You are viewing ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=88.8){kind=small}
dirk_the_daring's journal
You are viewing dirk_the_daring's journal
|
|||||||
 |
|
|
|||||
|
Dirk the Daring's Journal  *blows the dust off* Is this thing on? Hello? It's certainly been a while... And things are so hectic right now, I probably should be doing something on my list... Even fun things I'd been planning to do for a while have been forced onto a todo list. I _think_ everyone who reads this knows, but for anyone who doesn't, we now have a little baby girl who is staying in the hospital for a few weeks before coming home. I'm not giving details here because I'm leaving this post unlocked. On Saturday, we were visiting the hospital twice to visit our baby during feedings, and we decided to go to a Best Buy between visits to get my wife some cell phone accessories. While we were there, we noticed they had a pair of DDR pads set up. We hadn't exercised since the whole baby thing started, so we decided to play a couple rounds. It felt just like old times! We collected an audience of shoppers, and had a great time showing off (well, as best we could on home-pads. Gotta admit these weren't bad, though). When we were done, a bunch of people approached us to talk to us about DDR, including the manager on duty. They bought us some water, and the manager gave us a discount (ironically, there were CDs and DVDs we wanted, but they didn't have them in stock!) It turns out that while we were playing, they had sold most of their displayed stock of DDR pads. The manager was asking us to come back and play some more, etc. Like I said, felt like the old days! There are very few people who read my journal and not my wife's, but this is for the rest of you. (and whatever random people out there that have taken an interest in my dog) Last night, right after work, the weather was fantastic. We decided to take the opportunity to take the dog for a nice walk around one of the well-known parks in our area. From my point of view-- We were walking down a paved path, and I was actually looking up into the sky when my wife let out a yelp and started running backwards. I looked down, and there was a rattlesnake curled up right in front of me, ready to strike. I backed off. When I got back to where my wife was, she informed me that the snake lashed out at our dog, and may have bitten her. We spent a moment evaluating the snake-- yup. rattlesnake. An aside, for those of you who don't know our dog very well, she is EXTREMELY tolerant of pain. A trainer once was talking to us about the tolerance of the breed, and proceeded to do a demonstration where she applied pressure to a sensitive part of the dog's foot. Then more. then more. Eventually she said that she hadn't seen a dog withstand that much pain without reacting before. Back to the story-- We had no clue if she had been bitten. She wasn't showing any signs (which doesn't mean anything-- see above paragraph), and her fur is thick enough to cover puncture wounds. So we started walking away from the snake. it only took a few feet before our dog started limping, and we decided that the snake HAD gotten her. I quickly picked her up, and carried her back to the car (my wife says we were about 1/4 mile out. I'm not sure how far it was, but the dog got HEAVY by the end of the run). We quickly took her to the vet. We were fortunate, because our vet is on the same road as the park, and it was before closing time. We got her there in less than five minutes. The vet staff was quick to act. They took her back and gave three shots to prevent shock, an anti-bacterial, and something else I can't remember. You'll note, though-- no anti-venom. Apparently, there are studies that show that anti-venom doesn't work on dogs, so many vets are changing to this three-shot thing. Anyway, after a few hours, our dog had to be transferred to the vet hospital for the night, so that she could be observed. This was an emotionally painful process because at this point, the dog was very shaky and could obviously tell something was wrong. We got her in the back seat of the car with my wife, and I drove them to the vet hospital. My wife spent the entire time trying to kep the dog calm. The drive to the hospital was uneventful, and they had an area already set up for her when we got there. At this point, I'd like to talk bout our vet, even though I'm not using real names in this story. They were fantastic. In the past, we were concerned about how much they cost-- they are pretty expensive compared to others. My wife and I have a running joke about how they want to give (expensive!) IV fluids to all our animals when they come in, regardless of the severity of the issue (and, in fact, they gave IV fluids to our dog on this visit, but aside from my wife nudging me when the doctor recommended it, we thought it was a good idea). But they were amazingly good. They stayed later than business hours to make sure our dog was stable enough to take the trip to the hospital, they called ahead and arranged everything with the hospital, they kept us well informed through the entire process, they were genuinely concerned, etc. It was a very good experience, and I feel less hesitant to give them money to put our animals on IV fluids for whatever random reason they come up with on our next visit. The next morning, we picked up our dog and took her back to the vet. Anyone who knows our dog knows that she loves seeing new people, and anytime she sees us after an extended absence, she is more excited than most people see her. That was not the case today. She was droopy, shaky, and generally sad. Her night last night was apparently long and painful-- they gave her some additional morphine early in the morning for the pain. Her leg had swollen up. Although she could walk, I had to lift her into and out of the car for the trip. She's just generally not happy. Now she's at the vet for observation over the course of the day. We are supposed to get updates occasionally from the vet. I will post if there's anything of particular interest. Current mood:  relieved.
