Curmudgeonry

It’s to be expected from the govgoons and burricrats, of course—it is part and parcel of their desire to track, and to be efficacious in tracking, individuals throughout all their activities, across all their days. But I have seen the cry echoed across one too many a private place. “You should have to use your real name!” squawk the parroting, semi-non-thinking plebes. Well, pray tell me this first: what is a real name—and what is real about a name?

Yesterday, while doing some browsing in between craft sessions with the snolfs, I encountered a statement by someone I had been thinking fairly well of (I say “fairly well” because his writings have, of late, been focused on a specific person ... you know the one ... running for Grand Poobah Over Us All). His statement floored me.

That title is meant to be warbled to the tune Who Knows Where the Time Goes? ... fortunately, email isn’t as flitting and fleeting as time. I am saddened to report that I am still having problems with the eddress associated with this domain.

I haven’t meant to be absent here so much of late. I have been busy with various things, and it’s hard to say no to the snolfs when they ask me to come outside to play or explore with them ... but those are only partial explanations.

I can appreciate wanting to update a classic essay for a contemporary audience ... but it isn’t as simple a thing as just changing out old-fashioned words for new. There’s a lot that must be understand about the original piece, as well as the contemporary idiom the author wants to put it in. Rhythm, flow, symbolism, allusions—all these, and more, may need to be considered. It takes a real wordsmith to pull off that kind of challenge.

I’ve just spent about 45 minutes downloading a bunch of music from two different sites that came to my attention within the past few days. One site primarily offers short clips of full songs; the other offers full songs in a variety of styles, including one I like but don’t see much of these days – ragtime.

So, anyone want to guess which music folder I’ve deleted, and which I’m currently listening to and enjoying immensely?

I used to enjoy reading c|net’s commentaries – labeled “Perspectives” – but no longer. It seems to me that the contributions from outside individuals have increasingly become very thin veneers for promoting their own interests. I present as evidence: Where did the music industry go so wrong?, by the CEO of a company that offers “products and services for indie artists”; Time for Fed to join the 21st century, by the CEO of a company that – as best I can tell from its jargon-laden site – just happens to be well-positioned to provide the system he advocates; the especially insufferable Two cheers for intellectual-property law, authored by Microsoft’s general counsel shark; and today’s example, Real ID is bad? Compared to what? by the president of a company that sells “infrastructure and application software for smart credential programs”.

Bill Gates to finally get Harvard degree, says the Seattle Times. Makes it sound like he’s been finishing his requirements for the sheepskin, doesn’t it? A more accurate representation comes out in the second paragraph of the story [emphasis mine]:

Bill Gates is finally getting his Harvard degree -- 32 years after he walked away from campus on the path to becoming the world's wealthiest person.

Gates, billionaire co-founder of Microsoft Corp., philanthropist and Harvard dropout, will receive an honorary degree in June when he delivers the university's 356th commencement address.

All such pieces of paper are becoming less valuable these days, but all the same, there is still a world of difference between that which is earned, and that which is merely given.

Arrrgh! Just after I praised (mildly) the Seattle Post-Intelligencer for a good commentary, I find this piece of drivel by Neal Starkman -- You can't beat going to the polls. A (hold your nose) sample:

[D]on't you find it somehow empowering to see your neighbors voting? Isn't it a good reminder that we're all in this together? I've always thought that the polling station is one of those few places where you can actually see democracy working in its pure form.

Our lives are so complex. Shouldn't we at least keep a special day with a simple, distinct ritual that symbolizes the system we're proud of?

I think we owe it to ourselves to do that.

Earlier, he says:

When it [voting] becomes a matter of course, like balancing a checkbook or paying a bill or responding to a questionnaire, then it loses its significance.

Uh, earth to Neal ... more than half of the individuals eligible to vote in this country don't do so already (and if you'd like to roll around in the numbers themselves, the snoops at the Census Bureau offer a page full of voting and registration data -- checking out the reasons for not voting [XLS file] was informative).

So much for significance. And no way, no how do I want to be "all in this together".

