For all you fine folks who have seen me rubbing at my chestbone over the past day or so and maybe grimacing a bit, I promise you that it was anything but obscene. There's a painful spot right off the chestbone and the cause is apparently tendonitis. OF THE FREAKING CHEST.
I thought that was only supposed to happen to my elbows after a frenzied game of tennis. Which I don't play because it's a sport involving physical coordination. So basically tendonitis and I should never have had any association. AAAAAAAGH.
Full disclosure: it's a fairly small, focused, inflammation concentrated around the sternum and not the entire ribcage. Really though, this little parade of horribles is starting to get just a tad ridiculous.
Whoever is responsible, I'd like to speak to their manager, please. Pronto.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Blah...
Having just finished typing up book notes on a mega-IP assignment (note to self: next time don't leave the typing for the night before and do the reading two nights before), I'm finally peeling myself off the floor and into bed.
And having caught up on the Super Tuesday results, basically all I can say is in the title to this post. It's not like I wanted anyone in particular to win, but I can't say I'm happy with who did emerge victorious. Can someone explain where the charisma is for Hillary? I'm not getting down on her, this is an honest inquiry. It really feels like she calculates every nuance in her speech, though she's bad enough at it that it comes across. As for Obama, I don't like him politics and policy-wise, but it's pretty easy to see how he could draw votes - he's an accomplished guy with good looks, a nice voice, excellent speaking ability, and skills with the crowd. I don't really believe he's any different than anyone else, but when he's speaking, he does allow me to think that for a few brief minutes. 'Inspiration' is not necessarily the ingredient for a successful next presidential term, but if it was, he'd certainly have the credentials. This massive upswell in support for Hillary baffles me, and it can't all be due to the fact that Bill is on her side. Or that she's a she and not a he.
Admittedly the most recent irritation is small - she claims to have been really concerned about the Superbowl and elated when the Giants won. Please, lady. I'd be surprised if you could define the term touchdown. There's also the fact that I've never seen her smile once where her eyes didn't open way wide before she began to grin. It really seems like an orchestrated movement, each go around. This may be a feature distinctive to her face, in which case I apologize for what might be an insensitive observation. Somebody explain the charisma to me.
Don't get me started on the McCain win. All day I've been hearing about how wonderful he is because he's got an adopted daughter from a foreign country and he's a war hero. Excellent, I'll nominate him for Time Man of the Year; I have no objection to that. But being a naval aviator, being a former POW, being a caring and kind individual... those are all good things, but they are NOT necessarily portents of a good presidency. I respect McCain's vast contributions to the country, both in his youth, and later on as a participant in the Senate. However some of his more liberal policies and his increasingly brash and abrasive attitude on the campaign trail have been major turnoffs. Those things, combined with his age and lack of energizing speaking ability have sort of left me at less than lukewarm.
Surprisingly, Ron Paul turned out to be an appealing candidate, at least in his domestic policy. The foreign policy is entirely misdirected and misunderstood, and if implemented, would have disastrous consequences for the country. So I guess his fizzling, essential non-candidacy at this point isn't entirely bad, but there is a small part of me that is disappointed.
Huckabee surprised a lot of people tonight... McCain made sure to say good things about him... I wonder what kind of ticket is brewing over at the GOP...
Romney-wise, I think he's had his day and lost it. Given the results of today that seems like a fairly non-controversial statement, but does anyone else have any thoughts on that?
The observations got a whole lot shorter and more inane as I realized how tired I am. Sleep now. Good night, all.
And having caught up on the Super Tuesday results, basically all I can say is in the title to this post. It's not like I wanted anyone in particular to win, but I can't say I'm happy with who did emerge victorious. Can someone explain where the charisma is for Hillary? I'm not getting down on her, this is an honest inquiry. It really feels like she calculates every nuance in her speech, though she's bad enough at it that it comes across. As for Obama, I don't like him politics and policy-wise, but it's pretty easy to see how he could draw votes - he's an accomplished guy with good looks, a nice voice, excellent speaking ability, and skills with the crowd. I don't really believe he's any different than anyone else, but when he's speaking, he does allow me to think that for a few brief minutes. 'Inspiration' is not necessarily the ingredient for a successful next presidential term, but if it was, he'd certainly have the credentials. This massive upswell in support for Hillary baffles me, and it can't all be due to the fact that Bill is on her side. Or that she's a she and not a he.
