almost apathetic about the outcome). I don't know much about repairing copiers, but neither does he (he's always been a salesman). He has made a lot of money in the last 20 years with his business, at the same location, and is ready to stay home with his wife (she's ill).
In the last 2 years he's been taking less business in an effort to have more time. At the same time, he's still lost thousands of dollars to embezzlement -- and didn't even miss it! (He's so unattached from the daily workings of the business, that he only found out when a police investigator from another county called him to say someone was forging checks and his was one of the forged ones; turned out to be the secretary, who's gone now.)
Anyway, IF I can find good replacements for the other bad apples in the business, then I think this would work as a good base from which I could launch everything else I'd like to do.
I had the privilege of driving him to and from church as well as riding back to the airport with him. He asked what I do at the church so I explained all I do, and that I try to work outside the church as much as possible to earn most of my money. So then he asked what kind of work I've done. And I asked if he thought I should concentrate on working at church, or on working outside of it and increasing my giving.
He had an interesting (to me anyway) answer. He said at my age, with my skills, knowledge, and experience he thought I should continue doing what I'm doing in ministry, hire people to do the physical labor I do for the church, and become a multi-millionaire myself.
That was quite a jaw-dropper.
Personally, I'm really not all that concerned with making money and becoming rich; never have been. Money is just one of those things I need to do the things I want to do. He said that's exactly the kind of person that can really do a lot for God, because I probably wouldn't be as concerned with how much was "mine." He also said if I would continue to give money away to my church (and other God-serving ministries), then I'd make more than I could possibly imagine. He gave me a few ideas on how to go about it, where to start, what to focus on, and told me to call him with any questions because he'd be more than happy to answer any further questions I have.
So as you can probably guess, I've been a little distracted in the last few days. Not sure if I'd call it "excited" -- definitely a lot to think about. I will definitely have some phone calls to make in the near future.
EDIT: April 3rd, 2009.
There are a few others, but one of the more interesting projects I'm looking at now: a friend wants to close or sell his business (he's not sure, almost apathetic about the outcome). I don't know much about repairing copiers, but neither does he (he's always been a salesman). He has made a lot of money in the last 20 years with his business, at the same location, and is ready to stay home with his wife (she's ill).
In the last 2 years he's been taking less business in an effort to have more time. At the same time, he's still lost thousands of dollars to embezzlement -- and didn't even miss it! (He's so unattached from the daily workings of the business, that he only found out when a police investigator from another county called him to say someone was forging checks and his was one of the forged ones; turned out to be the secretary, who's gone now.)
Anyway, IF I can find good replacements for the other bad apples in the business, then I think this would work as a good base from which I could launch everything else I'd like to do.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Kid-isms -- March of Oh-9
Need to do a lot of work here on the blog yet, but I have been really busy lately: working on "normal" day-to-day stuff, tutoring Chemistry & Geometry to a HS Junior, and rebuilding a website I started 10 years ago.
About ready for bed now, but wanted to get the latest "kid-ism" from Tank posted before they fade to obscurity. He's still persisting in his reference to "Lightning The-Clean" but last week he discovered licorice and today I heard Fig Newtons for the first time:
Licorice = Liquid . . . (he really likes the red rope liquid best)
Fig Newtons = Fred Newtons . . . (I really tried hard not to laugh, honest.)
About ready for bed now, but wanted to get the latest "kid-ism" from Tank posted before they fade to obscurity. He's still persisting in his reference to "Lightning The-Clean" but last week he discovered licorice and today I heard Fig Newtons for the first time:
Licorice = Liquid . . . (he really likes the red rope liquid best)
Fig Newtons = Fred Newtons . . . (I really tried hard not to laugh, honest.)
Monday, March 02, 2009
Slightly Divided
A little over a month ago I mentioned I'll be splitting my blog soon. I'm (finally) on track. After messing around with it for awhile, I figured out how to export posts, import them, and a few other miscellaneous "tweaky" things I've been wanting to learn for some time. The amount of effort required was a little more than I wanted to put into it, but it wasn't bad -- everything was fairly intuitive. (I'm just spoiled... wanted the proverbial "easy" button approach.)
While my main reason for splitting the blog is to keep my personal life separate, part of my reasoning also revolves around the desire to keep links to the personal blogs (friends) off of the more public page.
From now on, if you'd like to see any personal posts, you will need to point your browser to the new home of "Life in the m@t lane" right here: http://the-matt-lane.blogspot.com/. Not-so-personal posts will remain over at my original URL: http://didaktos.blogspot.com/
No hurry; right now (and for at least a few days, maybe a few weeks) both blogs will be identical (hence the title: "Slightly Divided'). As I have time, I'll start deciding which of the older posts at the original URL will be deleted first. Perhaps, if any old posts have smaller amounts of personal info, I may just edit out that little bit and leave the rest. The hardest part is going to be deciding which things should be edited and which should remain on which blog. I'm expecting some cross-posting in the future, but perhaps I may be able to keep them completely (hopefully not schizophrenically) separated.
Next on the agenda is naming the "new" one. For those (like me) that aren't great with ancient Greek, I originally took the word Didaktos from the Bible. It's found in John 6:45 (one time) as well as in 1 Corinthians 2:13 (twice). The definition is
1. that can be taught
2. taught, instructed by one
3. teachings, precepts
Since I'd like to keep some form of the URL in the title of the "new" blog, my initial thoughts are to put some form of "didactic" (with a K) in the title.
Didaktic ___________
Didaktically ___________
___________ Didaktics
Feel free to offer your own suggestion... or two... or more... I may or may not use it, but for now, the new title of this blog will be "fluid" until I can find just the right phrase.
While my main reason for splitting the blog is to keep my personal life separate, part of my reasoning also revolves around the desire to keep links to the personal blogs (friends) off of the more public page.
From now on, if you'd like to see any personal posts, you will need to point your browser to the new home of "Life in the m@t lane" right here: http://the-matt-lane.blogspot.com/. Not-so-personal posts will remain over at my original URL: http://didaktos.blogspot.com/
No hurry; right now (and for at least a few days, maybe a few weeks) both blogs will be identical (hence the title: "Slightly Divided'). As I have time, I'll start deciding which of the older posts at the original URL will be deleted first. Perhaps, if any old posts have smaller amounts of personal info, I may just edit out that little bit and leave the rest. The hardest part is going to be deciding which things should be edited and which should remain on which blog. I'm expecting some cross-posting in the future, but perhaps I may be able to keep them completely (hopefully not schizophrenically) separated.
Next on the agenda is naming the "new" one. For those (like me) that aren't great with ancient Greek, I originally took the word Didaktos from the Bible. It's found in John 6:45 (one time) as well as in 1 Corinthians 2:13 (twice). The definition is
1. that can be taught
2. taught, instructed by one
3. teachings, precepts
Since I'd like to keep some form of the URL in the title of the "new" blog, my initial thoughts are to put some form of "didactic" (with a K) in the title.
Didaktic ___________
Didaktically ___________
___________ Didaktics
Feel free to offer your own suggestion... or two... or more... I may or may not use it, but for now, the new title of this blog will be "fluid" until I can find just the right phrase.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Catch-Up
While "out sick" there were a lot of things I've wanted to mention in my blog, but have missed the opportunity. Since I don't have the time to deal with each in the level of detail I'd like, here's the abbreviated synopsis:
First, I was outraged by the Saudi judge that sentenced a victim of gang rape to 100 lashes for "adultery" -- 5 men, 1 woman, and she gets the 100 lashes? There is something very, very wrong with that picture.
I'd like to drop him into an all-male maximum security prison here in the US for a few weeks, then give him 100 lashes for being a part of the depravity they inflicted on him. It's unbelievable to me that we let that nation be considered one of our "political allies" with such widespread craziness masquerading as justice.