Yesterday I took a trip to the Big City nearby to do some errands, and to have dinner with some dear friends. It was a very enjoyable outing, even if much of our talk focused on the sad state of Amerikan life. But before I get to that ...

I drove a Ford Focus part of the way -- it's a friend's car and is being stored here while he's off adventuring. It is an aggravating piece of shit car. The first time I attempted to drive it, I ended up aborting the effort because I couldn't determine how to put the damn thing into reverse. Turns out one must pull up on the boot that covers the gear-shift stick, but there's no obvious sign that that's the magic key. [Yes, I know that Ford has been using tricksy maneuvers for reverse access in its cars for years -- I used to own a Mustang. Even that knowledge didn't help me figure out what to do.] Yah, maybe I should've read the manual before hopping into it, but a car that requires one to do that before being able to use fundamentally important stuff has been poorly designed. To get the front seats to fold forward in order to access the rear seat area, one must find and pull two levers, one of which is annoyingly close to the door panel. And, worst, there's a stupid upshift indicator arrow that lights whenever the car decides the driver ought to shift. Damn thing comes on even when one's downshifting. I easily solved that problem, though -- I moved the seat until the top of the steering wheel obscures the arrow. The gear shift is sloppy to the point of requiring active attention to ensure one's shifting into the proper gear. The car's peppy enough for an economy car, and it is fun to be driving a stick again, but the engineers who did its interior would benefit greatly from a refresher on ergonomics and good design.

***

Much of the drive to the Big City is on a road that's under construction -- from a two-lane road to a divided, four-lane road. Much of the fun is also being sucked out of the road -- curves and/or hills are scaled back or eliminated completely as the road sometimes moves quite a distance from its original path. The project has been a controversial one for years 'round here, and folks whose land was stolen to enable it are still voicing displeasure. One barn has this graffito:

If taxes were income we'd all be rich.

At first blush, I took that fairly literally (in terms of the redistributive aspects of taxation) and almost dismissed it. But then I thought about it again ... and there's truth in those words. Instead of thinking in terms of receiving money, but rather of lifting the burden of paying all the taxes Amerikans labor under, many of us (especially the less wealthy) would be much better off.

***

We met up with our friends at our usual place for dinner; all of us seemed to have a grand time discussing issues and ideas fairly freely [as freely as anarchists dare in public establishments these days]. The talk turned to health care ... not mine, but our friends', as they both have a condition that can be tricky to diagnose and bring under control. She's just now going through that process, and her story was quite telling, particularly for the amount of control her [allegedly good] insurance has over the care she's offered. After a short course (under two weeks!) of one oral med that wasn't working, it was recommended that she move to a much more serious, and invasive, treatment -- even though many other oral meds, with varying mechanisms of action, remain as viable options. She fortunately knew about a test that could show if the suggested course would help her, and insisted upon getting it before considering the invasive treatment option. The results revealed that it would be disastrous for her -- yet her MD is still pushing that course. My friend wants to try a different medication, having researched it online, but despite her willingness to pay for it all out of pocket, the MD is reluctant to prescribe it. It appears that's the case in part because the MD isn't very knowledgeable about this med. Why not? It isn't in the formulary (a book of the drugs available through the pharmacy provider and covered by insurance).

Of course, my friend is free to choose another insurance option -- during the one month of the year when such changes are allowed. In looking over the "choices", she discovered that all the plans use the same pharmacy provider, so switching wouldn't help her.

It's bad enough in my opinion when insurance -- which was originally intended to help an individual or family cover unforeseen medical expenses -- becomes a gatekeeper to basic diagnostic and treatment options. It's unconscionable that insurance policies have apparently helped breed lazy physicians who don't care enough about their patients to stay up to date on new options, irrespective of whether they're covered or not.

