No Mayo... Not Acceptable...

I was commenting on three different threads today about french fries/steak fries/chips etc...

I am an Irish American (my family are immigrants and I lived there for years). From both sides, I have been eating fried potatoes in stick like form from about birth... My son started taking them off our plates at 4 months old and now get mighty pissy if we don't share with him.

As such, I am a true lover of the fried potato...

Having lived and eaten all over the world, I generally personally prefer mine in the american "steak fry" form, which is much like the Irish/English "chip", except usually served slightly crisper and hotter.

As it happens, a friend of mine, Jonathan Katz, is about to move his family to Belgium for an interesting career opportunity.

To which I posted:

"Belgium... mayonnaise on french fries... <suppressed shudder> good luck man... "

I realize I may have created the impression there, that I think Belgians make bad french fries...

Actually, in my experience, they make the best pommes frites (potato fries) in the world.

In fact, they "invented" "french fries" as we know them, Americans having misapplied the name "french" to them some time in the late 19th century, and then reinforcing it after world war one... probably because it was alliterative, and we can't resist alliteration in names.

Belgian pommes frites, or usually just "frites", are almost the perfect synthesis of all that is good about American french fries and steak fries, and English/Irish chips.

They're usually cut a bit bigger than french fries, a bit smaller and not as planklike as chips or steak fries (sometimes called "natural cut" "hand cut" or "thick cut" in the u.s.), and served at a crispness in between the softer "chip", and the crisper American style "fry". Just about the same crispness that I would consider the perfect "steak fry".

Importantly, they achieve this texture by being twice cooked (as any who make their own fries should do). First they are either blanched in salted/acidulated water, or parcooked in low temperature oil (sometimes both). Then they are allowed to cool, and just before service they are flash fried to crisp them up.

This results in a perfect creamy potato interior, without hollowing out or being gummy, and a perfect crispy exterior that STAYS crisp longer.

Done well, they're absolutely wonderful, and Belgium has many many places that do them well.

I would wager that Belgians eat frites, as much as Americans eat fries. They are as much the national side dish there, as they are here, or maybe even more. Steak frite, moule frite, just about anything frite...

Also, Belgian have an entirely civilized and appropriate custom of frites as street food, snack food, even just for lunch.

Take note Americans... this is a GOOD IDEA.

Frankly, the only way I like mussels is moules et frites avec lardon, and the Belgians do THAT better than anyone else in the world (particularly with a nice bier).

I have only one issue with Belgians and frites...

... it's that they just ruin these perfect crispy pieces of potato goodness... by putting mayonnaise on them.

Of course, being the frites capital of the world, they also put other things on them... Lots of other things in fact... But by default, and by far most popular, is mayonnaise.

No... Just no... (though Belgian mayo is FAR better than U.S. mayo for the most part).

That is just not acceptable.

Acceptable toppings for fries include:

1. Nothing - Properly fried are good enough on their own
2. Salt - but nothing is so good it can't be made better with a bit of salt
3. Vinegar
4. Ketchup - Which is a combination of salt, vinegar, sugar, and tomato (sparingly please... too much and a fry is just a ketchup delivery vehicle, with all of it's own flavor overwhlemed)
5. Cheese
6. Chili
7. Eggs (scrambled, fried, or poached)
8. Gravy (turkey, beef, or sausage)
9. Hot sauce including hot mustard
10. Other meats in savory sauces, possibly including cheese.

Please take note, mayonnaise is not among these options.

Corollary to that for midwestern/northwestern Americans... Fry sauce is mostly mayonnaise, and is therefore right out.

"Climate Change", and the false dichotomy of "evil or stupid"

Once again the drumbeat is sounding throughout that land, that Republicans... or rather, everyone not a leftists... are "anti-science", "pro-ignorance" etc... etc...

I am constantly hearing some variant of "Republicans are either evil or stupid for not... X".

The sad part of course, is that a certain percentage of non-leftists, including libertarians and conservatives are in fact, nuts, particularly about science... and another large block are ignorant.

Of course, so are large blocks of those on the left... but that's not what we're talking about right now.

There are certainly many scientific issues over which the ideological spectrum split, but likely the biggest one, with the most uniform split (there's very few whose ideological "side" don't match the position staked out by that side, to some degree or another)....

"Climate Change"

Ok, talked about it here before, and there's plenty of great resources on the topic (try Climate Skeptic and Watts Up for a start)... But it's an issue among my friends right now, and Neil Degrasse Tyson has been talking about it lately, facebook is covered with it right now etc...

So, let me just lay things out for a bit...

First, YES, there ARE loonies out there who say that there is no climate change "because Jesus" or "It's all a conspiracy man" etc... etc... etc...

Feel free to ignore them, as you would on every other subject. They don't represent any kind of reality based universe, never mind a rational position.

There are also those who simply say that there is no such thing as climate change whatsoever... But mostly they are either ignorant of, or don't understand, the science, math, or historical record in question

And yes, there are far more of those than there should be in 2014.

However, some of us come to our positions through a knowledge of science, engineering, math, the scientific method, research methodologies and data analysis.

There are those, myself among them, who actually DO understand science, and don't believe in CATASTROPHIC, ANTHROPOGENIC, CO2 FORCED, global warming, leading to systemic, catastrophic climate change.

We are not irrational, ignorant, evil, driven by unsavory motives, or stupid.

We come to this position, because we understand that:

1. The question isn't whether climate is changing and will change in the future, it always has and always will. The question is how much has it, how much will it in the future, and why.
2. Catastrophic, anthropogenic, global warming leading to catastrophic climate change, is a tightly interconnected theory. For any element of the conclusions to be correct, ALL of the suppositions within the theory must be correct. The instant any of them changes, at all, the theory falls apart.
3. The mathematical models for this have always been highly speculative and have proven non predictive both forward and backward.
4. The data is greatly variable ( and often poor) in quality, and is adjusted in ways that make it less than useful for a model with high sensitivity predictions, because small changes or inconsistencies in the data make big changes in the model.
5. The catastrophic model adopted by the U.N. has some major dependencies which are entirely theoretical, and have not been borne out by historical facts; specifically estimates of forcing, estimates of weighting of various factors, and particularly estimates of extremely high sensitivity to certain factors (especially CO2), that while throughout all of history have exhibited one behavior (a stable, negative feedback system), for some reason (i.e. humanity is bad and stuff), things have changed now... even though CO2 has been much higher in the past, and it didn't happen then... Such that a very small change in CO2 will have a large multiplier effect, transforming the stable negative feedback system that the climate has been throughout the entirety of history to this point, to an unstable positive feedback system.
6. There is no evidence for this catastrophic theory, nor does it correspond with historical models, or models that prove to be historically predictive (i.e. if you run the model backwards and forwards in time, it matches roughly with what actually happened).
7. This prediction has been made since the mid 80s (prior to the mid 80, from the early 70s they were predicting global cooling and ice age by the way), and the models have proven to be grossly inaccurate. They are constantly revised to reflect the same conclusion, but never actually predict what ACTUALLY happens in the real world. There was initially slightly more warming than the previous historical models predicted, but by 1991 warming was back to the historical trend line, and there has actually been no significant warming since 1994-1998 depending on exactly which dataset you look at.
8. Human outputs from all of industry, vehicles etc... Make up less than 1% of total atmospheric CO2... actually between .3 and .4%. The VAST majority of CO2 comes from forests, oceans, animals, and soil (and the bacteria contained therein). They also absorb CO2 in the natural CO2 cycle.
9. If the historical, non catastrophic models prove correct, and they have so far, there will be between less than 1 and just over 2 degrees centigrade warming in the next 100 years. This is not catastrophic, and is consistent with warming/cooling cycles throughout history.
10. If all human output of carbon dioxide and other theorized elements of climate change stopped right now, today... That number wouldn't change at all, or at most very little. Within the margin of error.
11. Once you take the catastrophic sensitivity to a tiny change out of the model, many other factors become far greater "forcings", particularly the suns variability (relating to sunspot cycles).
12. If the catastrophic models are correct, either we already have, or we soon will, pass the point of no return. We would not only have to completely stop emitting CO2 entirely, but we would have to take large amounts of it out of the environment.
13. No matter what, the developing world isn't going to stop burning wood, and coal, and growing and modernizing and using as much hydrocarbons as they can. They don't give a damn what european liberals think, they just want to cook their dinners and have lights at night.
14. No matter what, China and India aren't going to stop being 80+% of all CO2 emissions from human sources, because if they did they'd all be plunged into even greater poverty and likely starve to death. 