Second, I was heartbroken to read the story of the Webster family in the UK. They believed the "soy milk is better" hype, which (unbeknownst to anyone at the time) resulted in one of their children contracting scurvy, having a weakened leg bone that fractured, and then they were accused of child abuse. Now (years later), they still haven't even seen their children, but their names are finally cleared. And here's the kicker: because the government had already put their three oldest kids up for adoption -- and let the process go thru (even after they knew the problems were caused by scurvy) -- the Websters can't have their own children back. That is downright unbelievable.
Third, in spite of the gruesomeness, I had to chuckle after reading this story about socialized dentistry in the UK. Evidently, most Americans don't realize that we will have the exact same problems afflicting other nations with socialized medicine if we enact the nonsense proposed by the current administration. I can't imagine needing to use a pair of "channel lock" pliers on my teeth because there were no dentists available to do the job right!
Fourth, in yet another sickening example of "state-sponsored health care" (or maybe just an example of the many "freedoms" enjoyed in a communist regime), we have the Chinese Execution Bus, which is everything the title of the article implies, complete with a live video feed so the head honcho can keep an eye on things as they are happening. I wonder just how far down these roads (the "state-sponsored health care" road, and the one leading to socialism) Americans are willing to travel before they wake up and vote for better candidates?
Fifth, I'm wondering why the media is still "spinning" the actual cost of the snowbama-backed "government waste program" that's so rapidly become our nation's worst-ever enema? The real cost of this bill, in today's dollars is over $6 TRILLION dollars! Where is the outcry from the left? After being lambasted by the Democrats for his "wasteful spending," during his entire 8 years in office Bush spent a grand total of $4 Trillion.
If 8 years of Bush = $4 Trillion, and 1 month of snowbama = $6.5 Trillion, then what could 4 years of snowbama equal? (Please note, this non-technical equation doesn't take into account the ramifications of our coming hyperinflation problems, caused by printing this much money.) None of the words that come to mind right now are even remotely printable.
Sixth, I could not believe that snowbama's administration is now "reviewing policy" on Myanmar (formerly Burma). One of the most oppressive regimes on the planet and he wants Hillary to go shake their hands, hand over an olive branch, and whatever else they want? They've murdered thousands of people and we're going to "help the people" by simply being all buddy-buddy with the scum that have been killing so many citizens?
Seventh, and lastly, I had to include at least one genuine "stupid human" link in this montage (in addition to the ones above that reference typical know-nothing Democrats and snowbama's policies). The stupid human is NOT Coach Micah Grimes, recently of Covenant School in Dallas. No, the unfortunate coach seems to be fairly reasonable, it's the stupid humans that run the school that irk me. They accused the coach of encouraging his girls basketball team to win a game (which I thought was the object of having a team). Since the girls won 100 to 0 and the coach wouldn't apologize for how well they did (while playing their entire bench of 3 players) -- he was fired.
If I were on any of their sports teams, if I worked at, or even just attended that school, I would have quit the team (and withdrawn from the school) unless the moronic-officials that attempted to forfeit these girls' game cap apologized. Both to the coach and to the girls. Such blind ignorance on the part of the administration is completely inexcusable for anyone in the field of education: I would never encourage my children to forfeit -- just to make someone feel good. Especially if my children had worked as hard as these girls: In four years this team went from only winning 2 games -- in the entire season -- to making the championships! I would think that was something to celebrate, but, according to the school's administrators, I would be mistaken. Instead, those hard-working girls (all eight of them) should feel guilty that they worked hard for four years and became skilled, while in the SAME FOUR YEARS their opponents hadn't won ONE SINGLE GAME!
Did I mention that stupid people really irk me?
First, I was outraged by the Saudi judge that sentenced a victim of gang rape to 100 lashes for "adultery" -- 5 men, 1 woman, and she gets the 100 lashes? There is something very, very wrong with that picture.
I'd like to drop him into an all-male maximum security prison here in the US for a few weeks, then give him 100 lashes for being a part of the depravity they inflicted on him. It's unbelievable to me that we let that nation be considered one of our "political allies" with such widespread craziness masquerading as justice.
Second, I was heartbroken to read the story of the Webster family in the UK. They believed the "soy milk is better" hype, which (unbeknownst to anyone at the time) resulted in one of their children contracting scurvy, having a weakened leg bone that fractured, and then they were accused of child abuse. Now (years later), they still haven't even seen their children, but their names are finally cleared. And here's the kicker: because the government had already put their three oldest kids up for adoption -- and let the process go thru (even after they knew the problems were caused by scurvy) -- the Websters can't have their own children back. That is downright unbelievable.
Third, in spite of the gruesomeness, I had to chuckle after reading this story about socialized dentistry in the UK. Evidently, most Americans don't realize that we will have the exact same problems afflicting other nations with socialized medicine if we enact the nonsense proposed by the current administration. I can't imagine needing to use a pair of "channel lock" pliers on my teeth because there were no dentists available to do the job right!
Fourth, in yet another sickening example of "state-sponsored health care" (or maybe just an example of the many "freedoms" enjoyed in a communist regime), we have the Chinese Execution Bus, which is everything the title of the article implies, complete with a live video feed so the head honcho can keep an eye on things as they are happening. I wonder just how far down these roads (the "state-sponsored health care" road, and the one leading to socialism) Americans are willing to travel before they wake up and vote for better candidates?
Fifth, I'm wondering why the media is still "spinning" the actual cost of the snowbama-backed "government waste program" that's so rapidly become our nation's worst-ever enema? The real cost of this bill, in today's dollars is over $6 TRILLION dollars! Where is the outcry from the left? After being lambasted by the Democrats for his "wasteful spending," during his entire 8 years in office Bush spent a grand total of $4 Trillion.
If 8 years of Bush = $4 Trillion, and 1 month of snowbama = $6.5 Trillion, then what could 4 years of snowbama equal? (Please note, this non-technical equation doesn't take into account the ramifications of our coming hyperinflation problems, caused by printing this much money.) None of the words that come to mind right now are even remotely printable.
Sixth, I could not believe that snowbama's administration is now "reviewing policy" on Myanmar (formerly Burma). One of the most oppressive regimes on the planet and he wants Hillary to go shake their hands, hand over an olive branch, and whatever else they want? They've murdered thousands of people and we're going to "help the people" by simply being all buddy-buddy with the scum that have been killing so many citizens?
Seventh, and lastly, I had to include at least one genuine "stupid human" link in this montage (in addition to the ones above that reference typical know-nothing Democrats and snowbama's policies). The stupid human is NOT Coach Micah Grimes, recently of Covenant School in Dallas. No, the unfortunate coach seems to be fairly reasonable, it's the stupid humans that run the school that irk me. They accused the coach of encouraging his girls basketball team to win a game (which I thought was the object of having a team). Since the girls won 100 to 0 and the coach wouldn't apologize for how well they did (while playing their entire bench of 3 players) -- he was fired.
If I were on any of their sports teams, if I worked at, or even just attended that school, I would have quit the team (and withdrawn from the school) unless the moronic-officials that attempted to forfeit these girls' game cap apologized. Both to the coach and to the girls. Such blind ignorance on the part of the administration is completely inexcusable for anyone in the field of education: I would never encourage my children to forfeit -- just to make someone feel good. Especially if my children had worked as hard as these girls: In four years this team went from only winning 2 games -- in the entire season -- to making the championships! I would think that was something to celebrate, but, according to the school's administrators, I would be mistaken. Instead, those hard-working girls (all eight of them) should feel guilty that they worked hard for four years and became skilled, while in the SAME FOUR YEARS their opponents hadn't won ONE SINGLE GAME!
Did I mention that stupid people really irk me?
Monday, February 16, 2009
Sick Again . . .
