The Best Rush Album

I suppose anyone reading this knows that my favorite band of all time is Rush, and I pretty much like to love everything that they have done. I find them musically intriguing (as much as an untalented idiot like myself could appreciate the musical aspect), lyrically compelling, and just overall fantastic. I find myself emotionally and intellectually engaging the music, and I think that this is a sign of the true greatness of the band. I know that there are probably a lot of other people who feel similarly, but I am going to make a bold statement of which album of theirs is my favorite.

The best Rush album (according to me) is ... DRUMROLL, PLEASE ... "Counterparts". Of course, if you read my last few blogs, you would already know that answer. The album is simply wonderful. I am not going to attempt to analyze it from a musical perspective, I can't - I simply have no talent in that direction. But I will say that I love every song on that album and whenever I put it on, I listen to the whole thing - I do not think I have ever skipped a song by clicking forward on the CD. I happened to be talking to a friend about this, and he thought that he would listen to and rate all of the Rush albums. I am going to attempt to do the same thing in the next several days. Again, realize that I will rate a song on the overall impression that it makes on me, encompassing lyrics, music, and emotional reaction - if a sad song makes me feel sad, then it is a successful song (like "Losing It" - second to last song on Subdivisions, eh ntt's brain?)

But then I thought, "How should I rate them?", and I immediately answered myself, "Of course, I'll use the same scale I use to grade math problems at school." Let me explain. I have always hated math problems that are worth 4 points and the teacher takes off a point if you screw up a negative sign or make a trivial copy error. This is not to say that those errors are unimportant, I just would like teachers to know the weight that they give a particular problem. In the aforementioned example, if a kid transcribed the problem wrong and a teacher took of 1 point out of four, the teacher is tacitly sending the message that copying the problem correctly is more important than doing the math correctly. The student has achieved a 75% on that problem, a C in most classes in high school, so that transcription error takes someone from excellent to average. That is appropriate if that is what the teacher wants to emphasize, but I think many teachers do not even think that far ahead (even math teachers, for whom the numbers should make the most sense). To counter this I put together the following scale:

90-100% A
85-89 A-
80-84 B+
75-79 B
70-74 B-
65-69 C+
60-64 C
50-59 C-
0-49 F

Each problem on a test is worth 10 points (on rare occasions 5 if the problem doesn't warrant that much weight in the scope of the overall test), and then when I make a point deduction I am completely cognizant of what grade I am giving. For example, if a problem has a trivial mistake with a minus sign, I might take off half a point or a point, and the student still has an A on that problem (9.5 = 95%, 9 = 90%), however in a problem where that negative means direction or decreasing versus increasing rate of change (topics where understanding the implication of the negative are important) dropping a negative could warrant a much greater penalty, like 3 points - taking that problem score from an A to a B-.

So back to Rush. I am going to listen to every song on every album and attempt to rate them all on this scale of 0 to 10. I will then add up the scores, divide by the number of songs, and multiply by 100 to get a percentage score, then make a list of the albums that I like most to the ones I like least, and have the score with it. I may also post how I rate each song, but I am not sure. Keep in mind that I am a huge Rush fan, so I will be as objective as I can in rating my subjective response (kinda silly thought, huh?), but it is unlikely that many songs will receive below a 5.

Just for reference, here are the 18 albums I will be rating. I will not be dealing with live albums (though these are truly masterpieces as well) or the cover-tune album that they did a few years back (again, good covers of songs they loved as kids, but not in the purview of this list). So here are the albums, in the best chronological order I can muster from memory:

• Rush
• Fly by Night
• Caress of Steel
• 2112
• Farewell to Kings
• Hemispheres
• Permanent Waves
• Moving Pictures
• Signals
• Grace Under Pressure
• Power Windows
• Hold Your Fire
• Presto
• Roll the Bones
• Counterparts
• Test for Echo
• Vapor Trails
• Snakes and Arrows

Should be an interesting undertaking (for me, maybe not for you), but at least you won't have to read about politics today.

PS you may have noticed that I do not include Ds in my grade scale - this is because I don't believe in them. They exist mostly to alleviate a teacher's guilt at not having done enough or to avoid the hassle of giving a failing grade to a student. It is my job and the student's job to make sure that s/he knows enough to pass the course. To get an F, you actually have to prove to me that you deserve it. You have to demonstrate to me that you know nothing of the course and you want to do nothing to pass the course. Since I also allow retakes of tests, there is no reason anyone shouldn't pass my course. (I allow retakes because I don't care when you learn it necessarily, I care that you learn it. Of course, to incentivize learning it earlier, there is a maximum of a 70%, a B-, that you can earn on a retake.)

Does Obama Really Want Cost Control, or Just Government Control?

Don't worry, this will be quick. I just want to highlight one more point of hypocrisy on the part of the Obama-style health care reform. I will address other topics in a later blog, as I am rather busy right now, but I just had a quick thought on which I had to write.

About a year ago, if memory serves, some Republicans tried to put forth a health care reform bill. They had tried several times before with the same style of legislation, but health insurance companies have strong lobbies that influence both Dems and Repubs. The basics of the plan that they proposed, which seem reasonable to anyone I have ever posited them to, was that Americans should be able to purchase health insurance from any provider, rather than just be limited to insurers in state. This would allow actual competition and is generally not favored by states because they have a vested interest in keeping the insurers under state regulation (and in keeping insurance lobbying money flowing to state and federal officials). Incidentally, Obama voted against this.

Even the most ardent liberal cannot fail to see that an expanded availability of competition reduces prices (that is the argument they use to favor a government "option"). This is a very common sense and simple reform that does not gain traction for the aforementioned reasons, even though many health reform organizations and doctor organizations favor this.

Of course, this raises the question, "Why would Obama oppose this if he is in favor of controlling costs?" Simple, he is not about controlling costs as much as he is about a government sponsored and run health care plan. He has shown far left tendencies in virtually every aspect of his governance, and this is no exception. It is no surprise that I do not agree with leftist agendas, and I would not have a problem with it if he had been elected on these agendas, because clearly, the will of the people is for that agenda. But he was elected on a centrist platform, and he is doing little to live up to that.

If you want to read more, just check out old bill's sponsored by Shadegg (I think this is the spelling, I am going from memory). He tried the same thing several years in a row (in a Dem controlled congress - guess they didn't really want Health Care Reform all that bad, did they?)