What it comes down to is this:

1. If the catastrophic models are correct, it's too late to do anything about it anyway.
2. Even if every western nation utterly stopped producing ANY output which contributed to climate change, it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever.
3. If the catastrophic theory is wrong, and everything point to it being so, then we would be spending trillions of dollars, destroying economies, ruining millions or billions of peoples lives etc... All for little or nothing.
4. There are real, actual, proven problems that are far more likely to be important, and that we can actually do something about, that are much better ways to spend our time and money.

Ok... so why do so many people support the idea... particularly so many scientists?

The same reason anyone does anything... because it aligns with their perceived incentives, beliefs, worldview, narrative, and identity. 

To wit...

1. Funding
2. Social signaling an ingroup identification
3. Politics
4. Power and control (climate change legislation is all about taking power and control from one group, and giving it to another)
5. Ideology and alignment with world view
6. The precautionary principle
7. Anti-capitalism
8. Funding
9. Because if they don't, they don't get jobs, their papers don't get published, they don't get university positions etc...
10. Because they know that it's not as bad as the press makes it out to be, but that making it super duper scary is the only way to make the morons out there pay attention and actually make some of the good positive changes that need to happen (like more energy efficient technology, and more research into alternative energy)
11. Because the entire world has lined up into teams, not just about climate change, but about ALL social, cultural, and scientific issues... Evolution, homosexuality, everything else about the environment etc... and one team has decided to label themselves "progressive" and "liberal" and "pro science" and the other team "anti science", and nobody wants to be "regressive" and "anti-science".
12. Did I mention funding? There is no funding in saying "things are going to be about like they always have been, with some small changes as expected, and maybe a very small degree of increased change... it will have some moderate impacts". That's boring, and it gets ignored, and no-one gets any funding, and you can't do additional research on it. No-one is paying for research into squirrel populations and how "1 degree per century of climate change will impact them).

Yes... I repeated myself, in several different ways there... That was intentional.

The Broken Record

Catastrophists have a record, of being broken records... and being mostly or entirely wrong.

From 1974 until 1985 or thereabouts, many of the exact same scientists, politicians, pundits, and environmentalists who today are saying are going to warm our way into a combination of ice age, deserts, and typhoons everywhere... were saying the exact opposite.

At the time, their theories and models said that we were going to precipitate our own ice age, blocking out the sun, and that crops would fail and we would starve to death.

The fact is, we've heard over and over again for decades that if we don't do exactly what this one particular group wants us to do about any particular issue within 5, 10, 20 years etc... that we're all gonna die, the world is gonna end, everything will turn to dust, there will be no birds, no trees...

Anyone remember when acid rain was going to kill us all?

Yes, in part, it's because we did respond to the concerns of the environmentalists, regulations were changed somewhat, technology got better, we polluted less and cleaned up more. These are all good things.

But mostly it was because they were dramatically overstating both the problems, and the solutions; either because they actually believed it, or for political reasons...

Seems to me, mostly for political reasons.

Mostly we haven't done what they asked.

The world didn't end.

We didn't all die.

Of course, that doesn't mean they aren't right this time...

...One of these times they just might be... or at least they might be more right than wrong...

...it just means that we should really be very careful, and very skeptical, about what they say, what we believe, and what we do about it.

Oh and one more thing...

There is one final, and almost universal test of the validity of someones claim that "everything has to change".

It can't prove that a claim is true... but it can nearly always prove a false claim to be false, or at least greatly exaggerated.

Simplified, it's called the "Act as If" test.

Does the person making the claim, act as they would if the claim were true, and as urgent as they say?

Is it conclusive? No... but it's a pretty strong indicator.

Do those who say they believe in truly catastrophic anthropogenic global warming pass this test?

Do they actually act as they would, if they actually believed their predictions. 

The answer is very much no... not even close.

So, if they don't... why should anyone else?

Susi Art... Bucking the Narrative...

There's been a lot of "Boston Pride" shirts to come out over the last year... very few of them from Boston companies, or Boston natives as far as I can tell... and most of them more or less exploitative of the marathon bombing.

I won't get into it any further here, but I'm not interested in that at all.

That said, I love the city of my birth and childhood. I wouldn't want to live there anymore, given the politics and traffics and cost of living, but I still love it, and I go back and enjoy it when I can.

At the moment, I don't have any "Boston" clothing other than a couple of Patriots hats and Jerseys. Most of what's out there, I don't like, but I've had half an eye out for something classy, or interesting, or just... not like all the rest of the "Boston" crap.

I Like this one... a lot: Susi Art - Boston Respect Tee

It's classy, it's simple, it tweaks the normal expectations (it looks like the rest of the generic "Boston" stuff, until you look a bit closer), it appreciates the history and culture of our town... I like it, and when I can grab one, I think I will.

Actually I like most of what Susi Art does. They're mining the rich area of pop culture appreciation, but in a way that tweaks or twists... even satirizes in some ways (some of their pieces are really very funny, or dark, or have a VERY skewed point of view... just not the ones they're using to sell commercial design with on their website)... both the straightforward, and the hipsterish or ironic appreciation of it.

I like that.

Here's another piece of their design work (done for another companies product line):

It's the Beantown Sully doll, from the "Talkin Townies" line of plush dolls. Yes, it talks, and yes, it doesn't speak english, it speaks Bostonian...

Done wrong, this would just be condescending, exploitive, or stupid. Done right, as this is, it's funny and affectionate. It's gently mocking our own ridiculousness.

Understanding that you can appreciate and love something, and still be self aware and make fun of yourself for loving it... without ironic detachment from it, and with an appreciation of it's historical and cultural context... That works for me.

Of course it does... I'm a geek, and a pop culture and history fanatic, without being a fanboy... The statements are almost synonymous.

What really works for me, is that while Susi Art's pieces are certainly commercial art, they reflect a genuine point of view, expressed sincerely. It's not just a gimmick or a technique to sell to folks like me.

Most importantly, the work is truly reflective of the artist behind these pieces.

It doesn't matter how commercial something is; if it genuinely reflects the artists point of view, sensibility, passion, experience... THAT'S ART.

I would feel that way, and like the work, no matter what... But there's something more to it.

What's really interesting, is that all that stuff I talked about above, tweaking expectations etc... it's not just a point of view, it's also the artists life story.

I've known Frank Susi since we were both in grade school, and have been friends with him for something like 25 years. He's an interesting, funny, very smart, incredibly decent, and genuinely nice guy... but he's still more than a little twisted.

...And he stands peoples expectation straight on their heads.

Howzat?

Frank could have had an "80s teen movie heart throb" life.

He's a great looking guy, standout athlete in several sports (he could have played AAA baseball, and certainly had the opportunity to play college ball), a good student, and his family has run a number of successful businesses for many years.

If Frank had followed "the script", he would have gone on to a business degree at Boston College, maybe an MBA, come back to run the family business, married the beauty queen, and lived happily (or unhappily depending on who wrote the script) ever after.

For a while, it looked like that was just what he was going to do... at least from the outside.

But that's not what he wanted.

Instead, he flipped the script and said... "Hey, that art stuff that I really love? That I'm passionate about... Yeah, I'm actually going to do that instead, because that's what makes me happy".

Now... that story has been told more than a few times as well... it's just a different kind of script... Sensitive artists type bucks expectations to sacrifice for his art etc... etc...

What I haven't seen done to death by hollywood, is a story like Franks.

Frank didn't go mope around New York and "suffer for his art" living in bohemian squalor etc... etc... Hoping for a "big break".

Frank decided to make it happen, with brains and hard work, and without being "precious" about "purity" of his art.

He studied fine arts at a tiny liberal arts college in the middle of nowhere, and went around absorbing and learning about what he loved...

...And then he got down to work, and started hustling to get his art out there. He took his grounding in the family business, and in dealing with small businesses around New England, and saw how he could try to make a living, and make a business, with his art.

Importantly, Frank understood that to be a successful business, he had to do what his customers wanted (and would pay for), as well as what he wanted.

So in addition to Franks original artwork (and the work of other artists who they work with), Susi Art does commercial art and design work, custom and promotional work, screen printing, t-shirts, signs and the like... and they do them very well, on time, and on budget.