I've been somewhat "under the weather" for some time now (late January). Initially, a minor cough and sore throat were the extent of any difficulties, but they were being staved off quite nicely by intermittent doses of Zicam tablets. The trouble didn't begin until we ran out of Zicam. I suggested we try a generic version: Big Mistake. Let me tell you, it was well worth the $3 per bottle to buy the real McCoy; I got sick immediately while still using the fake stuff.
This past Sunday I awakened with a new malady: a swollen lymnph node. Normally, that isn't too much of a problem for me, since I tolerate pain well. This one was different; it's the one just below my right ear (and behind my jaw). It swelled so much that my jaw moved over a half an inch out of alignment. (Realizing that your teeth no longer line up and your mouth won't close is an odd sensation.) The pain was excruciating -- so much so that I (briefly) considered digging out a scalpel and finding a spot behind my jaw to slice open. (Have some individually wrapped disposable scalpels from my years repairing medical equipment -- I've used them on myself before, but don't like to.)
Instead, I Googled numerous combinations of relevant terms: lymph gland, lymph node, treatment, lance, lancing, cut, slice, etc. After much reading, it didn't appear that my problems would have long term averse effects (aside from the pain), so I resisted the urge to self-operate sans painkillers. (Mainly because I know how well that would NOT have gone over with my wife, but also because it's a pretty gruesome remedy that wasn't guaranteed to do anything for me.)
I just "lived with" the pain for the first three quarters of the day, then (after dinner) decided to try one of my handy-dandy ice packs (the ones we put in the baby's bottle carrier). The ice pack application worked wonders. I'm sitting here chewing gum. Prior to using ice packs, it was painful just to open my mouth wide enough to suck in some oatmeal; swallowing it was just as bad. Right now, I think the gland is almost better. Just before meals, or if it starts to pain me, I put another ice pack on it for a few minutes and I'm fine for a few hours.
Now if the MucinexDM will finish off the chestful of mucous, I should be doing great soon. At least I'm doing well enough to get some work done.
This past Sunday I awakened with a new malady: a swollen lymnph node. Normally, that isn't too much of a problem for me, since I tolerate pain well. This one was different; it's the one just below my right ear (and behind my jaw). It swelled so much that my jaw moved over a half an inch out of alignment. (Realizing that your teeth no longer line up and your mouth won't close is an odd sensation.) The pain was excruciating -- so much so that I (briefly) considered digging out a scalpel and finding a spot behind my jaw to slice open. (Have some individually wrapped disposable scalpels from my years repairing medical equipment -- I've used them on myself before, but don't like to.)
Instead, I Googled numerous combinations of relevant terms: lymph gland, lymph node, treatment, lance, lancing, cut, slice, etc. After much reading, it didn't appear that my problems would have long term averse effects (aside from the pain), so I resisted the urge to self-operate sans painkillers. (Mainly because I know how well that would NOT have gone over with my wife, but also because it's a pretty gruesome remedy that wasn't guaranteed to do anything for me.)
I just "lived with" the pain for the first three quarters of the day, then (after dinner) decided to try one of my handy-dandy ice packs (the ones we put in the baby's bottle carrier). The ice pack application worked wonders. I'm sitting here chewing gum. Prior to using ice packs, it was painful just to open my mouth wide enough to suck in some oatmeal; swallowing it was just as bad. Right now, I think the gland is almost better. Just before meals, or if it starts to pain me, I put another ice pack on it for a few minutes and I'm fine for a few hours.
Now if the MucinexDM will finish off the chestful of mucous, I should be doing great soon. At least I'm doing well enough to get some work done.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
snowbama
Long ago (elementary school), I was the shortest kid in my class -- every class; I also remember being a little more plump than most of the other kids, too. Thankfully, I wasn't always ridiculed, harassed, or "picked on" by the bullies, but it always irked me to see the results of the inevitable "pecking order" in school. As a result of occasionally having people think of me as "different" and (very few) bad experiences, I still dislike it when others call people names, ridicule them, or attempt to wrongfully impugn the character of any weaker person, nor do I (usually) do so myself. Of course, I do have a few exceptions: if the description is spot-on truthful, the person continuously annoys me, or if the person is a friend, everyone around is a friend, and all know it's in jest.
Two of the above exceptions (annoying, and fitting) apply to a moniker I've been using for months now: snowbama (search that in your FaceBook flair). Had a few people question me on it, so thought I'd explain my reasoning behind coining and using it.
I doubt it, but just in case anyone missed it, snowbama is his life story. Several times in the last year I've blogged about his utter lack of legitimate qualifications to hold the office. If you don't want to read that huge (old) link, here are a few points (distilled and refined) from which I drew those conclusions and a few new ones to round out my convictions:
Since he DID make it to the Oval Office, it seems to me that "Nobama" has become rather outdated -- like it or not, we're stuck with him for the next four years. Therefore, I've decided to use snowbama to refer to him... for the duration of my lifetime. (All cap-less of course, to point out his complete lack of executive experience.) Even if he muddles through the next four years without ruining our nation, he snowed the public to get this far.
Until the results of this past election cycle came in, I didn't realize "mystique" and "rhetoric" had the slightest chance at trouncing "ethics" and "administrative experience" so soundly. What a pathetic commentary on the general lack of intelligence and objectivity of the citizens of our once-great nation.
Right now, I'm kicking around a few ideas for a superhero-type logo that would complement the moniker (as well as be eternally fitting). My thoughts are (rather than copy Superman's diamond logo) to have an outer shape that's circular -- something like a zero -- with a small s inside it (preferably not a capitol S, but if it adds to the effect, oh well).
Perhaps I'll post some of my early attempts later -- complete with a preference poll.
P.S. I was just thinking, we're stuck with snowbama for four years unless, of course, some poor deluded soul kills, or attempts to kill him; then we'll have a new "National Martyr/Hero" of epic proportions -- imagine the combined worship of past heroes and idealization of the world's worst dictators. That outcome would be worse than letting him run his course -- and be the root of his own demise.
Two of the above exceptions (annoying, and fitting) apply to a moniker I've been using for months now: snowbama (search that in your FaceBook flair). Had a few people question me on it, so thought I'd explain my reasoning behind coining and using it.
I doubt it, but just in case anyone missed it, snowbama is his life story. Several times in the last year I've blogged about his utter lack of legitimate qualifications to hold the office. If you don't want to read that huge (old) link, here are a few points (distilled and refined) from which I drew those conclusions and a few new ones to round out my convictions:
- * Who, exactly moves to Chicago for it's exemplary politics?? any honest people you know ever do that? not me.
* Who believes any person could sit under that many years of Jeremiah Wright's version of Farrakhan's theology and not be affected? (I'm not impressed with Oprah's theology, but even she couldn't take the continuous stream of hate-filled hurl he has spewed from his pulpit.)
* Does anyone believe both of his books were not ghost written? (Especially when he was asked to describe his feelings about multiple passages in both, and he was clueless?)
* How many other incompetent, inexperienced politicians have ever been so highly worshiped by the media? (yet, he only reads teleprompters well -- his impromptu speaking ability stinks)
* I'm supposed to believe that it was a complete coincidence that snowbama moved to the city Ayers lived in, got himself introduced to Ayers, moved next door to the man, taught with him, served in numerous positions alongside him, and started his political career in Ayer's LIVING ROOM? ALL of that is pure happenstance?
* What other US politician has ever asked every school he attended to seal his records? and then there was no media outcry? what's he hiding from the public?
* How far will the troops trust a President that just told The Marine Band he doesn't want them to play for him anymore?
* Why is he the only politician in recent memory that's ever gotten a pass on self-contradictory statements? stupidity? admitted drug use? etc...
* Why have there been so many attempts by him to promote a whole slew of crooks to fill high level positions in the government? isn't the "normal level" of corruption in government enough? Any "regular" Americans would be doing jail time with the types of records these nominees have, yet all his guys keep getting off scott-free?