Admittedly the most recent irritation is small - she claims to have been really concerned about the Superbowl and elated when the Giants won. Please, lady. I'd be surprised if you could define the term touchdown. There's also the fact that I've never seen her smile once where her eyes didn't open way wide before she began to grin. It really seems like an orchestrated movement, each go around. This may be a feature distinctive to her face, in which case I apologize for what might be an insensitive observation. Somebody explain the charisma to me.
Don't get me started on the McCain win. All day I've been hearing about how wonderful he is because he's got an adopted daughter from a foreign country and he's a war hero. Excellent, I'll nominate him for Time Man of the Year; I have no objection to that. But being a naval aviator, being a former POW, being a caring and kind individual... those are all good things, but they are NOT necessarily portents of a good presidency. I respect McCain's vast contributions to the country, both in his youth, and later on as a participant in the Senate. However some of his more liberal policies and his increasingly brash and abrasive attitude on the campaign trail have been major turnoffs. Those things, combined with his age and lack of energizing speaking ability have sort of left me at less than lukewarm.
Surprisingly, Ron Paul turned out to be an appealing candidate, at least in his domestic policy. The foreign policy is entirely misdirected and misunderstood, and if implemented, would have disastrous consequences for the country. So I guess his fizzling, essential non-candidacy at this point isn't entirely bad, but there is a small part of me that is disappointed.
Huckabee surprised a lot of people tonight... McCain made sure to say good things about him... I wonder what kind of ticket is brewing over at the GOP...
Romney-wise, I think he's had his day and lost it. Given the results of today that seems like a fairly non-controversial statement, but does anyone else have any thoughts on that?
The observations got a whole lot shorter and more inane as I realized how tired I am. Sleep now. Good night, all.
let the nailbiting commence
more on politics from me. come on, i go to georgetown, which means that my two spectator sports of choice are hoyas basketball (go hoyas!!!! here's knowing we'll bag our own super tuesday win against USF tonight) and the primaries.
the early exits have obama winning georgia, which brings a smile to my face as i wallow in agricultural subsidies (why am i wallowing in ag subsidies at 7.15pm, you ask? oh, the lovely WTO...)
all right, one down, 21 more to go.
but of course, this is shaping up to be the most obnoxiously protracted primary season since who knows when, so it doesn't all end tonight. yet, somehow, i'm praying for a miracle. especially in my home state...
okay, enough politispeak. here's something a little more lighthearted to chew on (did i mention that i dislike the pats almost as much as i dislike the red sox?).
the early exits have obama winning georgia, which brings a smile to my face as i wallow in agricultural subsidies (why am i wallowing in ag subsidies at 7.15pm, you ask? oh, the lovely WTO...)
all right, one down, 21 more to go.
but of course, this is shaping up to be the most obnoxiously protracted primary season since who knows when, so it doesn't all end tonight. yet, somehow, i'm praying for a miracle. especially in my home state...
okay, enough politispeak. here's something a little more lighthearted to chew on (did i mention that i dislike the pats almost as much as i dislike the red sox?).
Baruch Dayan Emet.
I guess. Somehow blessings seem highly inappropriate, but the Jew manual says this is what you do.
Yes, I'm a little bitter. Most people involved or even tangentially so probably are.
On another note, I'm loving J's long post.
Yes, I'm a little bitter. Most people involved or even tangentially so probably are.
On another note, I'm loving J's long post.
Monday, February 4, 2008
gobama!!!!!!!!!!!!!
on the eve of super tuesday, i think i should deliver on my promised increased volume of political posts. this was prompted by a conversation with s about why i voted obama in the primaries and why i really really hope he will be our general election candidate and next president. now, i am not going to turn this into a "hate on hillary" post. but hopefully i will be able to sway a few of you who are busily postmarking your absentees or getting ready to head off to the polls tomorrow to vote for my guy. in fact, since politics is all about "messaging," i'll play like the politicians and give you my top three reasons to gobama tomorrow, and in the general.