You know... like a business is supposed to.

Frank isn't selling out, he's making a living with his art. That's something many people claim to want more than anything.

Unfortunately, it seems that many of them don't know or believe it's necessary to (or think it "shouldn't be" for "good art"), or don't seem to be willing to; put in the hard work, OVER AND ABOVE the hard work of their art (believe me, I wouldn't ever deny that art can be hard work), that it takes to be successful.

Well... Frank has been doing it for 15 years now... so he must be doing something right.

RIP Jeffro

We have no details as of yet, but I've been told that my good friend and fellow blogger Jeff Borland , a.k.a. Jeffro of "The Poor Farm" has passed on.

If you know Jeff, you know that he has been struggling with serious health problems for several years.... and when I'm the one saying that...

Jeff has had a number of emergency hospital visits, and a few long hospital stays the last few months... He knew every day was a gift, in a way that only those of us who have had to face not having any more of them directly, ever do.

This is the last picture we have with Jeff, enjoying time with our family, this past January:

He was a great friend, and a good man.

Rest In Peace Bubba... We're all going to miss you.

The Ultimate Hot Dog

Ahh, the joys of a simple hot dog...

Now, you won't find anyone who appreciates a simple steamed or grilled hot dog more than I... Especially if a really nice one with some snap to it, grilled just right...

But sometimes... you want... MORE.

More meat, more flavor, more texture...

For those times, you need... OVERKILL

This my friends, is overkill... the ultimate hot dog.

1. 1. Start with a good quality hot dog (we like nathans, hebrew national, kayem, or pearl), either grilled, or pan fried in butter, till it's got a little nice char on it.
   
2. Wrap a slice of cheese around it.
   
3. Crisp up a potato pancake (also known as a hashbrown patty), and break it in half. Slip both halves into the bun, then drop the cheese wrapped hot dog in between.
   
4. Top with pulled pork
   
5. Top the pulled pork, with hot chili (or chili bean stew)
   
6. Top the pulled pork and chili with a thick slice of crispy black pepper bacon. 

Mustard and hot sauce optional.
Sour or garlic pickle, absolutely necessary.
Ketchup, absolutely forbidden on pain of death.

Optional, but STRONGLY recommended... If you can, get New England style "double cut" hot dog buns (lobster roll buns), and griddle them with butter.

You're welcome.

Note: The layers, and how they are layered, is important, for more than just flavor and texture. The hash brown adds structure to the whole thing, reinforcing the bun. Without it, the bun won't support the dog, the pulled pork, and the chili. The bacon acts as a cap to the whole thing, keeping the topping on the dog, or in your mouth, instead of on your shirt.

It's not about capability, it's about coverage...

Those are "all the worlds aircraft carriers"... at least in theory.

From the story:

"Each of those Nimitz-class carriers has twice the fighter complement of anything else floating (80 vs 40). Each of those fighters is heavier than anything any of the other carriers (except the Charles Du Galle) can launch. They can also sortie much more frequently than their equivalents. In practical terms those carriers are probably something like 4-6x more effective than their equivalents. The smaller ships are amphibious assualt ships, smaller than carriers, but with still more force projection capabilities than most other actual aircraft carriers. This is how overkill our military is, and this is just the navy."

Yeah, both the image, AND the commentary are misleading.

First of all, there are 10 Nimitz Class currently in commission, not 12. All the other decks are not fixed wing non-V/STOL capable (they can't take fighters, bombers, radar, or support aircraft), they're helicopter/jump jet decks... Primarily they're Marine assault ships.

Of the 10 Nimitz class ships, at least 2 (and usually 3 or more) are in overhaul, refit, workup, or maintenance down cycle status at any given time (currently Lincoln is down for major overhaul, and TR just came out of it).

Overhaul on a nimitz class takes FOUR years. Minor refit is 6-18 months. Maintenance down cycle is 3-6 months.

That leaves, at best, 8 available decks for coverage.

Then we get down to the real issue... taskings.

The U.S. is the only nation that has taskings in every ocean, 365 days a year, every year, peace or war.

Congress has set the Navy's mission parameters such that they are supposed to have a deck available to be no more than 300 miles off ANY SHORE in the world, within 3 days steaming, 24 hours preferred; and to be able to have 2 decks operating at any "trouble spot" within 7 days.

Further, they are supposed to be able to task 2 decks to "trouble", and still meet all their other taskings elsewhere.

What it comes down to, is the president is supposed to be able to pick up the phone and say "I need a carrier there NOW", and have it happen.

...More to the point, he's never supposed to have to say "why CAN'T I have a carrier there right now?".

This is NOT POSSIBLE with 8 decks for coverage.

In fact, it's not possible with 12 decks for coverage... but that's the goal. Being able to have 12 decks up means that we can (just barely) do everything we've actually been ordered to do by congress.

Unfortunately that's never going to happen, because of funding.

We're going to get 11 decks TOTAL (not online and operating) in 2016 or so when Ford comes online, but by the time... or IF... we get Kennedy and Enterprise, they won't be augmenting, they'll be replacing Nimitz and Eisenhower.

Oh and even with 12 decks, that discounts the one immutable fact of any military operation, any platform, any piece of gear... "stuff" happens. In particular "stuff" breaks.

So yes, while any one of our carriers is equivalent to ALL of any other nations... It has to be.

We can either build more decks, or we can change the mission... but we can't complain about there being too many decks for the mission.

Let's break it down to a smaller scale example.

If you need four cops to cover a neighborhood, you don't need four cops, you need an absolute minimum of 18 (or ideally more).

3 shifts a day, 7 days a week, 4 man coverage, means 84 shifts (I'm simplifying assuming 8 hour shifts... that rarely happens of course. I'm also not accounting for overlap, which is required, and typically means 25% more hours required... and admin/court time, another 25%... but we're simplifying).

One body covers 5 shifts a week, without overtime.

That means 17 (16 plus 4 shifts means 17) bodies for coverage, and one floater for illness etc... Really you need at least two, but you make up the difference with overtime.

If you want to run at above minimums, accounting for overlap and admin time, have some margin for "in case stuff" and to keep your people from burning out, you need 28.

Nobody does that of course... they run overtime.

You can run carriers at "overtime"... for a while anyway... What "overtime" means for a carrier (and it's crew), is they don't get their required maintenance and downtime, things break more, people get fatigued, mistakes get made...

...and that's when people start dying.

It's not about staffing... it's about tasking. It's not about capabilities, it's about coverage.

There can be no other explanation...

I got a comment on my post "Why I am NOT a libertarian", which amused me to no end:

"If you are stupid and uneducated, who is writing your posts? 

False humility is not a virtue."

Yeah...

Somehow, the notion that someone could be obviously highly intelligent, and yet still have humility about their intellect...

...Or rather, perhaps to be more precise, lack the hubris necessary to believe that I could possibly EVER be intelligent enough, that I can make decisions for anyone else...

... is utterly inconceivable.

Someone with the I.Q. and education I have, COULDN'T POSSIBLY be sincere, and actually mean that I was not, and could not possibly be, smart enough.

I MUST be lying for rhetorical effect, or being ironically self aggrandizing.

There can be no other explanation...

Perhaps my long term history of passionately expressing this idea both personally, and as a libertarian activist and writer; with for example, pieces like this:

"It's Not About Elites or Idiots"

... could "prove" that I actually believe in what I have said.

Perhaps...

But, for those possessed of the authoritarian or paternalistic worldview...

...probably not.

There are more reasons than can be counted, why hubris, is the greatest, and most dangerous, sin (be it spiritual, intellectual, or both).

Sleep Debt

Sadly, if I get 4 hours a night, I'm lucky... or sick.

In fact, the last time I got more than 4 hours was when I was recovering from almost dying... so yeah.

At the moment though, I'm more sleep deprived than usual.

As I write this, 2am on a Friday morning, I've slept a grand total of about 18 hours in the last 7 days, no more than 2 hours at a time, and no more than 4 hours in any 24.

... and I've had 5 phone interviews so far this week...

I basically never sleep more than 6 hours unless I'm ill, I've physically exhausted myself, or I've gone too many days in a row with less than 4 hours. I don't recall ever having slept 6 or more hours for more than 3 days in a row.

When I was 20 though, I could do that for weeks at a time and still be OK. Not optimal, but OK.

