
As I sit here at my desk gnawing on it, it occurs to me that there is no way to offer to share it with anyone without being brought up on sexual harrassment charges.
A man's home is his castle.
Maybe I should buy a vacation home on the Cape? Or maybe out of state? Why not buy a multi-family home and rent it out? I could become a landlord. I could increase my income through rental properties... and then buy more stuff... that requires more storage... I'm going to have to tear down my barn and build a bigger barn...
Recently, I had a couple of conversations that caused me to feel an emotion I do not often feel: jealousy. One was a guy telling me about his second home in Florida, and the other was a woman who told me about the Mercedes Benz her husband had bought her. Why don't I have a house in Florida? Why can't I afford to buy my wife a Mercedes Benz?? So then I found myself thinking back over the last 15 years of my career in the Information Technology field, all the things I didn't accomplish, all of the certifications I didn't pursue, all of the money that I might have made if only I had been more dedicated, studied harder, worked harder...I believe it was three Christmases ago that I opened a present from my wife Janet and found the most beautiful mandolin I had ever seen. It was elegantly ornamented with ornate mother of pearl set into its woodwork on both front and back and accoutred with lovely hardware for the string tuners. For the first two years, I casually "fiddled"(1) with it, but at the beginning of 2009, I got serious and studiously put myself to the task of learning to play my chosen instrument.
Using a chord chart that Janet had also given me, I began to memorize where to put my fingers on the fret board to play a given chord. I then searched about on the Internet for simple music that used few chords. If the music called for a G chord, I would look at the chart and put my fingers in the indicated locations on the fret board and strum. With repetition, I began to slowly memorize the "finger shapes" required to play a chord. Next, I began to learn individual notes on the fretboard. This was quite a bit easier and I later realized that I probably had gone about my self-teaching backwards. Once again, it was a matter of reading a note or a tab on a sheet of music, putting my finger on the appropriate position, and then plucking a string.
If that description sounds a bit mechanical, it was so intended because my "learning" was terribly mechanical. I call it music training by brute force. Having no formal music training in my background, I wasn't even sure how to learn, let alone what to learn. What has been surprising to me most of all in this process of self-study is that little I am able to accomplish has been fairly well received.
The first strangers who heard me toodling around on my mandolin were friends I knew online. Using an Internet voice communication program called Ventrilo, I grinded out a couple tunes to a few folks who had the misfortune of being online at the time. It was far from perfect, but rather than being laughed and scorned, I was commended for my attempts and applauded for what I had learned. In short order, a couple of the others pulled out their own instruments and we broke into a sort of impromptu online jam session.
This past October, I subjected myself to my first public appearance with a mandolin in my hands. I attended the Cape Cod Mandolin Camp, a three-day festival which featured well known and gifted mandolin instructors teaching workshops in a variety of types of music and culminating in a concert featuring the students. I learned quite a lot, most of which entailing a realization of just how much I did not know. Many of those who were there were students at renowned Berkley College of Music, but a few, like me, were utter novices. But regardless of who we were, we did have one important thing in common: more than anything else, we were all hopeless geeks. This camp was far and away the geekiest thing I have ever done, surpassing any Dungeons & Dragons game I'd ever participated in by several orders of magnitude. (I can't wait to go back next year.)
As it happened, Ben was sick that weekend. That fact made for a perfect excuse for me to chicken out of the student concert and leave early on the last day. I wasn't ready for that sort of demand upon my insufficient skills and I knew it.
When I returned home, I picked up my studies with a renewed vigor. I practice more often and tried to put into effect those nuggets of knowledge I had picked up at the Mandolin Camp. I was finding some improvement, and feeling a bit more comfortable now that I knew what it was that I did and did not know. It was the previous feeling of "not knowing" that had always nagged at me; not knowing if I was playing a chord properly, not knowing what music to focus on, heck, I didn't even know if I was holding the darn thing the right way.