One could argue that this physician is one of the worst ones in that regard, and that others are better. But even in my insurance-free forays into the world of medicine recently, I've seen signs that the decline into McMedicine is broad. I remember when the patient was the customer, and even though the doctor held much of the power in the relationship, he knew that and took it seriously, trying to do the best possible for his customer. Those physicians seem to be in extremely short supply these days, at least in mainstream medicine. SimpleCare seems to be an exception, but isn't too widespread. But overall, insurance seems to be just another means of wresting control from individuals -- and to some nontrivial degree, without the knowledge of many, as they still trust that their healthcare providers are making recommendations based on what's best for them rather than what the policy will allow. A sobering cautionary tale for anyone who relies on the mainstream medical system ...

***

Okay, enough from the curmudgeon within. It's shaping up to be a nice day here, and I intend to spend much of it away from the computer (a welcome change!) and enjoying myself. I'll be tinkering around on various projects about the place -- including some glass work, I hope -- and lounging on the trampoline, reading. What, you've never stretched out on a sun-soaked trampoline? One of the best possible places for a snake to bask ...

[I]t is media's job to put the corrupt, the inept, the mendacious, the venal, the hypocritical and the plain stupid ''on blast,'' as the kids say, i.e., to publicize their sins and misdeeds broadly. To speak truth to power and truth about power. To call spades spades.

Written by a Miami Herald reporter in the aftermath of a rather ugly incident, in which he's trying to defend his fellow journalists' roles.

Am I the only one thinking that too many in the media "speak truth to power and truth about power" only when they've a soft target -- one without the teeth to bite back?

Information from Doctors Corner on melatonin:

More than 20 million Americans take melatonin supplements, spending between $200 million and $350 million each year. Depending on who you ask, melatonin is either just another hormone or a medical miracle. According to some supporters melatonin can conquer insomnia, prevent jet lag, battle cancer, rejuvenate your sex life and slow aging. All of this for only $4 to $8 per bottle. Unfortunately, there's no reputable evidence to back up any of these claims. ....

Melatonin appears to be safe when used as instructed. However, whether or not it helps with sleep is open to debate. There is no solid evidence to support using melatonin supplements to prevent insomnia, jet lag, fight cancer, enhance sexuality or slow the aging process. More study is needed and until research is complete use of melatonin supplements is not recommended.

So, don't take that melatonin, right? It's dangerous ...

But looky, looky at what the FDA just did:

The FDA has approved a new prescription sleep aid called Rozerem, which will reportedly treat insomnia without causing dependence. ....

The new drug, which will be available by late August, works differently from other sleep aids by helping to regulate the body's sleep-wake cycle. This will provide a new option for relief to the one-third of American adults who suffer from insomnia to one degree or another.

Rozerem works by stimulating the melatonin receptors in the brain, which regulate the sleep-wake cycle.

Ah, so it's okay for folks to meddle with their melatonin indirectly, as long as it's through their friendly neighborhood medical monopolists! Look for more of this sort of thing when Codex regulations get shoved down our throats ...

Who in his right mind would want this foisted upon Hawaiians?

After six years of trying, Sen. Daniel Akaka hopes to finally see a vote in the Senate this week on one of the hardest-fought measures of his congressional career -- his bill to grant his fellow Native Hawaiians federal recognition. ....

It would grant Native Hawaiians the same rights of self-government enjoyed by American Indians and Native Alaskans, and would lead to U.S. recognition of a native governing entity.

The full Houston Chronicle story, Senate to vote on bill to grant Native Hawaiians rights of self-government, is worth reading; it acknowledges that native Hawaiians are on both sides of the issue. There's also a great quote from Akaka that's unintentionally revealing about the USSA's motives, and how envy is being played to help get support for this welfare measure.

Seeing as how I don't have any affinity to any particular state or number of states in the USSA, perhaps a secession drive is in order for the Hawaiians who want their old system back ... It was a monarchy, for those who don't know.

Am I, an anarchist, advocating a coercive state system? Not for myself nor anyone else who doesn't want to live under a jackboot of any style; but if Native Hawaiians want a monarchy, and voluntarily choose it, what business is it of mine? I just wish the statists would grant individuals like me the same consideration.