As I've got older, my insomnia has SLIGHTLY improved... But my need for sleep has GREATLY increased.

Honestly, I can't recall an age when I didn't have trouble sleeping (my mother says I never slept much even as a baby) but it started getting bad around age 5, and by 13 I would regularly go days at a time without sleep.

Around 19 I started improving, until I stabilized in my mid 20s averaging around 4 hours a night, with "catchup" nights every few days of 6 hours or so.

From then until the cancer hit hard, I got a bit better, a few more six hour nights, a bit fewer under 4 hour nights etc...

Then the cancer and the endocrine problems made both the insomnia worse, and the need for sleep greater.

Then we had a baby.

Then he started teething and having growing pains at the same time.

That was six months ago... He hasn't stopped yet... won't for a while...

Lovely how that works sometimes huh?

The really funny thing though, is that almost everyone I know online (and most in person for that matter), almost every conversation you have ever had with me, and almost everything I've ever written...

All of it was while I was severely and chronically sleep deprived.

Yes... All of that was me with a fraction of my full energy and focus...

I'll leave it to those who have seen me while I was well rested and healthy to comment on what I'm like then, if they wish. I'm not exactly the best observer there, because I'm so used to it.

Sleep deprived, I do feel slower, less aware alert and perceptive, and less able to focus and split my attention and multi-task effectively. This of course worsens as my sleep debt builds; but until the deprivation gets REALLY bad, it only feels slightly different to me, inside my own head

Significant Precision

Lawyers believe that they are trained to speak and write extremely precisely, particularly while in a deposition or courtroom.

It is pounded into their heads over and over again in Law School how important it is to communicate precisely. The law can be a very technical subject, hinging on very fine distinctions. They are shown example after example of the results of imprecise communication, and how it can be exploited.

Compared to "normal" people, they DO communicate precisely. After all, imprecision in a lawyers speech can lead to their clients losing a great deal of money, or going to jail.

They don't come within shouting distance, of the precision of communication required and regularly practiced, by either doctors or engineers.

When you internalize the notion that imprecision in your communication can kill someone... or lots of people... particularly after watching it happen... That changes things entirely.

At the same time, both engineers and doctors can be MADDENINGLY vague about anything they consider unimportant, irrelevant, uninteresting, or so basic as to be understood by them as unnecessary to explain.

Even... perhaps especially... when that is exactly what you are asking about, or need to know.

This can make for some... interesting... problems.

Why I am NOT a libertarian...

I am not a libertarian because I think I'm smarter than you.

I am not a libertarian because I think I'm better educated than you.

I am not a libertarian because I think I'm morally or ethically superior to you.

I am not a libertarian because I think I have better ideas about running things than you.

I am a libertarian, because I recognize that no matter how smart, educated, experienced, informed, and competent I THINK I am...

...I KNOW that I am ALSO stupid, uneducated, inexperienced, ignorant, incompetent, and fallible...

...just like everyone else.

I am a libertarian, because I recognize that I do not have all of the information, knowledge, education, experience, judgement, and wisdom; to always make good decisions about MY OWN life, business, or circumstances.

I am a libertarian, because I understand that in fact, it is impossible for me to do so.

I am a libertarian, because if that's true of my OWN life... Then I absolutely and certainly do not, and can not; have the information, knowledge, education, experience, judgement, and wisdom; about YOUR, or ANYONE ELSES life, business, or circumstances, to make anyone elses decisions for them.

And neither do you...

And neither does the government...

Faith, and Schism

In matters of faith, I identify myself as a schismatic catholic, or a catholic in schism with my church.

Several people have asked me what I mean by that. I have explained it before as part of larger discussions, but it came up again today, so I thought I would clarify it here.

I used to call myself a "recovering catholic"...

Then I "recovered" about as much as I was going to, and in my own exploration of self, faith, and the ACTUAL tenets of catholicism (as opposed to what people THINK they are, even people who should know better... even other catholics), I discovered that I was in fact, very much still a catholic. I was just in schism with my church.

There are many things the church does or says, that I disagree with: either because I think they are unrelated to the teachings of god through christ and the mission and purpose of the church (ceasar what is ceasars, god what is gods etc...), or because I believe as a matter of conscience that the current teaching as currently expressed, is incorrect, misguided, or without foundation in the teachings of God through Christ.

My differences with the church are in matters of politics and policy (and sometimes in how these are reflected in current guidance and teachings), and in some semantical issues (disagreements in definition or interpretation)... not in matters of faith.

This does not make me heretical or apostate, nor does it excommunicate me, because of the doctrine of informed conscience (sometimes called enlightened conscience). I am still in communion and fellowship with the universal church.

What it does, is place me in schism.

Freedom, Group Identification, and Consequences

To anyone trying to make the Cliven Bundy issue, or the Donald Sterling issue, or the Brendan Eich issue about freedom of speech...

...PLEASE STOP...

They are unrelated, and MOSTLY irrelevant, to free speech.

None are a question of freedom of speech.

All three are a question of bad PR and violating contract terms.

These idiots are not victims of oppression... at least as far as speech goes.

"Well, that's just your perspective... this is mine"

No... You can have your own opinions, you cannot have your own facts.

This is not an opinion or a perspective, it is a fact. In making this argument, you are entirely and completely incorrect, in both fact and in principle.

That's not so bad... it's OK to be wrong... everyone is wrong about many things, every day.

What IS so bad, and why you must be corrected, is that by passionately advocating such a patently false viewpoint, and making weak and specious arguments to support it, you weaken the very important ACTUAL battle to restore and maintain free speech.

Using bad arguments for your cause HURTS your cause, it does not help it.

There are some very serious threats to free speech in this country, particularly on college campuses and in schools. There are supreme court cases in this session, and coming up addressing these issues right now... and the picture is decidedly mixed.

• We are dangerously close to criminalizing, or at least accepting some kind of official sanction, on "hate speech" in this country. We already HAVE criminalized "suspect motivations", through "hate crime" law.
• The Government is spying on and intimidating reporters, with the DOJ going after those it perceives as enemies.
• Witnesses are being suppressed out of fear of government retaliation.
• The IRS has gone after conservative political groups, simply for being conservative.
• We have enacted insane regulations about who can say what, when, and with how much and whose money, when it comes to politics and elections. 

These are HUGE REAL PROBLEMS.

By equating things which are not about rights and freedoms, to things which are, you weaken rights and freedoms, and make them more difficult to defend.

Freedom of speech means you have the right to say as you damn well please and the government can't stop you or punish you for it (except in some very strictly limited ways).

It doesn't mean that private persons or organizations have to publish you, support you, employ you, associate with you, provide you with a forum or an audience, or listen to you.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence.

If you can't back everything you say, and accept the consequences, then perhaps your problem is not one of lack of freedom, but of lack of courage.

"But... but... political correctness... thought police... BAD"

Yes.

I never said that political correctness WASN'T a chilling force on freedom of speech and even freedom of conscience... Of course it is.

...But that is not the same as government using force against you because of it (though with "hate speech" and things like campus "speech codes", we have to be very careful of that).

The problem with believing in freedom is that you have to believe in it for everyone, including people you don't like, or whose ideas you don't like, or who do bad things with it.

Private individuals and organizations can choose who they wish to associate with freely, and who they wish to support or oppose freely (or at least they are supposed to be able to).

That means both things and people that you like, and things and people that you don't.

That means you can be fired for expressing yourself. It means you can be fired for your political and social views. It means you can be fired for your private behavior. It means you can lose your customers, your money, your reputation...

In fact, everything but your life, and your freedom.

A free society means we have to put up with that.

We don't have to like it, but we DO have to put up with it.

And many of us actually have very little problem with it... so long as it's aligned with THEIR personal beliefs.

Frankly, I don't see very many "social conservatives" complaining very much when it's "progressives", gays, atheists, muslims, "perverts" etc... who experience negative consequences for their beliefs (admittedly, that is certainly not true of all. Some do decry all of this as suppression of free speech and freedom of conscience).

Most "social conservatives" aren't complaining when church groups or conservative groups try to get certain things banned, or removed from libraries or schools, or have teachers, or school administrators, or abortion providers fired...

...because you don't like their ideas or how they express them.

...Really, most anyone who you would identify as the enemy, or the "other side" or whatever other outgroup identification it may be.... seems it's ok to you if THEY have to live with the consequences of their choices, actions, and words...

