Nothing more boring that reading about someone else's medical problems, but this is my blog, so here goes.
Been having trouble reading a driving at night. As I rapidly approach 68, this usually means only one thing--Cataracts! Yep. Now, the cataracts themselves would be bad enough but... I also have normo-tensive glaucoma. I am told that this might have been caused by a blow to the head by a frying pan. I don't remember this but then I wouldn't, would I? Not that surgery will fix this but it makes the cataracts worse.
Not done yet. Mom had macular degeneration. I have Drussen. Soulns like a single-malt to me. "I'll have a double Drussen on the rocks, please." But no, it means that I may be at increased risk for macular degeneration myself. Again the surgery won't fix but it means my vision is affected yet more.
But wait! That's not all. I have fairly strong near-sightedness. This--so I am told--makes the cataracts worse. So, surgery is on the horizon, the very near horizon.
My doc prefers to one eye at a time. Makes sense, I suppose. But that means that between the first eye and the second, I will have great distance vision on one eye and need a strong prescription for the other. So, I plan on bumping into things a lot for a while. Oh, and with my known vision problems we will be going to a single vision intra-ocular implant rather than the continuously variable kind. So, I still get to wear glasses for reading, knitting, etc. Well, I have been wearing glasses for 57 years, I guess I can do this.
So, looking forward to new things. Will be nice to step outside and only need sunglasses. Maybe I should get a pair of those Oakleys with the built-in internet connection. What do you think?
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Knit Nut
Knitting, as a fiber art, is relatively new. As best we can estimate, knitting arose from nalbinding about 1,000 years ago--more or less, your mileage may vary, no warranty implied. Nalbinding will work but it is slower and more difficult than knitting. Getting socks ready for wear ifaster is good when you can't just run to the store and buy some.
It didn't take take long for knitting to take off. By the 1200's we had guilds showing up in official records. Guilds means that someone is making money off of knitting and needs protection and official recognition. Knitting had become a craft. By the way, sexism was alive and well; only males could be members of a guild. We are not sure if women may have knitted at home. But, if they did, they could find themselves in serious trouble. Remember that bit about protection? One of the major functions of the guild was to protect members from illegal competition. This does not formally change until the industrial revolution is in full swing.
Well, why knit now? You can get most anything from plain through fancy and past exotic from a store far faster and often cheaper that knitting provides. A scarf can take weeks if the stitches are small. Even the quickest knitter can take a weekend to finish a cap. Sweaters? Figure weeks to months depending on the knitter and the design.
Where to start. Knitting is creative--Look, I made this. Knitting is relaxing; most of the time. I can knit while I talk to people. Knitting can even focus your mind better on the tasks and conversations at hand. Frankly, all of your colleagues with their laptops, tablets or smart phones out do not have their full attention on the meeting. Whereas, I can listen better and focus better while knitting. Maybe, we should require knitting needles and yarn and not allow electronics in meetings.
So, give it a ry. If it turns out that this is not for you, why, bless you, find something else. But it is simple enough for children to learn and a comfort to your soul.
It didn't take take long for knitting to take off. By the 1200's we had guilds showing up in official records. Guilds means that someone is making money off of knitting and needs protection and official recognition. Knitting had become a craft. By the way, sexism was alive and well; only males could be members of a guild. We are not sure if women may have knitted at home. But, if they did, they could find themselves in serious trouble. Remember that bit about protection? One of the major functions of the guild was to protect members from illegal competition. This does not formally change until the industrial revolution is in full swing.
Well, why knit now? You can get most anything from plain through fancy and past exotic from a store far faster and often cheaper that knitting provides. A scarf can take weeks if the stitches are small. Even the quickest knitter can take a weekend to finish a cap. Sweaters? Figure weeks to months depending on the knitter and the design.