1. the change candidate. okay, i am going to have to qualify this one. after 5 years of living inside the beltway, i have to tell you that i don't think being a washington "insider" is such a bad thing. realistically, any serious candidate, in order to be "ready on day one," needs to have a good understanding of the district's bureaucracy and connections that will make it possible to move policy along at a pace faster than a snail's crawl. but there's a reason that so many people have a problem with the "insider."
i'd submit that the problem isn't the knowledge of the bureaucracy or connections to it -- these things are necessary to function in washington, and if a candidate doesn't have them upon setting up shop at 1600 pennsylvania, he or she definitely will by the end of four years in office. the problem is the paternalistic nature of these connections and their manifestation to the general public. i am inspired by obama because he has convinced me that as an individual, i matter to the political system, and that, beyond that, even though the political elite controls so much out of necessity, if i speak with other citizens, i really do have the power to effect change.
that's the nice, sweet, heartwarming reason to love obama. but it goes a little deeper than that for me. hillary's campaign is, to say the least, a little nixonian (there's a great economist article on the subject that i wish i could link to here, but alas, i cannot). and while i understand the strategic need to stay on message, which is most easily achieved by controlling everything that every staffer says, there's a certain amount of information that i as a voting citizen feel entitled to. when the campaign denies me that information (ex. won't tell me who the environmental policy advisor is -- the only one out of 9 presidential campaigns that i contacted to do this) i start to get a little concerned.
it's that icky feeling again, the same one i've had for the last eight years: a clinton II administration thinks there's certain information i just don't need to know, and they're more than willing to tell me so. and it's not critical information, like where our nukes are hidden. it's information about who is influencing important policy decisions. it's information that affects how i'll choose to vote. and when i don't even need to call the obama campaign because that same information is prominently displayed on his website, i feel a glaring difference in style that might just make all the difference to me as a voter. which segues nicely to my second point...
2. the change candidate. no, not the same as my last point. but it is connected. my biggest problem with the present administration (and believe me, i've got many) is the blind adherence to one policy and the refusal to change even with a striking amount of evidence and public outcry suggesting that this isn't the way to go. i want a departure from that mentality over the next four (and hopefully eight) years.
it's true that being president requires you to set policy and to stick to that policy while seeing it through. but it also requires some reassessment of strategies and policies at each step of the way. obama seems willing to undertake these kinds of assessments, and moreover, to (see above) be more transparent about the decisions that he is making and more willing to take into account a variety of opinions before making a final decision. i worry about hillary mostly because i think that she can be very rigid in her approach and unwilling to admit that she might have made a mistake (why it really bothers me that she still won't say that voting for the war was a bad call -- but you may disagree with me on this point). anyway the upshot of this is that my concern is that she will approach things the same way this administration did, just starting out with policies that i happen to like quite a bit better. but extreme operating style isn't ever the best thing, no matter how much i like the initial policies.
3. the dynasty effect (aka billary). it really spoke to me when ted kennedy endorsed obama last week. here's a guy who has worked pretty closely with the last clinton administration and knows the inner workings of that machine as well as anyone in washington. he also happens to be an incredibly well-respected senator. and he's saying that, having lived through a clinton I administration, he's not really interested in the sequel.
i have to say that i'm not that interested either. as much as i thought certain things about clinton I were great, bill seems to have gone a little nuts lately. and there's something to be said for the theory that just as bush I fans saw this administration as a chance to get in and correct the mistakes they made on the first run (and add a substantial number of their own), clinton I fans want a shot at eight more years sans lewinskygate. but times have changed and just as the bush II administration was a bit anachronistic, the dynastic swing might stick us back in 1992...the problem being that it's not 1992 anymore.
there's a lot to be said for the considerable experience that both bill and hillary have in their unique positions. but experience only takes you so far, and can sometimes hinder a fresh perspective on events. i'm not sure if we really want to spend the next four or even eight years looking at the world through billary-colored glasses.