Dead Snow and Regret

So, I went to the Roxie last night and saw the Norwegian movie "Dead Snow". In truth, I was not exactly sure what to expect - but with the tag line "Ein, Zwie, DIE!", how could I resist. In truth, it was a fun little film in the style of an "Evil Dead II". There were a lot of funny moments and lines, and, all-in-all, I really enjoyed the film. I won't go into too much detail, but I think that I can highly recommend this film. Was it great? No. Was it a fun Nazi-Zombie-Comedy-Gore-Fest? Hell, yes. 'Nuff said.

The day before, we went to the Samurai exhibition at the Asian Art Museum in San Francisco. And here is where the regret comes in. I had a wonderful time at the exhibit - virtually all of the samurai relics were from the Hosokawa dynasty (I believe that these are all from the old Higo province, if my knowledge of Japanese history and Nobunaga's Ambition serves me correctly). It was a fascinating look at an interesting piece of cultural history. What I really liked the most were the older charcoal brush painting and calligraphy. The swords and armor were all well and good, and I did enjoy seeing them, but the artwork is something that has always fascinated me.

Charcoal and water are terribly difficult to work with as a medium. They are completely unforgiving, and any mistake is glaringly obvious. (Trust me, I've tried to do this, and I keep trying - it is tough.) You have to commit fully to each brush stroke and you also have to have in mind exactly what the piece of art should look like before putting brush to page. In essence, the whole picture is contained in the first brush stroke. So as an art form, this is particularly intellectually engaging to me.

But further than this, it is an art form that engages me on an emotional level - in many (not all) cases. I find the intellectual concept of one well-defined, decisive stroke creating an artistic impression to be intensely moving. I do not get this response from many painting styles - either I am incapable of appreciating them, or they are so far out of the scope of my affordability range that I will suppress any emotional response so I do not experience the regret at not being able to get that response by regularly interacting with that piece of art. For me this emotional response is not just limited to visual art, but it is also a way that I interact with some music. For example, I am huge fan of the band, Rush. My favorite rush album is "Counterparts" - an album that came out in 1993 (I know that this I might be the only Rush fan to say that, but for me, this album is intensely moving). I actually get chills just thinking about listening to the album - it does that much to me every time I listen to it.

This is an uncommon phenomenon for me - as a result of lifelong struggles with mood disorders, I have spent years suppressing and managing my emotional responses. It is very difficult for me to get legitimately excited or frightened; this is one of the reasons I gravitate things like the horror genre, thrill rides, rock climbing, combat sports, etc. So when I encounter a piece of art that moves me in this way, I generally will want to purchase it, especially if the art is within my means. The piece that I saw at the museum store had a price tag of $350, well within my price range (I have $400 set aside for blackjack in my upcoming Reno trip, and I would have gladly used this instead of playing blackjack with it). Supergoober and ntt's brain both advised that I sleep on it and having done that for two days, all I am experiencing is regret at not purchasing this piece.

Was it overpriced? Probably... it was for sale at a museum store - the markup was probably 1.5 to 3 times what it would have sold for in a gallery. Would this have been worth it to me? Absolutely. I think, given my normally rational approach to things, my friends simply assumed that I was succumbing to an impulse buy kind of phenomenon. I do not begrudge them this - they clearly had my best interest at heart. That they do not know this about me is, again, my fault. I have not taken the time to discuss these matters with them - it can be difficult to discuss my emotional states as being overly managed because of a tendency of mine to overreact - these are just not topics that come up in everyday conversation. So, first, I would like to apologize for not revealing this aspect of myself, and second, I am going to go back and see if I can get a hold of this piece ... hopefully I do not get more disappointment and regret.

Again, thanks, guys, for looking out for me, and my apologies for not really explaining what was going on.

Sonia Sotomayor - Lacking Judical Temperment?

First, supergoober, re our hour-long conversation that kept you from your darling wife, I will blog on that soon, and apologize again for me - I did not mean to keep you talking quite so long (manic, anyone?). But as for Sotomayor, I have been wanting to blog on this for a month and a half, ever since I first heard her name bandied about as a candidate for the Supreme Court. I vaguely remember her first appointment and some controversy for the 2nd circuit court of appeals, so I did a bit of research, and I do not believe she has the temperament to be any kind of judge (in fact, she would not actually pass the standard to be a juror in most districts in the U.S. - more later).



Here is my problem, in a nutshell. First, the issue with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund is not an issue. I do not care whether she is liberal or conservative personally. The fact that she is liberal is fine, she has that right as an American, and as a liberal lawyer she should take up liberal causes. That is what lawyers do, and even if the Fund is extremely leftist, or whatever, that does not matter. She was a lawyer, and was doing what fit with her conscience and belief system. That is what any person in any job should be doing. The fact that she had a socialist quote in her 1976 college yearbook - so what. How many kids coming out of college are enamored with idealistic ideas, or in love with the social justice aspects of socialism. Again, this is a non-issue. She was even on a board and on a website of an international socialist organization (she has since been removed from that at her own request) - again, a non issue. So what if she is a socialist. Last I checked the country is free and you can have whatever political affiliations that you like. And did anyone really expect Obama to nominate a conservative? Of course not. Whoever he nominates will be, on the political spectrum, decidedly left of center. Politics are politics, and always will be.



But a judge is supposed to be able to take those personal biases and set them aside. This is part of the symbolism of the judicial robes - they are meant to obscure class, race, and all other potential biases. They are currently a symbol of fairness - the person in the robe does not matter, they are supposed to be an impartial arbiter of the law. Compassion and empathy are not supposed to be part of the equation...



Now, before the hue and cry of, "WTF are you talking about?!?!?", hear me out. A judge should be able to find in favor of a plaintiff or defendant that s/he does not like. Sympathy for one party means that you are no longer an impartial arbiter of justice. This was the case a hundred and fifty years ago and is still the case now. If a judge from the 1800s had sympathy for a white man, and antipathy for a minority, justice was not served. This happened far too frequently and was fundamentally unfair. The person of color was not receiving equal justice under the law. When we have sympathy or empathy for one party in a court situation, that is fine, but a judge or a jury cannot afford that luxury. In fact, many judges have said that the cases of which they are the most proud is the ones where they found in favor of someone they did not like. Experiencing these emotions is inevitable - it is what makes us human, but putting them aside in the cause of fairness and justice is what takes us to a more transcendent state of being - a bit dramatic, yes, but I sincerely believe this.