Where to start. Knitting is creative--Look, I made this. Knitting is relaxing; most of the time. I can knit while I talk to people. Knitting can even focus your mind better on the tasks and conversations at hand. Frankly, all of your colleagues with their laptops, tablets or smart phones out do not have their full attention on the meeting. Whereas, I can listen better and focus better while knitting. Maybe, we should require knitting needles and yarn and not allow electronics in meetings.
So, give it a ry. If it turns out that this is not for you, why, bless you, find something else. But it is simple enough for children to learn and a comfort to your soul.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Errors in Logic
Stigmatizing a group because of the perceived behavior on one idividual assigned to that group is an error in logic.
Dehumanizing or demonizing a group is an error in logic.
Assuming that disagreement is a personal attack is an error in logic.
Assuming that things will go to hell in a hand basket if someone is elected President is an error in logic.
Assuming God is on your side--barring the Second Coming--is an error in logic.
Fretting about those 'others' instead of working on the problems facing you is an error in logic.
Be kind to others, love those around you, save a special place in your hearts for animals, laugh often, dance for no reason and sing. Anything else is an error in logic.
Dehumanizing or demonizing a group is an error in logic.
Assuming that disagreement is a personal attack is an error in logic.
Assuming that things will go to hell in a hand basket if someone is elected President is an error in logic.
Assuming God is on your side--barring the Second Coming--is an error in logic.
Fretting about those 'others' instead of working on the problems facing you is an error in logic.
Be kind to others, love those around you, save a special place in your hearts for animals, laugh often, dance for no reason and sing. Anything else is an error in logic.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Election Fever
Having to listen to all of the hype about professional politicians--over-rehearsed to a fault--earnestly promoting themselves and sliming their opponents is bad enough. But, for the next several days, we have to listen to talking heads earnestly discussing 'what it all means'. Here's a clue, it does not mean a thing. The only solution was suggested by that brilliant social commentator Davis Barry a number of years ago. Each politician should be doped to the gills on truth serum before they are allowed to address any audience.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Belief
As a practicing Roman Catholic, I am troubled by the public comments by politicians--some of whom profess to believe in the same faith as I do. The teachings of the Church do not represent a smorgasbord that can be sampled to fit your feelings; it is, rather, an integrated core that can help us in our journey.
Part of this is the sanctity of life. As I understand that concept, aided by a number of theologians,this is not limited to the unborn but includes those who commit heinous crimes. The Church also recognizes exceptional circumstances. At the end of world war two, as the Russian army was entering Germany, Catholic bishops granted absolution to those women who had abortions after multiple rapes. This does not condone abortion but does recognize that sometimes exceptional circumstances require exceptional measures.. An abortion simply as a measure for gender-selection would not qualify, Further, to require--bylaw--that I must not express my belief but must grant unlimited abortion rights is wrong.
It is also incumbent on me as a practicing Catholic to recognize Christ in everyone I encounter. Models here include Dorothy Day and Mother Theresa. This requires me to not marginalize those less fortunate. I have an active requirement to perform direct and indirect acts to assist others. Direct acts can be volunteering or donations to programs that act directly. Indirect acts include holding elected officials responsible to developing and carrying out programs that can reach larger audiences that I could by myself. The safety net is essential and we need to properly fund it and to ensure that it functions as well as it possible can.
My problem this election season is that I do not see a candidate who addresses all of the needs and concerns that I see. Further, in an age of polarization, I do not see either party interested in working in a bipartisan fashion to most effectively help those who need our help. Those most in need include both stone cold murderers as well as the unborn. Working single mothers, those with mental illness, those struggling with addiction; we are called to see Christ is each and to act towards them as we would to the actual presence of Jesus. Anything else is a failure on our part. Both parties in this election have ideas but they are incomplete. Neither party seems willing to recognize value in suggestions from the other party. And, there is no attempt to fix known problems, rather, it's always the other party's fault.
I can and must continue to help everyone I meet as best as I am able. I will vote, after long prayer and thought.
