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.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, July 6, 2009
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 ;)
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 ;)
Friday, July 3, 2009
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.
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).
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).
Thursday, July 2, 2009
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 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.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