Sotomayor is sorely lacking in this department. Her history of judgements are colored by personal biases. The most recent controversial one is the one about the firefighter who got a high score on an advancement exam - she threw out the exam because too few minorities did well on it. She ignored the fact that the white fireman was a minority (dyslexic - a minority in terms of disability) that was underrepresented as well (not that this matters) who went to great personal expense and effort to prepare for the test because he really wanted to advance as a firefighter. Even other Clinton appointees think that this decision was asinine, and even her supporters give a terrible reason for the decision. I have heard her defenders say that she was concerned that the city would get sued if she found any other way. If this is actually the case, then there is no way she should be a judge. A judge is not supposed to be swayed by the impact of his/her decision - they are supposed to make a judgement on the merit of the case and the law. If a judge can be swayed by outside forces, then the whole idea of jurisprudence is out the window.

And this is where Sotomayor is an abject failure. She has been criticized by both liberal and conservative judges. A BRIEF ASIDE -As much as most conservative pundits love to say this, most liberal judges do not create law, they interpret the law that is there on the books already. Their interpretation may not be as strict as constitutional constructionists think that it should be, but there is a very small minority of judges (on either the left or the right) that simply make up law. Similarly, there are very few excessively conservative judges that simply chuck out precedent and decide against cases that have a long history of case law even if the constitutional justification is a bit fuzzy. In short, most people on both sides get up in arms over very little when it comes to judges, and they really just don't like if they think that a judge won't decide in favor of their side, rather than wanting what the Constitution demands - that is good judicial temperament. All history and protocol demands that this be the thing on which senators decide, but that has not really been the case since Bork (both sides are guilty of this, by the way, but I tend to notice the ones on the left as doing this far more frequently, especially in the Bush administration's appointees). - ASIDE ENDED. Sotomayor is one of those rare judges who seems to have no sense of proportion and makes asinine statements and decisions based not on precedent but on prejudice. By prejudice, I mean the true nature of the word. She seems to have pre-judged her cases - she comes to the conclusion before hearing the facts and either fails to cite precedent, or reaches back to the most obscure precedent available that backs up what she says. Two examples that are worrisome, one you have probably heard of, the other not:

1) The firefighter discrimination suit. People in the court tell of her harassing tone, her bias against the person bringing the suit and her general demeanor throughout the case as seeming like her decision was a forgone conclusion. Her unpublished opinion (this is not an uncommon occurrence, many decisions are not published to the public, so I will not fault her for that) contains, from what I understand, no citation of precedent. She was grilled about this in the senate hearings, and though she responded well to the bit about the opinion being unpublished, that was ancillary to the question. The questioner wanted to know why she did not cite precedent and she refused to answer. This is not the temperament we want from any judge, let alone a supreme court justice. Another judge on the same circuit court of appeals, his name eludes me, but he was a Clinton appointee as well, basically said that he thought her decision and the unpublished opinion that she wrote was one of the worst decisions he had ever seen. Everyone makes a bad judgement now and again, but she has had, in my opinion made many (like deciding that the EPA could not use a cost-benefit analysis in addressing clean water issues - one of the stupidest decisions I have ever read, and another one involving a class action suit which was barred by law, where she just decided to disregard the law - the Supreme Court turned her down 8-0 on that fiasco)

2) The next case ignores a lot of case law and reaches into the early annals of US case law, and this should be troubling to people on both sides of the aisle, as it shows a tendency to judge based on personal opinion rather than on facts and precedent. In a lawsuit on New York gun control laws, she cites precedent that says that the 2nd amendment does not apply to state or local laws, but only to federal restrictions. She cites case law from the 1870s and 1880s for this judgement. Here's the problem, however. For about the first hundred and twenty ish years of our nation's history, the Bill of Rights was deemed to only apply to the Federal Government. That means that states, or even local municipalities or towns could actually establish religions, restrict free speech, ignore due process, pursue cruel and unusual punishment, etc. While she is absolutely correct in her assertion that the two cases she cited did deal with the constitutionality of applying gun control laws on a local rather than federal level, and there is little other case law in any other direction, she has ignored a hundred and twenty plus years of gradual transference of the Constitutional protections of rights protecting us against state encroachments as well. It is this trend that actually removed state sponsored religions (which this nation had - there were states that were Catholic, and others that were Protestant - no state ever adopted Neo-Paganism, sorry acupuncturist), gave us Miranda rights, the right to privacy, the right to due process on a state level, etc. Formerly, all of these protections were only that the Federal Government could not encroach on the rights established in the Constitution. The 14th amendment went a long way to redressing some of the inequities in freedoms, but because it is subject to interpretation, some judges, especially in the late 1800s, tried to circumvent it.

A brief refresher: I have included section 1 of the amendment, below.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Of course, I introduced the bold-faced, red part, because I think that it spells out rather clearly that states cannot take away constitutional rights of citizens. Sotomayor's decision ignores that fact, and she sides with court opinions that were made by Courts that were trying deliberately to limit the power of the 14th Amendment.

Here's why this is worrisome for both sides. If she is willing to violate the 14th Amendment and find obscure case law to validate that, she could do that for any other cause that she espouses. Let's not forget she is a Latin Catholic (most people call 'em Roman Catholics, but what even most Roman Catholics don't know is that we are actually Latin Catholics - the Roman bit is something of an insult handed to us by the Protestants). We do not know where she stands on gay marriage or abortion - she has not made many decisions on these, and if she actually decides that she can flout precedent, she could easily justify the eradication of the so-called "right to privacy". This could lead to an interesting situation on the high court.

Not that I think that one person will overturn abortion or undo gay rights, but it is something that should concern people on the right and the left - she has shown repeatedly her willingness to ignore precedent in favor of her opinion.

And this is not to even mention her speeches, where she has repeatedly said such foolish things as

• a "wise Latina" can make better decisions than a white man
• there are "physiological, emotional, and sociological reasons" that a Latina will make better decisions than a white man
• that appellate courts are "where policy is made" and that judges should essentially be making social policy (this is obviously under the purview of legislators)
• that empathy is an important quality for a judge, and that empathy can and should override logic and adherence to precedent and case law.

There are many more, but I think you can see that she would not even qualify to be a California juror with these opinions. For your edification, the summary of what California jurors are required to do, as well as the jury instructions:

The process of questioning and excusing jurors continues until 12 persons are accepted as jurors for the trial. Alternate jurors may also be selected. The judge and attorneys agree that these jurors are qualified to decide impartially and intelligently the factual issues in the case. When the selection of the jury is completed, the jurors take the following oath:

"Do you, and each of you, understand and agree that you will well and truly try the cause now pending before this court, and a true verdict render according only to the evidence presented to you and to the instructions of the court?"