* No McCarthyism intended, but why is this the first time any U.S. politician hasn't been questioned for associating in a friendly manner with Gaddafi, multiple anti-US Muslim-terrorists, and terrorist supporters (both Hamas & PLO)? Aren't we still in a war against said terrorists? Isn't there a double-standard in "consorting with the enemy" here?
* Why does he bristle if he's asked anything but softball questions? and those at his leisure? yet still doesn't give definitive answers even to those?
* Where is the "transparency" in this administration that we heard so much about? so far (less than a month in office) "transparency" has just been a word bandied about in a failed attempt to shore up his political image and crashing poll numbers. There's only so much mileage in repeating untruths, especially if crooks are repeatedly proffered as "preferred teammates" in running the show.
* What valid reason prohibited even a few questions by the mainstream media of the caliber of snowbama when viewed in the light of the questionable and low moral character of his numerous associates? Was there, perhaps, no "valid reason" -- only collusion?
* snowbama castigated and belittled average Americans from all walks of life (often) in his previous efforts to appear most appealing (to whatever group to whom he was speaking at the time), so just how many campaign promises should we realistically expect will be kept? are TWO too many? and which ones do we choose? Oh, I forgot, he's already railroading us on the murder of our future citizens (pro-abortion) and killing our economy (with this massive government-waste plan).
Since he DID make it to the Oval Office, it seems to me that "Nobama" has become rather outdated -- like it or not, we're stuck with him for the next four years. Therefore, I've decided to use snowbama to refer to him... for the duration of my lifetime. (All cap-less of course, to point out his complete lack of executive experience.) Even if he muddles through the next four years without ruining our nation, he snowed the public to get this far.
Until the results of this past election cycle came in, I didn't realize "mystique" and "rhetoric" had the slightest chance at trouncing "ethics" and "administrative experience" so soundly. What a pathetic commentary on the general lack of intelligence and objectivity of the citizens of our once-great nation.
Right now, I'm kicking around a few ideas for a superhero-type logo that would complement the moniker (as well as be eternally fitting). My thoughts are (rather than copy Superman's diamond logo) to have an outer shape that's circular -- something like a zero -- with a small s inside it (preferably not a capitol S, but if it adds to the effect, oh well).
Perhaps I'll post some of my early attempts later -- complete with a preference poll.
P.S. I was just thinking, we're stuck with snowbama for four years unless, of course, some poor deluded soul kills, or attempts to kill him; then we'll have a new "National Martyr/Hero" of epic proportions -- imagine the combined worship of past heroes and idealization of the world's worst dictators. That outcome would be worse than letting him run his course -- and be the root of his own demise.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Good Government Spending?
The massive work projects following the Great Depression kept our nation's economy depressed longer than most of the rest of the world. It forced many of our citizens into low-paying jobs for years on end. The only benefit was to the government: the cheap labor to build infrastructure. If it hadn't been for the high labor demand (caused by the advent of WW2), we would have been affected even longer.
Why would we as a nation ask for that again? If this administration fails to stop the flow of funds to bad loans, all of this spending will do nothing other than increase inflation.
I'm reminded of a quote by Hegel:
Why would we as a nation ask for that again? If this administration fails to stop the flow of funds to bad loans, all of this spending will do nothing other than increase inflation.
I'm reminded of a quote by Hegel:
- What experience and history teach is this -- that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Trumped!
I was surprised to learn President Obama has, once again, made history within a few days of assuming the Presidency. In addition to him keeping his Blackberry (that was a shocker, hope he doesn't get cracked), the White House announced that there is now an "official" White House Blog.
Just what does this bode for bloggers everywhere? I believe it conveys (to everyone not in the blogosphere) some measure of legitimacy to us poor deluded souls that enjoy seeing our lives and opinions posted in an electronic-print format -- constantly read, reacted to, and discussed by friends and total strangers everywhere. There is one other (probably overlooked) aspect that we (as bloggers) should also be aware of: None of us have any chance of making it into the top spot for at least another four years. No, my blogging buds, no matter how long you've been posting -- we've all been trumped. The title of "World's Most Influential Blogger" was captured at the first post of the new blog. (Not like I had a shot anyway.)
Granted, 44 will probably not be making a majority of the posts on the blog, but it is his House now, and his blog. No need to consider the viability of adsense on his blog. (Although, the value of renting the blog's white space would more than pay for the team administering it.) Wonder just what kind of salary I could draw as an "official" blogger for the President of the USA?
I was also wondering just how Obama chose who got to be on the blog-team? No matter what your political affiliation, that would definitely be a very cool business card to have in your pocket. Can you imagine handing your brand-spanking new business card to one of your parents (or a grandparent) and getting to say, "Yes, I'm now the first-ever 'Official Blogger' of the President of the United States." Of course, my family would want to know what a "blog" is, what a "blogger" does, and if it came with long-term benefits. (They're so practical -- and non-tech-savvy.)
I think it would be even better to show up at my high school reunion with that business card. Yeah, the nerd has finally made it big by blogging for the President -- and the school jock is -- what? moving furniture?
The keyboard IS mighter than the letterman's jacket!
At least... for a few bloggers.
Just what does this bode for bloggers everywhere? I believe it conveys (to everyone not in the blogosphere) some measure of legitimacy to us poor deluded souls that enjoy seeing our lives and opinions posted in an electronic-print format -- constantly read, reacted to, and discussed by friends and total strangers everywhere. There is one other (probably overlooked) aspect that we (as bloggers) should also be aware of: None of us have any chance of making it into the top spot for at least another four years. No, my blogging buds, no matter how long you've been posting -- we've all been trumped. The title of "World's Most Influential Blogger" was captured at the first post of the new blog. (Not like I had a shot anyway.)
Granted, 44 will probably not be making a majority of the posts on the blog, but it is his House now, and his blog. No need to consider the viability of adsense on his blog. (Although, the value of renting the blog's white space would more than pay for the team administering it.) Wonder just what kind of salary I could draw as an "official" blogger for the President of the USA?
I was also wondering just how Obama chose who got to be on the blog-team? No matter what your political affiliation, that would definitely be a very cool business card to have in your pocket. Can you imagine handing your brand-spanking new business card to one of your parents (or a grandparent) and getting to say, "Yes, I'm now the first-ever 'Official Blogger' of the President of the United States." Of course, my family would want to know what a "blog" is, what a "blogger" does, and if it came with long-term benefits. (They're so practical -- and non-tech-savvy.)
I think it would be even better to show up at my high school reunion with that business card. Yeah, the nerd has finally made it big by blogging for the President -- and the school jock is -- what? moving furniture?
The keyboard IS mighter than the letterman's jacket!
At least... for a few bloggers.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
A New Day, A New Way!
Last May, I blogged about a conservative political candidate I supported: Dr. Marion Thorpe. My one regret was not that he was running against Alcee Hastings (I was quite pleased with that). Rather, I wished that I could have had the opportunity to vote for him -- but he wasn't running in my district.
In our current political climate, Hastings was a very difficult incumbent to challenge, even for another African American that fit the district's demographics better than the incumbent. I thought Dr. Thorpe had a great opportunity, but unfortunately, Hastings' "normal" amount of support was greatly bolstered by the turnout to elect Obama. (Most likely, had it been a "normal" year for Hastings, the number of votes Dr. Thorpe received would have easily catapulted him past Hastings.)
However, I am glad he lost that race. Because of that loss, one year from November, I may get the opportunity to cast my vote for Dr. Thorpe in another, bigger race! Wednesday, January 7, Dr. Thorpe officially announced his intent to run for one of Florida's two seats in the U.S. Senate! (The one being vacated by Mel Martinez.)