Hey everyone! I know it has been a while. Things have been pretty hectic and all that. I wanted to make a brief comment about the ohio recount that is being requested. They aren't going to find anything. The reason is that the problems that need to be addressed with voting are not recountable. Every article, when talking about the recount, talks about how there were long lines, or people were turned away, or there werent enough machines. Those can't be recounted. The most troubling is rarely mentioned-- the electronic voting machines. Simply put, there is absolutely no way to determine if the computer is reporting the correct values or not Have you ever been working on an important report on the computer and had your paper lost? The same thing can happen to voting machines. Ever have an item miss-scan at the supermarket? Same thing can happen at voting machines. Hackers? Power failures? Not to mention intentional fraud. All are EASILY possible, and NONE can be detected. Why is this? Because the information is stored ONLY on a computer. There are many who say that this was done intentionally, to allow votes to be manipulated without detection. Farfetched? Maybe, but there is NO WAY TO PROVE THEM WRONG. The company that made the voting machines will not let programmers look at their software to verify it works. They refused to allow paper records. They use a system that has been demonstrated insecure to report votes. Many people are upset about the outcome of the election. I'll save my feelings on that for another post. But shouldn't we be able to trust the outcome of the election? Yes, last time we had hanging chads, but we were able to look at the votes people turned in and make an honest effort to get it right. This time we can't. WE WILL NEVER KNOW WHO THE PEOPLE VOTED FOR. Let me say that one more time. WE WILL NEVER KNOW WHO THE PEOPLE VOTED FOR. My deepest hope is not that the recount proves Kerry the winner. It is that the problem with electronic voting will be shown to the public, and there will be honest reform. Was to have this press conference. Or so I thought. The story of my evening explains exactly how I felt about the press conference. The Q/A started at the same time my wife and I went to tonight's soccer game. We heard about the first half of the Q/A before soccer started. We went home, and turned on the TIVO recording, when I realized that the only way I was going to figure out where we were was to listen to the reporter's questions, because the president's answers to all questions were so similar, I couldn't tell them apart. Oh, and on top of that, the answer he gave answered NONE of the questions. So I continue watching after the press conferece on CNN to see what they say about it. I expected that there would be some pointing out of the flaws, since CNN is supposedly part of the "liberal media" that the RWTSHs always talk about. Nope. Everyone commented that it went great and was a good thing for the president. Am I crazy? I never thought I was really biased before, but the things I'm seeing about the press conference make it sound like Bush is a genius-- and all I can do is wonder if anyone was paying attention. I _know_ that the RWTSHs tomorrow will be talking about how great it all was, taking only the choicest soundbites out of context, but i would have expected SOMEONE to point out the flaws. I mean, I'm reading CNN.com right now, and I'm seeing little crappy snippets being rearranged to make it sound like he said something of substance-- like he actually responded to the questions asked of him. Like he was giving a rallying cry instead of a bunch of stuttering crap that meant absolutely nothing. The reporters questions were DAMN GOOD QUESTIONS. Hell, I would have been happy if he had been given those questions a week ahead of time in order to formulate what he thought was the best answer. Instead, the questions like "why are all your answers the same?" "Do you feel you've made any mistakes?" "why are you and Cheney speaking to the comission together?" All get answered with: The Iraq war is good. Terror is bad. Vote for me becasue if you don't you'll get shot by a terrorist in your home. And then all the reporters come back with is he's strong on the war on terror??? how about that he DIDN'T ANSWER A DAMN QUESTION!?!? I think I'm starting to ramble. I'll sign off now. *sigh* Just wanted to point out that CNN's photo of Ashcroft makes him look exactly like the "Cigarette Smoking Man" from the X-Files. I'll leave it to everyone else to make the clever remarks. I posted this to someone else's journal. Note that I'm far from a political expert... ---- You know, I was amazed at a lot of what was said last night-- from outright lies to manipulative wording, there was very little that gave me confidence in our President. Just to touch on a few things... First, all the discussion about what he's done making America a safer place... It all goes back to the old story (slightly modified because I can't remember the original): Person1: "Hey, Person2, what are you doing?" Person2: "I'm sprinkling pepper on my lawn to keep the tigers away." Person1: "But there aren't any tigers around here!" Person2: "See? It works." I have no question that removing Saddam from power is a good thing. I have no doubt that hunting down known terrorists is a good thing. HOWEVER, it seems that this presidency is all about "the ends justify the means", and in the most extreme ways possible. Pretty much EVERY tactic this president has taken to "defeat the terrorists" has been at the expense of the people. He mentioned a ton of new programs he wants to put in place. Many of them actually sound fairly decent (although with his past record, I'm sure they are thinly veiled bad plans that I just don't understand yet). But then comes a big problem-- WHERE THE HELL DO WE GET THE MONEY? WE blew our big wad-o-cash fighting a war that didn't need to happen. Money that could have easily pulled us out of our economic woes if spent better. Yes, the economy is getting