As a juror you should think seriously about the oath before taking it. The oath means you give your word to reach your verdict upon only the evidence presented in the trial and the court's instructions about the law. You cannot consider any other evidence and instruction other than those given by the court in the case before you. Remember that your role as a juror is as important as the judge's in making sure that justice is done.



(http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jury/step1.htm)

If she can't even pass the juror qualifications, what makes us think that she can be on the high court of the land. And just to be clear, if I encountered these same qualities in someone who agreed with my positions, I would still oppose that person. (In fact, she may share some of my views on abortion, but I would not approve of her flouting the 14th Amendment to restrict access to abortions.)

How Could I Forget...

... Bisping vs Henderson. I watched the on demand free content on the interviews of these two, and I came up with some interesting conclusions. Henderson, while he is a great fighter is inconsistent and near delusional in his thoughts on training. He maintains that since he has been training wrestling since he was a child that he is clearly a superior wrestler. Bisping does not argue that point, but argues that he has trained to stop takedowns for a long time, and does a good job of it. Henderson then makes the statement that his standup is as good as Bisping's. This is just silly. Just like Henderson has trained wrestling since he was a kid, Bisping has trained in striking since he was a kid.

And here is the real difference. It is pretty easy to stuff a takedown or pop back up after one. The hard part of wrestling is learning to take a guy down and keep him down. Henderson has this in spades. Bisping, however, does have very good takedown defense, and should prevent most of the attempts and probably won't get too roughed up on the ground. It is much harder to get proficient at defending yourself in a striking match. In striking, offense is easy to learn, in wrestling defense is easy to learn. If Henderson thinks that he will be able to stand and bang with Bisping, he is sorely mistaken, and he could get knocked out. Bisping even predicts this (of course). Henderson's camp thinks that this is the height of absurdity, citing that he was not KOed by either Wanderlei Silva or Quentin "Rampage" Jackson. But neither of those men are truly what I would call striking specialists. They are both powerful, but their technique is weak - they make up for this with aggression, and that is why both are exciting fighters; you know that they will beat the crap out of someone and probably get beat around themselves. Look at Machida or Anderson Silva if you want to see real striking specialists - they feint, not with an arm or a leg, but with their bodies. They move at angles, they set up punches with kicks and kicks with punches. They block, counter, and evade. Bisping fights like this as well, and if Henderson does not get inside and try to take him down, he will lose, likely by knockout. Take a look at Nogueira vs Mir. Nogueira had never been knocked out and a life long striker did it with ease. Anderson Silva makes opponents look silly with his striking prowess. Anyone can learn to throw a punch or a kick, but it takes time to learn how to do it well so that you don't get smacked with a counter.

This is where BJJ and wrestling proponents miss the boat. They get a taste of what it feels like to throw a great punch or kick with power, and they think that this makes them a good striker. It takes as much training and technique to be great at striking as it does to be great at BJJ or wrestling. However, any idiot can throw his hand out there, and if it his the hand of a muscular idiot, it can hurt a lot. Try checking way back in the archives - Maurice Smith vs Mark Coleman (UFC 14 or 15 if I recall) - I remember Smith saying that Coleman punched like a girl, and that an experienced kickboxer like him wouldn't even notice those blows. He was right, and won that fight, with ease if I recall. It takes real skill to be a good striker, and that is why you see them starting to dominate the UFC.

The BJJ and wrestling advocates write off the skill level of strikers at their own peril, beacause a good strong striker who learns a bit of takedown defense becomes very dangerous indeed. One need look no farther than Anderson Silva and Lyoto Machida to see this. I am not saying that wreslters and BJJ guys can't be great strikers, or can't beat great strikers, I am saying that they have to recognize that striking is a lot more than throwing an arm or a leg out like you ar swinging a club. There is a reason why boxing has long been referred to as the "Sweet Science".

UFC 100, Legacies and Dynasties in the UFC

WOW - Lesnar vs. Mir II. Honestly, I do not give Mir much of a chance. Brock is evolving into a complete fighter; that coupled with his overwhelming physical presence makes it unlikely that he will be beaten anytime soon. Of course, this is the UFC and anything can happen, but let me outline this for you. If you look at the size of his head and neck, you can see that the chance of a flash knockout from anyone is minimal. His neck and arms are so huge that submissions via choke and arm locks are equally unlikely. His weakness is his legs - he could still fall victim to repeated kicks to the leg or leg locks; however, after falling victim to a leg lock from Mir, I know he has trained extensively to counter this eventuality. In addition, his physical presence enables a "wading in" and punching/wrestling style that leaves very few opportunities to land kicks to the legs. In short, I think Brock could be champ for quite a while.

The more interesting fight is GSP vs Thiago Alves. I like both these fighters, but I would love for Alves to win. The 170 pound division has lots of good fighters, and I like the mix up in the division. I think that this will be a much more exciting fight than the Mir-Lesnar fight, and I hope for a great showing for the American Top Team from Alves. GSP can never be overlooked, so it should be a fantastic fight.

But here is some interesting things about the UFC right now. With the top three weight classes dominated by Anderson Silva, Lyoto Machida, and Brock Lesnar, I do not see much in the way of competition for anyone coming down the pike anytime soon. Lesnar is too huge (and now well-rounded), Machida is too evasive (and well-rounded), and Silva is too potent a striker (and well-rounded) for any of them to be taken out by anything but a total fluke. If you want my prognostication, however, Silva is the most likely to descend back to earth. He is too cocky and, at times, lackadaisical in his approach to his opposition - he could get caught and lose, and it will probably happen long before it happens to Lesnar or Machida (both of whom have extreme focus).

Now, how about some of my dreams - Silva has gone up in weight before - what about a Silva vs Machida fight - absolutely amazing. I don't know if he could move down to fight GSP or Alves, but maybe a catch-weight fight between Silva and GSP or Alves. What about a catch-weight bout between Machida and Lesnar? Machida would be physically vastly over-matched, but could he be elusive enough to actually provide Lesnar with competition? I don't know but I would give my eye-teeth to see any of those fights.

Obama Gets One Right - Kudos an Order

So, as I am sure you all know, I am no fan of the policies our current president is pursuing. For the most part, I believe they are inherently damaging to the economy, the country, and, most importantly, to human dignity and spirit. All those details on my many criticisms can be found in previous and forthcoming blogs. But, as opposed to fundamentalists on either side, I am more than willing to say when he does something that I view as correct. This is a small thing, on its face, but I still believe that it deserves mention, because it means there may be some truth to his advertising himself as a moderate. For me, most of his positions have fallen significantly left of center - if you like that, fine, but I have philosophical oppositions to that (ask theAcupuncturist, I am sure he could detail many of my oppositions, as well as having persuasive counterarguments - not persuasive enough to change my opinion, but cogent and coherent).