To say I was excited would be a gross understatement. It's been quite awhile since I've gotten to vote for a true conservative -- in any office. I've had to vote for the "best" of the worst for so long, I didn't expect to have the opportunity for vote for a candidate I can support. I knew Dr. Thorpe had been considering the idea of running for some seat in government, but he'd been waiting to make sure his friend, Jeb Bush, wasn't interested in any of the same offices in which he, Dr. Thorpe, might have an interest. That Wednesday evening at church, he told me (and a few others) Jeb didn't seem to be interested in the Senate seat, and he'd finally decided to throw his hat in the ring. Did you notice, I said "at church" was where he told us? Well, Dr. Thorpe is one of a minority of politicians that makes no apologies for his belief in God.
In very few politicians, or even candidates for that matter, will you find a person with enough conviction to regularly attend church services. If you do find one, it is the rare individual that feels any responsibility to attend a service on a week night as well as just Sunday morning (when they can shake more people's hands). Throughout all of last year's hectic campaigning, Dr. Thorpe made the time to regularly stop and "recharge his spiritual batteries" with us.
I do know my blog may suffer, but I'm going to help in this race even more than the last -- as much as I'm physically and mentally able (without disrupting my commitments to my church and the provision for my family). My professional experience "happens" to be in small business consulting; thankfully, several of my past contracts have given me some experience that may assist Dr. Thorpe in keeping track of the finances of his campaign.
There are still papers to be filed, and an "official" fund-raising campaign to begin (it will actually help accelerate the filings if unsolicited donations started mysteriously "rolling in"). If you, or anyone you know is interested in supporting Florida's first Republican, African-American candidate for the U.S. Senate, please (for those that know me personally), let me know. For those that don't, but have a FaceBook account, you can join the Dr. Marion Thorpe for US Senate group. And for those that only have internet access (or just want more info on the candidate), you can visit Dr. Thorpe's site directly. Support can consist of your time, your skills, your money, or any combination of the three. Whatever it is, it won't be turned away.
In our current political climate, Hastings was a very difficult incumbent to challenge, even for another African American that fit the district's demographics better than the incumbent. I thought Dr. Thorpe had a great opportunity, but unfortunately, Hastings' "normal" amount of support was greatly bolstered by the turnout to elect Obama. (Most likely, had it been a "normal" year for Hastings, the number of votes Dr. Thorpe received would have easily catapulted him past Hastings.)
However, I am glad he lost that race. Because of that loss, one year from November, I may get the opportunity to cast my vote for Dr. Thorpe in another, bigger race! Wednesday, January 7, Dr. Thorpe officially announced his intent to run for one of Florida's two seats in the U.S. Senate! (The one being vacated by Mel Martinez.)
To say I was excited would be a gross understatement. It's been quite awhile since I've gotten to vote for a true conservative -- in any office. I've had to vote for the "best" of the worst for so long, I didn't expect to have the opportunity for vote for a candidate I can support. I knew Dr. Thorpe had been considering the idea of running for some seat in government, but he'd been waiting to make sure his friend, Jeb Bush, wasn't interested in any of the same offices in which he, Dr. Thorpe, might have an interest. That Wednesday evening at church, he told me (and a few others) Jeb didn't seem to be interested in the Senate seat, and he'd finally decided to throw his hat in the ring. Did you notice, I said "at church" was where he told us? Well, Dr. Thorpe is one of a minority of politicians that makes no apologies for his belief in God.
In very few politicians, or even candidates for that matter, will you find a person with enough conviction to regularly attend church services. If you do find one, it is the rare individual that feels any responsibility to attend a service on a week night as well as just Sunday morning (when they can shake more people's hands). Throughout all of last year's hectic campaigning, Dr. Thorpe made the time to regularly stop and "recharge his spiritual batteries" with us.
I do know my blog may suffer, but I'm going to help in this race even more than the last -- as much as I'm physically and mentally able (without disrupting my commitments to my church and the provision for my family). My professional experience "happens" to be in small business consulting; thankfully, several of my past contracts have given me some experience that may assist Dr. Thorpe in keeping track of the finances of his campaign.
There are still papers to be filed, and an "official" fund-raising campaign to begin (it will actually help accelerate the filings if unsolicited donations started mysteriously "rolling in"). If you, or anyone you know is interested in supporting Florida's first Republican, African-American candidate for the U.S. Senate, please (for those that know me personally), let me know. For those that don't, but have a FaceBook account, you can join the Dr. Marion Thorpe for US Senate group. And for those that only have internet access (or just want more info on the candidate), you can visit Dr. Thorpe's site directly. Support can consist of your time, your skills, your money, or any combination of the three. Whatever it is, it won't be turned away.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
The Straw Officer Of Movie Night
Last week, I heard 2 different questions that I thought would be interesting enough to address in detail here (I do plan to cross-post this to a FaceBook note tho).
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
The first question was something to the effect of, "Did you see the news conference with the President-elect?"
To which I responded, "No, it's a straw office and completely irrelevant, why would I waste my time watching?"
After attempting to explain "straw office" (combine a straw man argument with a political office) to the person (he could not understand), he said, "What do you mean it's irrelevant? How can Obama be irrelevant? It says right on the front of the podium, 'The Office of the President-elect' -- how could that possibly be irrelevant? He's the President elect!"
I gave him a simple answer (which he still didn't understand, thank you crummy public education system), but decided to write out a more detailed response here. Knowing that people who read blogs would at the very least understand me, even if they (you) don't agree with my position.
I personally believe Obama must be insecure (or the world's biggest grandstander) to allow that to be placed on his podium. Yes, of course, he IS the President elect, and everyone knows it, but what you see on the podium is a made-up title for a non-existent "office."
There is no "office" of President-elect. By adding "The office of" and placing it around the seal of the President of the United States, Obama has created a placeholder title with absolutely no standing, political or otherwise. Until the day he's sworn in he is a nobody, with no official status (Just like every other President before him). After the ceremony is when he holds The Office. Until that time, he's technically only the (winning) "Democratic Candidate for President."
Just why he has done it is open to supposition, but it's my opinion that rather than make normal press releases, he felt it was imperative to keep his face before the American people AMAP (as-much-as-possible). He's too proud to make all of his speeches (as President elect) without overt recognition of himself, so they're most likely just working on image-building.
Furthermore, I cannot recall any other President-elect in history that felt the need to hold "official" press conferences prior to assuming office and used "The office of President-elect" displayed on a podium as a title. It's an immature, unprofessional placebo -- a back-handed attempt to pressure the out-going President.
[EDIT: Come to think of it, I could probably expand this post using chronological campaign references, historical comparisons of previous Presidential candidates, and write a best-selling book: The Audacity of Hype. Anyone want to set me up with an advance?]
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
For question #2, someone else asked me if I was going to record the inauguration. Without thinking about the possibility of offending him, I laughed and answered, "No, I'm not even going to watch it."
He said, "Why not? This is history being made! The nation's very first black President will be sworn into office!"
So I proceeded to explain that:
1. No, Mr. Obama is not our first "black" President, his race is actually quite well mixed, but I do hope, whenever we finally get one, that the first black President does a good job.
2. I don't care if someone is black, brown, yellow, red, purple, or green-with-pink-and-blue-polka-dots -- the color any man or woman's skin is irrelevant to their performance. If any person "of color," "without color," or anywhere in between is elected to any office in our government, I only care that when holding their office (President, Governor, Senator, Congressperson, or anything else), that they govern responsibly -- in a manner that seeks to promote our country above their own ideology.
3. This is only a "passing the baton" ceremony for the office of President, eventually, there will be another President. I don't recall ever going to a basketball game for the primary purpose of watching the cheerleaders; I'd rather watch the game -- so I'm going to pass, just as I did for Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan (I was too young to remember the ceremonies before Reagan). I'm sure the highlights of the Obama-bash and all of its "beautitudinous glory" will be all over the news, anyway. (Come to think of it, I was always kinda leery of the guys that didn't like basketball, but still went to every game and only watched the cheerleaders -- creepy-ness.)