Part of this is the sanctity of life. As I understand that concept, aided by a number of theologians,this is not limited to the unborn but includes those who commit heinous crimes. The Church also recognizes exceptional circumstances. At the end of world war two, as the Russian army was entering Germany, Catholic bishops granted absolution to those women who had abortions after multiple rapes. This does not condone abortion but does recognize that sometimes exceptional circumstances require exceptional measures.. An abortion simply as a measure for gender-selection would not qualify, Further, to require--bylaw--that I must not express my belief but must grant unlimited abortion rights is wrong.
It is also incumbent on me as a practicing Catholic to recognize Christ in everyone I encounter. Models here include Dorothy Day and Mother Theresa. This requires me to not marginalize those less fortunate. I have an active requirement to perform direct and indirect acts to assist others. Direct acts can be volunteering or donations to programs that act directly. Indirect acts include holding elected officials responsible to developing and carrying out programs that can reach larger audiences that I could by myself. The safety net is essential and we need to properly fund it and to ensure that it functions as well as it possible can.
My problem this election season is that I do not see a candidate who addresses all of the needs and concerns that I see. Further, in an age of polarization, I do not see either party interested in working in a bipartisan fashion to most effectively help those who need our help. Those most in need include both stone cold murderers as well as the unborn. Working single mothers, those with mental illness, those struggling with addiction; we are called to see Christ is each and to act towards them as we would to the actual presence of Jesus. Anything else is a failure on our part. Both parties in this election have ideas but they are incomplete. Neither party seems willing to recognize value in suggestions from the other party. And, there is no attempt to fix known problems, rather, it's always the other party's fault.
I can and must continue to help everyone I meet as best as I am able. I will vote, after long prayer and thought.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Depression
The depressing season is upon us. Both conventions have finished. The results? Partisans of either side are happy for their side and convinced that the other team suffered. My opinion is that neither convention did anything to reach out to those of us who worry about the future and do not see an obvious solution in either party. My--slightly biased, totally non-scientific--read is that there is no attempt by either party to look at our problems and to propose serious plans. In no particular order, here are some of my concerns.
We now have a health care plan, for better or for worse. As a health care professional with a long-time interest in public health, I have always felt that a single payer plan, with options for supplemental plans--is the most attractive option overall. When I read the Affordable Care Act, I do not see that plan. The AFA does not cover all Americans, it does not address all of the problems in the existing government programs and it sets up yet another government bureaucracy. Further, it takes money form the existing programs without a clear plan of where Medicare and Medicaid are going to make up the loss. Yet again, Washington policy makers are promising us to make up the funds with vague promises of savings with greater efficiency. I do not understand why anyone ever believes in these savings, they never materialize.
Taxation is a mess. We have a horrific mess that is given to us by the people that we keep re-electing. The tax code is inefficient, regressive and biased. We gripe about people not paying their fair share but we are not willing to place the blame where it belongs--on us for electing and re-electing that same people who vote for all of the tax breaks and gimmicks in our tax code. Don't blame the people who take advantage of the tax code; blame the people who voted for our tax code.
The deficit is out of control and neither side is willing to address the problem. A true solution would require fixing both the tax code and the entitlement programs. Do the rich--however you define them this week--pay a 'fair share'? I don't know and neither does anyone else. To define a fair share requires that we decide exactly what the government should do and what this would cost. This has never been done even on an case-by-case basis; what is needed is such a study on an overall basis. I do know that an upper rate similar to France's (75%) would still not fix our deficit.
Other major problems--such as, immigration--are not being addressed by either side. We just hear polemics and unsupported statements that say that 'we' are good and 'they' are evil incarnate. Far too many otherwise intelligent people post and re-post bumper sticker flame bombs that do not contribute anything to a proper dialog. Where are the people who are willing to discuss issues and compromise to find the best solutions? I do not hear or see them anywhere. So, depression season is upon us and will only get worse, I am afraid.