So, as I said before, and far be it from me to be a nattering nabob of nascent narcissistic negativism (take that Spiro Agnew, you ain't the only one who can use alliteration!), I would like to say that I have a glimmer of hope when I hear the president talk about another stimulus package. It is no surprise that I felt the initial stimulus was wasteful and near criminal in its lack of addressing economic issues - it was more a Democratic wish list that they had been waiting 8 years to pass. So imagine my surprise when I heard the president's response to the congress's expressed desire to pass another stimulus package. In brief, his response was hold on, wait a minute, let's see how the first one works - let's give it some time to kick in.

Honestly, I don't believe the first one will ever "kick in" (I don't believe Obama ever used any of the words above, I am just paraphrasing while keeping the intent of his statement). Keynesian economics has not ever and will not ever work - details, again, in a forthcoming blog. Let's just say we've tried it, many European nations have tried it, Japan tried it 9 times in it's "lost decade" of the 90s, and it never worked. It didn't work in the Great Depression, and it will not work now. But I still hold cautious optimism that Obama might see that this is not actually the path to economic success. The government cannot make economic success, because it only takes money from the private sector and gives it back in a less efficient manner (using up some in bureaucratic nonsense) - no wealth is generated this way, the government produces nothing. This is not to say that government has no role - it just cannot actual run or create a successful economy. One only need look as far as the socialist democracies of Europe, communism in China and Russia, and the trade protections that the US and Japan has engaged in to see that it is not a long-term recipe for success. In the short run, it can seem to have positive effects, but it is not a long-term strategy. hopefully, Obama will begin to realize this and pull back from his more drastic programs that inhibit success and become more of the moderate that he claimed to be in the campaign.

ADDICTION IS NOT A DISEASE!!!!

Well, now that I have your attention with a title that is almost guaranteed to be controversial, let me explain what I mean. I have seen and heard a number of debates, television programs, etc. all talking about the disease aspects of addiction. I have a number of different problems with this particular definition.



I am not going to say that there is not a physical or genetic component to compulsive behavior, because there clearly is. My problem with the disease definition is that it expiates the need for personal responsibility on the part of the individual. I am not responsible for stealing, my drug addiction pushed me to it. I am not responsible for losing my house, my gambling addiction caused that. I am not responsible for destroying my family, my alcohol addiction caused that.



Now I am not saying that people who have these disorders (characterised by compulsive behavior) are not sad cases, nor am I saying that all addicts make excuses like this - on the contrary, it is the non-addict population who generally makes these kinds of arguments. But notice that I did use the moniker "disorder" rather than disease. For many, this might be pure semantics, but for me it is not. A disease implies no choice - you cannot "will away" the symptoms. Even the physical components of addiction still have a choice involved. Diseases have no choice - once you have them you cannot get rid of them.



Of course, most treatment programs have this as part of their mantra - once I have this disease, I have it forever, I can never have another drink, another pill, or whatever, but to me I still think this is a distinction without a difference. You can still choose to not have the disease. The disease proponents define the cravings as the disease, while I define the cravings as more akin to a mood disorder.



Let me be more specific. If you get cancer, AIDS, Lyme disease, swine flu, or any other physical ailments, you cannot use a cognitive coping skill to stop the symptoms. You cannot just choose not to have cancer. There may have been choice involved in getting the disease - by exposing yourself to risks, but I am talking about the actual disease. You cannot just say, "I don't have AIDS", and then the AIDS is gone. However, you can say that I will not take that next drink, pill, or whatever.



The world of psychological disorders is varied and, in some ways, controversial. (Interestingly enough, Madhouse by Anthrax just started playing on my play list - fun little coincidence). Many psychological problems have psychiatric components, an most illnesses can be treated by a combination of drugs and counseling. But even people in the medical world draw a distinction between mental illness and mood disorder. For example, if I have schizophrenia and hear voices, no amount of choice on my part makes me not here the voices. Even medications are only mediocre at suppressing this, and cognitive coping skills only help alleviate the person's reaction to the auditory hallucinations. Someone with clinical depression (like me, for example) can actually change their symptoms with sufficient cognitive coping skills. I can, essentially, will myself to feel better. While I always have some symptoms of the disorder, I can take positive actions to make it so that I experience less or no symptoms. Since these are within my power, I am responsible for my own state of mind. I am responsible for seeking out help when I need it, or for maintaining my good mental state by good personal habits that reinforce my good state.



"Addiction" is very similar to this. Most addictions should be more properly called compulsions, especially the ones that involve a social behavior - like gambling, for example. Gambling can be compulsive, but it is not an addictive disease. If I have to get in my car, fill it with gas, drive 3 and a half hours to Atlantic City, access my bank account, take out a loan on my home, then lose all my money gambling, why would this be anyone but my fault. I cannot blame my "gambling addiction" or the casino - I am an idiot. Believe it or not, a few years back, some idiot did exactly that and tried suing the casino for not appropriately monitoring his behavior because he had a gambling addiction.

Addiction is much more akin to a mood disorder. By elevating it to the status of disease, we abrogate any responsibility on the part of the abuser. It does not help them to get clean, any more than the "12-step" program of acknowledging you are powerless over your addiction and you need God's help to get through it. (Incidentally, 12 step success rate is about the same as quitting cold-turkey with no assistance, the God thing is just the brainchild of the devotee who created the program. I am not saying faith plays no part in combating addiction, I just don't buy the 12 step idea. If you do, and it works for you, that is great). My problem with that should be obvious - if you do not believe in God, then you cannot recover from your addiction according to this model, and I have severe reservations about sentencing drug/alcohol offenders to these programs - it is a bit too close to state-sponsored religion.

But I have gone rather far afield (this is why I try to write everything in one sitting, rather than starting and coming back later). The fact that we can make rational decisions is one key thing that separates us from animals. We are not slaves to instinctual behavior, we can actually make real choices about behavior. We do not act on every sexual impulse, every hunger, or every desire. We do not mindlessly engage in physical tests to attract mates, nor do we attack anything that encroaches on our territory. While we have an animal nature, there is something different about us. We are not just bundles of incoherent instinct and desire, forced into gratifying our every whim. We are social, rational, emotional, and spiritual - all of these play into what and who each of us are (and while you may not buy the spiritual bit, you would be hard pressed to counter any other of the three). We are capable of self-denial, even to the point of self-destruction. To claim that we have to fall victim to our desires is to deny the noblest part of our nature. If a person can starve himself to death (or near to death) or immolate himself in protest of human rights abuses, if we can subject ourselves to beatings and torture because we believe in a cause that is greater than ourselves (even if the cause may not end up being right) - if we can overcome our very survival instinct, surely it is not to much to ask to overcome addictive tendencies.