And finally,
4. I'd rather stay home, ignore the fluff and circumstance, and instead spend time with my family -- maybe we'll watch a movie.
I've since decided I like that third point (of #4) quite a bit. In fact, we might even rent The Manchurian Candidate -- for obvious reasons.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
The first question was something to the effect of, "Did you see the news conference with the President-elect?"
To which I responded, "No, it's a straw office and completely irrelevant, why would I waste my time watching?"
After attempting to explain "straw office" (combine a straw man argument with a political office) to the person (he could not understand), he said, "What do you mean it's irrelevant? How can Obama be irrelevant? It says right on the front of the podium, 'The Office of the President-elect' -- how could that possibly be irrelevant? He's the President elect!"
I gave him a simple answer (which he still didn't understand, thank you crummy public education system), but decided to write out a more detailed response here. Knowing that people who read blogs would at the very least understand me, even if they (you) don't agree with my position.
I personally believe Obama must be insecure (or the world's biggest grandstander) to allow that to be placed on his podium. Yes, of course, he IS the President elect, and everyone knows it, but what you see on the podium is a made-up title for a non-existent "office."
There is no "office" of President-elect. By adding "The office of" and placing it around the seal of the President of the United States, Obama has created a placeholder title with absolutely no standing, political or otherwise. Until the day he's sworn in he is a nobody, with no official status (Just like every other President before him). After the ceremony is when he holds The Office. Until that time, he's technically only the (winning) "Democratic Candidate for President."
Just why he has done it is open to supposition, but it's my opinion that rather than make normal press releases, he felt it was imperative to keep his face before the American people AMAP (as-much-as-possible). He's too proud to make all of his speeches (as President elect) without overt recognition of himself, so they're most likely just working on image-building.
Furthermore, I cannot recall any other President-elect in history that felt the need to hold "official" press conferences prior to assuming office and used "The office of President-elect" displayed on a podium as a title. It's an immature, unprofessional placebo -- a back-handed attempt to pressure the out-going President.
[EDIT: Come to think of it, I could probably expand this post using chronological campaign references, historical comparisons of previous Presidential candidates, and write a best-selling book: The Audacity of Hype. Anyone want to set me up with an advance?]
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
For question #2, someone else asked me if I was going to record the inauguration. Without thinking about the possibility of offending him, I laughed and answered, "No, I'm not even going to watch it."
He said, "Why not? This is history being made! The nation's very first black President will be sworn into office!"
So I proceeded to explain that:
1. No, Mr. Obama is not our first "black" President, his race is actually quite well mixed, but I do hope, whenever we finally get one, that the first black President does a good job.
2. I don't care if someone is black, brown, yellow, red, purple, or green-with-pink-and-blue-polka-dots -- the color any man or woman's skin is irrelevant to their performance. If any person "of color," "without color," or anywhere in between is elected to any office in our government, I only care that when holding their office (President, Governor, Senator, Congressperson, or anything else), that they govern responsibly -- in a manner that seeks to promote our country above their own ideology.
3. This is only a "passing the baton" ceremony for the office of President, eventually, there will be another President. I don't recall ever going to a basketball game for the primary purpose of watching the cheerleaders; I'd rather watch the game -- so I'm going to pass, just as I did for Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan (I was too young to remember the ceremonies before Reagan). I'm sure the highlights of the Obama-bash and all of its "beautitudinous glory" will be all over the news, anyway. (Come to think of it, I was always kinda leery of the guys that didn't like basketball, but still went to every game and only watched the cheerleaders -- creepy-ness.)
And finally,
4. I'd rather stay home, ignore the fluff and circumstance, and instead spend time with my family -- maybe we'll watch a movie.
I've since decided I like that third point (of #4) quite a bit. In fact, we might even rent The Manchurian Candidate -- for obvious reasons.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Legitimate Lockup -- Understanding Gitmo
I've been continuously appalled at the lack of intelligence on the part of those that wish to close Gitmo and bring those detainees here -- to US soil. Obviously, the media has been remiss in reporting the reasoning behind holding them there, and has instead focused on the lack of a warm-fuzzy feeling of good-will when contemplating the plight of these poor, underprivileged, misguided, freedom-bashing terrorists. I was glad to see Obama state that he wouldn't rush into dismantling the detention center (even tho he does want it closed). I hope he sees the wisdom of having this detention center before he does serious harm to our nation. Here are the main points for my opinion:
I. The US has never in the past, does not currently, and should never in the future agree or disagree to any so-called "human rights for all" merely to promote warm-fuzzy feelings all around; that would be immature, unprofessional, and completely irresponsible. We grant rights to our citizens. Period. Full stop. End of sentence.
II. There is no "political loophole" for Guantanamo.
III. These Gitmo inmates DO NOT DESERVE a trial.
IV. For any that still do not understand the importance of the semantics, I'll make it very simple: there are only 2 kinds of enemy combatants. (Both types participate in armed aggression against our nation.)
V. There is one final aspect of trying these detainees on US soil that most people overlook. If they are afforded US rights, they must also be tried by US laws, and face US punishments. Ergo -- they have committed treason.
In conclusion, I'll offer my advice to the ignorant (that so frequently proffer opinions garnered from the liberal media as fact):
Every media personality with any semblance of intelligence or integrity knows full well that Gitmo detainees are there lawfully, detained legally, and completely ineligible for ANY trial of ANY type on US soil. Anyone in the media that does not inform others of this is (whether knowingly or in ignorance) participating in an effort to undermine our nation, our government, our military, the rights of our citizens, and our way of life.
I. The US has never in the past, does not currently, and should never in the future agree or disagree to any so-called "human rights for all" merely to promote warm-fuzzy feelings all around; that would be immature, unprofessional, and completely irresponsible. We grant rights to our citizens. Period. Full stop. End of sentence.
- A. Each nation on earth grants & restricts the rights of its citizens according to the individual charter or constitution of each state. Our nation DOES NOT grant rights to citizens of other nations, but if citizens of other nations attack our troops, our citizens, our land, or our interests, we have reserved the right to take steps to protect all of the above. (As have all other nations.)
B. By our nation's "right" of self defense (as recognized by the UN as well as numerous international treaties) we have choices of how we prefer to stop the commission of any of the acts of aggression. It is fully legal to "shoot until dead" any aggressors that choose to act against us; however, our nation takes the "high moral ground" of exercising the "right of restraint" as often as possible. Attempting to capture and incarcerate these terrorists is much more expensive, but our current government (all 2 days of it that's left anyway) would rather spend the money than leave piles of bodies. What most bleeding heart liberals propose to grant these detainees goes well past what is legal (and moral) and even further -- far beyond the edge of lunacy, right into the heart of it.
II. There is no "political loophole" for Guantanamo.
- A. It is FULLY legal (by ALL international treaties) to hold enemy combatants for the duration of whatever conflict they were involved in at the time of their apprehension. Has been for many years. "The Great" FDR did the same thing, yet no one had a problem with it back then.
B. The right of incarceration of combatants has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Cuba has, or has not, ratified conventions binding the US. Instead, they are detained in Cuba because no other country in the world wants them held on their soil. (Since our lease of Gitmo from the Cubans is not subject to a lease extension anytime in the near future, we can pretty much do as we please.)
C. Some would like to classify these detainees as "civilians" rather than "unlawful combatants;" this would mean they are covered by the 4th Geneva Convention. The 3rd Geneva Convention (1949) outlines incarceration of combatants, here is my opinion on these detainees:
- 1. These are not people that have racked up excessive library fines, stolen a handful of rice to feed their families, or jacked a bubble gum machine for kicks. They are actively engaged in warfare against our nation, citizens, and soldiers. They want us dead or our nation destroyed -- and have gone to war to attempt to bring it about by any means necessary. That is what excludes them from civilian status. Since they operate well outside the bounds of the convention (engaging in some type of combat while not in the direct employ of a nation) they are obviously (to me) enemy combatants, not civilians, and as such, fully subject to the 3rd, and not the 4th.