Most of you are only complaining when it's happening to those you identify as YOUR ingroup, or for people whose opinions and ideas you agree with.

Again, not always, not everyone... but most.

The same of course is true of "the other side"... starting to see the point yet?

So really... What you're asking for is not "freedom of speech", it's "freedom of speech that you like", and freedom FROM both speech, and consequence that you don't.

That's not freedom. That exactly the same as "the other side"... you just like the opinions better.

Arguing From a Position of Ignorance

Atheists without any theological background, education, or training...

Please, stop trying to speak authoritatively on this subject, of which you know little or nothing.

You cannot teach, that which you do not know.

By doing so, you are spreading ignorance and misinformation throughout the universe... Something you generally claim to oppose.

You don't have to be faithful to talk about my faith... or even to teach about it. You DO have to be knowledgeable of it, and understand it's basic precepts, to speak about it with any accuracy or relevance.

Corollary to that: Please do not assume that what applies to one sect or denomination applies to all, or any, other sect or denomination within what is nominally the same faith (this applies to adherents to one sect or denomination when speaking of a different sect or denomination as well... a problem that comes up frequently).

HINT: If you haven't done the homework... here's an easy shortcut... Ask someone who is both faithful, and knowledgeable about their faith (which, admittedly, can sometimes be hard to find). Most of us are happy to help explain our faith to you...

...In fact doing so WHEN ASKED, is often one of the tenets of our faith. I know it is a duty and commandment of mine to bear witness to others.

Second Corollary to that: This advice applies to just about ANY SUBJECT, not just faith.

He is just like Daddy

Stupid, ignorant, or just wrong....

If for some reason, it should ever come up...

When I tell you "you said something stupid" or "you said something ignorant", I am not insulting you, or attacking you; I am informing you that you made an egregious error, and pointing out the type and magnitude of that error.

If I told you that "you said something stupid", it means that you had knowledge of or access to the facts, but your understanding, analysis, or expression of them was obviously false or incorrect, given the slightest attempt at intelligent reasoning.

Understand, "stupid" does not denote a simple error, or incomplete argument (that's what the words "incorrect", " mistaken" or "dumb" are for); it requires deliberately ignoring the facts, or drawing conclusions or stating positions that are completely unsupported or contradicted by the facts.

If I told you that "you said something ignorant", it means that you spoke authoritatively about something without possession of the relevant and correct facts.

These are not insults, they are statements of fact.

If I was not certain of the truth of my statement, or if it was a matter of opinion or interpretation, I wouldn't have made it; I would have said " I think you might be wrong".

If I respond to your statement in such a way, it means I have sufficient respect,  consideration, or hope for you; to either correct you outright, or to give you the opportunity to clarify or correct yourself.

If I didn't have such consideration for you, I would have simply ignored you, trusting that others would do so as well, in the hope that you could not increase the net total of stupidity on this earth.

If you find statements of fact which have shown you that you are in error, to be personally offensive or insulting... Well, that's your character failing, not mine.

Everyone says stupid and ignorant things all the time... Its a basic part of life as a human being. It may be humbling or bruising to the ego to be corrected, but it is not an insult

Personally, I hate being wrong so much, that I would rather be corrected, than to continue being wrong...  And am grateful for it when it happens (which is frequently, as, like any other human being, I'm wrong a lot). Every bit less wrong I can be, is just that much less net stupidity in the world.

If I were actually being personally insulting, I would have just said "you are an idiot".

Well... ummm... actually, yes... it is... I thought everyone understood that...

So, in a comment on a facebook post discussing cultural appropriation (a ridiculous concept, but that's another topic entirely), a commenter said (paraphrasing):

"and now they tell me 'the jungle book' is racist? What?"

Hmmm...

Ok...

I'm pretty sure she wasn't being sarcastic...

I'm also pretty sure she hasn't actually read Kiplings "the jungle book", likely only having seen the Disney cartoon and childrens books.

Not a knock against her personally,  just that most people haven't read the original.

Because... yeah... "The Jungle Book" IS very definitely racist... by some definitions extremely so.

And remember, this is coming from someone who both loves Kipling (I have a framed copy of "IF" on my desk, and a printed copy of it on a card in my wallet. I can recite many entire Kipling poems from memory. I'd like one read at my funeral), and finds the modern tendency of seeing racism in everything to be ridiculous.

Kipling was a thoroughgoing imperialist, and fully indoctrinated into both British, and Indian, notions of race, class, and culture.

It wasn't that he had animus against other races, simply that like almost every Englishman in the 19th century, he was a cultural and racial chauvinist (to a degree that is difficult for modern Americans to understand, and which would be considered beyond extreme today).

This is sometimes called "cultural supremacism", "soft racism", "the racism of lowered expectations" or "the racism of condescension".

On one level, the jungle book is a lovely childrens story. On another, it's a series of moral fables.

However, the jungle book is also a satirical allegory for race, class, and culture; with what to modern sensibilities seemingly little question as to the relative position of superiority of each (though understood in context, he was also tweaking and deflating many of these notions).

It is no less of a satirical allegory than Animal Farm for example (though perhaps subtler in ways).

Really, the only surprising part of this, is how much LESS racist Kipling was than other Englishmen of his time and background

Because yes, he was a cultural chauvinist, who broadly considered other cultures and races to be less civilized and more savage...

...but Kipling never had anything but respect and admiration for those of other cultures who he considered virtuous, honorable, or capable. He always respected that there were things they did well, and that they had skills and abilities that others may not have.

He constantly and consistently warned against common British attitudes of the time, and the dangers of underestimating others, or overestimating ones self, simply by dint of culture or race.

Most Englishmen of Kiplings time quite literally thought the "lesser races" to be subhuman, or at best inherently inferior; Incapable of real thought, or industry, or achievement; and had little or no regard for their personal honor, honesty, fidelity, morality, or cleanliness.

To an Englishman of the time, everyone else (including most other "white" cultures for that matter) were just ignorant savages.

Kipling understood the dangers of this attitude very well.

No power on earth can make smooth jazz cool

... But the power of the greatest TV theme since "Dallas" can sure make it suck a lot less:

End of Spring/ Beginning of Summer bingewatch/new show update

Ok... spring/summer bingewatch/new show update.

This year, out of the necessity of circumstance, we have become cord cutters. As such we consume all of our television programming off the internet, either streaming (netflix, hulu, amazon prime), or downloaded.

Mostly, we batched up episodes and bingewatched them a few hours at a time, which is how I now GREATLY prefer to watch TV shows.

This isn't everything we watched, just the stuff I had something to say about that popped into my head.

First, the new full season shows that just wrapped for the season (or will shortly), in no particular order:

1. The Black List: James Spader getting to be 100% James Spader... The 80's movie creepy sociopathic badguy that we all love, 30 years later, and a spy... It's a damn good show, frankly better than I thought the major networks could do these days.
   
2. Trophy wife: We liked it, it's cute and sweet, and it's got good performances from a cast we really like. The writing is spotty though. Worth watching.
   
3. The Millers: Everybody loves Raymond with the "nasty" dial turned WAY up (and that's not a bad thing); except Raymond is Devon Banks, and Marie is Mags Bennet. That's not a bad thing either. Again interesting performances from an interesting cast... but the writing can at times be crude and clunky. Worth watching.
   
4. The Crazy Ones: We LOVE this show. I'm generally not a sitcom lover, but this show is really great... At least when it lets Robin Williams go for a bit... but not TOO far (as he is wont to do). A lot of the show is improvised on the set, and it shows, usually in a good way, sometimes in a great way, occasionally not so good. He is well balanced by the supporting cast, including Sarah Michelle Gellar... Pretty much playing herself... which is a good thing (Williams is also pretty much playing himself).
   
5. Mom: Another new show we love. The cast is incredible (Allison Janney, Anna Farris, Kevin Pollack, Nate Corddry, French Stewart), the performances are great, and the writing is great (it can be somewhat overly goofy at times, but it balances out). Were it not for "The Crazy Ones" this would be our favorite new comedy.
   
6. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D: I made this one last in the section because it's going to take more than a couple lines for this one...
   
   So... I want to love it... at times it's great, at times it's not good at all... Overall I think it's worth watching, and I like it.
   
   HOWEVER...
   