Believe me, I have them myself. I could virtually guarantee that I have a huge potential problem with any substance were I to engage in that activity. I even approach prescriptions somewhat warily because I know myself. If I start to feel like I need to do something, that is when I refuse to do it. I have taken heavy-duty narcotic painkillers to deal with pain from injury or oral surgery, and I have had times when I felt like taking a pill or two, even if I didn't really need it, and even though it had no apparent effect on me. This is a trigger for me to stop. I can recognize impulses and stop myself. It is a skill every person has, impulse control (those who have none are not long for civilized life) - we do not say everything or do everything that comes into our head, we self-censor for our own and others well-being. To forgo these qualities is to become ultimately self-centered and narcissistic to the point where only your own appetites matter, and all else becomes secondary - in effect you sacrifice your own humanity and become more of an animal than a person. I believe that we are better than that, and we ought to be careful how we classify a psycho-social problem like addiction/compulsion.

Let me give you another example. All my friends know that I am a gambler. I have a "system" like every gambler, and like every gambler, I believe mine works (I know it works, because I have actually kept track of every dollar I have spent over the last 3 years, and I am well ahead of even), but that notwithstanding, I can still recognize compulsive behavior. I know when to stop because I feel like I have to continue. If I ever get that feeling, I force myself to stop. If I ever think about doing something that I would regret telling my wife or my friends, I stop. I do not lie about my wins or my losses, any temptation to do so is a clear indicator that I am making a poor choice and I should not continue in that course of action.

This is not some unique ability - all it takes is a modicum of self awareness; something that we as a society seem to want to completely stamp out in favor of an all-encompassing nanny state that takes care of us... and I think I'll leave it there, because this goes into my response to SuperGoober's response to my health care blog... I understand that he is detailing some opposition arguments and some of his own, but he has missed some of the point of what I wrote and also used some specious reasoning (a rarity for him, but it is a mistake we all make from time to time). I will try to address everything tomorrow, but I am going to be playing some 40k in the evening, so I don't know if I will be able to blog.

BTW, I am not heading to Reno this weekend. I feel kind of lonely and depressed, and that is never a good combination in a casino, so I am going to be gaming instead. Hopefully, this will bring me out of my funk. The wife came home for two days, but now she is gone away again. It is a weird feeling coming home to an empty home. We've been apart before (my camping trips, etc.), but it is different coming to an empty house that we have been sharing for 11 years. We've been living together for about 15 years, so this is just a weird, depressing couple of months. I don't have any idea how you can do it, ntt's brain. I mean, I am an antisocial loner, and all, and I could adjust to this pretty easily, but I really don't want to go back to being that way...

Wow, that is just too damn depressing, sorry all... I am going to watch the top 10 UFC fights of all time on Spike, that should cheer me up ;)

On A Lighter Note (or maybe a darker one if I join the Sith)

Just purchased a new toy online a couple of nights ago, sort of a birthday present to myself - the Master Replicas Force FX light saber construction kit -super awesome. It comes with an LED lightstrip tube,a bunch of handle pieces, etc, etc - supposedly 800+ combinations available (pretty easy to get this number of combos - just use permutation/combination mathematics - since order of assembly doesn't matter, the combination math is what you use -- n!/(r!(n-r)!) if I recall correctly).

Anyway, the light tube has a switch setting to red, green, or blue, and comes with about 15 pieces for different handle combos, it has different idle hum settings as well, and most are sold out at most places (a bunch had them cheaper than 120 dollars, but everywhere that did had them sold out, and the licence has expired for MR star wars, so they are unsure whether they will get anymore, so I bit the bullet and stimulated the economy on my own). I should get it in a week or so, and I may purchase a second set if they still have them and I like it well enough. My Darth Vader saber is showing signs of wear, however - I let some kids play with it, and the LED strip is not as bright (not a battery issue, I think some of the connections may be damaged in the tube). But whatever, it is still cool, and what good is a toy if you don't play with it and share it with others who will enjoy it - why else would I keep them in my classroom?

I'll try uploading a picture of it when I get it.

A Little News - A Month Late

So, I meant to blog on this a month and a half ago, before the health care debate got into full swing, when one of the proposals coming out of the Obama administration was running directly counter to the idea of "insuring everyone". He proposed making injured vets cover any cost of their injuries out of private insurance if they had it. To me, this is ludicrous. These are men and women who volunteered to help their country, to protect freedom, and to ensure the safety of not just American citizens, but many citizens from many countries. If they are injured in the line of duty, it should be the nation's obligation to take care of them. They were hurt in an endeavor to take care of us. Think about it - if they were injured on the job, their employer would be culpable - this is why certain industries have such high insurance rates and death benefits - because they are so inherently risky. Trying to make these people pay for injuries acquired in the line of duty is just silly.

Not to mention that it is a killer for these men and women when trying to find a job. What employer is going to want the level of liability of caring for a long term injury? The unemployment rate for military personnel returning from duty is already about twice what the national average is, and this will only exacerbate the problem.

So I guess this administration wants to provide health care for everyone... unless you are an injured veteran. I don't think that this is an attempt to "get revenge" on soldiers following the Bush Doctrine, as some paranoid nuts might; rather, it is a cost cutting technique to shave money away from the defense budget to try and cover the massive outlays in spending that are projected over the next several years by the CBO (and by the way, the CBO is non-partisan, but always tends to undershoot spending projections, and overshoot income predictions from raised taxes, so look for the deficit numbers to be much worse than they project). Either way, however, it is a horrible idea, both morally and fiscally.

Basically, they are trying to find any way possible to pay for health care - a segment of our economy that is something like 20% of GDP (not sure on this number, just going from memory - look it up and verify if you want); if the government subsumes this responsibility it will be taking over a huge segment of the national economy, something it is seldom, if ever, successful at.