Several weeks ago, in November, I contacted the music leader at our church and asked if he'd mind if sat in on the team's practices as a means of trying to better myself at my own instrument. Our Worship Team is composed of about half a dozen people playing the piano, a couple accoustic guitars, an electric bass, and drums. I was told that I was welcome to practice with them. That first week, I found myself encouraged, if not compelled, to join them on the platform during the service. I did. I played softly and timidly, but again, I was well received. Over the last five or six weeks, I've had a couple pretty shaky outings and a couple of really good ones that even made me smile. As it turns out, there's a lot of Christmas music that lends itself to the mandolin. The feedback from people in the congregation has been very encouraging, even those comments from those who think I'm playing a yukelele. (I told one enquirer that it's an oboe. They responded with, "Oh, cool.")
So, why the mandolin?
I could come up with a variety of answers ranging from liking the sort of music it is associated with. Folk music, one of my favorite forms of music, going far back into the Renaissance and right back into today's Bluegrass, has always employed the mandolin. Celtic and Italian music both rely on the mandolin. Even rock music has featured this instrument. (Jimmy Page was an excellent mandolin player.) But the real reason I picked up the mandolin was that I thought it would be easy. Stupid me. Years ago, I started to try to play the bass guitar. As I started getting the hang of it, it dawned on me that I couldn't really just sit and play the bass alone without someone else to play the melody. So I fell out of it. Later, when I contemplated finally learning to play an instrument, I realized that the mandolin was played like a four stringed instument just like the bass guitar. I assumed I already knew much about the mandolin and that this would give me a running start. As it turned out, the mandolin is exactly the opposite of the bass guitar. Same string tuning, reversed. Ugh.
But I love it. I find that the more I play, the more I want to play. It's almost addictive. Each time I accomplish something new or better, I find myself more hungry to learn more. If I thought I had any real talent that this, and that there was a market for it, I'd quit my job and hang out under Park Street Station and play for coins. It's the perfect instrument. It's fun, it's got a unique sound that lends itself to many forms of music, and it is easily transportable.
When I decided to learn an instrument, I had one simple goal in mind. I wanted to be able to sit in front of a campfire and play for my friends. I think I'm almost there.
(1) Mandolins and violins are tuned the same way. Ain't I witty?
(2) For more info on mandolins than you can possibly want to know, try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/mandolin.
.
.
Math Guy: Also, when you beat a zombie in the head with a crowbar, why does it always sound like you are punching a pillow?
Math Guy: Just a thought to start your day
Gleno: Zombies. Expect them.
Math Guy: Don't waste ammo on them. Crowbars are always your best bet
Gleno: Correct, because -
Gleno: when have you ever seen just one zombie??
Math Guy: Pairs...always in pairs
Math Guy: They are dead, but social
Gleno: Gregarious ghouls.
Math Guy: They are not much with conversation, but they always bring great nachos
Gleno: You can always count on a zombie to be the designated driver.
Math Guy: They are loyal. They will follow you anywhere. However, they are NOT good swim buddies.
Gleno: Zombies will listen quietly to your opinion.
Math Guy: They do not judge. You're right there
Gleno: Zombies do not have a short temper. When was the last time you saw a zombie get upset?
Math Guy: They are not a drain on society either. No healthcare needs. They neither eat or drink (except blood). They never speeak out of turn.
Gleno: You know that's a very good point. I've never been interrupted by a zombie.
Math Guy: Granted, all they do is shuffle around and moan, but how is that different from an 80 year old Chinese man?
Gleno: They are different in that zombies, as they shuffle around, do not have their hands clasped behind their back.
Math Guy: You have a real gift for observation
Gleno: Zombies also tend toward not wearing hats.
Math Guy: Zombies never seem to even imply that they may be enjoying themselves while shuffling
Gleno: Zombies never take the last piece of pie.
Math Guy: They may eat the dog, but the pie is left on the table right where you left it
Gleno: [nods sagely] Math Guy: I have never seen a zombie that likes the Yankees Math Guy: Or the Canadiens Math Guy: Or the Cowboys Gleno: I really like that about zombies. Math Guy: Or the Lakers Gleno: That's major points in my book. Math Guy: The pie thing is important to me Math Guy: I like pie Gleno: Oh, totally. Gleno: How can you not like pie? Math Guy: [shrugs] Math Guy: A zombie enver tries to steal your girl (for romantic reasons) Gleno: You can trust a zombie with money. Gleno: "Dude, this is my last fiver. Please hold onto this for me? Don't spend it." Math Guy: A zombie will hold your kite all day. Gleno: Crowbars. Definitely the way to go.