so there you go, that's my two cents. but as i pointed out to mcn earlier, this is just my primaryspeak, and i'm sure i'll have a whole new set of issues once we roll around to general time. i can't really believe i wrote all of this out. i also feel like it's not as articulate as it could have been. but i usually feel that way about things i write. oh well. it is late and this is but a blog. try not to be too critical...
and with that, it's back to climate change reports and fisheries subsidies! and on an unrelated note, i should build on a's post re: illness by announcing that this apartment is apparently a den of sickness. after spending six hours in the hospital last week getting a CT scan and having various IVs pumped into me to determine whether or not i had appendicitis (i didn't) i am relatively convinced that things have to start getting better in the health department because it doesn't get too much worse. knock on wood, i don't actually want to end up with appendicitis here.
okay, now climate change reports and fisheries subsidies.
1. the change candidate. okay, i am going to have to qualify this one. after 5 years of living inside the beltway, i have to tell you that i don't think being a washington "insider" is such a bad thing. realistically, any serious candidate, in order to be "ready on day one," needs to have a good understanding of the district's bureaucracy and connections that will make it possible to move policy along at a pace faster than a snail's crawl. but there's a reason that so many people have a problem with the "insider."
i'd submit that the problem isn't the knowledge of the bureaucracy or connections to it -- these things are necessary to function in washington, and if a candidate doesn't have them upon setting up shop at 1600 pennsylvania, he or she definitely will by the end of four years in office. the problem is the paternalistic nature of these connections and their manifestation to the general public. i am inspired by obama because he has convinced me that as an individual, i matter to the political system, and that, beyond that, even though the political elite controls so much out of necessity, if i speak with other citizens, i really do have the power to effect change.
that's the nice, sweet, heartwarming reason to love obama. but it goes a little deeper than that for me. hillary's campaign is, to say the least, a little nixonian (there's a great economist article on the subject that i wish i could link to here, but alas, i cannot). and while i understand the strategic need to stay on message, which is most easily achieved by controlling everything that every staffer says, there's a certain amount of information that i as a voting citizen feel entitled to. when the campaign denies me that information (ex. won't tell me who the environmental policy advisor is -- the only one out of 9 presidential campaigns that i contacted to do this) i start to get a little concerned.
it's that icky feeling again, the same one i've had for the last eight years: a clinton II administration thinks there's certain information i just don't need to know, and they're more than willing to tell me so. and it's not critical information, like where our nukes are hidden. it's information about who is influencing important policy decisions. it's information that affects how i'll choose to vote. and when i don't even need to call the obama campaign because that same information is prominently displayed on his website, i feel a glaring difference in style that might just make all the difference to me as a voter. which segues nicely to my second point...
2. the change candidate. no, not the same as my last point. but it is connected. my biggest problem with the present administration (and believe me, i've got many) is the blind adherence to one policy and the refusal to change even with a striking amount of evidence and public outcry suggesting that this isn't the way to go. i want a departure from that mentality over the next four (and hopefully eight) years.
it's true that being president requires you to set policy and to stick to that policy while seeing it through. but it also requires some reassessment of strategies and policies at each step of the way. obama seems willing to undertake these kinds of assessments, and moreover, to (see above) be more transparent about the decisions that he is making and more willing to take into account a variety of opinions before making a final decision. i worry about hillary mostly because i think that she can be very rigid in her approach and unwilling to admit that she might have made a mistake (why it really bothers me that she still won't say that voting for the war was a bad call -- but you may disagree with me on this point). anyway the upshot of this is that my concern is that she will approach things the same way this administration did, just starting out with policies that i happen to like quite a bit better. but extreme operating style isn't ever the best thing, no matter how much i like the initial policies.