Speaking of paying for health care, why do you think the carbon tax was actually passed? Everyone on both sides agrees that it will not help the environment (this is borne out by the data coming in from Europe, check it out - carbon emissions haven't declined at all, unless you pick a baseline that is favorable, and even then, that only works with the numbers from Britain). Why do you think he floated the idea of taxing your health care benefits as income? Oh yeah, those are both huge regressive taxes, by the way - the carbon tax is based on consumption of a good that everyone uses, so the poor and middle class bear the brunt of that one (since they are larger segments, they pay more) and it amounts to a greater percentage of their income, and health care benefits again make up a larger portion of the income of the middle class, so who do you think is going to be impacted by this? For example, my employer pays 3/4 of my premium for my insurance, amounting to an expenditure of about $4000 per year - taxed at about 25 or so percent, depending on my deductions and income for the year, just a rough guesstimate there, that would be about $1000 extra in taxes per year, or almost $100 less a month if this were to pass... and guess what, I make well under $250,000 per year (who am I kidding, I don't even make half that), so I guess that whole promise about only taxing the rich was a bit of a stretch, huh? How else do we pay for a trillion plus in extra spending?

More forthcoming, even if you don't want to hear it.

And, yes, I know that the money my employer pays for my health insurance is effectively money paid to me and therefore could be legitimately taxed as income (though I have no choice in how that money is spent) that wasn't the point - it really is just that this is yet another broken promise. Are all you moderates who bought the rhetoric, hook, line, and sinker happy yet? And do you really think that if an employer pays for a government premium, that it would be taxed? If you do I have a bridge to sell you, and that would be even more unfair "competition" for the private sector (like there is any fair competition between public and private sector - the only place this even sort of happens is in education, and that is because public education - no offense to all the good teachers out there - is a bureaucratic nightmare, and people are willing to double pay for education to avoid the public system - once in taxes for the public system, once in tuition for the private system - that is how inept government is at running things. You want you health care run like the VA, the post office, the public school system, and the IRS? You can have it, but that is not my idea of a healthy America).

Transparency is the Watchword - No, Wait, Don't Ask Those Questions!

Interesting little turn of events in the White House of late, and it may signal that the love affair that some in the media have with our President may be cooling some - the bloom is off of the rose, I suppose. The debacle with the health care debate has just gotten rather silly as a matter of fact. First off, people can't even say what they mean - Obama and the White House keep talking "Health Care Reform" when they really seem to mean "Health Insurance Reform". None of the proposals on the table are actually dealing with health care, they are all dealing with health insurance. Of course, a cynical person might say that people are too ignorant to tell the difference, while a more Machiavellian individual would say that the use of the words are calculated to inculcate the American people into a government run health care system.

I don't actually fall into either camp, though President Obama's tendencies in the past as a Senator make me believe that he ultimately would like a system in America that is similar to Canada or Great Britain, I do not hold stock in the Machiavellian notion I wrote of above. More likely, the distinction, while it is merited, is simply not a "sexy" enough topic. If you say "Health Care Reform", that can mean many things to many people. The Obama administration is not really going into much detail about their plans, simply because it is easier to drum up support for a program that is undefined and has a sexy catchphrase - it is done quite frequently on the left and the right; simply let your constituents interpret what you mean based on personal baggage and never define terms, then pass whatever the hell you feel like. This is a tad cynical, I'll admit, but I do not believe that people fall for it as much as the politicians would like. More it seems, simply do not feel like Federal legislation has much impact on their day-to-day lives, and thus ignore it. The few politically active people on either side get riled up, make phone calls, write letters, call talk shows, and try to sway their representatives. This has served the nation just fine for quite some time, as most legislation did not have huge impact with great immediacy. That is changing quite drastically right now, though it has been in the process of changing for a number of years (and, of course, this is just a repeat of earlier legislative trends, anyway).

But back to my main point. Last week Obama had a fluff piece on his health care reform initiatives aired, I believe, on ABC. Contrary viewpoints were given short shrift, and the few difficult questions that were asked were never answered (sorry about the passive voice). For example, a doctor asked, rather pointedly I might add, whether Obama would use the system or not. He basically dodged the question and did not answer - a very telling response in and of itself, and very characteristic of typically liberal elitist positions (it happens on the right as well, but I will detail that more later - that is usually dealing with sexuality rather than public policy). They say how great public education is, but God forbid they send their kids to a public school; they say how great the VA is for veteran medical needs but have never been in the system; and of course, any health care reform would not touch our darling senators and representatives very well-endowed health insurance plan. Imagine if George Bush had tried to ask for an slot of prime time on a major network to talk about his policies, and then avoided any controversial questions and did not allow for any democrat rebuttal - now tell me that there is no double standard in the media...

But here is where he really made a huge mistake. There are a lot of people in the media who voted for him, love him and love his policies. I have no problem with that; reporters and anchors are allowed to vote, and should be allowed their opinions; I would hope they also strive to maintain some journalistic integrity, but I do not believe that this is what most journalists want anymore - they graduate wanting to change and educate the world, wanting to help to educate the rest of the world with the wonderful ideas that they know are right from their college education, thus journalistic integrity has been on a downslide of late. But even people who are avowedly pro-Obama were shocked by the latest "Town-Hall meeting".

And let me say first, that I have never been a fan of this concept. It is far to easy to manipulate, to stack the deck, and to play to crowds. As a format, it favors quick-witted and manipulative people. I could take either side of many issues and probably win over many a crowd by artfully answering questions. All the format does is make people feel like they have been heard, whether they have or not. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both used this type of meeting, and they both typically let in only supporters.Bush caught a lot of flack for this, Clinton less so, but both were called out by opponents on this tactic )though only Bush was labeled as a propagandist). Nonetheless, even this tactic did not always work, and both presidents were asked tough questions by supporters - that is why town halls can sometimes work - because even your ardent supporters will take you to task if they feel that you are not living up to their standards. Bush and Clinton both experienced this.

But Obama, who has an openly favorable press corps, as opposed to the openly hostile one Bush faced, or the sometimes hostile and sometimes helpful one that dogged Clinton, pushed this a step or five further. Clinton and Bush, on a manipulative scale for town halls were probably 7 and 6 respectively. Both stacked the deck, but Clinton was a better impromptu speaker, though Bush had more definite ideas (this could hurt or help, depending on the situation), but Obama just transcended the scale and pushed straight up to 11 (it's one louder than ten, innit?). He not only just let in supporters, but had scripted and rehearsed comments and questions for which he had prepped responses. And, boy, were some in the press corps everlovin' pissed when they found out. They grilled the hell out of the press secretary (can't remember his name right now) and he could not get out from under their fire, but repeatedly tried to change the subject.