2. Even tho the people in Gitmo are UNlawful combatants, they have still received the same humane treatment as lawful combatants, less the representation. The detainees receive three (Muslim) squares a day, medical, clothing, showers, hygenics articles, freedom to worship, mail privileges (screened), and regular visits from the Red Cross. Our govt has gone well beyond the bare minimum in their care.
D. As I see it, the "problem" today is actually a pseudo-problem: (primarily) socialists are using this as a platform to push their ideology on the American public. Much of the media is either in lock-step with these political ideals, or ignorant of the implications of pushing this. Don't be in a rush to jump on this bandwagon until you've explored the endgame:
- 1. My definition of Socialism is pretty straightforward. Most people understand the redistribution of wealth and supposed "equal opportunity" of Socialism. It is more than that. Socialism also advocates collective ownership AND central administration of not only all types of production and all of the distribution of all of the goods, but also, every aspect of the entire system of exchange. Old-school hardliners propose total state control, while most of those found here in the US think everything could be structured into a pseudo-free-market economy.
2. The danger of collectivism for OUR society is in the details of administration. Most of the liberal media (due to their influence from countless socialistic professors across our nation) think that the current opinion of "the people" should dictate all US policy. However, "the people" is an abstract, barely-definable concept (in terms of quantification). Who is to say which portion of "the people" make the easy decisions? let alone the controversial, hard ones? As soon as we digress from our only framework of "fairness, justice, and equity" (our Constitution and codified laws), we begin a downward spiral toward a complete dictatorship; in which one person (the dictator) is the voice of "the people" and is highly unlikely to keep their interests at heart.
3. The media is being used. It appears their dislike of Bush has become a flagpole on which they hoist their own standard: a socialistic worldview. By couching their abhorrence in terms that appear to put "we the people" into positions that are opposed, disliked, or hated by any segment of the "victimized global citizenry" they instigate class- and racial-tension in our country. Possibly even escalating to a general "struggle" during a transformation from capitalism to communism. While this is not a true "proletarian revolution" in any sense, it would be fatal for our economy.
4. I doubt there is a physical "playbook" for this, but it's obvious to me that the media operates in concert to promote their agenda.
5. We (the people) cannot swallow their line, to insist on melding these detainees (citizens of the world) into the collective melting pot of US citizenry because it is "humane." It is not humane, it is a criminal surrender of our rights, as citizens of the USA, to proffer the same rights we have under our Constitution to those who are our sworn enemies and wish for nothing less than the complete destruction of our nation.
6. The phrase "citizens of the world" is a feel-good, fallacious attempt to desensitize the patriotism of citizens -- every nation's citizens. Accepting it as a valid argument would be an extremely dangerous step by any sovereign govt. The result of wholeheartedly subscribing to this ideology is a socialistic, one world govt in which all rights are subservient to the good of the whole.
7. It is also a straw man argument. There are no "citizens of the world" -- just as no aspect of "humane" and "ethical" should be afforded those that have actively participated in any attempt to destroy of our way of life, our soldiers (many of whom are my friends), or my country. Any attempt to eradicate any of the above must be stopped.
III. These Gitmo inmates DO NOT DESERVE a trial.
- They are NOT criminals, but enemy combatants. The US has detained enemy combatants in EVERY major conflict in our nation's history. Just like soldiers, enemy combatants may be detained or face military tribunals, but they NEVER get a trial. (The "Nuremburg Trials" weren't trials, they were international tribunals, convened after the cessation of all conflict.)
IV. For any that still do not understand the importance of the semantics, I'll make it very simple: there are only 2 kinds of enemy combatants. (Both types participate in armed aggression against our nation.)
- A. "UnLawful" enemy combatants (Gitmo detainees) participate as private citizens while NOT employed by any state (i.e. not soldiers in a military), or while affiliated with a terrorist organization. Thus, the Gitmo detainees fully conform to every definition of unlawful enemy combatant recognized by every member of the UN (every definition I've ever read anyway... going back to the Hague Convention). Unlawful enemy combatants are not POWs, because they bear arms, operating as soldiers and or terrorists outside the guidelines of the 3rd Geneva Convention.
B. While it is legal to detain both types of enemy combatants, only LAWFUL enemy combatants ARE ELIGIBLE for all of the protections afforded POWs -- under ALL the treaties and conventions that have been signed to date.
V. There is one final aspect of trying these detainees on US soil that most people overlook. If they are afforded US rights, they must also be tried by US laws, and face US punishments. Ergo -- they have committed treason.
- The laws currently on the books in the US (for treason) call for death, so in that sense, I would not be opposed to allowing any unlawful enemy combatants currently being (legally) detained at Gitmo a military trial on US soil. As long as all guilty verdicts result in immediately carrying out the execution of the convicted. (Of course, since they've not broken any civil statues, they wouldn't be eligible for civil trial with juries and appeals processes, only military trials.)
In conclusion, I'll offer my advice to the ignorant (that so frequently proffer opinions garnered from the liberal media as fact):
- If you are going to look to some source (such as the media) for general information, check the info they are disseminating. If they feed you false information, even if only intermittently, then make sure you are consistent in checking sources and seeking the truth on any matters of importance to you (or your nation).
Every media personality with any semblance of intelligence or integrity knows full well that Gitmo detainees are there lawfully, detained legally, and completely ineligible for ANY trial of ANY type on US soil. Anyone in the media that does not inform others of this is (whether knowingly or in ignorance) participating in an effort to undermine our nation, our government, our military, the rights of our citizens, and our way of life.
Coming Compartmentalization
I've decided I don't really mind average Joe-the-plumber reading my blog, but I don't want lousy Larry-the-liberal digging thru aspects of my my personal life. Therefore, sometime in the coming weeks I'm going to split my blog. One part will be only personal stuff, the other will primarily be political stuff.
I will probably cross-post book reviews and any science-related diatribes to both parts, but I still haven't decided exactly how the remaining aspects of this blog will be divided, or even which part (personal or public) will retain this domain.
Knowing me, "a few weeks" may end up being a month or two, so until then, I'll continue posting everything here.
I will probably cross-post book reviews and any science-related diatribes to both parts, but I still haven't decided exactly how the remaining aspects of this blog will be divided, or even which part (personal or public) will retain this domain.
Knowing me, "a few weeks" may end up being a month or two, so until then, I'll continue posting everything here.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Optometry Oddidity
Received a call from my optometrist late last Friday afternoon. (Didn't realize it was the actual optometrist on the phone at first, thought it was one of his assistants.) He told me that the four-year membership I purchased was expiring unused on Tuesday (save for the purchase of my glasses and a one-year supply of disposable contacts). However, if I wanted to be seen at the reduced "plan" rate, he would honor the same price all week. I was wearing my my last set of contacts and planning to call him anyway, so I scheduled my appointment for 10 am Monday morning.
Sunday night, my wife surprised me when she decided she wanted an exam the next morning too. Personally, I could care less; if she wanted to willingly go see a doctor, then that was her problem. I'm the type person that doesn't go see any doctor -- of any kind -- unless I'm near death or in dire need of something. (Which may have been obvious, since I haven't been to the eye doctor in four years.) Anyway, since I do like to see clearly, I was "in need."
Our arrival (driving through all green lights!), parking (one space was left -- at the door), check-in (we were first), wait (brief), and exam (wife & I went in together) were only "eventful" in that absolutely nothing went wrong! I was almost dreading the rest of the day -- thinking there may be paybacks somewhere.