We now have a health care plan, for better or for worse. As a health care professional with a long-time interest in public health, I have always felt that a single payer plan, with options for supplemental plans--is the most attractive option overall. When I read the Affordable Care Act, I do not see that plan. The AFA does not cover all Americans, it does not address all of the problems in the existing government programs and it sets up yet another government bureaucracy. Further, it takes money form the existing programs without a clear plan of where Medicare and Medicaid are going to make up the loss. Yet again, Washington policy makers are promising us to make up the funds with vague promises of savings with greater efficiency. I do not understand why anyone ever believes in these savings, they never materialize.
Taxation is a mess. We have a horrific mess that is given to us by the people that we keep re-electing. The tax code is inefficient, regressive and biased. We gripe about people not paying their fair share but we are not willing to place the blame where it belongs--on us for electing and re-electing that same people who vote for all of the tax breaks and gimmicks in our tax code. Don't blame the people who take advantage of the tax code; blame the people who voted for our tax code.
The deficit is out of control and neither side is willing to address the problem. A true solution would require fixing both the tax code and the entitlement programs. Do the rich--however you define them this week--pay a 'fair share'? I don't know and neither does anyone else. To define a fair share requires that we decide exactly what the government should do and what this would cost. This has never been done even on an case-by-case basis; what is needed is such a study on an overall basis. I do know that an upper rate similar to France's (75%) would still not fix our deficit.
Other major problems--such as, immigration--are not being addressed by either side. We just hear polemics and unsupported statements that say that 'we' are good and 'they' are evil incarnate. Far too many otherwise intelligent people post and re-post bumper sticker flame bombs that do not contribute anything to a proper dialog. Where are the people who are willing to discuss issues and compromise to find the best solutions? I do not hear or see them anywhere. So, depression season is upon us and will only get worse, I am afraid.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Taxing taxes
There seems to be some importance attached to taxes, midst all of the hurrah of election politics. Someone pays too much, someone else pays too little. Did this company pay no taxes? There must be something sinister going on then. Even more sinister, why won't this candidate show us all of his tax returns? Did you know that he has accounts in the Cayman Islands and in Switzerland? That surely must be nefarious!
As one of our most distinguished jurists once wrote in 1947 that "there is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible" This, of course presupposes that there are equally valid alternative ways of completing your tax return. This also applies whether you are a person or a corporation.
So, did this corporation break the law when they paid no taxes in 2011? That's for the IRS and the court to decide. Could they have legally paid no taxes? Yes, of course. With the verbose, convoluted mess that is our tax code, this is more than possible. All of the things that irritate us, the no taxes for corporations, the limited or no taxes by wealthier individuals, the money sheltered overseas by both corporations and individuals are all legal by our tax code.
The question you should be asking is not, how much tax did this person or company pay? Rather, the question is, who made this stinking mess of a tax code? The answer to that is, of course, the Congress we keep electing. Could our tax code be made more equitable, less regressive and simpler? I would like to believe that it could. But, it will not happen until we get a new attitude in Washington, D.C.
As one of our most distinguished jurists once wrote in 1947 that "there is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible" This, of course presupposes that there are equally valid alternative ways of completing your tax return. This also applies whether you are a person or a corporation.
So, did this corporation break the law when they paid no taxes in 2011? That's for the IRS and the court to decide. Could they have legally paid no taxes? Yes, of course. With the verbose, convoluted mess that is our tax code, this is more than possible. All of the things that irritate us, the no taxes for corporations, the limited or no taxes by wealthier individuals, the money sheltered overseas by both corporations and individuals are all legal by our tax code.
The question you should be asking is not, how much tax did this person or company pay? Rather, the question is, who made this stinking mess of a tax code? The answer to that is, of course, the Congress we keep electing. Could our tax code be made more equitable, less regressive and simpler? I would like to believe that it could. But, it will not happen until we get a new attitude in Washington, D.C.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)