   You have to understand what it is and especially what it is NOT.
   
   It is NOT a superhero show. If you go in expecting a superhero show, you will be disappointed and unhappy.
   
   It IS a mission impossible/spooks/covert affairs/alias/dollhouse procedural espionage and adventure show set in a universe with superheros.
   
   Personally, I think that's kind of an awesome premise, and there are times it really lives up to that premise. There are unfortunately times where it very much does not. It's worth watching, but I really wish they'd improve the consistency of the writing. 

The new spring/summer/mid/end-season replacement shows:

1. True Detective: Oh my god... one of the best things I've ever watched. McConaughey is, unrecognizable, and amazing. The writing is spectacular. It's as good in it's genre as Breaking Bad, The Wire, The Sopranos, or The Shield.
   
2. House of Cards seasons 1 and 2: I'm including both here, since they were both single day releases, and you should watch them back to back if you can. I watched the first season in 13 continuous hours that's how good it was. This season I broke it up in two blocks of 6 and 7 hours. It's that good... and again, as good in it's genre as those I mentioned above. This is probably Kevin Spaceys best work ever, and it's certainly Robin Wright's.
   
3. Silicon Valley: Holy christ this is funny. Of course I'm a bit biased because... well... If I were a much bigger asshole, I would be one of these characters; I have lived, worked with, and been friends with ALL of these characters, for much of my working life. And man... Finally someone is tapping the rich comedy vein that is the particular breed of bullshit unique to the alternate universe that is silicon valley. Four shows in, they've already got a two season commitment (the sad part being though, one of the actors playing one of the more interesting and important characters died a few weeks ago), so we are really looking forward to seeing more of this.
   
4. Surviving Jack: Someone combined "Clueless" and "my so called life", but from the dad and sons point of view...
   
   The dad (Christopher Meloni) here being a competent, decent, conservative but strict high achiever (and that's a very good thing), and the son is the awkward and neurotic one (as opposed to the daughter being the awkward neurotic POV character, and the dad being a bumbling but good hearted asshole etc... etc...).
   
   And when I say combined those two other works, I do so advisedly, because the show is set in 1991, and definitely embraces the early 90s aesthetic and culture (though picking through the best parts of the music of the previous decade... a very good choice).
   
   The obvious comparison would be to "that 70s show", and there are superficial similarities (high school, awkward son, strict and sarcastic dad, retro setting 20 years later etc...), but that's all they are is superficial. Otherwise, the shows are nothing alike.
   
   Christopher Meloni is PERFECT here, playing a retired marine, now a doctor; with his wife going back to law school now that the kids are in high school. It's from the creator of "shit my dad says" so dad is... Well, let's just say he is familiar to me.
   
   So far, the series only has an 8 show order, and it's in a death slot, with no promotion around it... I really hope it finds an audience because it's great. 

In the queue:

1. Penny Dreadful (summer show, first episode online now, looks REALLY interesting)
   
2. Blackbox (summer show, just started)
   
3. Friends with Better Lives (summer show, we've got 4 episodes queued up)
   
4. Orphan Black season 1 and 2 (2 just started)
   
5. Orange is the New Black Season 1 and 2 (I watched the first few episodes myself, then stopped so I could start over with Mel, because it's really very good and I think she'll like it. Season 2 starts in a couple months). 

Flash Fry

So, as happens every few months, another major vulnerability has been discovered in Adobe Flash:

New Flash flaw could let attackers control Macs, Adobe urges users to update

Adobe on Monday disclosed a new vulnerability in its Flash platform that may allow attackers to remotely take over and control Macs, PCs, and Linux machines and advised users to update their system as quickly as possible. 

This problem was previously thought just to impact IE on Windows, but was proven yesterday to impact all common platforms and browsers.

The most important thing to do, is update your flash right now (and for Chrome users, update your browser as well... it should auto update, but some Mac and Linux users are having problems with autoupdate right now).

If you are unable to update Flash, you need to block or disable it (uninstall it, block it in your browser settings, block it with a plugin or security software etc...). This WILL break a lot of web sites, so be prepared.

Updating though, isn't enough.

Flash... or really any active web content for that matter... has so many major security issues, which you expose to the world every time you visit any web page, or access any open network... that you absolutely must take additional precautions.

Don't just update your flash, use less stupid browsers (chrome and firefox both do just fine for the most part). Never use internet explorer for anything unless you are absolutely required to; and then only use it for the absolute minimum required.

If you are required to use I.E. for work, or a specific site or application, ONLY use it for those things. Use another browser for everything else. Heck, that can be a good security or organization practice anyway, just to avoid mixing data accidentally (like saved passwords or form fill data).

That's step one... or I guess step one and two, counting a browser switch (though I would hope that after the last few years, and the number of times I've warned about it, very few of my readers are using I.E.).

Step three, once you are using a decent browser, you need to use a script blocker, an ad blocker, and a flash blocker. These stop active web content from running on your computer without your permission.

All are available as free plugins, and they only take one button push to install from the builtin plugin search in your browser.

The great thing is, in addition to improving security, they just reduce the general annoyance, stupidity, and irritation of the internet.

For example, they prevent auto-loading auto playing flash video and music, prevent most pop-up and banner ads, prevent some useless and stupid social media overlays... Hell, they even make your computer faster, because all that crap takes up bandwidth, CPU, and memory.

Browsing with ads, scripts, and flash blocked, makes living with the internet better in every way.

For those few sites where blocking tools breaks stuff, all the tools have a little button to pause themselves. If you're going to go to that site a lot, they all have an option to not run whenever you visit that site... Just remember if you manually paused the tool, to manually unpause it before you move on to another site.

It doesn't take a tech wiz to do it... it's no harder than clicking a link in a browser.

I for one welcome our new robotic overlords

"Well... You could've asked"

Happy Birthday to Me:

Sheared Clean off

So, we just drove 75 miles of twisty mountain roads, 180 switchbacks, 7 mile long up and down grades over 10%... In the dark... Towing a 28 foot 13,500lb trailer.

She actually rode pretty good, smooth and quiet, and not too much push on the downgrades... Good trailer brakes help a lot there, as does a good weight distributing hitch.

Did the last 10 miles on the freeway at 70, then a couple miles on city streets, light traffic, but through some busy major intersections.

Finally, we pull into our destination and see this:

Holy bleeding christ.

We were driving for god knows how long, with one wheel missing.

f you take a closer look you'll see, the studs were sheared clean off.

The really scary thing is... we didn't notice a thing wrong, nor did any of the cars that saw us on the road. The trailer rode fine the whole time, no weird sounds, no problems...

 Just... you know... 40 pounds of tire flying off in some random direction at 60mph...

...hopefully not in or into any of the residential neighborhoods we were passing.

 If we'd caused a car accident I'm sure we would have noticed that... I'm pretty obsessive about checking mirrors when I'm driving the trailer... But I couldn't see the tire the way my mirror was adjusted (I would have in daylight, just not at night).

 If it happened on one of those twisty downgrades... It very well might have killed us.

 I'll investigate further in the morning... It could have been any number of things.

 Scary...

Entirely off the hierarchy

"NO-MELT, imitation pasteurized process cheese product"

This is not cheese.

This is not "pasteurized processes cheese food"

This is not even fake "Cheez!"

This isn't even "Kraft Macaroni and Cheez" fake cheez...

This is IMITATION fake cheez...

It has fallen entirely off the Poretto Cheese Hierarchy.

But worse... they have taken the ONLY GOOD THING about fake cheese... that it melts really well for cheeseburgers and grilled cheese sandwiches...

AND MADE IT NO-MELT!

What exactly is the point of this product? Because it is clearly not intended for human consumption.

Neat gimmick... but really, there's no secret, just basic science and sense...

I used to be one of the lucky bastards who never got hangovers no matter how much I drank.

Then I turned 30...

Did you know you can get a hangover without having actually been drunk?

I actually went through a controlled alcohol study while I was in college. I'm one of the genetic anomalies who simply have a higher tolerance, and metabolize alcohol at a much higher than normal rate.

Combine that with my bodymass and you get something of an epic heavyweight as far as getting drunk...

I still don't like getting drunk though (and can count the number of times I've been actually drunk, vs. just having warm ears, on the fingers of both hands with a few left over), so I very rarely even get a slight buzz.