3. the dynasty effect (aka billary). it really spoke to me when ted kennedy endorsed obama last week. here's a guy who has worked pretty closely with the last clinton administration and knows the inner workings of that machine as well as anyone in washington. he also happens to be an incredibly well-respected senator. and he's saying that, having lived through a clinton I administration, he's not really interested in the sequel.
i have to say that i'm not that interested either. as much as i thought certain things about clinton I were great, bill seems to have gone a little nuts lately. and there's something to be said for the theory that just as bush I fans saw this administration as a chance to get in and correct the mistakes they made on the first run (and add a substantial number of their own), clinton I fans want a shot at eight more years sans lewinskygate. but times have changed and just as the bush II administration was a bit anachronistic, the dynastic swing might stick us back in 1992...the problem being that it's not 1992 anymore.
there's a lot to be said for the considerable experience that both bill and hillary have in their unique positions. but experience only takes you so far, and can sometimes hinder a fresh perspective on events. i'm not sure if we really want to spend the next four or even eight years looking at the world through billary-colored glasses.
so there you go, that's my two cents. but as i pointed out to mcn earlier, this is just my primaryspeak, and i'm sure i'll have a whole new set of issues once we roll around to general time. i can't really believe i wrote all of this out. i also feel like it's not as articulate as it could have been. but i usually feel that way about things i write. oh well. it is late and this is but a blog. try not to be too critical...
and with that, it's back to climate change reports and fisheries subsidies! and on an unrelated note, i should build on a's post re: illness by announcing that this apartment is apparently a den of sickness. after spending six hours in the hospital last week getting a CT scan and having various IVs pumped into me to determine whether or not i had appendicitis (i didn't) i am relatively convinced that things have to start getting better in the health department because it doesn't get too much worse. knock on wood, i don't actually want to end up with appendicitis here.
okay, now climate change reports and fisheries subsidies.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
How Do the Doctors Not Get Sick?
I spent much of the past 36 hours doing things with and for people heavily afficted with what is minimally the flu and maximally the plague. Now, I happen to be experiencing persistent muscle aches and a feeling of utter exhaustion.
So here's the question: are we now going to relapse into a flu on top of the fading pneumonia?
Stay tuned. This just keeps getting more exciting by the day.
P.S. A diagram of the past month looks something like this:
Flu --> Sinus infection --> Pnemonia (being treated by rest+2 massive IV treatments and 2 weeks of antibiotics)--> Flu(?)
I write it out because it amuses the somewhat twisted part of me. Oddly enough, it seems that my parents don't appreciate my sense of humor...
So here's the question: are we now going to relapse into a flu on top of the fading pneumonia?
Stay tuned. This just keeps getting more exciting by the day.
P.S. A diagram of the past month looks something like this:
Flu --> Sinus infection --> Pnemonia (being treated by rest+2 massive IV treatments and 2 weeks of antibiotics)--> Flu(?)
I write it out because it amuses the somewhat twisted part of me. Oddly enough, it seems that my parents don't appreciate my sense of humor...
Truer Words Were Never Spoken -
"...it is important to state publicly, that Palestinians are quite capable of recognizing their national leaders and honoring their memories. They are quite entitled to write their own history."
- PLO Mission
Well, carry on blokes. The Israelis appear to be letting you do a great job of that, as does the UN, UK, US and any number of entities with staunch revisionist tendencies.
The quote is from a release by the PLO Mission protesting comments by Rep. Tom Lantos that their warm commemoration of a PLFP founder and utter terrorist and murderer was, among other things, "asinine", "crude" and "insensitive." I don't agree with many of Lantos's positions, but this is an instance where his copious rough edges and I are in perfect sync.
His upcoming retirement is sad, all the more so because it is due to illness. There are few in the House outspoken, and as eloquent when outspoken as he.
- PLO Mission
Well, carry on blokes. The Israelis appear to be letting you do a great job of that, as does the UN, UK, US and any number of entities with staunch revisionist tendencies.
The quote is from a release by the PLO Mission protesting comments by Rep. Tom Lantos that their warm commemoration of a PLFP founder and utter terrorist and murderer was, among other things, "asinine", "crude" and "insensitive." I don't agree with many of Lantos's positions, but this is an instance where his copious rough edges and I are in perfect sync.
His upcoming retirement is sad, all the more so because it is due to illness. There are few in the House outspoken, and as eloquent when outspoken as he.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)