CC said that it would be preferable for everyone to be in the system (a public option) because that way, healthy and sick, young and old, each would balance out the other thereby making the cost of the insurance more affordable to all. "[That's] what makes an insurance pool work." Exactly right, you need the one to off-set the other. However, the coersive nature of government (id est, government's power to force compliance) makes it dubious insurer. If I can force you to pay for my services, I've nullified the very foundation of a free-market. Where is my incentive to keep my prices low? How long before the public option becomes onerous and used only by those who are sick or cannot afford other options?
I think it's useful to understand the purpose and definition of insurance. I spent some time in the financial sector (I was licensed to sell both securities such as stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and yes, health insurance.) In the definition of "insurance" is the phrase "the transfer of risk." In other words, you the Insured tranfer the risk of your death, auto accident, or medical problem to the Insurer. We can debate the purpose and function of government all day, but I do not think any of us would be particularly comfortable with the notion of tranferring the risk of an entire population's health onto the federal government. That's not a function of government. That's why we have Insurance Companies.
CC zeroes in on a major priority of any health insurance overhaul: cutting costs. I concur, advertising of pharmaceuticals is a problem. It artificially drives up costs. I will add to this with another commonly mentioned cost -- malpractice insurance. This must, must, must be reduced and drastically. There needs to be limits on the awards that plaintiffs receive in court in situations where criminal negligence is not involved. If a doctor misdiagnoses your condition, and has done due diligence, it's unfortunate, but it's reality. Americans need to accept that medicine is not a simple and exact science. The human body is far more complex than a PC, yet no one expects the Geek Squad to buy you a new house if they fail to retrieve your data from a crashed hard disk.
Another point I think needs to be made here in regards to this sense of "entitlement" that I see in Americans. There is a disdain for the fact that rich people can afford better care than can poor people. Americans look at this and immediately say, "That's not fair. Everyone has a right to equal healthcare.
They do? Says who? Where is this written? Under which philosophy of ethics is this implied? As an American, you and I have equal opportunity to be as rich or as healthy as our own individual talents and abilities allow. If you have more money than me, why shouldn't you be allowed to use your lawfully obtained resources to benefit the lives of you and your family? If I do not have the same resources, how is it justified that others be forced to pay for my care? I do not understand this thinking. It's un-American and it's unrealistic. It is that sense of entitlement that has driven our government and our society toward economic unsustainability.
AsterixChaos suggests that costs can be cut by simply cutting off care to those who are beyond helping. Well, I can see the reasoning behind this point, but I do not see it as a major change in our current system. I do not believe that there are masses of doomed people who are artificially being kept alive against their will. In this country, when you say, "That's enough," then that's when your care ends. The only time the state can intercede is when its determined that you're unable to make that choice yourself. And, despite what we may see anecdotally in the news, those cases do not make up much of the overall costs of healthcare.
CC makes a great counter argument, one I agree with, that if we allow our society to become sickly, then we put our country at risk and we become a burden upon ourselves. Well said, CC. In this sense, yes, I see the Federal Government as having a stake in this argument and an interest in promoting "the general welfare." (This, however, is not the case right now, but if it were, certainly the government should act.) Moreover, I believe strongly that the morals and ethics of our country do not allow this policy to be employed. What benefit is there to being a member of a society that denies care to those in need if they have the resources to obtain the care? Beyond this, I believe there should be some nominal "safety net" to care for those who lack these resources.
OK, so let me get to the heart of the matter: What should we do?
Again, the caveat holds true that I mentioned before. I don't claim to know for sure what to do. However, I think each of these points need to be a part of the solution to this pressing problem.
First, costs must come down. Malpractice insurance, advertising of pharmaceuticals, jury awards, outrageous and inequitable hospital charges against different types of patients (depending upon the insurance they carry) and other costs must be examined and addressed. And lowered.