I DO like fine beer, wine, and spirits however, and there are times when I want to drink quite a few adult beverages of a night, and not suffer for it the next day.

This Esquire piece popped into many feeds overnight:

HOW TO DRINK ALL NIGHT WITHOUT GETTING DRUNK 

Jim Koch knows beer. He also knows a beer trick that may change your life.

It's a neat trick, well known among beerfest types, and it does work to an extent, but it's unnecessary. 

Here's what you really need to know:

1. Drink a glass of water before each glass of beer (or better, soda water with lime, a dash of salt, and a bit of sugar... It actually hydrates better than water, and replenishes some lost electrolytes. Or best of all, 50/50 sodawater mixed with OJ).
   
   DO NOT DRINK SUGAR SODA OR DIET SODA, or anything with caffeine, as they will dehydrate you and deplete electrolytes, which is the OPPOSITE of what you want.
   
2. Wait until you need to pee, before you order the next beer
   
3. Every 4 beers, drink an orange juice. It replaces lost potassium and other electrolytes, but potassium is the most important one here, and the one you lose the most of (and the one you NEED the most of) when drinking.
   
4. Before bed, take aspirin (it thins and expands the blood. If you're dehydrated and vitamin depleted it will make things worse, but since you shouldn't be at this point, it makes things better), drink a glass of water (or better as above) and a glass of orange juice. Then, when you have to get up and pee later, do it again.
   
5. Before you drink, and for breakfast the next day (and do NOT skip either), have a high protein meal, with low to moderate carbs, preferably rich in niacin and thiamine. DON'T DRINK COFFEE with either meal.  If necessary, take some B vitamin supplements, and a multivitamin before and after drinking. 

Alcohol consumption dramatically depletes potassium, niacin, and thiamine (and other critical vitamins and minerals) in your blood stream, and caffeine makes it worse. These deficiencies reduce kidney and liver function, causing waste products to build up in your blood (which is made worse by dehydration caused by alcohol diaeresis), and interfere with neurological function; causing headaches, joint pain, muscle aches... Hangovers.

Combine those five things and you'll never get more drunk than a light buzz, and never get a hangover.

They work with hard liquor and wine as well, but you have to wait longer between drinks, and drink twice as much water, because they fill your bladder less.

Wow... A leftist NOT named G.B. Shaw said something I mostly agree with...

Wow... a leftist not named G.B, Shaw actually said something I mostly agree with (though neither his politics, nor the position he is advocating. Scottish independence would be an economic disaster. That hasn't changed since "yes minister"):


From: http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/adam-ramsay/40-reasons-to-support-scottish-independence-reasons-13

"Confusing solidarity and centralisation was the greatest mistake of the left in the 20th century. 

Distant bureaucracies alienate and are less able to empower people. We are often told that the resulting refusal to engage is apathy. This is to imply that human beings don't care about their families, their neighbours, their communities. 

There is no discernable difference between this mis-diagnosed apathy and sociopathy. It's nonsense. Huge swaiths of the population aren't sociopaths. They are alienated. They don't believe they can change things through the available democratic process. 

The first step of any progressive political program must be to change this."

Of course, the really scary part, is that most on the left still seem to think that their failure is they haven't centralized and concentrated power in the hands of distant elites ENOUGH.

The Much Bigger Problem

Millions of Americans think gays should be allowed to marry.

That's not a problem.

Millions of Americans think gays should not be allowed to marry.

That's not a problem.

The problem, is that most of both groups think that it's perfectly acceptable to use the government to force the other guy to do what they want.

The much bigger problem, is that we have stupidly given the government the power to make and enforce such decisions.

Lessons From the Well Spouse - Help! I'm Young and My Spouse Was Just Diagnosed With...

... fill in the blank. Cancer, MS, any kind of potentially deadly or debilitating condition. Doesn't matter. All the advice will be the same.

So recently a couple of friends' spouses have been diagnosed with potentially deadly or debilitating conditions. Evidently I've become the go-to person for how to deal with your spouse's medical emergency when you're young.

First, let's define "young". If you
1. are under the age of 45 or
2. have minor children or
3. if someone were to say, "well they had a good run" in reference to your spouse you'd want to punch them or look at them in disbelief or
4. if your spouse were to pass you're sufficiently young to be facing multiple decades of life without them
... you count as young in my book, at least for this exercise.

Why is it important to make a distinction? Simple. Advice for the senior set and their spouses would emotionally destroy you. It's that simple. A lot of advice for seniors in your position refers to things like  "acceptance", "quality of life" or "preparing for life without your spouse".

If you automatically thought "fuck that shit, dying isn't an option and I want to FIX this" then this is written for you.

So here's a rundown of things you need to know that nobody (other than survivors of this situation) will tell you. A lot of examples will center around cancer because all examples are from my own personal experience, but other conditions will have similar issues.

There's 2 things you need to do immediately for your own sanity.
1. Get a piece of paper, or your phone, or your computer and make 3 lists. Title these lists "People Whose Opinions Matter", "Give the Smile and Nod Treatment", and "Don't Talk to Unless Required". Later you'll be tempted to make a list of "People I Want to Physically Harm" and "Never Talk to Again" but those are extreme reactions you want to avoid.

Everyone in your life that's closer than acquaintance (and some acquaintances) will end up on one of these lists. Everyone. You'll soon find out why.

For now, populate these lists with close friends, family members, and in-laws based on how you already interact with them. There will be a lot of movement from one list to another, this will cease to shock you after a while.

2. Set up your social media so you repeat news as few times as humanly possible. If you have a blog link your blog to Facebook and Twitter. If you don't, consider making one or accept that you'll be using Facebook for news dissemination. The point is, every time something important happens make it so you can post it once and reach as many people as possible. Your goal is to make as few phone calls as possible and respond to as few questions as possible. This will help your sanity immensely.


Now on to what you should expect to happen and how the world will work from now on.
1. You will be in shock initially.
How long it takes this shock to fade will vary depending on the situation and the person. You will feel overwhelmed, despair might be your new friend, and you'll have lots of depressing thoughts. This is normal and natural.

If you express this to anyone and they tell you to "get over it" or "just accept it already", move them to the "Don't Talk to Unless Required" list. It will just save time and irritation.

2. Transition as fast as you can into the warrior mindset.
If someone tried to kill or harm your spouse right in front of you, what would you do? Stand back and wring your hands over your helplessness, or find a way to kick their ass? The faster you wrap your head around cancer being the enemy, or any other condition being the enemy, the faster you'll transition into a place of power.

Fight. Pretend you're in a war and the opposing army is attempting to invade your village and kill everyone in sight. The goal would be to take out the threat while doing as little damage to the village as possible.

Your goal is to take out the threat to your spouse's health while causing them as little harm as possible. You're not powerless, not in the least. The sooner you recognize you have the means to fight, the better. You can find a good commander in the form of a good doctor. You can find good mercenaries, er, specialists. You can build your own army.

3. Knowledge is power.
Research your enemy.

Find out what you can about the condition, how it's treated, how people who have survived managed to survive. Find out its weaknesses. Figure out how to exploit them.

As a bonus you'll understand why the doctors are making their recommendations and how the battle will proceed. This will insulate you from further shocks.

Preferably do at least a little bit of this research before spreading the news so you have a basic understanding of what's going on that you can communicate to other people.

4. Write your speech and practice it BEFORE spreading the news.
"______________ has ________. The doctors think we should do _____________. We're doing some research and figuring out how we will handle this. We don't have a firm prognosis yet, we'll let everyone know when we do. The next time we will have any information is (date)."

Yes, you need a speech. Because you need to be prepared for...

5. People will expect you to help them deal with the situation.
It's not fair, in fact it's pretty horrible. There will be some people who expect you to manage their emotions and calm their panic. Sometimes it's understandable, like your mother-in-law being in shock and not knowing what to do. Sometimes it's really really not. Don't be roped in unless you want to. By having a speech prepared you'll know what to say. Don't let them ask a ton of questions before you're ready to answer them. Just let them know when you'll know more and maybe when you're in less shock you'll be able to help them through the process. Also it will keep you from engaging when you find out that...

6. People are breathtakingly ignorant and can be utterly self-righteous about their own ignorance. You will discover this while spreading the news. After a while it will cease to shock you.