Which then begs the question, "Why stack the deck so much in your own favor?" Is your plan so unsound that you cannot actually defend it? Why risk the favorable coverage you already get? I can only guess it was a combination of arrogance and ignorance that lead to this. Arrogance in feeling they could pull off whatever they wanted to (they have so far), and ignorance of the type of people that they may alienate, as well as of their own plan.

Because there was the most revealing thing about the ABC fluff piece. Obama continued to say that we have to pass the legislation now, but also admitted that they did not have an actual plan yet - in other words, vote for this sight unseen and once we have it we'll worry about the details of how to make it work - sorry but that is not the way legislation works.

And just one more little note - the private/public competition thing is a farce. It never has and never will work. Everyone knows that if there were actual competition the government would fail - how many people would be in social security right now if we had a private investment option? Right or wrong people opt out of government systems because they are generally rife with fraud and waste. IF the public plan is actually funded by premiums (which is doubtful - how could you insure the uninsured that way?), then it is just another HMO, and why would anyone choose it? If there are subsidies for the poor, and it is still all funded by premiums, who in their right mind would opt for this - your paid premium would have to cover you and someone (or ones) who could not afford it, and who wants to do that? This is not a question of greed, it is one of common sense.

If, on the other hand, the more likely government subsidizes this pseudo-private corporation, then the competition is inherently unfair to unsubsidized insurers, and they have to change their coverages to match the government's. On the face, this may sound appealing, however, it could only lead to bankrupting the private companies because they do not have the infinite power to raise revenue via taxation and then the government option becomes the main (or only) option, as the government steps in to rescue the situation once insurance agencies start failing. Think that this is ridiculous pessimism? Then just look back at the last pseudo-private corporation that was backed by the government and the weird types of competitions it generated in the private sector and the collapse that ensued afterward. That would be Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Oh yeah, I have great faith in the power of the government to establish legitimate private businesses (note heavy sarcasm). It was not under regulation that led to that collapse, rather it was other lenders struggling to keep up with the type of loans that Freddie and Fannie were doling out...

Do we really want a repeat of that mess in five or ten years and have the government take over health care completely? To some this might sound like a grand idea, but I have personal experience with family in the VA, and I can tell you that public health care ain't great and is rationed.

And besides, if we went to a socialized health care system, where would rich Canadians and Europeans go for their care? How would they afford their drugs without the American private system subsidizing the worldwide drug market.

Just a couple of facts before I go - Canada does not allow the prescription of the two most effective drugs for colon cancer because they are too expensive. The incidence of fatality from colon cancer is higher, and the rate of treatment is lower than in our private system. I could give many other examples. The bureaucracy that many decry in the HMO is only exacerbated by a government system - the things people complain most about in HMOs are also the exact same things that people complain about in socialized systems. Rather than tell patients that they need dialysis in Britain, there have been cases where people have simply been told that they have an "untreatable illness" and that there are no options for them - a much easier thing to tell a patient than "there isn't enough money allocated for dialysis". Lower incidence diseases will be less treated rather than better treated - just check Canada's drug uses - I would be terrified of this if I were an AIDS patient. They are a very small population with very expensive drugs; eventually a public system swallows a group like this and the best care is not provided - it is too expensive.

You want a bit of an example, think of the ending of THX1138, when they ran out of money allocated for him, he no longer existed - for him this was a blessing, it gave him his freedom, but for patients it condemns them to death that could otherwise be prevented.

Okay, time to get off the soapbox, but more at another time; I am sure that you are waiting with baited breath.

I'm Baaack (spoken in a creepy little girl sing-song voice)

Sorry for the long absence, won't bore you with all the details, but suffice it to say I have had a lot of thoughts running around in my fertile (or is that febrile) mind, and not a hell of a lot of time to write them. Writing homework for the calculus book, prepping chemistry lessons (and explosions), organizing the end of the school year and the beginning of summer school, and wanting to spend time with my wife (she is leaving for a two month job today) have all precluded my taking the time to write (or right, as the case may be - pardon the literary/political/accuracy triple pun, if you would). But I am going to keep it short here, and stick to personal stuff, instead of dealing with the many political/philosophical ramblings that are normally my wont.

Instead, I am going to talk a bit about my birthday. I normally tend to ignore these days, as they are just like any other - marking one day closer to the grave, one more day with some of my potential left unfulfilled, and one more day of putting off for the next what I should be doing today (boy, that sounded depressing, but worry not, gentle reader, all is well). Since my birthday is June 25, normally my students don't do anything about it (obviously - it is the summer and I ain't usually teachin' then). But somehow, they found out about my birthday; I don't know whether they got it from someone in the school year, or if I offhandedly mentioned it in conversation, but the kids were really sweet about it. They brought me a pie, and cupcakes for the whole class, and then while we were in lab, my TA and a friend of hers (who I had taught two years ago) decorated the room with a big happy birthday sign and balloons. Oh yeah, and my TA, a nice young lady named Jen (graduated SI this year - good chemistry student and TA now) also baked me a gigantic chocolate chip cookie and frosted it with " Happy Birthday - Use the force, Mr. M" as well as a little frosting light saber. Then another of my students from the school year stopped by and gave me a chocolate cupcake, even though she is not in my summer class - for some reason she remembered and was thoughtful enough to mark the occasion for me. After that, my niece called from her cell phone at my mom's house to tell me happy birthday. So I finally finish working for the day, and Supergoober comes over to watch UFC 99 with me, and he, my wife, and I all went out to dinner at the Rainbow Island restaurant in Pacifica - coconut rice, garlic eggplant, spicy red curry chicken and potatoes, and mango prawns. Like I said before, I am not really one to celebrate, but I did feel pretty good that day, and (though I don't necessarily think I deserved all the attention) I definitely appreciated it.

And yes, I did thank everyone.

Also, the GM remembered earlier and gave me an awesome present - the Leatherman Skeletool - which I have put to good use already. Thanks again.

Now in retrospect of writing this, it seems kinda self-absorbed, and I am wondering if I should even post it; in a way it seems like a reproach to those who did not remember - if you get that impression, it is not that at all (besides, you probably already emailed me greetings and I would never know - my fault for not checking the emails, but I'll get to it soon, I promise) - I have been very deliberate in the past to not celebrate my birthday, so I have no expectations from any of my friends - they show there appreciation of me every day that we hang out together, so a birthday is not that special - I am just grateful that you are all out there when I need you, and not just on one day - so I want to take a minute to just thank you all for being my friends.

Wow, I guess I am in a sappier mood than I realized, but I do truly mean that, as trite as it may be in the reading.