Amazingly, no paybacks either. Instead, he shone bright lights in my eyes then had me read the little chart on wall (with the big prescription-finder thingy in front of my eyes). When I asked how much worse my eyes had gotten, he didn't answer directly. He told me that, "One of two things has happened in the last four years." (I so dread it when I hear doctors offering options.) Either,
1. on my previous visit, my eyes were diagnosed incorrectly (and I've been using the wrong prescription for four years), or
2. sometime in the last 4 years, my prescription in one eye has attained a slight astigmatism, while both eyes have (miraculously) improved exactly 0.5!
This was one of those rare moments in which I was totally speechless.
My wife laughed and said, "And they say long hours staring at a computer screen are bad for you." She also had the presence of mind to ask if my recent (bi-monthly and more) migraines may be attributable to having this prescription too strong: "Possible," was his reply.
I was expecting to purchase contacts; I was not expecting to need new glasses. Nor was I expecting any eye improvements. They did sell me contacts (at the "deal" pricing), but won't give them to me until I wear this free loaner pair for a few days. They want to make sure I can still see clearly.
It's been a few days, today is Thursday. My last migraine started early Monday morning (although it wasn't horrible until my eyes were dilated). Since then, I can still see pretty well (I was reading the 20/15 line on his chart), but I think the astigmatism diagnosis might be incorrect: if I move too quickly, things look a little wonky until my eyes adjust. I'll have to go back tomorrow and have him check.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
[EDIT: It's now Friday. I went back again this morning and I can still see the 20/15 line. I told him about the occasional equilibrium problems and that I'd noticed one other thing: a continuous tension in the muscles around my right eye. He held weaker and stronger lenses in front of my eye, but neither was better. So, I'm going to give it another week. He thinks it might be because my eyes are adjusting to this prescription.]
Sunday night, my wife surprised me when she decided she wanted an exam the next morning too. Personally, I could care less; if she wanted to willingly go see a doctor, then that was her problem. I'm the type person that doesn't go see any doctor -- of any kind -- unless I'm near death or in dire need of something. (Which may have been obvious, since I haven't been to the eye doctor in four years.) Anyway, since I do like to see clearly, I was "in need."
Our arrival (driving through all green lights!), parking (one space was left -- at the door), check-in (we were first), wait (brief), and exam (wife & I went in together) were only "eventful" in that absolutely nothing went wrong! I was almost dreading the rest of the day -- thinking there may be paybacks somewhere.
Amazingly, no paybacks either. Instead, he shone bright lights in my eyes then had me read the little chart on wall (with the big prescription-finder thingy in front of my eyes). When I asked how much worse my eyes had gotten, he didn't answer directly. He told me that, "One of two things has happened in the last four years." (I so dread it when I hear doctors offering options.) Either,
1. on my previous visit, my eyes were diagnosed incorrectly (and I've been using the wrong prescription for four years), or
2. sometime in the last 4 years, my prescription in one eye has attained a slight astigmatism, while both eyes have (miraculously) improved exactly 0.5!
This was one of those rare moments in which I was totally speechless.
My wife laughed and said, "And they say long hours staring at a computer screen are bad for you." She also had the presence of mind to ask if my recent (bi-monthly and more) migraines may be attributable to having this prescription too strong: "Possible," was his reply.
I was expecting to purchase contacts; I was not expecting to need new glasses. Nor was I expecting any eye improvements. They did sell me contacts (at the "deal" pricing), but won't give them to me until I wear this free loaner pair for a few days. They want to make sure I can still see clearly.
It's been a few days, today is Thursday. My last migraine started early Monday morning (although it wasn't horrible until my eyes were dilated). Since then, I can still see pretty well (I was reading the 20/15 line on his chart), but I think the astigmatism diagnosis might be incorrect: if I move too quickly, things look a little wonky until my eyes adjust. I'll have to go back tomorrow and have him check.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
[EDIT: It's now Friday. I went back again this morning and I can still see the 20/15 line. I told him about the occasional equilibrium problems and that I'd noticed one other thing: a continuous tension in the muscles around my right eye. He held weaker and stronger lenses in front of my eye, but neither was better. So, I'm going to give it another week. He thinks it might be because my eyes are adjusting to this prescription.]
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
A Book Give-Away!
As an insatiable reader, I don't watch much TV, but I do follow numerous blogs. One of my favorite book blogs, Books Ahoy!, is going to be giving away a book this month!
Yes, I said G-I-V-I-N-G... as in free book and free shipping!
There are very few things I like more than a free book (most of those things being "more than one free book"), but this isn't an ordinary run-of-the-mill book that's been sitting, moldering on someone's shelf -- this is brand new and unreleased (until the 26th)! It's titled, "The Survivors Club : The Secrets and Science that Could Save Your Life" and is put out by Hachette Book Group.
I'm not normally a paranoid person (do have a few paranoid friends tho), but always enjoy soaking up any little bit of information that could keep me alive, safe, or just out of a tough spot. Can hardly wait to see who gets it. If you think you just might be interested, the contest starts today (Tuesday, January 13th) and runs until Friday, the 23rd of January. Head over to Books Ahoy! and check out the book, enter the contest, and browse Lisa's blog; you may find something else you'd enjoy reading.
Yes, I said G-I-V-I-N-G... as in free book and free shipping!
There are very few things I like more than a free book (most of those things being "more than one free book"), but this isn't an ordinary run-of-the-mill book that's been sitting, moldering on someone's shelf -- this is brand new and unreleased (until the 26th)! It's titled, "The Survivors Club : The Secrets and Science that Could Save Your Life" and is put out by Hachette Book Group.
I'm not normally a paranoid person (do have a few paranoid friends tho), but always enjoy soaking up any little bit of information that could keep me alive, safe, or just out of a tough spot. Can hardly wait to see who gets it. If you think you just might be interested, the contest starts today (Tuesday, January 13th) and runs until Friday, the 23rd of January. Head over to Books Ahoy! and check out the book, enter the contest, and browse Lisa's blog; you may find something else you'd enjoy reading.
My Apologies To Shakespeare:
To Post, OR not to Post, that IS questionable.Thus begins my latest installment of the vagaries of having children:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous children (in silence)
Or to take up words against a sea of troublesome-ness,
And by exposing, laugh at them?
The other evening Sugee was s'posed to be going potty, washing her hands, then getting into her jammies before having a snack and trundling off to bed. Sugee doesn't always do s'posed to very well -- she has her own little world she inhabits and its... well... different.
After an extraordinary amount of time in the bathroom, I decided it would be wise to go find her. (Bear in mind, this is the same three and a half year old child that two Saturdays ago crammed a Gobstopper up her nose -- as far as she could reach her "pinky" finger!)
This Saturday evening, I found her -- in the bathroom? Yes.
Completely finished and ready for bed? No -- try stark naked.
Furthermore, she was patting at her soaked, wet hair with the used (and very dirty) foot-towel.
Realizing she was merely attempting to copy Mommy, but making a mess of herself, I stifled my smile and laughter, asked what she had been doing, and (of course) received the typical sugar-coated answer of "Nothing Daddy". After some verbal pressure, she did reveal that she had just finished "washing her hair in the bathtub" -- albeit, I hadn't heard any water running (except in the sink) so I was not convinced. Willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, I had her wash her hands and finish getting ready for bed.
Once dressed, she did finally admit that she had NOT used the bathtub to wet her hair.
No . . . my sweet, innocent, blond-haired, green-eyed, cherub-faced daughter had just participated in a SELF . INDUCED . SWIRLY ! ! !
(And for the curious-minded, no: I did not check to see if the water she used was pre- or post-potty -- I really did not want to know.)
I'm hoping she survives being a toddler . . . and that her baby sister doesn't take after her in any way shape or form.And thus the natives' hue of exploration
Is o'er laid with the hearty cast of memory,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this affection their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of trouble. - Soft you now!
The fair Sugee! Nymph, in my orisons
Be all thy sins -- forgotten.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