better, except there are two major flaws. First, when you've hit rock bottom, you have nowhere to go but up. Second, it's a "jobless recovery". Yes, the corporations are making more money. That's fantastic. But they aren't hiring people. I really hope that no out-of-work person votes for Bush. If someone who is out of work is planning to, I'd love to hear why. And that brings me to the Tax Cuts. We don't have the money to do this. Sorry. I don't know enough to know if they are "tax cuts for the rich", which has it's own issues, but Let me say this again-- WE HAVE NO MONEY. He expects to cut the deficit in half, while creating all these programs with magical fairy money. One of these things isn't going to happen, and the way I see it going, it's going to be the deficit that takes the hit. And the a portion of the American people will see the short-term gain, and be happy. True, a few years from now, our country will have to deal with this, but that isn't the current President's problem, is it? The Patriot act. The only people I've ever heard defending it were right-wing talk show hosts who would whine "but how else can we catch the bad guys." Figure it out. I'm sure those in charge of hunting down terrorists are smart people, and can find a way to do it without trashing the very thing they are claiming to protect. If they aren't smart people, replace them. Immigration? My feelings on this are not well-formed, and at this point are probably not the right ones. But I can say this-- this is NOT the answer. Come back with a new one. Then there's the religous/moral stuff. First, yes, charities are a good thing. Helping them out is a good thing. But this is not an area the government should play in-- no matter what religous group they give the money to, it'll be favoritism. If the government desperately wants to do charity work, it should either do its own, or fund non-affiliated, non-profit entities. But the President doesn't hide the fact that he plays favorites in every aspect, does he? So we move on to the abstinence programs. You know, perhaps sex-ed SHOULD be something taught at home, but this isn't the way to encourage it. Parents will think their kid is learning what they need to know at school, and not approach the embarrassing topic with their kids. People growing up NEED to learn this stuff, not just abstinence, otherwise they will be unprepared to make life-changing choices when the time comes. Guess what? Someday, your kid WILL have sex. It might be tomorrow, it might be 30 years from now. It _WILL_ happen. Don't you want your kid to be prepared? And drug testing? If the parents don't care, what the hell are you going to do when a kid tests positive? Deny them an education? Force them into a rehab program that will cause them to fall behind in their studies? "No kid left behind"? Again, where does this money come from? WHERE? If you don't dump money into the schools, this program is a setup for public schools to fail. All that will be left will be private schoo--- oh, ho! You're a clever one, aren't you? The conspiracy theorist in me is making a showing! Anyone want to do the calculations on how much funding each school would have gotten if the money from the Iraq war was filtered into education? No steroids for athletes. Check. Let's crack down on the jaywalkers, and people who say "crap" on the subway, too. You have so many other problems, what the hell are you doing messing with this? And why did the camera point to a prominent football player during this part of the speech? I'm sure he's happy about that. The whole energy thing. It SOUNDS nice, but I'm sure he's talking about finding ways of destroying our environment for the sake of local energy-- drilling being the main one. Can't get behind that. Nope. Maybe he means working with Atomic, Solar, or even wind power? I'm betting not. "Jobs in the 21st century" == "We'll make sure there's enough McDonald's restauraunts to hire everyone." As far as I can tell, he wants everyone to work at low-paying jobs that don't enhance our country at all. Tech Jobs? They don't make his friends any money. Ship 'em out. (Any tech people planning on voting for this man? why?) "Preserving Marriage" What the hell? Ok, my views. Perhaps religious groups can claim the word marriage-- really, a marriage, as I understand it, was a religious joining between a man and a woman, blah blah blah. So fine. Take the damn word. Personally, I don't care. But don't take away the rights of people who want to join in a way other what the Church endorses. There is NO reason that two same-sex partners can't share the same rights and privileges as my wife and myself. None. If the word for marriage changes to mean a religious joining, and a new word takes its place that encompasses ALL forms of joining, I personally would happily affiliate myself with the new word. I don't think for a MOMENT that this president wouldn't banish all non-religious, man/woman marriages if he could-- and then lock anyone who thought otherwise in a dark hole. And for this reason alone, this man MUST be removed from office. But there are so many other reasons-- I don't see how every single reason this man should be thrown out on his ass gets by some people. Am I missing something? If I am, it has to be pretty damn huge. Other random things: * The speachwriters need some work. I wasn't impressed by the speech at all, even ignoring my disgust for what was said. * Emotional manipulation has always been key in Bush's speeches, and as far as I can tell, the media plays the game with him. The one little black girl in the audience that kept getting closeups (who seemed like a plant more than anything), the girl's letter, certain other members of the audience. * He smirked for almost the entire time he wasn't talking. Honestly, he looked like he was thinking "I can't believe I'm fooling them!" the entire time. Hey, Bush, work on your facial expressions. (sorry for the length. I guess I had something to say.) |
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
