• Being functionally blind is WAY underrated

    I can’t speak from personal experience, but having seeing problems looks like a major bummer man. Glasses can be a real pain, even when they are professionally fitted. No matter how well adjusted they are, there’s no getting around the fact that you’ve got some precariously balanced scaffolding hanging on your face. The gentle tug at your ears, the pinch at your temples, the pressure at the bridge of your nose… all of it can wear on you after a while.

    If I had to wear contact lenses I’d simply lose my mind. I’m really protective of my eyes – bordering on a mild phobia actually, so I can’t imagine poking myself there twice a day to fiddle with contacts. Then there are my parents to consider. If I were to start putting my finger in my eye now, at least 17 years of behavior modification and reinforcement is out the window.

    All of this leads us to our latest ER adventure; involving an eyeball, a contact lens, a corneal abrasion, an eye patch, and a script for eye drops laced with antibiotics. Here’s one more case where genetics can be a real bitch… one way that all “men” are most definitely NOT created equal. Mom… Dad… I love you.

    Given my 20/10 vision, any guesses who’s wearing the patch?

  • Copywrong

    “Default” is more than just a word, it’s a way of life. Sparse, relatively evenly trimmed greens, browns and sand is the default lawn in Florida. Seventy six degrees is the default temperature on my expensive, programmable thermostat. “Make it shorter” is a default hairstyle. “Whatever you’d like” is the default husband answer.

    One of the default settings on my “blog” software is “no Creative Common’s License” (a canned copyright statement). I thought long and hard about changing this one. Part of me would be honored to be plagiarized. It would presuppose two things; one: I’ve written something original myself; and two: I’ve written something someone thought worthy of copying – that they thought well enough of to represent as their own. The only better affirmation I can think of is a big fat book deal; but since it’s unseasonably warm in hell this year I don’t think my snowball is going anywhere (one more thing I can blame on global warming).

    Then I thought to myself, “let’s cut to the chase. What’s this all about?” Then it came to me: ego. Blogging has brought back self absorption, the likes of which we haven’t seen since Jane Fonda put on her first pair of leg warmers. Pray tell: what says “I’m special” like copyrighting your hobby? It used to be cell phones; but a lack thereof has ascended to the level of social disability. (Having one isn’t so special if everyone else has one too.)

    In the words of Abby Hoffman (sort of), STEAL THIS BLOG! (Pretty please?) You see I’ve just thought of something in between asserting copyright and a big fat book deal… suing someone for copyright infringement. Pretty sweet, eh?

    Hey, we all have our dreams…

  • George live

    The man was on Larry King this evening and discussed many issues, one of which was the New York Times.

    “I have a problem with people revealing state secrets…. With people revealing our game plan to the enemy…. We’re at war.”

    All of this comes on the heels of a little “discussion” with my wife earlier this evening. She asked me, “You think it’s O.K. for people to reveal state secrets?” (“Discussion” is a diplomatic way of putting it. She hadn’t been reading my stuff lately… until tonight that is.)

    My answer is a qualified “no.” I would guess (or hope) that 99.9 percent of all state secrets should remain secret. My qualification? When the secret is that the state is breaking the law, and particularly when WE are the ultimate victim of the potential crime. An argument can be made (although I reserve the right to disagree) that times have changed and new methods are necessary to protect ourselves (re: terrorism). That may be so, but the president does not have the right to make unilateral decisions to effectively change – or even supplement our existing laws. As I’ve read, that was the crux of the Supreme Court decision in Hamdan: the president essentially tried to make his own law when he authorized military commissions for Guantanamo internees. Arguably, the same can be said for some of the other actions authorized by the president – such as the ones reported by the Times. If times (note the small “t”) have changed and new methods are necessary to head off new dangers… here’s an idea: ask congress to change the law. Even better, propose a constitutional amendment which allows the President to invoke his war time powers without a Congressional declaration of war (as described in the constitution). Then we could stop farting around with these “authorizations to use force,” and semantic dances around “founding father intent.”

    As you might guess, I personally would not support such changes – and neither would many others. Combine that with the likelihood that the president’s actions were not legal… and yeah, I think the Times was justified. Chances are there isn’t a single newscaster on Fox News who agrees.

    In closing… imagine the havoc McCarthy could have wrought in the information age. Imagine if all he needed to do was query a database, compiled by the government, to pull everyone who has rented a “suspicious” number of Warren Beatty movies for questioning. It boggles the mind.

    (Author’s note: Cheryl Kauffman has approved this message.)