Second, (for those who like Federal Government intervention) Americans need to be taught and "socially engineered" to understand that healthcare starts and ends with prevention. No, you don't get to have a heart transplant if you've spent your life at McDonalds and you weigh 400 pounds. No, you don't get a new liver, Mr. Mantle, if you've spent your life drinking like a fish. If the government wants to intercede in this situation, let's spend money on physical education and getting people healthy. THAT would be a legitimate govnerment interest. Paying for people's problems after the fact is a poor social program that has no end to it. Let's start with this and see how we do before we start re-defining our Constitution and throwing HUGE gobs of money at the problem. Also, let's stop perpetuating the myth that the government will bail you out when you've soiled yourself. God help this generation of Americans.
Third, rather than pumping this mess up to the Federal Government, let's push it down to the communities where we can have some control and some accountability over it. Lets fund and staff local clinics in our towns to intercept the small problems rather than overwhelm our hospital emergency rooms with people who need naught more than an aspirin and a Kleenex. When I smashed my pinky finger with a 4lb hammer as a 17 year old, I went to the local town clinic. A doctor gave me a prescription for a pain killer and stitched up the wounds. I didn't need an ambulance ride and an emergency room visit at the hospital that would have cost ten times as much and would have taken ten times longer to see a doctor. Our baby Benjamin had trouble breathing recently in the middle of the night and we took him to the hospital at 2am. SIX HOURS LATER they finally had a doctor see him. What the hell is that?! If I have to pay another tax, I'd rather it stayed in my town and bought me a local clinic that can care for the needy and provide routine medical procedures (flu shots, bandaging, burns, cuts, etc.) Having trouble paying for it? How about a "Peace Corps" like program that enlists new doctors to serve in such clinics in return for some loan forgiveness?
Fourth, let's listen to our Insurance Companies. Let's see what they can tell us about why costs are so high. They're the ones paying the bills, perhaps they might have something to add to this conversation? (Ya think?) Before I'm going to listen to Sen. Frank Lee Blowhard, the junior senator from Idaho, I'd like to hear what the professionals have to say.
In short, there are a lot more and better ways to fix this mess than for the Federal Government to usurp and entire industry with socialism. Why don't we try a few before we start re-defining the U.S. Constitution?
Your thoughts?
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D - VT): We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?
CNSNews.com: I'm asking-
Leahy: Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there's no question there's authority, nobody questions that.
The interviewer persisted, however, and again asked the question. Leahy dodged, saying, "Where do we have the authority to set speed limits on an interstate highway? The federal government does that on federal highways." He then walked away.
So to get this straight, Leahy defended Congress' unconstitutional attempt to take over one sixth of the U.S. economy by citing another unconstitutional law that was justly repealed 14 years ago.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) answered the question by saying, "Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect [a mandate that individuals must buy health insurance]. The end that we're trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility."
On the contrary, in 1994, the Congressional Budget Office reported that a mandate forcing Americans to buy insurance would be an "unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."
According to Hoyer and his accomplices, however, the General Welfare Clause in the Constitution empowers Congress not only to "promote the general Welfare," but to provide it, demand it and enforce it.
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was the worst offender. "Madam Speaker," CNSNews.com asked, "where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?" Her brief reply spoke volumes about the Left's contempt for the Constitution and the Rule of Law: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" She then ignored the question and moved on to the next one. Her spokesman later added, "You can put this on the record: That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question."
~~~~~
Once again, we find the unbridled, inexcusable arrogance of the Leftinitza. What's next? A proclamation that "resistance is futile; you will be assimilated"?
Images undulate with obfuscated forms
Over and under in the obscure
And twilight world
Within which I am wound.
Ocean waves, falling, and faces - such fears
Desire, conspire, to hold me secure.
I gasp and stretch to escape the grasp
Of the morbid forms that hold me fast
Miring me
In the unconscious solitude of sleep.
I tossle and turn trying to pierce the shroud
Under which I lie soaked in sweats of the past.
My mournful cry is muffled and muted.
Silence, the sole sound of screaming
A voice?
Can it be? Is this far-off call is seeking me?
What is real? Is not this veil?
And now a hand! --
"My Love, you were only dreaming."
-Gleno
This was just plain awesomesauce and I'm feeling like giddy dad. I'm not sure when a baby is expected to begin building towers with blocks -- heaven knows Benjamin has been knocking towers down since he was old enough to laugh at me -- but this afternoon, Janet was able to catch him on film for the first time building something.