How ignorant, you ask? Well this really requires a post all its own, but people react in different ways to news. Some of it will be an opportunity to educate. "Is that like ______ cancer?", "will they lose their hair?", "is that what Michael J Fox has?" are opportunities to educate or let them get their own education. If you want to spend the time educating them, do so. If not, give them the correct spelling and send them on their way. You can decide whether they're on the "opinions matter" list or "smile and nod" list later.

That's benign ignorance though. Benign ignorance is much preferable to blamers and fixers.

Some examples of blamers include "well if they'd just been on the right diet" or "it's all the chemicals we use now" or "what did they do to deserve this?". Yes, people will say this stuff right to your face in your hour of need. The need to find something to blame to make themselves feel better. Doesn't matter if they're right or not, blamers need to be put on the "don't talk unless required" list.

Less horrible but pretty horrible are the fixers. "If you take this supplement it will go away", "if you smoke enough pot you'll be cancer free", "if you pray enough you'll be cured." Occasionally they're somewhat correct. Most of the time they're breathtakingly ignorant in a harmful way. Assess their intentions (honestly trying to help or promoting pet cause?), tell them you'll look into it, and place them on the "smile and nod" list or "don't talk to" list accordingly.

7. People are also breathtakingly insensitive and clueless.
Sometimes they just don't know how to react. That's fair. However far too much of the time it's clear they don't even hear the words they're saying.

"Oh I'm so sorry your husband has cancer. My dog had cancer so I understand what you're going through."
"My aunt had that cancer. She died."
"My nephew's wife died from cancer. He killed himself later."

Refrain from killing them if you can. Assess their intentions, assign to lists accordingly.

NOTE: I told you there would be people you'd want to harm. Also, by distributing news via Facebook or another group medium you can keep how much you deal with these people to a minimum. Hopefully you'll have a few relatives or friends on your friends list who can point out how stupid they're being and model better responses. Please let them.

8. All medical facilities are not equal.
Some really are better than others, have better doctors on call, have nicer nurses, have better specialists and equipment. If you can get to a medical center or hospital that specializes in your condition, do so. The choice of where you get treated can be the difference between life and death.

9. Doctors are neither omniscient nor universally competent.
We spent 5 years trying to find out what was wrong with Chris. When we found out what was the wrong the first surgeon wouldn't operate until he lost enough weight. She wanted him to get a gastric bypass first.

If we'd gotten the gastric bypass Chris would be dead. He'd have no way to "fix" the medication issues he's currently having.

After the second surgeon removed the tumor we found out Chris would have been dead within a couple of months.

We'd gone through 8 highly respected doctors and 1 highly respected surgeon. The people who actually were responsible for saving Chris were 1 physician's assistant, a stubborn endocrinologist, and a cocky surgeon.

Always get a second opinion. Always keep pushing. Follow your instincts. Don't believe that the doctor is necessarily correct just because they're a doctor. The field of medicine is far too large to be understood by any single person.

Keep going until you find a doc and specialists who 1. you trust and 2. treat you like an individual, not a bunch of statistics. Good doctors research what's been done before and know what *usually* happens in 90% of cases. Excellent doctors understand it's possible they're dealing with the other 10%.

The best doctors will appreciate it when you bring them what you found out through your research and will look at the information themselves to see whether or not it applies. Which brings me to...

10. Rules? What rules?
Some nurses will hate me for saying this but...

You're the spouse. Sometimes the rules don't apply to you.

Whenever you're given paperwork, particularly HIPAA paperwork, make sure you're listed as someone who can receive medical info. Go to every appointment you can. Take notes. Be extremely knowledgeable. The docs will respond to you accordingly and will respect you. Where they wouldn't trust most spouses with info, they'll trust you.

When you get to the hospital, be calm. Be collected. Be knowledgeable. Take care of your spouse. Ask the nurses questions about when you should call for help and what to watch out for.

Do this, and you'll find out visiting hours no longer apply to you and they'll move mountains to make sure you can stay with your spouse. Make it clear you'll make life easier, not harder, and overworked nurses will happily bend the rules for you. Cots and extra pillows will suddenly show up and food will be found for you in the middle of the night.

Become a pain in their ass or cause your spouse distress and hospital "policies" will spring up from nowhere.

11. You're now part of the "tribe", and the tribe has the nicest people you'll ever meet.
All that faith in humanity you lost? It's coming back. Once you find people who have gone through what you're going through, or even something similar, you'll find kinship you won't find anywhere else. When we went to have the genetic screening while I was pregnant, the doctor who went over the results with us found out Chris had cancer. Turned out she was in the middle of treatment for colon cancer. We talked for hours about how no one else "got it".

People who have been through cancer know what it's like. They'll help people who are new to dealing with their conditions. The spouses will help you. It's a big support network you never knew existed.

When you find other people who "get it", hold them close. You'll need them. Because...

12. It's never over.
The declaration of remission is just that. Remission. Cancer can always come back in other ways. What you did to survive might try to kill you, just like it tried to kill Chris. The aftereffects last for the rest of your life.

Even if your spouse is "cured" of something you'll spend the rest of your life questioning every symptom and knowing how close you came to permanent loss. You'll never be the same. You'll keep looking for the next invading army.

So don't treat it like a "temporary" crisis. It's not. It will sap your strength for years to come. So take care of yourself, live as much as you can in spite of what's going on. Adapt to your new circumstances. Life goes on.

Mel

Sustainable and Improving

So, for those who don't know... My wife has been posting a bunch of stuff on facebook about thyroid, pituitary and adrenal stuff, medications, diet, how I could have died etc...

Here's why:

A few weeks ago, after months of getting sicker and sicker without realizing that was what was going on (we thought it was just cumulative  exhaustion and burnout from overwork, overstress, traveling,  not sleeping for months, and having had severe pneumonia for six weeks)...

...I spent about a week and a half going in and out of a shallow coma.

It turns out this was because the medications which are supposed to keep my hormones regulated post endocrine cancer, were not working at all (and were in fact having adverse effects and interactions).

I became acutely and critically deficient in several substances necessary to regulate my metabolism and brain function, and my body basically started to shut itself down for 18 to 20 hours at a time.

Because I was on these medications... Very large doses of them in fact.. The cause of the problem, and thus the treatment, were unclear. It seemed impossible that the cause of the problem could be what we eventually found it to be.

I came very close to going into systemic shock, a deeper coma, possibly even brain damage or death.

The thing is, with endocrine issues, sometimes, for some people, the medications that work for everyone else, don't work for them...

Worse, the tests don't necessarily show that the meds aren't working until you reach a critical state.

This is complicated in that endocrine illnesses often present similarly to other problems, or present symptoms which mask real problems, as was happening here.

In fact, in my condition, the primary medication I was taking such a high dosage of, was actually making the problem worse.

Eventually, symptomology made it clear that my medications could not be working, no matter the dosage or what the tests might say.

We have temporarily switched to another primary medication, which has helped immensely. I am no longer close to a coma, and after an initial big improvement, I am recovering gradually.

However, this other medication is very difficult to dose consistently, and has some unpleasant side effects (which is why it is largely no longer used).

Essentially, I roller coaster from moderately too little, to moderately too much of the hormones I need, plus a big dose of stuff I don't want or need (and the somewhat to severely unpleasant side effects thereof), just to ensure that I have at least the minimum amount no matter what, while not having far too much (which can kill me just as easy as not having enough).

There are other options which we will be investigating as we are able to do so, but right now we have no medical insurance and can't afford the extensive testing necessary to find the right drugs and the right dosages; nor can we afford those drugs (they are much more expensive than those I was taking, or have now switched to).

For now... I'm OK but not great... I'm in a sustainable and improving, not deteriorating state. And that's better than I have been for quite some time.

Granular Victimhood

"Progressivism" is an ideology in which individuals are ignored, and every person is either a victim or a victimizer; oppressed or oppressor; with the "victims" having perpetual moral ascendancy over the victimizers.

As a result, it has become nothing more than a continual process of dividing all people into ever more granular groups of victims and victimizers, so that they may claim greater or lesser degrees of moral ascendancy.

Call it what you will... Privileged or unprivileged, advantaged or disadvantaged... In every question, the individual does not matter, only their group identity and its relative position of advantage.

Would have been...

Today would have been my brother Rob's 35th birthday.

I miss you man.

I love you.

Mount Daddy

I Am Coffee's Bitch

http://www.fowllanguagecomics.com/comic/seemed-so-harmless/