Okay, it was more than momentary, but by my more typical individualist standards, it was undoubtedly a lapse of reason. My joining the Life, Liberty, and Property community, I mean. Turns out the group admin is all for life, liberty, and property as long as no one's feelings are hurt [see update, below]. Don't know how many of the group members think similarly, but I don't. I'm not going to air the dirty laundry here, because I really don't have a dog in this fight (and besides, quick Googling will likely bring it all up anyway). I will make a couple of observations, though.

First, if a person is going to dish something out publicly -- and a web site is a public venue, unless it's all tucked behind some kind of restricted-access fence -- he ought to be able to take it in kind. As one of the libfemme minority, I've more than a little experience in this sort of thing. Second, if an individual visits a site and gets offended by content there, why on earth would one keep going back? So that it will feel better when you finally stop? As I've said in an essay somewhat related to the topic, "You chose to browse my site, and the responsibility for your discomfort lies with you." Last, rubbing someone's nose in a sensitive spot is one way to exercise one's freedom of speech, but it can be a tasteless, immature way to do so. Those who engage in this sort of behavior lose some credibility with me, as they probably do with anyone who prefers a more mature level of discourse than that frequently encountered in spats between young siblings.

So, I'm outta there. I will be putting up links to individual blogs from the LLP community -- which is what I should've done in the first place. That will have to wait for a while, though, as I've several things to do this morning before I go off for the first of what is likely to be many sessions with the medical monopolists.

Last, I hope the forthcoming Webby Wanderings will atone for my bit of herd-thinking here.

Update: Eric has clarified in the comments that the member was shown the door due to rudeness. Now that's something I can understand ... regrettable, still, but if someone wants to be his own worst enemy, it's his choice. I may or may not agree with Eric's actions, and the reasons behind them, but he's the admin of the LLP group and gets all the glory and praise for that fun job, along with the headaches. .... What, there's no glory and praise? :O ;) Now back to work with me! (I made a misnake; the medical fun begins tomorrow.)

Update 7/14: Having taken the time to look more closely into some things that contributed to this situation, I now see that Eric was right to do what he did. I apologize for any harm that might have come to his or the LLP group's reputation by my hasty, ill-informed action.

Yesterday Annie turns on the financial news, and as usual, puts on CNN in the picture-in-picture (PiP). On CNN they are announcing that within half an hour the verdict in the Michael Jackson trial will be announced. She watches her program, switching to CNN during the commercials. At the end of the hour, still no verdict, but we had many shots of Jackson's motorcade.

An hour later she puts on another program, with CNN in PiP. The verdict has come in and now CNN is devoting the entire hour to talking about it. The next hour came Paula Zhan who announced a special program on the verdict, starting with a "legal defense analyst". At that point we turned off the TV for the evening.

We know that CNN devoted at least four hours, and probably more, to this piece of news. And I do not think it is all that bad. After all, he is a well known person, and people are interested. Also, these high profile trials, with their attendant news coverage, give Jane and Joe Public a glimpse of the legal process. Not a bad thing.

But is it too much to ask that CNN devote the same amount of coverage to important Supreme Court decisions, such as Raich?

Can you imagine it:

"This is Wolf Blitzer with breaking news at the Supreme Court. We hear the Justices have a ruling in the medical marijuana case. Now over to John X our reporter at the court. John, what can you tell us?"

"Wolf, the Justices have ruled six to three that Federal law takes precedence over state law in this case. The interesting thing is that Justice Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion, used the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution to justify the ruling."

"John, you say six to three, who dissented and why?"

"Wolf, dissenting were Chief Justice Rehnquist and justices O'Connor and Thomas. Justice Thomas' opinion is that the court has opened to door to unlimited federal power."

When they get to the "analysis" part, they have the pro and anti marijuana folks condemning and praising the decision. They do interviews with the court clerks and the attorneys that argued the case. On Larry King Live they have Angel Raich and her husband on for the call in.

All great entertainment. All which will draw good ratings, especially if they pumped it like they pumped the Jackson trial.

Is it too much to ask that they give real news, that has a serious impact on the lives of all inhabitants of the US, the same treatment they give to a celebrity trial?