I've seen him put two blocks on top of one another, but this goes much further than that. According to eyewitness accounts (his mom), Ben spent close to six minutes meticulously trying to build a tower out of seven wooden blocks. I'm biased, I know, but that strikes me as a long time and a good number of blocks for a 14 month old. He started over near the fire place placing them one on top of the other, only to see them spill over. He moved to where they landed and started again, repeating this process of trying and failing again and again until he had moved halfway across the parlor. Then, at long last, under the bay window, he finally succeeded in getting all seven blocks to stack. This success culminates, as you can see in the video, with him then attempting to pick up the entire tower, assumedly to move it back to where he began his efforts.
'Jammin, you are just too cute, and Da-Da loves you very much!
Life is that thing that keeps happening until it stops.
We shall see. I'm still very much in love with being the Lord of Upham Manor and it will take quite a lot to unseat me from our current estate.
That's about it for now. I hope to be more diligent in my blogging in the next few days. I'd like to put together another piece of fiction at some point too. I'm sure you're all anxious too read about the next biohazardous disaster that might befall me here in the lab. If you missed out the last outbreak we had here of zombieism, you might want to go back into the archives and read about it. One never knows when such much strike again, particularly with Halloween around the corner.
* Good word. Use it. http://www.etymonline.com/columns/oldenglish.htm
**http://magicnutshell.blogspot.com/2009/10/blessed-are-poor-grassroots-organizing.html#comments
.
Peaches come from a can.
They were put there by a man
In a factory downtown.
And if I had my little way
I'd eat peaches every day
Sun-soaking bulges in the shade.
"Meanwhile, in Brazil, India, China, Japan and much of Continental Europe the recession has ended. In the second quarter this year, both the French and German economies grew by 0.3 percent, while the U.S. economy shrank by 1 percent. How can that be? Unlike America, France and Germany had no government stimulus worth speaking of, the Germans declining to go the Obama route on the quaint grounds that they couldn't afford it. ... And yet their recession has gone away. Of the world's biggest economies, only the U.S., Britain and Italy are still contracting. All three are big stimulators, though Gordon Brown and Silvio Berlusconi can't compete with Obama's $800 billion porkapalooza. The president has borrowed more money to spend to less effect than anybody on the planet. Actually, when I say 'to less effect,' that's not strictly true: Due to Obama, one of the least-indebted developed nations is now one of the most indebted -- and getting ever more so. We've become the third most debt-ridden country, after Japan and Italy. According to last month's IMF report, general government debt as a percentage of GDP will rise from 63 percent in 2007 to 88.8 percent this year and to 99.8 percent of GDP next year. Of course, the president retains his formidable political skills, artfully distracting attention from his stimulus debacle with his health care debacle. But there are diminishing returns to his serial thousand-page, trillion-dollar boondoggles. They may be too long for your representatives to bother reading before passing into law, but, whatever the intricacies of Section 417(a) xii on page 938, people are beginning to spot what all this stuff has in common: He's spending your future. And by 'future' I don't mean 2070, 2060, 2040, but the day after tomorrow."
First of all, nobody is talking about some government takeover of health care. I'm tired of hearing that. I have been as clear as I can be. Under the reform I've proposed, if you like your doctor you keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan. These folks need to stop scaring everybody, you know?
So why are wise people so upset with his plan?
My commitment is to make sure that we have universal halthcare for all Americans by the end of my first term as resident. ... I would hope that we could set up a system that llows those who can go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort. But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process.
Oh! Now it makes sense. He's lying!
Duh.
Barak Obama.
With the completion of the "Beer Summit" at the White House (shown in picture above) it has finally become obvious who the winner of the battle was:
Police Officer Leon K. Lashley.
Officer Lashley, a black man, was called to the scene as back up during Professor Gates' arrest. His face was seen in the news in many photos of the incident. His unequivocal support of Officer Crowley was also aired by news sources in interviews with him.
What follows is the letter that Officer Lashely gave to Officer Crowley. I think you'll agree with me that Officer Lashely is the one man who has come out of this with his dignity intact. This is someone I can respect.
Dear Jim [Officer Crowley],